Let's Fix The Real Problem - 6.19 - The Sean Hannity Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
the Sean Hannity Radio show podcast. Hey guys, unfortunately almost
half you men out there over forty need to listen up.
And we know this is uncomfortable to talk about, but
it's common and not weird, and there's something you can
do about it. E D not being able to perform
your best Now, thanks to science, it can be optional

(00:20):
for hymns dot com is a one stop shop for
hair loss, skincare, and sexual wellness for men. Hymns connects
you with real doctors and medical grade solutions to treat
e D. Prescription solutions backed by science. One e D
pill starting with a V just came off patent on
December eleven, and that's a game changer. Being your best
means performing your best, and now you can do it

(00:41):
with no waiting room, no trip to the pharmacy, just
a simple online medical consultation and direct ship into your door.
Try hymns for a month today for just five dollars.
We'll get you started for just five bucks while supplies last.
See website for full details. This would cost hundreds if
you went to the doctor or a pharmacy, So go
to four hymns dot com slash big. That's f O
R H I M S dot com slash big for

(01:03):
hymns dot com slash big. All right, glad you with us. Wow,
what a day this has ben. If you watched any
of the hearings or if you didn't, it doesn't matter.
We'll get you up to speed right down on toll
free telephone number and eight hundred nine four one sean
if you want to be a part of the program.
We have Lindsey Graham, who was pretty amazing yesterday as

(01:23):
it relates to the hearings that took place in the Senate.
And how's Freedom Caucus Member Jim Jordan's who was literally
part of the sham hearings for the Inspector General and
the FBI director. But there is there's one thing that
you need to take away from this on top of
everything else, is you again, everything is a process. It's

(01:46):
so hard for people. Okay, the i G report is out.
Now what well the now what is beginning to happen?
And that is okay. Now the i G a who
I thought looked pretty silly at moments today during the hearing.
Now he is going to give his testimony. Then we're
gonna hear from hopefully Struck and Page and Comy and
and all these other people, and then the criminal referrals,

(02:07):
likely that haven't been made, will be made. We know
that there are at least five referrals, we don't know
exactly what they were as part of the release of
the i G Report, So we're gonna watch all of
that closely. Um, it was good to see Trey Bowty
and great Gouty back in his old form, uh during
his opening statement at the hearings today, scorching Jim Comey.

(02:30):
What was a blistering opening statement at this hearing, declaring,
we can't survive with a justice system we don't trust.
You know. The only one bit of comfort that I
take out of watching all of this is that those
of you in this audience are deeply familiar with every

(02:51):
aspect of what they're talking about. Is because we have
been on the front lines talking about this and exposing
this while the rest of the media has been, you know,
pretty much numb and quiet. And then the camp of
doing all they can do to protect Hillary Clinton and
also not call attention to the fact is that they

(03:12):
have not done their job as always and so I'm
glad that a lot of it's familiar to you, because
it's all true. We've not been wrong, We've been proven
right every step of the way. And Gaudy then goes
on to accuse Comey of watering down as initial statement
on the investigations findings which he did, gross negligence, six
stream carelessness, uh foreign intel services highly likely they hacked

(03:36):
into Hillary's emails, then taking that out, watering it down,
beginning the process in early May, often interviewing Hillary on
July second, seventeen other key witnesses, and then wrapping it
up three days later because it was all predetermined, even
though the violations of law are incontrovertible, the facts are irrefutable,

(03:59):
and anybody else would be in jail over all of this,
and also pointing down that you know the findings in question,
why he didn't seek as special counsel as he did
so passionately by leaking well documents that might also be
getting him in trouble. As we now now, Gouty, Uh
Comey is now being investigated for the document leak of

(04:19):
himself he might have violated, ironically the same exact law
that Hillary Clinton had violated, as relates to the Espionage Act.
Instead he appointed himself. Gaudy goes on the FBI director,
Attorney General, Special Council, lead investigator, and the general arbiter
of what is good and right in the world according
to him, and Gaudy said, Harowitz report, which was released

(04:41):
last Thursday, should conjure anger, disappointment, and sadness in anybody
who reads it. And then he says that in the
wake of the IG report, they were FBI agents and
attorneys who decided to prejudge the outcome of the Clinton case.
We know why because they had this hatred and bias
that was full and complete towards Donald Trump and Hillary

(05:04):
was their favorite candidate. If they applied the law as
it should have been applied, the Hillary Clinton would have
been indicted and then the whole election electoral process for
the Democrats. Yeah, I would have been put into some chaos,
but it would have been the right thing to do.
It would have been what the law required them to do.
And he says, these exact FBI agents an attorney prejudged

(05:27):
the outcome of the Russia investigation before that even began.
It's the same players. That's why if we're talking about
the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation. It starts out with the
most anti Trump pro Hillary abusively biased agents at the
upper echelons of the FBI, And you can't have a

(05:48):
system of justice that rolls this way. Now, the FBI
urged the i G to investigate James Comy. This was
interesting that Michael Horrowitz revealed he's now investigating Comy based
on a ferral that urged them to do so. But
the bigger news is the identity of the source that
use that issued the investigative referral. That turns out it

(06:11):
was Comey's own FBI urging Horowitz to investigate Comey's misconduct.
What did I tell you? A little nugget that nobody
seems to pay any attention to. At the end of
the day, the hero here are going to be rank
and file FBI agents. That's why you can't have you

(06:32):
know this, the broad sweeping generalizations. If you have a
few bad cops, actions of a few bad cops should
not reflect on the actions of others. That don't. They
do not reflect on the actions of others, And in
the case of FBI agents, they have a very hard
time telling their stories they have to be subpoenaed before
they can ever talk about what it is. Many of

(06:54):
them now are lining up to talk about anyway, specifically
under investigation for his handling of the memos that he
wrote about his interactions with President Trump. While the FBI
director and Grassley asked Harrow, which yesterday are you investigating
the handling of his memo and does that include the
classification issues? And should comey expect a report when it's

(07:14):
complete anyway, horro It's responded, We received a referral on
that from the FBI. We're handling that referral and will
issual report when the matter is complete, consistent with the
law and the rules that are a report that's consistent
that takes into account. He said, um Now, one other
thing here is um as all of this is going on,

(07:37):
remember there is a battle and a war that is
now beginning of bubble over. It's been percolating now for
a while, and it has to do with Rod Rosenstein
and the lack of cooperation, frankly, obstruction of Congress's investigations

(07:58):
into all of these matters, because as you know, they
have they have constitutional oversight. We have a system of
checks and balances coequal branches of government. Congress is empowered
and it is their job to conduct oversight for the
purposes that that people don't abuse their power. This is
what this whole scandal is about, abuse of power and corruption.

(08:22):
And uh now it's it's going to probably result sometime
tomorrow in impeachment articles now going to be filed against
Rod Rosenstein. These guys have stone walled, they have obstructed,
they have refused Congressional subpoenas, they have lied, they have

(08:43):
redacted in the name of national security when there are
no national security issues. In other words, the very same
things that if you did in your life, if you
got a subpoena, would probably land you in jail. Bill McGurn,
writing in the Wall Street Journal today, leading member of
their editor oriole Board, is calling for the House to
actually impeach the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and maybe

(09:05):
even the FBI Director Christopher Ray. Anyway. Writing in the Journal,
mcgern says impeachment is the only way to end the
FBI and d j's continued stonewalling over key documents. He
said on Sunday on Fox News with Maria Barrett to
Romo devon Noon as the House Intel Committee chairman made
it clear his patience has run out. Last Friday, there

(09:28):
was a meeting and he and other House chairman at
this meeting, Bob good Lad of Judiciary and Trey Goudy
of Government Reform fully backed in their demands by Speaker Ryan.
Speaker Ryan did ask people to hold back a week
before the file these impeachment issues. Anyway, Ryan sent Rosenstein

(09:48):
and Ray, and I'm an ambiguous message comply with Congresses
ordered this week anyway. Um Ryan was on a radio
interview in Milwaukee on w I s N and said
the new leadership at Justice and the FBI has to
decide whether it will be part of the cleanup crew
or the cover up team. If Justice and the FBI
don't comply within the timeline that he laid out, we're

(10:10):
gonna have to take action. And the obstruction of Justice
and the FBI appears rooted in the mistaken idea that
they are somehow above the elected representatives of the American people.
And while Mr Rosenstein is referred to Congressional talk of
impeachment as extortion, Mr Ray and his statement to a
press conference outlining steps to fix the FBI conspicuously made

(10:33):
no mention of better cooperation with Congress. An impeachment that
removed either Rod Rosenstein or Christopher Ray, or a contempt
finding that sent one of them to the Congressional pokey
for a spell, could send a good message to all
federal bureaucrats inclined to be dismissive of Congressional subpoenas. Then again,
if either man thought he was in real or imminent

(10:55):
danger of being impeached or held in contemn Congress would
likely find him instantly cooperative. Of course, that's not exactly
why Congress has these powers, not so much to punish,
but to encourage the accommodation and the respect. But if
rosen Stein and Ray don't cooperate, if the stonewalling starts again,
the House auto impeach or jail until it gets satisfaction.

(11:16):
Because the congressional power Congress is too timid to invoke
is worse than a hollow threat. It becomes a sign
that Congress need not be taken seriously. And that's interesting now.
Jeff Sessions, by the way, Ductor questioned last night about
Rod Rosenstein's obvious conflict of interest in an interview with
Laura Ingram are you involved in all the discussions about

(11:37):
a possible recusal of Rosenstein from overseeing Mueller given the
fact that he did sign one of those FISA warrants
and that's a big controversy in the case. Session said, well,
I'm not involved in that. He's the acting Attorney General
for that matter, and he has to make his own
decision as I had to make my decision. Well, that
kind of seems like he's taken easy way out. All right,

(11:59):
Let's go to Tray Goudy from earlier today. Now this
is Trey literally tearing into them. Were FBI agents and
attorneys who you know, predetermined the Hillary Clinton email case
and the Russian case, and he calls it what it is,
textbook bias list. There were FBI agents and attorneys who
decided to prejudge the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case

(12:20):
before the investigation ended. I want you to let that
sink in for a second. They prejudged the outcome of
the Hillary Clinton investigation before the investigation ended. And these
exact same FBI agents and attorneys prejudged the outcome of
the Russian investigation before it even began. If prejudging the
outcome of the investigation before it ends, and prejudging the

(12:43):
outcome of an investigation before it begins is not evidence
of outcome. Determinative bias. For the life of me, I
don't know what would be. That is textbook bias. It
is quite literally the definition of bias, allowing something other
than the facts to determine your decision. These ages were

(13:04):
calling her president before she was even interviewed. They were
calling for the end of the Trump campaign before the
investigation even began. They were calling for impeachment simply because
he happened to be elected. That is bias. It's amazing
how long it is taken all these people to get

(13:26):
caught up to where we have been. You know, it
reminds me of my friends and music radio. By the
time a DJ is getting sick of the song, it's
just about the time that the audience is beginning to
recognize what a great song it is. I know that
sounds bizarre, but it's on the one hand, it's satisfying,
but it's also frustrating. We should be well beyond this point,

(13:47):
but for the obstruction that's been going on. All right,
we got a lot to get to. Lindsay Graham, Jim
Jordan's we'll have the latest on this immigration to bate.
Clearly the team mid term elections have begun. This is
where the Democrats want to get a lot of it's predictable,
and we'll give you a fact you're not getting elsewhere
in the media. Senior FBI agent Peter Struck wrote, No, no,

(14:08):
he's not. We will stop it now. I think this
is the Sat Peter Struck who worked on the Clinton
email investigation. Do I have that right? St. Peter Strock,
who not only worked on the Russia investigation when it began,
but it was one of the lead investigators at the
inception of the Russia pro Do I have the right
Peter Struck? That's my understanding. Now Is it the St.

(14:31):
Peter Struck who was put on the Muller Special Council team? Yes,
all right, St. Peter Struck. And this is not the
only time he managed to find the text feature on
his phone either. This is the same Peter Struck who
said Trump is an idiot, Hillary should win one hundred
millions to zero. Now, Mr Inspector General, that one is

(14:54):
interesting to me because he's supposed to be investigating her
for violations of the espionage I at the time, he
wrote that in March of sixteen, he's supposed to be
investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act, and he
can't think of a single solitary American that wouldn't vote
for her for president. I mean, can you see our skepticism.

(15:19):
This senior FBI agent not only had her running, he
had her winning a hundred million to nothing. So what
if they'd found evidence sufficient to indict her? What if
they had indicted her? Is this the st Peters? He
wasn't part of the interview of Secretary Clinton? Was he? Uh?

(15:40):
He was present for the interview. Huh, He's a part
of everything. I mean, that's just this is only a
small sampling. But when Trey Goudy is on his game,
there's nobody better. That's why it was so frustrating without
information that he went out on the spy issue before.
I'm I'm guessing he'd probably regret said he was part

(16:01):
of the meeting that took place on Friday, would speaker
Ryan and Devin Noness and Bob goodlad and and they
basically told Ray and Rosenstein that either you guys start
cooperating and stopping obstructing or We're just gonna have to
now hold you in contempt and bring impeachment charges against you,
because that's what's gonna happen. I think it's probably gonna

(16:23):
happen as early as tomorrow because they've not turned over
the documents, documents that have been subpoenaed now for many, many,
many months. The most fascinating part of all of this
is that Hillary did it all, and the FBI agents
caught hating Trump and loving Hillary then began they were

(16:47):
at the inception, the origin, the beginnings of the Russia
phony investigation, and they used the sledge hammer there and
then of course the soft club treatment for Hill. That's
not equal application under the law, equal justice under the law.
To the top of the hour, one, Sean, you want

(17:08):
to be a part of the program. Explosive hearings in
the House today, joint committees with Director Ray and Michael Harrowitz,
the Inspector General. UH. Let me go back. Cut three.
This is Trey Goudy talking to Michael Harrowitz talking about
the two FBI agents one attorney UH showing their bias

(17:28):
against Trump and how impactful this ought to be in
the minds of the Inspector General listen. So I want
to go back to the no, no, he's not going
to be president, will stop it? What do you think
the it is in that phrase? Will stop it? Oh?
I think it's clear from the context it's we're gonna
stop him from becoming president. That's what I thought. Two. Now,

(17:51):
I wonder who the WEI is and the wheel stop it?
Do you think the we is? Well? I think that's
probably subject to my to poll interpretations. Let's see if
we can go through them or the broader or a
broader group beyond that. I mean, it's hard to fathom
a definition of weed that doesn't include him. So we

(18:12):
know he's part of we. You could assume that the
person he's talking with is FBI attorney who also happens
to be working on the Russia investigation. She may be
part of the we. But I wonder, Inspector General, did
you find any other FBI agents or FBI attorneys who
manifest any animals or biased against President Trump? We did?

(18:33):
How many? We have found three additional FBI agents, as
we detail in the report, and we're any of them
working on the Russia investigation. Let me let me just
create two agents and one attorney to other agents, one
other attorney. Were they working on either the Russia investigation
or the Muller pro Uh. I believe two of the

(18:55):
three were, but I'd have to just double check on that, Okay.
See five of the fifteen top people looking into the
Hillary matter have a hostility towards Donald Trump and a
love of Hillary Clinton, even going as far as referring
to her as president before she's ever be where they

(19:18):
even conclude the investigation. See why when I say, writing
an exoneration before the investigation, why that's so pivotal. And
when you see that the very same people that literally
gave her every consideration, this even you can't even make
the case that this is about prosecutorial discretion because it's not.

(19:41):
What what she did is so egregious. The violation of
the Espionage Acts so clear, and you just need maybe
bring into that committee and that hearing Christian Saucier six
little pictures on the cell phone. Never shared them, never
put them on social media, never did any thing with
them except he was proud of the fact that he

(20:04):
worked in a submarine. He got a year in jail,
and of course the obstruction issue, there's never been a
more clear cut case for obstruction of justice, and of
the fifteen key lead investigators, at least five of them
are on record having this horrible hatred towards Donald Trump

(20:27):
and bias in favor of Hillary Clinton. Anyway, Goudy goes
on as carwits with Peter Struck meant in a text,
saying that he'd finish it. Let's listen in Peter Struck
is back on his phone, texting some more for me.
In this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business.

(20:48):
I unleashed it with the Clinton email investigation. Now I
need to fix it and finish it. Fix what uh? Well,
there is outlined in the report. What Mr Struck's explanation
for Well, I know what he was. I'm gonna asking
our view. I'm asking the guy who had a distinguished

(21:11):
career in the Southern District of the New York and
had a distinguished career at the Department of Justice, did
you rather cross examinated or struggle on that explanation or
would you rather direct the examinational that explanation Probably cross
exam That's what I thought. How about finish it? When
he said I unleashed it, now I need to fix

(21:33):
it and finish it. What do you think he meant
by finish it? I think, in the context of the
emails that occurred in August and the prior August that
you outlined, I think um a reasonable explanation of it,
or a reasonable inference of that is that he believed
he would use or potentially use his official authority to

(21:55):
take action. But this is twenty four hours into him
being put on them all reprobe. There's no way he
possibly could have prejudged the outcome of the investigation. Maybe
that's the outcome determinative biased that my Democrat friends have
such a hard time finding. Now that was the whole

(22:19):
thing that well, we can't find that that political bias
was involved. Even though then Harwitz goes on to give
example after example after example. What he said is he
didn't have a smoking gun. And you know, if you're
putting a case together, you know oftentimes you're not gonna
get a criminal that says, yes, I pulled the trigger

(22:40):
and shot an innocent woman in the vestibule, and I
killed her. What you have to do is you take
the evidence, forensic evidence otherwise, and you put it together
in some cases circumstantial evidence and with all this hatred
geared towards Donald Trump and all of these specific comments
about will stop him, and all the people that were involved,
the same guy that's involved in interviewing Hillary, same guy

(23:03):
that's involved in writing the exoneration in early May, the
same guy that is then the heart in the beginnings
of the Russia investigation. Yeah, he's got a bias now.
Chairman Bob Goodlad at one point asked Michael Harrowitz about
the struct text saying that he's going to stop him
and whether or not it shows political bias. They should

(23:25):
put an end to what the left is saying in
this regard that there doesn't show any political bias. Yeah, Bologney. However,
each institution has engaged in repeated stonewalling of Congress's constitutionally
mandated oversight. The infamous text from Peter Struck saying we
will stop President Trump from taking office, which we received

(23:46):
on the day of your report release, is a prime example.
This text was revealed to you late in your interview
as well as I understand, do you believe this text
shows political bias? I think, as we found it clearly
shows a biased state of mind. And if so, do
you believe the political bias shown by this text had

(24:06):
an effect on the initiation of the Russia investigation that
I think, as you know, uh, Mr Chairman, that's the
matter we've got under review and are looking at right now.
More more to be determined on that were to be determined.
But the time proximity, as Mr Goudy pointed out, is
significantly correct correct. In fact, there are these other text

(24:30):
messages in a roughly the same time period. No, yeah,
that's pretty obvious. It's political. What else could it be?
But political? What else could it possibly be? Madam President Helps.
Of course Hillary is gonna win. Now we've got Jim
Jordan who's going to join us uh in the next hour.
Lindsey Graham will also join us in the next hour.

(24:51):
But Jim Jordan's was on fire today. Asking Horowitz about
strucks bias and Trump painting, let's play that, Mr Horowitz,
does Peter Struck like the president? Um, I can only
speak to what his text messages say, and they're obviously
not positive comments about the president. February Marcheen, Peter Struck
said Trump's abysmal. Trump's an idiot, He's a bleeping idiot.

(25:12):
Hillary should win a hundred million to zero. Sounds to
me like he hates the president. His text messages would
certainly leave that as the implication. Your report says Struck
ran the Clinton investigation on a daily basis. Is that accurate?
That's correct? And Peter Struck in your report he was
the lead investigator on the Russian investigation. Is that true?
That's my understanding for the time pret he was on.

(25:32):
So the guy he ran the Clinton investigation, he runs
the Russian investigation, and he hates the president. But your
report says, while his bias cast a cloud, it didn't
impact final decisions. Is that accurate? It didn't impact the
prosecutor's final decision. Right. Let's look at a few other
things Peter Struck had to say. On May fourteen, the
day after President Trump secures the Republican nomination, Mr Struck says,

(25:55):
now the pressure really starts to finish the Clinton investigation.
Sure why the pressure would be more or less the
day after? It seems to me you want to just
do the investigation. On July thirty one, as mentioned earlier,
the FBI opens the Russian investigation. One week later, Peter
Struck says, I can protect my country on many levels.
Two days after that, he says, we will stop Trump.

(26:16):
One week after that, he says, no way he gets elected.
As like an insurance policy. So think about this, Mr Horowitz.
Peter Struck opens the FBI opens the Russian investigation on
July teen. Peter Struck is the lead investigator. Within the
next fifteen days, he says, I can protect my country
on many levels. No way he gets elected, we will
stop him. We have an insurance policy. Now, that seems like,

(26:40):
at least I think a lot of regular folks would
interpret that is more than just casting a cloud on
what the FBI ultimately did. All right, that was Jim
Jordan's And yeah, that's true. Now, one of the notes
in all of this is a sort of a follow
up to that, Horroorwitch confirming today that he's investigating whether
trucks anti Trump bias factored into the launch of the

(27:03):
Bureaus Russia probe. Well, of course it had to play
a part number one. And we now know that this
was going on a lot earlier. Now we also know
that there were spies in it. Now we know why
there was a willingness. Everybody knew the FBI protocol and
fights a law mandates that you verify and corroborate any

(27:25):
information that you're gonna present before a fights a judge.
They never did it on four separate occasions, and then
the d o J gets some Sally Yates signed off
on one, Rod Rosenstein signed off on the last one.
They lied to four fives a court judges. It can't
wait till one day, get them under oath and see
how they feel about being lined to. I've yet to
meet a judge in my life that likes being lined to,

(27:47):
which usually yes your honor, no, your honor, yes, ma'am, no, ma'am, yes, sir, no, sir,
That's how that usually goes. But anyway, so earlier today, Harrow,
it's testifying that his office is now reviewing all of
these anti Trump text messages as part of a separate
probe related to the Russia investigation, because, as it was
just revealed with Jim Jordan's and others, that it clearly

(28:10):
shows a biased state of mind, and Horowitz corroborated that
referring to the text messages, and that's both biased in
favor of Hillary and not being serious about doing a
real investigation into the felonies that she did commit. Nobody's
asking yet, what should happen to Hillary? How does she
get to skate in all of this knowing that these

(28:32):
crimes were committed. And then it goes on good Lad
asking Horowitz and whether the bias influenced the initiation of
the investigation into the Russian interference, etcetera, etcetera, and potential collusion.
That's a matter we've got under review, we're looking at
right now, Harrowitz said. Good Lad then pressed Harowitz over
the politically charged text messages, which the report described as hostile,

(28:56):
and noted how several was set near the start of
the Russia probe. Actara had said, in fact, there were
these other text messages and in roughly the same time period,
and the exchange coming minutes after Trey Goudy outlined the
curious timing of the text messages between Struck and Page,
just as the Russia probe, which Struck was involved in initiating,

(29:18):
was at its beginnings, its origins, although we do believe
it actually started earlier now and three weeks after Clinton
was exonerated by Comey and Struck that now leading the
investigation into Russian coordination with the Trump campaign. Um, this matters,
because this matters that's pretty interesting. Now this matters. This

(29:41):
is just after the Russia probe begins in July. Timeline
simple Hillary's exoneration written by Struck and Comey in early May,
Hillary seventeen other key witnesses don't get interviewed until early
July July two in the case of Hillary, and she's
exonerated after long laundry list of crimes that were committed,

(30:02):
all of which we've gone over on this program many,
many times, and County lays out that timeline July five,
Comey goes out there taking on a role he of
no business taking on, saying no criminal charges against Hillary.
And from that point to July, when the FBI officially
initiated their counter intelligence investigation into the Russia issue, and

(30:26):
three weeks after Hillary is exonerated by Comy. Struck, who
helped write the exoneration before investigation, is leading the investigation
into Russia and so called co ordination with the Trump campaign.
You know, because this matters, He said, you know, this matters.
As he's texting back and forth with Lisa Page, Well,
you know, it sounds like they went through the motions.

(30:48):
She gets the you know, soft glove treatment in her case,
and Trump gets the sledge hammer because of all this
political bias. You can't say this bias, this hatred of
Trump didn't play a partner as it did. Imagine presenting
any of this information to a jury and what their
reaction would be. The case comes down to this. You know,

(31:09):
I've noticed the attorney for Peter Struck came out with
a ridiculous piece. I think it was in USA today today.
The guys a patriot and he played by the rules
and he could have leaked about the Russian investigation, but
he didn't. Um, Okay, I understand that he's in a
bad spot, and uh, but just it just it doesn't
pass the smell test on any level. The reason you

(31:31):
need to be concerned about this is because Hillary got
away with things you would never get away with. And
she got away with it because people in power, the
highest levels of power, decided they liked her, favored her
over Trump, who they hated, and they went with the
the soft glove treatment all things Hillary, and they put

(31:53):
the fix in and then they put the sledgehammer to
Trump on an issue that was nonexistent. That's what happened.
How many people were involved in the Clinton interview on
July of the second. There were um, I believe six
or eight people present, but two agents conducting the interview.
So as I understand that there were two agents and
two prosecutors. Correct, Okay, Now this was an email sent

(32:17):
in February from Page to McCay. Hey, you've surely already
considered this, But in my view, our best reason to
hold the line at two and two, two agents and
two prosecutors is she might be our next president. How
did you feel about that? We were concerned about it,

(32:39):
and we lay it at layout here why we were Okay,
let's keep talking about this interview. One of the FBI
agents in the interview said on election day to another
FBI agent, you should know that I'm with her. Now
her was Clinton? Right, how do you feel about that?

(33:00):
Are concerned? Okay? E bitually very concerned? Gets to be enough.
Already this is struck to Page on October twenty. Trump
is an effing idiot. The bottom line is, I'm glad
you found what you found, Mr Rowarts. I'm not buying
that the Clinton email investigation was on the up and up.

(33:22):
And the reason I'm not buying it discussed the two
people intimately involved. One the guy, that the lead investigator
clearly did not want to see Donald Trump become president
of the United States. Finally, do you agree with me
that finding her liabel criminally would be inconsistent with stopping

(33:43):
Donald Trump? If they found Hillary Clinton was criminally liable,
that paves the way for Donald Trump. Can you put
those two things together? I guess it would depend when,
but yes, for the convention clearly could conceivablief. Well, not
only clearly, conceivably That's exactly what's happening here, folks. You

(34:05):
cannot hold her criminally laval and stop him, No, you can't.
That was Lindsay Graham at the Senate hearing yesterday. House
hearing has been going on today and Trey Goudy just
really lit it up earlier today, as Lindsey Graham did yesterday.
Who joins us on her Newsmaker line, How are you good?

(34:25):
You don't have to be Sherlotte Colms to figure this
one out. You know, you're so annoying when I disagree
with you, But when you are right on something, you're
so right on something, and so I have to give
you your credit. Well, it's true. I mean, you know,
I'm not shy about being critical when I disagree with you,
but I definitely know that. But you did a great
job yesterday, and I give you a lot of credit

(34:47):
for it. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Let's stay
with the fundamentals. If we ken, Senator for a minute,
that Hillary Clinton violated the espionageack and obstructed justice, do
you have any doubt? No, Here's what I would say.
Here's what's important. The original statement that Tommy was going
to read on July five, exonerating her said that she

(35:09):
was grossly negligent. The reason they changed that term to
extremely careless is under eighteen USC. Seventy nine seven nine
three if grossly negligent creates criminal liability. So what I
want to know is who changed the term grossly negligent
extremely careless? Because when you find out how that happened,

(35:29):
you will realize that we don't we know the answer
because we know the following. We know that both Struck
and Comy we're writing, and they began writing their exoneration
in early May, they had yet to interview Hillary or
seventeen other key witnesses. That Hillary's interview took place July two,
and Comey assert the power of the Attorney general and

(35:51):
pretty much everyone else and exonerated her publicly on July five,
and not long thereafter, the same people that that put
the exoneration in or the fig so before the investigation
then started the Trump Russia probe. Yeah, but what I Yeah,
everything is dead right, But what I want to know
is I wanna is there any email traffic is in
your conversation about changing the words? Somebody put down grossly

(36:14):
negligent and they suddenly realized, wait a minute, if you
say that she's criminally liable, we can't say that and
stop Trump. The the August eighth text becomes so important.
That's when Page says to Stroke, Trump's never going to
become president, right right, Struck responded, No, no, he's not.

(36:34):
We'll stop it. So now you know that they wanted
to stop President Trump from being president. How can you
stop him because find her criminally responsible for mishandling classified information.
That to me is the key here. Who changed those words?
And when did they change it? Was it called me?
Was it strong? How did it happen? No, you know
you're dead right on this one of the We keep

(36:55):
getting these nuggets as we read through this report. Again
and again. Nuggets. Yeah, you're right, you see, and this
goes to the heart of it, and that is that
Horowitz and the Democrats jumped all over. Well, he said
that he's not going to second guess prosecutorial discretion. But
then on the other side of it, he lays out
the single most compelling case of abuse and bias in

(37:20):
the justice system amongst the highest investigators within the FBI
that I've ever seen in my life. Is as stunning.
But but you skipped over something that Creepo did. Mike
creep who did a wonderful job, and I didn't have
time to bring this up, but as brilliant who decided
to prosecute, to give her, to let her off the hook.

(37:40):
It wasn't a prosecutor, It was the FBI. So this
was an unusual case. There was no professional prosecutor that
over oversaw the FBI investigation. In terms, there's no case here.
The same crew that basically was in the tank for
Clinton decided not to execute Clinton. Loretta Lynch didn't make

(38:02):
this decision, called me, did the guy in charge of
the FBI. So there was no independent filter here. There
was no outside group looking at the FBI's work product
saying you're you're right, there's no case. The FBI decided
not to prosecute, not the Department of Justice. Well, we
also know that of the fifteen lead, posibly that happened
in my life. Well, of course, I've never heard of

(38:24):
an exoneration written before you ever do the investigation of
a case. Have you ever heard an investigator by the investment, Yeah,
by Comey, and the investment was struck in comy that
we're writing Rescue the lady exactly. This is not months before,
months before. So the bottom line is they knew Trump
was going to be the presumptive nominee on July five.

(38:44):
The convention was July eighteenth one. So if you wanted
to stop him, if that's your goal, and it's in
writing in August they wanted to stop Trump, there's no
way you could find her criminally responsible. And no prosecutor
decided not to prosecute her. It was the FBI, The
same people who basically were completely in the tank for her,

(39:06):
decided not to prosecute. People got to understand there was
no filter here, there was no overseeing the FBI. Well
that was also, but it was because the Attorney General
Lynch was compromised based on her tom tarmac meeting with
Bill Clinton and finished up, well, you can't make it up.
But here's the problem. The problem is is the same people,
now five of the fifteen lead investigators that were involved

(39:28):
in this case. Then immediately, if the timeline is July five,
James Comy takes it upon himself. It's not his role,
it's not his duty, takes it upon himself to exonerate
Hillary and again makes the shifts and changes that you
point out as it relates to the legal standard gross negligence,
and also took out something else that's important, that it

(39:51):
was likely that foreign intelligence services had hacked in the
Hillary's email that was in the Mom and pop shop
bathroom closet. Well, then those same people that are abusively
biased and hate Trump then are at the initial start
of the Trump Russia investigation. Doesn't that render that illegitimate? Well?

(40:12):
I think, well that's why I think Muller fired these people.
And the question is what effect did it have. So
let's look at the August fifteenth text from Struck the page.
Now this is a week after uh Struck said no, no,
will stop it. Here's what they said on August fifteenth.
I want to believe the path you throughout the consideration
Andy's office, that there's no way he gets elected. But

(40:35):
I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're forty.
So I asked the question, who is Andy and m
Andy McKay. So here's what's so important about this, did
in fact the number two guy at the FBI sit
down with the lead investigator of the Clinton email investigation

(40:56):
and now the Russia Trump investigation and conspired to eat
an insurance policy regarding the election? That is j Edgar Hoover,
that is Watergate. So here's what Stock and Page say.
They've said to multiple committees. We met with Andy McCabe
and we talked about creating an insurance policy regarding Trump's

(41:16):
campaign in election. McCabe says he doesn't recall that meeting.
All I can say is, how many meetings did you
have with FBI agents trying to figure out how to
fix an election? This, to me is the most stamming
thing about the Russian investigation and how deep the FBI
was involved in trying to undercut the election. If it's true,

(41:36):
that the number two guy at the FBI set down
in his office to talk with the lead investigator of
the Trump investigation about an insurance policy to make sure
he didn't win. That is stunning, That is earth shattering,
and that destroys How do these people still have How
do they still have jobs at the FBI? I don't

(41:57):
know how you would keep somebody on on the government
payroll who clearly is trying to fix an election, you know,
I mean why you slow down fix an election? This
is the United Station. Yeah, this is how you fix
an election. You take the guide that you hate and

(42:17):
make sure his opponent, who is guilty, is sin has
never charged. You start an investigation on the guy you
hate to create an insurance policy to make sure that
the outcome is what you would like for the country.
That to me is fixing an election. And I don't
say these things lightly. If Andy McCabe in fact met

(42:39):
with the Page and Struck and they did have a
conversation about taking an insurance policy out regarding the election,
then that to me is stunning. J Edgar Hoover stuff
watergate and doesn't it well, I think it's watergate, and
it's worse than Watergate, But and doesn't it doesn't it
then make sense that if you have a the beginning,

(43:01):
the very beginnings of the Russia investigation, the same players
and the same prejudice and the same bias and hostility
towards one candidate, everything it puts everything it taints as
the food of the poiseness tree, doctor and in the law.
But are we seeing the same thing if you look
at Genie Ray? How did Genie Ray, who once worked
for the Clinton Foundation, get on Mueller's team? How does

(43:22):
a guy like Andrew Weissman, who, because of his actions
in the Anderson accounting case, tens of thousands of Americans
lost their job. That was overturned nine in the Supreme Court.
Then he put four Meryal executives in jail for a year.
That's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
multiple occasions. He was excoriated by judges for withholding exculpatory evidence.

(43:47):
Now and everyone else that Mueller appoints as a Democratic donor,
they couldn't find an independent, anybody, anybody's separate and apart,
with a better track record than Andrew Weissman or background
than Genie Ray. Well, what it does it put the
same question everything that that flowed after that meeting with
Andy McCabe. So the bottom line here is that what
would have been kind of innocuous conflicts now become you know,

(44:10):
very serious. And we haven't even talked about the FISA
warrant yet. So the second report coming out is how
did the Department of Justice use the doarcier he prepared
by a foreign agent, paid for political party and candidate
for office to get a warrant on American citizen? How
did the system fail there? Now, that really goes to

(44:31):
the heart and soul of the early part of the
Russian investigation. What at this point have you seen that
gives you any indication that there was any type of
nefarious activities on the part of anybody in the in
the Trump campaign, because I haven't seen any. Okay, the
only thing I can, you know, just trying to be
as honest with you, the the interaction and now you're

(44:53):
gonna piss me off saying go ahead, okay, well, but
the interaction in Trump power with these kind of weird Russians,
you know what you're talking about, year grade summer would
be better. I haven't seen anything come from that, But
Here's what I have seen. I've seen absolutely no evidence
of collusion between the Trump campaign any Russian intelligence service.
I have seen a counter intelligence operation that was never

(45:18):
They never notified Trump what they should have told President Trump,
Candidate Trump, Hey we got a problem in Matterport. Hey
we've got a problem with Carter Page. Hey we got
a car, a problem with Papadopolis. The reason I'm really
suspicious of the government's intent here is a counter intelligence
operation is designed to protect the country. So if you've
got you've got some information on somebody that the campaign

(45:40):
is interacting with, do you know the duty to tell
the campaign? Carter Page and the President never met, never spoke.
And the most exculpatory thing and the Comey Notes was
Comey saying that he met with Trump, and Trump said, look,
I didn't do anything, but if anyone on my team did,
you need to do your job, I'll tell you something
even more in sculptory than that. Let's trying to say
you're smarter than well, now I'm not saying I'm smarter

(46:02):
than you. I'm just saying I thought it's something you
didn't confidential informant in a counterintelligence operation. Let's say there
was one. Let's say that that confidential informant interacted with
three members of the Trump campaign. Let's say it was Papadoptlis,
carter Page, and Clovis. What did they find nothing. Clovis

(46:25):
is walking around eating dinner somewhere, carter Page is still
being wacky somewhere, and Papadopolis pled guilty to something completely
unrelated to interact him with the Russians. So here's what
I would suggest to the folks and the Trump world.
If there was a counter intelligence uh AN informant, a

(46:46):
confidential informant, that person didn't find anything, because none of
the confidential informants information was ever used to get a warrant.
I've got to say this, I want to hear from
those FISA judges that were lied to with verified, uncorroborated
Hillary Boughton paid for foreign national put together that even
he said was fifty How did those judges get lied to?

(47:08):
How did those two? How come they we haven't heard
from them? Well, this is the rosenstein becomes important here.
Rosenstown was in the chain of events, you know, in
terms of re certifying for the warrant. Oh no, he
signed the fourth warrant. In other words, they should have
known by then. Yeah, well, yes, right, So so you
had a guy still that you'd used in the past.

(47:29):
You didn't provide any scrutiny. And he's screaming diet heaven?
Did he hates Trump? One of the reasons he gave
the dossier to the press. If TCACI has mad at
the FBI for reopening the October investigation on I gotta run,
but you're right on target. Uh. Lindsey Graham, Senator South Carolina,
thank you, sir. When we come back. Jim Jordan Freedom Caucus.

(47:51):
All right, Jim Jordan was on fire today, he joins
us at the bottom of the hour. Uh, you have
an immigration debate after let me tell you one thing
on the immigration at twenty eighteen elections have started, and
I'll explain that in in our final hour Free for All.
Jim Jordan's was on fire before the I g Horowitz
and Director Rate Today will play that next. Then, he

(48:12):
joins us. Next as we continue the best coverage on
your radio dial. Has Mr Comby been fired? Yes? Has
Mr McCabe been fired yes? Did Mr McCabe lie under
oath according to your report? Yes? Yeah? Is there a
criminal referral for Mr McCabe, I'm not going to comment
on that. Has Mr Ribicki left the FBI? Yes? Has
General Council Jim Baker left the FBI? Yes? Was he

(48:33):
removed from his position prior to leaving the FBI? I'm
not sure of that. Has Lisa Page left the FBI?
Was she reassigned prior to leaving the FBI? Believe so?
And has Peter Struck been removed from his position as
Deputy head of counter Intelligence? Yes, Mr Horwich, You've been
in the d J for ten years, You've been Inspector
general for six years. You're chief of all the inspector generals.
Have you ever ever seen anything like this at any

(48:56):
other federal agency in your time in the federal government?
Six of the top people fired, demoted, reassigned, or left. UM.
Obviously can't speak broadly to other areas that I haven't
known before, but yes, this is I've been in I've
been in this town learning half years. I've never seen
anything like this. Even the I R. S scandal didn't
come close. Never see this. And again, this is not

(49:17):
in any type of reflection on the rank and file
agents who I know you respect. We all respect and
do a great job, but these were the six key people.
I have never seen anything like this in my time
in government. My guess is there's not a person on
this diet who has his wealth. All right. That was
Jim Jordan at the hearings earlier today doing a phenomenal job.

(49:39):
I see this is breaking on other news networks. I
have not seen it yet on Fox that CNN among
them reporting Peter Struck is still employed, but was escorted
out of the FBI building last Friday, joining US now
House Freedom caucas member, former Chairman of the House Freedom Caucause,
Jim Jordan's who may be running for Speaker of the House.
And I've supported you although but probably is going to

(50:00):
hurt you if I do. Um, not at all, not
at all. I have not heard that about Struck, so
that that did happen Friday, Sean apparently, Well, you know,
I hate to site CNN fake news. I got five
TVs in front of me, but you know, take it
with a grain of salt, and uh, you know we're watching.
We'll look for our own corroboration here, but that's what

(50:21):
they're reporting. Um, you were on fire. The facts in
this case remain, I think, and you got to go
back to the fundamentals here, and the fundamentals are very clear,
is that Hillary did violate the Espionage Act, just to
ask Christian Saucier, and that she mishandled and destroyed classified
top secret information. And James Comey even admitted that July.

(50:45):
And then I don't think there's ever been a bigger
case for obstruction to justice by the leading subpoena emails,
acid washing the hard drive with bleach bit, and then
of course having an aid bust up devices with hammers
uh and handing over to the FBI device without a
SIM card. That to me is obstruction. Do you agree? Well?
And and remember what we just went through. The top

(51:07):
six people who have all left and fired some one
faces criminal referral. They were all demotive before they left
as well. Those top six people are the ones whoreund
the investigation you just cited. They're also the ones who
then launched the Russian investigation. So that that's why this
all When you say the fundamentals, those are the fundamentals. Um,
That's why it's so critical and frankly shown. The other

(51:28):
thing we learned today is the other guy. In addition
to those six people, the fe the other guys. Rod Rosenstein,
the one, you know, the one text message that we
didn't have. We had thousands, tens of thousands that we
were that that went back and forth between Peter Struck
and least the page, the one we didn't get until
last Thursday, just happens to be the most explosive one,
which says we will stop Trump. Rod Wilsenstein's office had

(51:50):
that a month ago, and they didn't give it to
us until last week. Why did they keep it? Why
did they try to hide that from this That another
important Let me digress for a second, because the showdown
is now come to a head. And last Friday, it's
my understanding that Bob good Lad and Trey Goudy and
Devin Nunas and Paul Ryan met with Rod Rosenstein and
with Director Ray and they were told in no uncertain

(52:13):
terms that if they continue to obstruct, and they continue
to withhold subpoena documents and and use phony redactions in
the name of national security, etcetera, that this is now
going to come to a head, meaning contempt and possible
impeachment of Rod Rosenstein. Is it come to that, Yes,
it certainly has. Actually there's gonna be three steps. The

(52:34):
Speaker was very clear last week with him. I Mr
Guy talking over the weekend, he said the Speaker was
strong in that meeting. He said, if you don't give
us what we're entitled to have a separate, equal branch
of government to do our job. If you're not gonna
give that to us, there's gonna be three steps. First
step will be the resolution. Mr Meadows and I filed
anothers filed a week and a half ago, which says
the House will go on record. The Speaker said he
will bring that to the floor and say you've got

(52:55):
seven days to do it. If in fact he doesn't
do it, then then we moved to content. And then
you moved to the beachment. That is that that is
the logical profession of progression, the House to go on
record saying we deserve this information, give us to us
as a full body. If you won't do it, then
then you moved to contempt. Then you moved to impeachment.
What would happened to where the speakers at what would
happened to uh average Joe citizen Sean Hannity if if

(53:16):
you guys subpoenaed information from me and I pulled the
stunts that Rod Rosenstein's pulling, you know what would happen.
And that's what kicks Americans off, is this double standard.
There's one set of rules for Sean Hannity, Jim Jordan's
regular folks around the country. There's a different set. If
your name is Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Learner, McCabe, Scott Page,
if your name, if you if you name one of

(53:37):
those and you're part of the swamp, you get a
different set of rules. And frankly, Rod Rosenstein should know
that and he should be given us what we've been
asking for. But he doesn't. I hear there are very
empassive information from us. I hear there are very specific
papers evidence, if you will, information that implicates Rod Rosenstein.
Have you heard the saying, uh, Chairman Nonaz is asking

(54:00):
for specific information. I don't know what that specific information is,
but yes, he has said he wants he wants certain
information and he wants Mr Rosenstein's department just to turn
that over. I do not know what that is, um,
but the Chairman has been I think pretty clear about
he wants information from Mr Rosen and he should turn
that over all. Right, So if it's not forthcoming, by
what day, will you begin the three step process. Well,

(54:23):
I think it has to happen this week. I think
the understanding from the meeting with the Speaker and the
Leader and the Chairman and the head of the FBI
Justice Department was it has to happen this week, and
if it doesn't, I think you will see us move
to the resolution and then whatever next steps we need
to take. I'll be honest, I was very underwhelmed with
the performance of Director Ray. And while he had every
right to defend the good men and women in the FBI,

(54:45):
which I do as well, uh, those that that do
their job every day. And I've even predicted that the
end of the story that in fact it's going to
be the rank and file that the heroes here. But
while he did that, he was not strong enough, in
my view, in in understanding the urgency and severity of
what's gone on. What did you feel, Yeah, I felt

(55:06):
the same. I will say this, I think the Inspector
Generals has conducted himself very well today in the in
the hearing that we had um with the House Judiciary
and House Oversight Committee. But um, I would like to
see Mr Ray be a little understand like you say,
the gravity of this, the fact that Lisa Page, Peter Struck,
an FBI lawyer number two, all three on the Clinton investigation,

(55:27):
all three on the Russian investigation, key players on the
Russian investigation, Peter Struck was the lead agent, and all
three of those individuals also went on Mueller's Special Council team.
And then to act like this is not, you know,
the big news that frankly it is, and the big
issue that it is, I think, like you said, is
a little bit of a scene considering the very people
that are on record hating Donald Trump, hating him with

(55:48):
a with an animous and antipathy second to none, that
the very people then also violated every standard investigative procedure
and thread every needle to basically put the fix in
and rigging investigation for Hillary. They're the same people that
initiated this investigation into so called Trump Russia collusion, and

(56:12):
here we are a year and a half later and
there's nothing to be found. It seems to me that
from the get go that that would render that whole
investigation illegitimate. And if you add to that the people
that Robert Mueller has appointed under the conditions Mueller was
appointed with comey leaking documents the way he did and
for the purpose of getting a special counsel. Then Rob

(56:33):
Rosenstein look at his team, Jennie Ray, who worked on
the Clinton Foundation, and Andrew Weissman. How can you trust
any special counsel off Andrew Weisman with his trust atrocious
record is on that team. Yeah, here's here's the good news.
Next week, Uh, I believe we will have in front
of the oversight and judiciary community in the House Mr Struck,

(56:55):
Mr Ray and Mr Rosenstein had as the plan. That's
what the Chairman's pushing for. Um. So that is something
I'm looking for because there's a set of questions that
we need to ask these individuals again to get the
answers that the American people deserve. Specifically, I want to
know we've talked about this before, Sean. Why is we
can't see the August second memo, what we call the
scope memo, which changed the parameters of the Special Council investigation,

(57:17):
the memorandum that second but that was Remember the dates
are important here because July was the rate on mataphor
it's home you know, guns drawn dark of night, early morning,
pre dawn raid um. And then they changed the the
original mandate if you will, you know, post dated to

(57:38):
August two, after that took place. Doesn't that seem like
it's out of order to you? Yeah, it sure does.
And and that memo is in some way altered or
modified the scope of the investigation. The Americans people have
a right to know the parameters of an investigation of
the individual day elected president. And Ron Rosenstein won't show
us that. That's something we need to ask us about.
And that's something is frankly, we need to see. And

(58:00):
I think more importantly you folks in the media need
to see in the American people need to see. Do
you have any doubt that the question they rigged the
investigation to prevent Hillary from being indicted, because I am
a certain well, I mean, it sure looks that way.
The day after President Trump is nominated, as you know,
the presumptive nominee the Republican Party. The very next day,

(58:21):
Peter Struck says this, now the pressure really starts to
finish the Clinton investigation. Now, why is it? Why was
there pressure to finish the examination the investigation just because
Trump got the nomination Republican Party and then all the
other things that he said that that show that they
think about this Sean. They launched the Russian investigation in July.

(58:42):
One week later, Peter Struct says, I can protect my
country on many levels. Two days after that, he says
we will stop Trump. One week after that, he says,
no way he gets elected. We got an insurance policy.
So within fifteen days after they've launched the Russian investigation,
Peter structs the lead agent. He says, Trump is not
going to get elected. I can protect my country and
we will stop the president because we got an insurance
that's unbelievable. You know, it's one thing to say Trump's

(59:04):
a bad guy, Trump's awful. It's another thing to say
we got an insurance policy and we're going to stop him,
especially when you make those statements within days after you've
launched the Russian investigation and just close the Clinton investigation.
And that's what we tried to highlighten the day's hearing.
I think the American people see this and they understand it,
and they know that Peter Struct should not still be
working at the FBI, and they know that Rod Rosenstein

(59:26):
has some questions answer what happens to Hillary now? Does
she get off scott free doing things that put other
Americans in jail, I mean obstructing justice clearly. I mean,
you know, I don't know if you saw the controversy,
but Robert Muller is demanding everybody that he's been interviewing
and investigating that they have to turn over their phones.
So so I go on the air and I said, well,
if I were to advise them, big word there, if,

(59:49):
because I wouldn't. And then I even said at one
point it's a bad idea. It's not gonna work out
well for you. And I'm only kidding, but I said,
if I told you to do everything Hillary did, and
that is delete acid WHI and bust up with hammers
and into etsy bitsy pieces and hand them over to
Mueller and say equal justice under the law. This is
the Hillary treatment. What do you think everybody wanted to

(01:00:10):
put me in Gael? And even though I said that
it was a bad idea, and she did all those things,
so she get off scott free here. Yeah, yeah, I
mean I don't know. Uh. What I do know is this,
Uh Inspector General Horowitz is looking into whether Mr call
me Um was there was classified information that he leaked.
Inspector General Horowitz is looking into all the leaks that

(01:00:33):
took place at the other statutes and limitations. Now that
we're up against well, I don't know, I had to see.
I don't think it's necessarily there because it's only been
we're talking about the last couple of years. And then
I think the real the real investigations, I'm I'm focused
on the Inspector General Horowitz is working on his potential
FIES abuse of the FISA process. When are we going
to hear from the FISA judges? Well, I asked him.

(01:00:54):
He said he's working on it. He's gonna do it
as quick as possible. But I said, look, you know,
we can't wait eighteen for that investgation like waiting for
this one. And his and his reply was he said, yeah,
but on this one, if we had turned this, if
we had complete this investigation, on the Clinton investigation, we'd
have done this in January. We'd have missed so many
important things. So I understand that I just tried to
impress that we want that is quickly asked this considering

(01:01:16):
that the origins of the Russia investigation began with at
least a number of the members that that helped break
the Hillary investigation and had antipathy towards Donald Trump. And
that's the origins of it. And then Mueller puts together
a team of only Democratic donors and Genie Ray who
worked at the Clinton Foundation, and Andrew Weissman his pit
bowl with his frankly despicable and atrocious track record. Um

(01:01:41):
is it time to now say that this is illegitimate
from the get go? I think a lot of people
are thinking that. Um. And and it wasn't just most Sean,
it was basically the exact same team at the FBI.
I mean, it was McCay's exact people. Was that BI
lawyer number two was Page. It was the almost the
exact same team. To RIBICKI was comy chief of staff,

(01:02:02):
was involved in both. So it's almost Peter Struck ran
the Clinton investigation on the daily basis, and he was
the lead investigator on the Russian investigation. That's according to
Mr Horowitz. So you know, the same team, and like
you point out, three of those key players, FBI lawyer two,
Page and Struck all go on Muller's team, so you know,
and they subs we get kicked off for some anti

(01:02:22):
you know, anti Trump bias and animus towards the president
and pro Clinton. But frankly, just about everyone on Mulan.
If you kicked everyone off a Mueller's team it was
biased against the president, there wouldn't beny one left on
Mueller's feat. Well that's my point. I mean, we're gonna
be back here two years asking ourselves, well, why did
we have such a biased team in the Special Council's Office. Um,
all right, well, Jim Jordan, thank you. We're gonna watch

(01:02:42):
very closely with the showdown with Rosenstein and others. Eight
hundred nine four one. Shaun is on number We'll get
into the immigration issue at the top of the next hour.
So the Democrats at Chenda, what have I told you
it is for? This is what they're running on impeaching Trump.
But don't tell anybody. This is a secret. They'll just
say it afterwards. We'll do it afterwards. What else keeping Obamacare?

(01:03:06):
They want open borders obviously, and they're ignoring Oh yeah,
Obama did the same thing that the Trump administration is doing.
And by the way, it's their law. They can change
the law. The President offered a deal DOCTA for funding
the wall, and they wouldn't take it. Why because they
want to run on it. So that's pretty much the
Democratic agenda foren and of course lie, which they always do.

(01:03:30):
We'll get into that next straight hut Tried news roundup
and information over a little our Sean Hannity Show Toll
free numbers eight nine for one sewn you want to
be a part of the program, We'll get to your
calls at the bottom of this half hour. Elijah Cummings,
a congressman, accusing the Trump administration of setting up child
internment camps more Nazi comparisons than I think I've seen

(01:03:52):
in one lifetime, and then started crying while talking about
the topic. And so I asked the question, and it
is except question, are we really going to sit here
seventy members of the Congress of the United States of
America in twenty eighteen and have a hearing that just

(01:04:12):
repeats the hearings the Senate at yesterday or Hillary Clinton's emails.
We sent a letter after letter, letter after letter asking
these committees to investigate the Trump Administration's policy which is
now resulting in child internment camps. That's what I said,
child internment camps. But we have got no response. Look,

(01:04:35):
even if you believe people in it our country illegally,
even if you believe they have no valid asylum claims
in their own country, even if you believe immigration should
be halted entirely, we all should be able to agree that,
in the United States of America, we will not intentionally

(01:04:59):
separate children from their parents. We will not do that.
We are better than that, We are so much better.
We should be able to agree that we will not
keep kids in town internment camps indefinitely and hidden away
from public view. What country is that? All right? There

(01:05:20):
are facts that actually go along with the emotion of
this argument. The one thing you can conclude is the
twenty eight midterm elections are in full force. And over
the many years we've done this program, we have chronicled
how in election years it's predictable. Republic the race card
is going to be used. Republicans are racist, you know

(01:05:42):
if you have Missouri radio. Add if you elect Republicans,
black churches are gonna burn al gore. Republicans talking to
a predominantly black audience don't even want to count you
in the census. They want to poison the air, poison
the water, and kill more children if they support a
reduction of the rate of increase, in other words, a

(01:06:05):
net increase of seven percent for medicare. They are trying
to kill old people and granny and this is what
we hear every two every four years. That they're racist,
that they're sexist, that they're homophobic, xenophobic, that there islamophobic, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Now there are facts here that go along with this

(01:06:27):
narrative that the media is not telling you. This is
the law as it currently exists. In other words, well, yeah,
you can have discretion. And remember Barack Obama said he
didn't of his own have there. I can't with a
wave of a pen, you know, through executive orders do
these things because it's unconstitutional. It's not the way our

(01:06:48):
system works. Ended up doing it anyway. But the rule
of law is the rule of law. And if you
want to fix the issue permanently, there is a solution,
and the President is put on the table a DOCCA
fix as part of comprehensive package that would include solving
the problem forever as it relates to the southern border,
and that's building a wall. But it is the It

(01:07:09):
is compliance and enforcement of the law. People may not
like the enforcement of the law. But that's what it is.
And at the end of the day, a lot of
people don't want to hear this fact either. You know,
there is you know, if American citizen breaks the law
and is put into the justice system, they're separated from
their family and children. And in that sense, what the
left wants here is open borders. They want this as

(01:07:32):
a campaign issue if they wanted to solve the issue.
It's been on the table now for a long time,
and none of them want to come to the table
and solve the issue because they don't want the wall built, period.
They want open borders. And you know, as it relates
to everything else. Oh excuse me, this is not the
first time that this has happened. Yeah, it happened under
Barack Obama, and yeah, families were separated. Illegal immigrant families

(01:07:55):
were separated under him, and when they crossed over the borders,
they were put in a criminal jel the system. Families
were indeed separated. So you know that's the point anyway.
Joining us to discuss and debate all of this is
Chris Farrell. He is the director of investigations for Judicial Watch.
Francisco Hernandez, an immigration attorney based out of Texas. And
by the way, he agrees with me that we should

(01:08:16):
build the wall and fund the wall. And when you
when you heard the President talk about being willing to
give up make the docta fix that you want in
exchange for building the wall, you said you'd take that
deal in the Harpeat, I told you I would because
we're gonna have to legalize a hundred thousand Mexico to
build it. But why don't we have to wait for
an agreement with the Democrats. Republicans have a majority, and

(01:08:38):
the Republicans are afraid of filibuster, throw it up for
a vote and let them figure it out. It's not
it's not that they're afraid of the filibuster. It's that,
you know, and I know that there are motivations and Republicans,
some of them have their motivations on these issues too.
You know, there are some there, There are some appealing
to corporate interests, hang on, some appealing to corporate interests,

(01:08:59):
that inexpensive labor in this country. And then you have
a group of Democrats. Well they're looking at this selfishly
also thinking well, well that that could be the next
potential voting base for our party. But at least you
have a count of who voted for and against it.
And he doesn't even think he can carry his own party.

(01:09:20):
But that's not that's not why it's happening at all.
I mean, if you can't get it to a vote
in the Senate, if you don't reach the magic number sixty,
and Mitch McConnell refuses to give up on culture, but
you don't need sixty to take it. Well, didn't let
him fill a buster. But that's the point, Chris, Chris Barrow,
what are your thoughts? Listen, here's the other point. Nobody
wants children separated from their families. But the bottom line

(01:09:41):
is nobody wants that. Francisco, you've known me forever. I'm
I don't believe in that. I don't. I don't want
families separated, the kids separated from their parents. Um. And
it has happened and it has gone on because these
guys won't do their job and put the permanent fix
in place that literally, legislatively, in other words, legally solves
the problem the way it should ultimately be solved. Chris.

(01:10:03):
And this is the attention wrapped around this event is manufactured.
We've had this problem for years there's an entire facility
outside of um Arizona dedicated to nothing but families and
unaccompanied minors who who across the border. This is not
some new phenomenon. We've seen an uptick in the number, certainly,
but you've also seen corresponding both encouragement from south of

(01:10:25):
the border to make a run for it basically and
get into the United States. But the word travels back
just as fast saying, hey, look, the Americans are doing enforcement,
knock it off. Don't come here unless you want to
lose your kid, which leaves you with two question what
what what responsible parent would put their child in that
position to begin with? And then secondly, the large numbers

(01:10:46):
of children that are appearing at the border who are
either unaccompanied or accompanied by someone other than their parents,
in which case you're getting into really trafficking children. And
there's the dirty underside of it that nobody wants to
talk about. None of this is new. All the all
the attention about around this is a manufactured hysteria. It's

(01:11:07):
a propaganda stunt. No, it's it's for real. It is
human trafficking, and there are criminal smuggling gangs that are
at the root of all this they're not going and
they've been going on fifteen years at a at a
at a commercial level of trafficking. Suddenly suddenly there's a
desire to pay attention to it. Why wasn't this a
screaming headline a month ago? It wasn't. It's a deliberate

(01:11:31):
attempt to grab headline and attention for political purposes. The
problem has gone on forever. There's a facility in human
Arizona in particularly that I've been to. This crisis has
been percolating for the last ten years, especially with respect
unaccompanied minors. But there's an effort to generate a crisis

(01:11:51):
and use it as sort of a wedge or leverage issue.
And so suddenly now everyone wants to pay attention to
something that's been going on forever. But come on, than
in Trump and the Attorney General jumped on it for
the exact same motives, all of a sudden, enforcing the
policy of criminal prosecution. Of course, remarks of President Obama.

(01:12:12):
Elections have consequences, and so if there's if there's laws
on the book, and we imagine this, we actually enforced
the laws that that whole equal justice under the law
motto on front on the top of the Supreme Court.
So when you apply the law and follow the law,
suddenly everyone gets all upset and excited instead the problem,

(01:12:33):
there is a problem here in Secretary to follow the law.
Secretary Nielsen pointed it out the massive increase in the
last three months that they've seen. Also they've been able
to observe large criminal organizations like MS thirteen have gained
a foothold. And if in fact, you you put in
the exceptions or the loopholes or the discretion that everybody

(01:12:55):
seems to want to put in in the case of children,
that that ostensibly means you have a function only open border.
And this is all a result and it it all
did happen in the Obama years, Francisco, so this isn't new,
which which means this is all tainted by politics. But
if we really care about the kids, the best thing
that we could do for them is have the have

(01:13:16):
the border wall up and make it functions, have that
functionally working with the door that the President talks about
people so people, so people come in legally. It's not
going to get built. Even if you could get it
built starting today, you're not going to solve any crisis
for at least ten years, even if you think the
wall will fix it. The problem is that what the

(01:13:36):
problem is is what is causing these folks to flee
their country. And that's the elephant in the room, Mr Hannity.
Nobody wants to talk about. Why are these people are
willing to risk their lives and lose their children, in
fact that most mothers. Why do you think that is? Well,
the silent claims or garbage, in large part because that's
already been documented by Sextor Nielsen yesterday. The asylum claims

(01:14:00):
are largely fraudulent. These same people are also transiting Mexico,
and Mexico does not pose a threat to them and
their individual liberty or their rights. So what they should
be doing is staying in Mexico closer to their their
country of origin, instead of all making a dash for
the border. Hopefully the message will get out, as it
has before, you're not welcome unless you come here lawfully,

(01:14:23):
So don't bother coming or you're gonna stuffer the consequences. Well,
they changed that solemn laws right now, legislation right now.
We all agree they're antiquated, and they're they're impractical in
its application. So we're just trying to put Scott's tape
on the on the leak. It's not gonna fix. It's
not Scott's tape. You know, looks and even you and
I have agreed on a bill. I mean you. You

(01:14:45):
the President offered DACA an exchange for the money, the
financing to build the wall with a couple of other
chain migration and merit based migration. And here's the problem.
Your your friends on the Democratic side of the aisle.
They don't want a solution to this. They want to
they want to political politicize this, and they want to
use it as a wedge foren which is what they're doing.

(01:15:08):
Can pass it in the House. And if you're afraid
of philippuster, they left the Democrats filibuster. Let them do it.
Why are you afraid? It's a Republican majority. Put put
the proposal on the table and voted up or down.
At least we know where everybody stand. You gotta stand.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not disagreeing with you.
We'll take a break, we'll come back more with Chris
Farrell's Francisco Hernandez eight hundred nine for one. Sean told

(01:15:31):
free telephone number. You want to be a part of
the program, your calls coming up at the bottom of
the hour. Right as we continue our debate over immigration.
Francisco Hernandez is with US immigration attorney based out of Texas.
Chris Farrell is the director of investigations for Judicial Watch. UM.
We also have a systemic abuse of our asylum system.

(01:15:51):
And you know, people come in and they say they're
seeking asylum and really all they want to entry into
the United States. I'm not sure how you ever get
to the bottom of all of that. I think the
end of the day, it's really gonna come down to
America has to control its borders, Francisco. And once we
control the borders, then those people that are in true
need of asylum, those people that that you know, for

(01:16:13):
the number of people that we can allow into the country,
we will will create a better process. Certainly for that
we should certainly expedite that process. Nobody wants families separated,
but we have. But in many ways, in many ways,
we're not going to be able to do any of
this until the wall is built. The walls, the wall
is not gonna keep people from coming. We got to
a drift. The thing at the source. By the time

(01:16:35):
these folks make it to the border, each one of
them has already paid a smuggler about ten thousand dollars each.
The exploitation is horrible, no turning back, there is no
turning back, and it is it is a criminal element.
We know smuggling, well, we know what we know. How
Mexico treats illegal immigrants from mel Salvador and Central America, Nicaragua,

(01:16:55):
and they don't treat them, well, what do they do, Chris?
They throw them out of the country or they put
them in jail, including people. Guess what happens when you
subsidize something. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
So if you're gonna pour all sorts of blood, sweat
and tears taxpayer dollars into keeping this, uh, this loophole
open and encouraging people to exploit children as a border

(01:17:19):
crossing bargaining chips, and and that that's what they're minimized
and trivialized too by these criminal gangs. They use these
children as a as a chip, as a as a
as a way to get into the border. When you
subsidize that, when you promote it, guess what you get
more of and so the idea that oh, well will
just be nice for now, uh is actually a really

(01:17:43):
soft form of cruelty that further exploits children. You can't
you can't say oh well, give them a break, knowing
it's going to encourage more of this. And then if
it's simultaneously simultaneously claim that you're trying to protect children
and families, it doesn't work that way. You are killing
me softly. You don't like the asylum laws, don't call

(01:18:03):
him loopholes, change the law. It's the law. It's just,
but there's still judges and as this is political gamesmanship
and double talk, the reality is are indanger and talking
about a Capitol Hill process mired in money from the
American Chamber of Commerce and for all sorts of other

(01:18:24):
folks who who want cheap labor. That's a political process
that is separate and apart from the actual exploitation day
by day of young children and families who use the
kids as a chip, as a as A, as a TOLSA.
You're saying that these lobbyists, these interests, these private interests
have every Republican vote in their pocket or enough to

(01:18:45):
kill any legislation. Is that what you're telling us that
all the Republicans and pockets and interest figure out what
happens in the end. Maybe this is that I have
to end it there. Thank you both for being one
of us. Francisco Hernandez, chrisp Arrol eight hundred nine for one,
Shawn or toll free telephone number when we come back
wide open phones. Final half hour. As we continue on

(01:19:07):
a Tuesday, we have an amazing Hannity Tonight ninetiester on
the Fox News Channel. I'll tell you about that in
the next half hour. Alright now till the top of
the hour, toll free number eight nine one, Shawn, if
you want to join us. UM many of you have
asked on this program, well where's Jamie Dupree, And we've
explained it a number of times, but I know that
people aren't listening the full three hours of every day

(01:19:29):
and we need to take more attendance obviously. Uh. Jamie
has been a reporter on this program, is a big
part of our team here on the show, and he
is on the ground in Washington doing his thing every
single day and digging up all the stories, news information,
newsmakers and he just sends it email. Now because Jamie

(01:19:51):
had as I've described in the past, he lost his voice,
which for a guy in radio is a very hard,
painful and difficult thing to go through. He has been
through countless doctors and specialists. I mean, they have tried
basically everything they can possibly try, and um even botox

(01:20:11):
believe it or not, on his vocal cords at one
particular point that was giving him some hope. He has
a condition. It's diagnosed his tongue protrusion uh dystonia. It's
extraordinarily rare, and Jamie just never gave up working. He
just wasn't able to do his reports live and his
voice on our many Cox Media Group stations and markets

(01:20:33):
like Atlanta and Orlando and Jacksonville and Tulson, Dayton. And
he's always been such a good friend. We saw Jamie
all throughout the the primaries and into the general election. Anyway,
for a long time now, they've been working on a
way to try and help Jamie get his voice back,
if you will, and anyway, Cox Media Group has been

(01:20:54):
working with him the entire time. They found a company
in Scotland and they've been working on a project actually
bring Jamie's voice back for short news reports. And what
they have developed developed, if you will, as a prosthetic
voice that he's going to be able to use again
and file news for radio, and the voice will become

(01:21:16):
become known as sort of like Jamie dupre two point oh. Anyway,
it made its debut I believe was it Monday yesterday
on our affiliate in Atlanta, wsp UM and then and
and we just have a sampling of it. You can
go to Jamie's blog Jamie Dupree blog uh and find
out more about it yourself. But I'm supposed to play
a little bit of this Jamie two point oh. I'm

(01:21:38):
Jamie Dupree in Washington. This will not be just a
photo of as President Donald Trump gets ready for this
History Summit meeting, I think I'm very well prepared to.
The President says his goal is simple. They have to
d nuke. If they don't denuclearize, that will not be
accept to vote. For more go to my blog at
WUSB radio dot com. I mean it is I've known

(01:22:01):
one of the person in radio that has gone through this.
And when you do radio and you lose your voice,
it is usually a career death sentence. But let me
tell you why this is not the case with Jamie Duprete.
Number one. He's one of the hardest working men in radio.
He's one of the great reporters in d C. And

(01:22:22):
he it's just every single person that ever has come
into contact with this man loves this guy. Everybody has
wanted and been cheering on the sidelines and hoping that
they would be able to get that voice back and
fix the condition. And for him personally, it's been really
really tough. I'd see him and I'd ask him and

(01:22:43):
how you're doing, and and it's it's just been a
very long road for him. And it's just as a
tribute to the people that he works for a Cox
Radio and Media group, and uh, we just loved him
here on this program and we just wanted to give
a shout out to him and wish him all the
best now as he begins his new voice of his
it's what we're calling it, Jamie dupre two point oh.

(01:23:06):
And now he's going to be doing reports that way
on our affiliate stations, as I said, in Atlanta and
Jacksonville and Dayton and Tulsa and elsewhere. Um, And it's
just we couldn't be happier for him or prouder of
him and the hard work that he's continued to do
and the contributions he continues to make on this show
every day, even though I'd kind of misgiven him the

(01:23:28):
hard time that I used to give him um by
calling him out and trying to sway him one way
politically or another. And he just had this incredible way
about him where he would be able to navigate and
thread the needle and get the report out and shut
me up at the same time. But Jamie is is back.
It's Jamie two point oh. You can read more about
it on his blog. Will link it to my website,
Hannity dot com. It's Jamie dupree dot blog if you

(01:23:51):
want to go there and learn more about this incredible
process and this long, courageous journey that he's taken. All Right,
as promise, we're gonna get to the phones as we
start here with Mike's in Santa Barbara, California, my old
stomping grounds when I was totally poor and bankrupt. What's up, Mike?
How are you? Yeah? Yes, and we miss you, Thank you,

(01:24:13):
thank you. I just have a couple. By the way,
you remember a guy named Adrian Vans who used to
be a big radio guy and caller and then did
a show in Santa Barbara for a time. Remember him, Yes,
I recently got in touch with him. He's still very
good friends with Barry Farber and we've been communicating again.
Although now he lives in northern California. Wow wow, Yeah,

(01:24:35):
I haven't heard him down here for a while, so
I figured he had moved on. So so what's going on. Well,
I had a couple of quick points. I wanted to make.
The second one about the doscier and what I think
is the real reason it was made up. But the
first is I think you've been a little too generous
with the media in regard to the busted up blackberries

(01:24:57):
and the bleach bid advice. I don't think that was
an oversight. I don't think that was a mistake they made.
I think that was intentionally done to try to number one,
get you off the air and number two get you
mixed up with the more investigation. Oh no, no, you're
right a thousand percent that them. In other words, you're

(01:25:20):
saying that they're not stupid. They knew that I was.
They knew that I wasn't giving the advice. They knew
it was parodies satire. They knew that I will said
it's not going to work out for you, it's a
bad idea, and that I wouldn't do it, and you know,
ha ha kidding, and uh, if I were to tell them,
I I used my words very carefully, and you're saying

(01:25:42):
they understood completely, but they wanted to get me. They
wanted to use it as an opportunity to attack me. Yeah,
but they still exposed themselves Mike in the process. Because
if they're all outraged at the idea that I jokingly,
sarcastically would tell people, you know that Robert Mueller wants

(01:26:02):
their phones, and I said this maybe Mueller's witnesses. I
don't know. If I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton's
lead to lead all your emails and then acid wash
the emails and hard drives on the new phones, then
take your phones and bash him with a hammer too little,
it's bits, he pieces, use bleach bit, remove the SIM

(01:26:22):
cards and then take the pieces and hand it over
to Robert Mueller and say, Hillary, Rodham, Quinton Clinton, this
is equal justice under the law. How do you think
that would work out for everybody who Mueller's demanding their
phones of tonight and all their wants, everyone's cell phones.
My advice to them, not really kidding, bad advice, would
be follow Hillary's you know lead, acid wash them, bust

(01:26:45):
them up, take out the SIM cards and say here
little pieces. Here, Mr Muller, here, I'm following Hillary's lead. Now,
I think you're right, but I think it's both. I
think some were stupid. I think some of these people
are that dumb um because let me play some of
the media reaction to it. But it's very revealing that
they would be upset at the idea. I said it

(01:27:06):
was a bad idea. Pay close attention. Words matter, and
the idea that I would have ever suggested that to
anybody that Robert Mueller had demanded their phones of would
threw them over the top. And they're forgetting she did
it all. She did every bit of it. It's incontrovertible,
evidence overwhelming. It's not in dispute, it's irrefutable. Here's the reaction.

(01:27:30):
Sean Hannity is now literally telling potential witnesses and subjects
in the Miller probe to destroy the evidence and hammer
their phones into pieces. Handy's defenders may call that sarcasm
or poetic license. But words are words. Sean Handy lives

(01:27:51):
off his words, and we all know they have a
huge impact. If anyone actually does what Sean Hannity says there,
they'd be committing a crime. What Sean Hannity admitted to
and actually was enticing people to do and asking to
do was to destroy evidence, which is a violation of
the witness tampering statute. No responsible person on television, no

(01:28:14):
responsible so called journalists, should be advocating for people to
destroy evidence in a serious federal investigation. I don't think
that we'll see him prosecuted. Federal prosecutors give people a
very wide berth on First Amendment related conduct, and so
unless there's something more specific to to link it up,

(01:28:35):
I think that this will be what we often categorize
as awful but lawful conduct. Listen, if he's out there
advocating for mother's witnesses to obstruct justice, then maybe the
mothers to speak to him and ask him where the
idea comes from. Have he spoken to the President about this?
Did the President tell you to say this? Knowing Mueller,
I think he's not going to light that fire under
someone who who gets free airtime every day but one angle.

(01:28:58):
One angle would be to say, yeah, look I'm going
to I'm going to a judge and I'm gonna have
you see. I'm gonna have you see and assist this
activity on national television. Secondly, I want to talk to
you and see if if Trump has gotten this idea
from you or vice versa. Now, number one, look at
the words they use here, Mike. They said I would
be advocating people to commit a crime, that I'm telling

(01:29:19):
people to destroy evidence in a serious federal investigation. It's
it's awful, but maybe lawful. And then uh, they go
on to say, you know, maybe Mueller needs to ask
him where did he get the idea from. Well, I
got the idea from me. It was all my idea.
And no, I didn't tell the president about it at

(01:29:39):
all at any point. I don't even know if he
heard about it. But the point is simple is that
they thought this was a crime, destroying evidence in a
serious federal investigation. All happened. Hillary did it all. So
I think there's a level of stupidity on their part
and gullibility on their part. But yeah, is there a

(01:30:01):
part they want me off the air? Uh, Mike, you
have no idea, how badly they want me off there.
They're spending millions to destroy the show. Millions. Yeah, I
think I think they definitely knew that you were kidding,
and they just wanted to make trouble for you. But anyway,
I had a second point about the dossier and why
that came about. I believe because they made the dossier.

(01:30:25):
But the but the thing is this, they thought they
had the election in the bank. They didn't need that
dossier for the election by any stretch of the imagination.
They figured, number one, they didn't like Trump and his
crowds chanting lock her up. And they figured that once
the election was over and they won, they were going

(01:30:47):
to use that dossier to arrest Trump. And because they
had control over the Justice Apartment and the FBI, no
one would be the wiser. Look, I can tell you
that everybody thought they were getting away with this. You know,
all this two goes into another crime that she committed,
and that is, you know, if if Russia collusion is

(01:31:10):
part of it, I'm look at where the money came
from Hillary, and the d n C controlled Hillary, she
Hillary controlled their finances. They funnel the money through a
law firm. Law firm then uses the money, so they're
hiding it in terms of reporting. Uses the money. Then
higher Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS hires a foreign national, a

(01:31:32):
foreign national then uses Russian sources, even government sources, and
puts together a dossier. Then of course Fusion GPS pedals
it to the gullible news media. Nobody verifies, nobody corroborates it,
and then Christopher Steele has to, under threat of perjury,
admit that he never corroborated it, that maybe it's fifty
fifty true. Who knows fifty fifty I don't. I don't know,

(01:31:54):
because he was facing a possible perjury charge if he
said otherwise. And then of course we to affise a
court that we didn't present. We presented it as gospel truth.
They used to up a person authentification here by using
Michael Izikoff, who same source was Christopher Steele, and they
presented it as they were independent sources. And then the

(01:32:15):
judges were never told Hilly were repaid for it, and
they were never told the FBI didn't verify or corroborated.
You know, all of this happened. All of these things
are outrageous and far worse than anything that's even ever
been alleged as it relates to Trump and your news
meeting has been Philly feeding you a diet of lies
now for going on eighteen months. You know, why do

(01:32:36):
you think another reason why they're all focused on immigration
is because they don't want to dare go near the
Inspector General report because that proves they were wrong from
the beginning on Hillary and that they never ever did
their journalistic work in terms of following that story. So
why would they want to highlight that? All right, Mike,
thank you for a good call, my friend. We appreciated

(01:32:56):
eight hundred nine four one, Shawn, if you want to
be a part of the program. Gary is in Sacramento.
What's up? Gary? How are you? How are you doing?
My Irish American brother from what's up? My friend? How
are you back? Could we've been at the Irish and
you can tell just twenty five years I've been out
of Ireland actually every weekend talking to the family. I

(01:33:16):
believe it. But yeah, I think President Trump is an
absolute genius. I think President Trump is just doing an
absolute fantastic job. Keeps going, don't stop? All right, Well,
we're gonna try, I promise and you know, we're trying
to get to the truth unpeeled the onion, and we've
gotten far. But this is really only the beginning of
the processes I've been saying. And now now we're going

(01:33:38):
to corroborate all this. Now we're gonna now the people
that have can have have shown this bias, abused their power,
that involved in the corruption. Now they've got to answer
questions and potentially be facing some legal jeopardy themselves. Interesting
that the way they treat Hillary, she gets the kid
glove treatment and I meanwhile him gets the sledge hammer treatment.

(01:34:01):
Every day over nothing. Alright, Hannedy. Tonight, we have an
amazing show, explosive hearings. I know probably most of you
working you didn't get a chance to see it. Will
highlight all of it tonight at nine we'll show you
Trey Goudy and Jim Jordan's and Bob Goodluck and others.
We get reaction. We have Rudy Giuliani is on tonight,
Andrew McCarthy, Sarah Carter, also Greg Jared joins us tonight

(01:34:25):
and uh Wheel debate immigration and this d v R.
Hannity nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel. We'll see
you then. Thanks for being with us back here tomorrow.

All Episodes

Let's Fix The Real Problem - 6.19

Episode Transcript

The Sean Hannity Show News

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Let's Fix The Real Problem - 6.19

Episode Transcript

The Sean Hannity Show News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes