Best of Hannity: The Mueller Report Was Awful

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Finally, the Special Council investigated a number of links or
contacts between the Trump campaign, officials and individuals connected with
the Russian government during the two sixteen presidential campaign. After
reviewing these contacts, the Special Council did not find any
conspiracy to violate US law involving Russian linked persons and

(00:25):
any persons associated with the Trump campaign. So that's the
bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas,
hundreds of warrants, and witness interviews, the Special Council confirmed
that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with

(00:45):
the two sixteen presidential election, but did not find that
the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those efforts.
All right, That was the Attorney General in his press
conference with Rob Rosenstein there as well earlier today and
from the Muller report, the investigation did not establish members

(01:07):
of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government and its election interference activities. I earlier read the
statement from the President's attorneys, Jay Sekulo and Rudy Giuliani.
One of them joins me right now, Jay Secular, also
the Chief Council for the American Center for Law Injustice.
You know, I read the whole thing. I mean I

(01:29):
suffered through it because it was monotonous, And well, why
don't I just let you explain your take on it
at this point, because you couldn't cooperate any more than
you did. Even Mueller acknowledged that they had pretty much
all the answers they needed. What's up to me? This
is now dead except for Congress needing to cling onto

(01:51):
something because they hate Trump so psychotically. Well, you've heard
Thomas mc nadler's press conference. I mean it was deflated.
They are deflated. The fact of the matter is, the
basis upon which this inquiry began was allegations of collusion
or conspiracy between the Russian government and Russian agents and

(02:13):
members of the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign and
everybody found there were no such activities none. That was
the conclusion, no collusion. Then with obstruction, they go through
two hundred pages of recitations of law in fact to
conclude that they can't make a determination that the president
in fact violated the law. That's what it says, and everyone,

(02:36):
I'm interesting to watch someone to spin on some of
these networks. That's what it says, and therefore they make
no conclusion except to say that we're not saying the
president violated the law. But if you didn't violate the law,
then guess what. This is a declination letter. If they
had an obstruction case they would have put forward. They
did not. They Look, we all know if Muller had it,

(02:58):
he would have run with it. And you're right, it
is a declination letter. U. Now they come up though,
with their ten possibilities. And you know, I actually predicted
this last night on TV that they'd say, well, the president, uh,
he hoped that that General Flynn wasn't in trouble, he
wouldn't get in trouble. Well, General Flynn still got in trouble.
Well he wanted a fire Muller and and he told

(03:21):
Don McGain, I'm like, what I relevance is that he
has the power to fire anybody wanted two In this
case he didn't, but he didn't. Of course he had
the concerto. He did not. So when you go through
each of these, it ends up with the same conclusion
and that is no legal violation. You know, at the

(03:42):
end of the day, when you think of all the time, money, effort,
put into this thing. And when we now have four
instances the FBI investigation, we learned with the recently released
closed door testimony struck in page they revealed something I've
found fascinating, which was that the FBI had no power
to make any decisions as it related to Hillary Clinton's

(04:03):
investigation because those decisions were being made by the Attorney General,
Loretta Lynch, the same person that was telling James Comey,
it's a matter, it's not an investigation and met with
Bill Clinton on the tarmac and Phoenix. So we have
we have fifty three more of those to come. But
I look at that and I'm like, wow, that was

(04:26):
never fully investigated. As a matter of fact, it looks
like that investigation was rigged. I mean, I'm want to
go through with you a couple of the key because
people are no one. A few people can read four
hundred paces. Okay, I did, so let me go. I'm
gonna do this with you tonight. But I think this
is important to the people understand. Page two. The investigation
did not establish the members of the Trump campaign coordinated

(04:46):
with the Russian government in its election interference activities. Page
one eighty seven, same kind of thing. Page one eighty one.
The investigation did not establish that the contact has god
an Volume one, which is all of the clusion issues
amounted to an admit it to commit the eolation of
any federal law. Okay, that's that's I'm only in page now,
I'm going to go to the next one. It was
also page one and two in the summary. The investigation

(05:08):
did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired
to coordinated for the Russian government in its election interference activities.
It page nine. The evidence was not sufficient to support
criminal charges and guarding a Trump tier meeting. Here we
go again on page nine, and our evidence about the
June ninth meeting and the Wiki releases of hack materials
was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign finance violation.

(05:31):
I could go on and on. The office is not
uncovered evidence that Paul Mataford brought the Ukrainian peace Plan
to the offension of the president. Will the administration, I mean,
on and on it does you know? Let me then
focus on where the meeting is on here because it's
so declarative, and then it says, well, it was very
interesting because both Rod Rosenstein, the Office of Legal Counsel,

(05:53):
joining the Attorney General on the issue of obstruction that
Muller left to them and had he had the evidence.
You know, in most cases JAF, they investigate somebody they
don't have the evidence to indict and bring that case forward.
You don't hear about all the background noise that they
looked into. But that's not the case here. And every

(06:15):
single thing that I read was, Okay, we know this already.
We know the president invented. We know the President was angry.
We publicly called it a witch hunt. He publicly hoped
that that Lieutenant General Flynn wouldn't get in trouble. He
openly said that probably Muller should be fired, and Rosenstein
and Jeff Sessions, he was not shy about expressing that.

(06:38):
For example, we do know that Rod Rosenstein and others
talked about they talked about wearing a wire secretly against
the president. We know they talked about invoking the twenty
fifth Amendment, but they didn't do those things. So those
are words versus actions. Now as it relates to law,
that's a there's a great distinction there. Yeah, let me

(07:00):
give you another bit of reality news. House Majorities Leader
Stenny Hoyer, based on what we've seen today. That's talking
about after the enforcement out going forward on impeachment is
not a worthwhile. It's not worth while at this point.
Dirry Frank, Leader's an election in eighteen months, and the
American people will make a judgment. Well, I mean that
the victory right there, Ye sums up the victory pretty

(07:21):
much in full. You know, I do worry about a
double standard here because there are really serious issues that
if we don't get to the bottom of. I'm worried
about our constitution, equal justice under the law, equal opplication
of our laws. And we do have a lot of evidence.
We know that Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act. We
know even James Comey acknowledged he had top secret classified

(07:44):
information on that private server in a mom and pop
shop bathroom closet called Platte Rivers Network. And we do
know that when she was subpoena in thirty three thousand
emails were deleted, the hard drive was bleach bit erased,
and devices were broken up with hammers and sim cards
were removed. Now I watched what's more important than all

(08:05):
of that? In my mind? Okay, how did this investigation start?
Tell me what started this investigation? When did it starts?
That's exactly right. More important than all the Hillary Clinton
stuff is this issue. Americans were surveiled through FICCE warrants,
which resulted in an operation called Operation Cross Fired Hurricane,
which became an inspiring, as the Attorney General said on

(08:27):
a political campaign, a big deal that morps into an obstruction,
into a collision in query or conspiracy inquiry that morphed
into an obstruction. Equerry, you got to find out how
this started, because that's the outrage to the Constitution. John
Solomon hinted last night that this investigation did not start

(08:48):
on the purported date of July thirty first, twenty sixteen,
as we believed up to this point. He thinks it
started months and months earlier. Is there any evidence to
that as of now, I don't know about evidence. I
know that when this started it was laborcross Hurricane they
created there. In my mind, that's a line out of

(09:09):
Jumping Jack Twice. By the way, Well theyred there. I
think they're born them across Rider. I think you. I
think they've started their own crossfire Hurricane here, and I
think this Attorney General will get to the bottom line.
What about the issue, though there's other issues involved here.
If we really cared about collusion. Number one, we have
evidence that Ukraine. Ukrainian officials are admitting publicly that they

(09:32):
tried to interfere in our elections and are willing to
provide evidence. Nobody seems interested. We also have this whole
issue of this this bought and paid for phony dossier.
According to testimony of Bruce Or, everybody was warned that
it was tainted that Christopher Stile hated President Trump. Christopher
Stile does not stand behind his own dossier anymore. In

(09:52):
an interrogatory in Great Britain, we know that Hillary paid
for it. None of that was told the Fizer court.
So wouldn't that mean in these FIS applications that they
committed fraud on a court. That's why the investigation of
what transpired here is absolutely critical and we have to
get to the bottom of it. I believe this Attorney
General will. Do you believe as I believe, that the

(10:13):
phony Russian dossier was used as the insurance policy to
destroy a duly elected president, to attempt to destroy him.
I think that was the attempt. It did not. I
think there was there was insurance policies in place on
multiple fronts that we're not cast in, so to speak.
But John, I think it raises a very serious legal
issue as to what really is at stake here and

(10:36):
what's really at stake here, is something horrible happen. No
other president should have to go through this ever again. Period.
This would be you know, having followed these this case
which ninety nine point nine percent of the media went
in one direction and they lied every night for two
two and a half years, collusion, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia. Well,
now we've had the fourth confirmation that there never was

(10:58):
any Trump Russia collusion. We had the nine month FBI report,
the House Intel report, the Bipartisan Senate report. Nothing. Everyone
is a tonorated to president. But on the other hand,
we do see a rigged, rigged investigation for Hillary with
real evidence. We do see that a phony, unverified Russian

(11:19):
dossier bought by Clinton using a foreign national with funneled money,
was used to deny an American citizen his constitutional rights,
and it also allowed the opposition party to spy on
the Trump campaign during the election. On top of Stefan
Holper looking into Papadopoulos and Page in Clovis. Look, this

(11:42):
matter has to be investigated significantly seriously and with an
eye towards what the Constitution requires in mandates. I think
Bill barb with our question, is going to do that.
He has said it. He keaps spying on a campaign seriously,
he said it is a big deal. I think you've
seen the leadership from him time and time again over
the last seven months, and I think they'll continue to

(12:03):
see that. Here's what we have outstanding, fifty three closed
door testimonies we haven't seen. We also have the Attorney
General mentioning that there was spying and that a full
investigation into this whole issue will take place. Then we
have the Inspector General Horowitz report on abuse. We expect
that report in May. Then we have John Uber he's

(12:26):
looking into leaking. We'll get that report. Then we also
the President. In the last interview I had with him,
he will make available to the public the Phis applications.
He'll also the three zero two is the Gang of eight.
All this information will be public. I know a lot
based on my sources what we will find out. And
there is a real abuse of power here. Knowing the

(12:49):
media and they seem to now be pushing towards either
getting his taxes or hanging on to this to the
very last moment and beginning impeachment proceedings, which I think
are but they might not. So I want to I
want to say something on that, Sean, I mean, steady
Hoyer's statement is not an accident. This is a Democratic
majority leader, okay, and based on what we've seen today,

(13:11):
going for an impeachment is not with while at this time,
very thankly there's an election in eighteen months of the
American people and make a judgment that's about as good
as it's going to get from them. I think this
issue is dead and done. Yeah, in terms of the
presidents are trying to hang in there, but they know
it and it's it's going very quickly. Noah, Well, I
will say this, I know how hard you worked. I

(13:32):
actually think this case was won by not allowing after
all that you turned over and allowing everybody to testify
and no executive privilege ever and vote that you know,
I think that allowing the president to speak to this
special counsel with the record of setting up perjury traps
would have been a mistake. Well, I want to let

(13:54):
you do that. I wouldn't let anybody else, I mean,
no lawyer worth assault would have allowed that. All right,
Jay Sekulo, Attorney for the President. Thanks for me one.
We'll see you on Hannity tonight, nine Eastern. We have
Greg Jarrett's reaction, David Shon's reaction. We'll take a quick break,
come back, we'll continue. Hey, kids, be sure and check
out Santa Cast, the new hilarious holiday podcast with Santa.

(14:17):
It's the most wonderful time of the year, but that
can be the toughest time of the year for Santa
Clause and this year feels different. Santa feels a little
bitut of the loop, like he's missing something. So we
go straight to the source and starts calling well you
the kids from all around the world, to reconnect and
find out what you really want out of this holiday
season and why. So listen to Santa Cast on the
iHeartRadio app, on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

(14:40):
We can talk about the Democrats and I know this
is they're They're trying to reinvigorate the impeachment push of theirs.
I'm gonna tell you right now, it's all gonna die.
Lannie Davis is out there offering Michael Cone of filling
the redactions and the Muller report didn't just make a

(15:00):
criminal referral, but the day that Lannie sat behind him
when he was after he'd already been sentenced, didn't. Now
he has another criminal What is this guy doing? How
many times is he gonna, you know, put this guy's
life on the line, Maxie Waters. Now the big thing
is to attack the Attorney general's integrity. Oh, they loved

(15:23):
him before. And Democrats they want to hear from Mueller.
They want Muller to discredit bar and the attorney What
you can't get around what this report says. You can't
get around four now, four independent investigations coming to the
same conclusion. And by the way, the Obama administration spying

(15:45):
scandal just got a lot worse because the Mueller report
concludes that Carter Page was innocent, So that means they're
in more trouble. And by the way, the prosecution of
Julian Assange, it's interesting how they actually recognizing this report
that Assange he basically say he is a journalist, that
he's protected as long as he's not involved in whatever

(16:08):
he's reporting, if he's not involved in quote stealing it, Well,
that's right out of the Pentagon papers. You'll continue, all right,
twenty five to the top of the hour. Twenty two months. Well,
this is now the fourth fourth separate investigations clearing Trump
of Trump Russia Russia campaign collusion, even the Special Council,
the FBI, the House Intelligence Committee, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee,

(16:33):
all powerful special counsel. Now the latest filled with investigators
who were big time Democratic donors, including the former lawyer
for Hillary Andrew Weissman, the pit bull who was at
Hillary's victory party. Twenty two months, twenty eight hundred subpoenas,
five hundred search warrants, how many pre dawn raids with

(16:57):
guns and people's faces, two and thirty court orders, and
interviews with approximately five hundred people. Quote from the Muller report.
The investigation did not establish the members of the Trump
campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government and its
election interference activities. No one inside the Trump campaign conspired

(17:18):
or coordinated with the Russian government. The very lie that
has been pedaled now for well over two years, two
and a half years, hysteria, breathless coverage, tinfoil had conspiracy
theories by the Democratic Party and the rage hate Trump
media mob working in unison, slander, besmirchment, NonStop attacks. Well,

(17:42):
now we'll impeach him over this, that's what we're gonna
do with We'll go right back to But but it
was bar Bar's fault, Barr and Rosenstein, they just they
just cleared him of the obstruction issues. Okay, Well, if
that's your if we're gonna have equal justice to the law.
This is what the media doesn't understand. They've been wrong

(18:03):
the whole time. We've been right. We've assembled the team,
we're going to introduce two of them in a second,
and we've been able to determine that the investigation into
Hillary's email server was rigged. It was fixed. Even struck
in Page recognized it was rigged, and it was run
right out of the office. They say of the Attorney
General Lauretta Lynch, what did she know? When did she

(18:24):
know it? The one who wouldn't even call Hillary's investigation
an investigation, she called it a matter. And then, of course,
meeting with Bill Clinton just days before the decision is
made on the tarmac in Phoenix, hoping, I guess, talking
about grandchildren for nearly an hour, and then the same
person struck in Page says she was making all the decisions,
and we already know she's not going to be indicted,

(18:46):
and we know that she had top secret classified marked
as such information on that secret server. That's a violation
of the Espionage Act eighteen Usc. Seven ninety three. So
there's an underlying crime. And then the issue of intent.
All the intent was to get rid of the evidence.
That's why you delete thirty three thousand emails, acid washer

(19:09):
hard drive would bleach bit and then of course bust
up your devices in case any of the emails are
on there, an aid due with hammers, remove the sim cards,
So that's a big part of it. Then of course
we've got Hillary Hillary Rodham. Clinton's bought and paid for
Russian dossier full of lies leaked to the American people

(19:29):
through their media allies Corn and Iszikov and the Washington Post.
Why so it would impact the votes with Russian lies.
And then of course it's used to bludgeon an American
citizen as Feiser fraud is committed, and they present this
phony dossier that everyone was told was never verified, corroborated,
put together by somebody who himself doesn't stand by the dossier,

(19:52):
Christopher Steele, using funneled money through a law firm to
an op research firm out to a foreign national. It
together and then it's used as a basis of a
phisal warrant denying an American citizen as constitutional rights, but
more importantly as a backdoor into all things the Trump campaign.
And we had other spying as the recruitment of Stefan

(20:14):
Helper who goes after Papadopolis Page and Sam Clovis, Yeah,
we had spies in the Trump campaign. And then you
add to that that whole mess that they have, or
then they have their insurance policy, the very same people
involved in rigging the Hillary investigation up. The insurance policy
was to bludge in Trump with a hoax, a conspiracy

(20:35):
with the willing accomplices in the media. We're gurgitating every lie,
every minute of every day. And now we have fifty
three previously the secret undisclosed, closed door testimonies we will
get a hold of. We have Newness and his criminal referrals.
We have the Inspector General his investigation into abuse. That's

(20:59):
a slam dun case. Then we have John Hooper and
his report on leaking coming. We have the Attorney General
pledging that he himself will get to the bottom of
all of this misconduct and spying that went on in
the Trump administration. And of course we have the gold standard,
the President telling me he will release the FISA applications.

(21:19):
The three zero two is the Gang of Eight information,
basically an illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and framed
Donald Trump the Russia hoax. Greg Jarrett is with us.
That's the name of his number one best selling book.
He's been proven right all along, as well as David
Shown Criminal Defense, Civil Liberties Attorney. I've read I actually

(21:40):
read the whole thing today, and you know, I'm reading
this stuff on the obstruction part, and I'm thinking, boy,
if you have to stretch this far that Donald Trump
got mad and wanted it at times to fire Rosenstein,
Sessions and Muller but didn't do it, how do you
you know? It's just like they wanted to tape the

(22:01):
president secretly. They didn't do it, but they said it.
They wanted to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment, they said it,
they didn't do it. So they want to say obstructed
on something that he thought about or discussed doing but
didn't do. Can that ever rise to the level of obstruction?
Greg Jariff, No, absolutely. I mean, we are not the
thought police, we are not the discussion police. We our

(22:23):
democracy and the criminal Coats says you have to engage
in overt acts, and obstruction of justice is a very
specific statute. It says you must prove a corrupt purpose.
What is that It identifies the five things that constitute
a corrupt purpose a lie, threat, bribe, concealing evidence, or

(22:47):
destroying documents. Now that report found that Trump committed none
of those things, which is why there was insufficient evidence
to prove obstruction. And on collusion, yes, I've read the
entire report myself. All Mueller had to do is read
my book, and in fact, the section on collusion looks

(23:08):
like it comes right out of my book. I've never
read such an exculpatory document. So four square, the president
did nothing wrong. But that will not sean stop democrats
and the media from howling impeachment at the top of
their lungs. And I warn them if they proceed with that,

(23:31):
they do so at their own political risk. It will backfire. Well,
it's a dead issue with the American people that I
can tell you. I mean, if Muller had it, he
would have brought it. And you know, it was a
declarative statement. You know, either you have the evidence, you're
either going to indict or you don't. And if you don't,

(23:55):
usually you don't hear about the evidence because it wasn't
rising to the occasion. In this case, David, it's very different,
I guess because it's the president, right, Yeah, that's right. Listen,
you've been right one hundred percent of the time with
this thing. Right earlier in the week in predicting what
the report would say, and Gregg's write about this impeachment
backfind But one thing for sure, anybody reads this report

(24:15):
and thinks impeachment, they're out of their mind, and they
had certainly don't have the country's interests in mind. The
piece reads in many ways like a gossip piece or
certainly a political piece. Never before do you see a
decision not to prosecute Couched in these terms. Well, well,
we would say if we had evidence for sure that
he didn't commit a crime, and we're not saying that
that's absolutely nonsense. But you knew when he picked it

(24:37):
two and Mueller picked the team that he did, that
they were political animals, rabid anti trumpers, and that they
would put disparagery marks in there to justify themselves and
for the press and Congress to pick up on. But listen,
it's all a forest now. They want to blame Bar. Well,
how about Rosenstein. That was their man. He's the one
who wouldn't you wanted to use the twenty fifth Amendment
to get rid of the president. They loved him, then

(24:58):
they didn't want him fired. Steena said, no evidence of
obstruction of justice, So don't put it on bar You've
got the report. Now this should be put to bed.
Let's get on with policy. Well, I mean, we're going
to get on with policy, but I think we have
other issues that have to be dealt with with all
due respect, David, because they did rig the investigation into Hillary,

(25:19):
she did commit a real crime. We now have overwhelming,
incontrovertible evidence that top secret classified marked as such, we're
on that private email server, so that would be an
underlying crime eighteen USC. Seven ninety three. Then we also
have evidence when she deleted the subpoena emails and acid
washed the hard drive with bleach, bidden broke up the

(25:42):
devices and remove the SIM cards. Well, that would be
evidence of intent. What is the intent to eliminate the
evidence of the crime of violating the Espionage Act, and
then those people that rigged that investigation should also be
held accountable. Those that allowed an Americans to lose their
constitutional rights and to spy on the Trump campaign based

(26:03):
on a phony, unverified, bought and paid for dossier, Well,
they lied to the FISA court and committed a fraud.
Greg Jared, I think that has to be settled. And
then yeah, go ahead. I agree. The Russia hoax has
been exposed for what it is. The witch hunt is
now officially ended, and now the real investigation, Sean, as

(26:28):
you stay, should begin in earnest. It's been going on
with Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General. But now that Attorney
Barr has this behind him, I think he will look
quite seriously at the acts of corruption and illegality that
we're perpetrated by people at the FBI like James Coming,
Andrew McKay, Peter Struck, Lisa Page, and also look at

(26:51):
the lies peddled by John Brennan, the former CIA director
and James Clapper, the former DNI, and they were also
in on this hoax. Brennan began working on the Russia
collusion hoax beginning at the end of two thousand and fifteen,
throughout two thousand and six. This is funny you're saying this,

(27:13):
because now everybody is saying and even Juliani said, and
others have been saying, this started way before the official
start date of July thirty first. John Solomon said it
last night on TV with US Greg And so what
does that mean? When did it start? It started the
end of two thousand and fifteen when Brennan began soliciting

(27:36):
principally from the British, but other American allies information surveillance, information,
electronic information, you mean, stuff that they couldn't legally get
in his position, a CIA directly A cannot monitor on
spy on Americans. So he varied. So they farmed it out.

(27:57):
They subcontracted out what it is illegal to our friends
in Great Britain and Australia and maybe Italy, right, and
they reversed source the information spying on Americans through foreign sources.
All of this will be coming out in the months ahead. Well,
once that happens. I got to believe that's part of

(28:17):
the reason these countries are begging the President not to
release the PHISUS, the three O two's, the Gang of
Aid Information and others, right, because you're convinced that it'll
expose our allies as doing the work for our intelligence
community that is illegal for them to do themselves. I
absolutely believe that. Is that a crime to outsource something

(28:39):
like that if your true purpose was to spy on Americans? Absolutely,
it's a crime. What about the three hundred and fifty
percent increase and unmaskings that took place in twenty sixteen,
an election year also a crime? You know, it's a
crime to unmask the name of someone without a legitimate purpose,

(29:00):
and then it's an additional felony to leak it to
the media. And that's part of the criminal referral by
Radcliffe and Newness and Meadows and others, and I you
know that's going to be explosive when that comes out,
and think about to think about the perversion of the
FISA court process. They should be livid and the American

(29:21):
people should have gotten real eye opening on how secretive
that process is and how dangerous it is. The only
thing I would modify about what Gregg said is I
believe one witch hunt has ended. I don't think the
witch hunt has ended. This. Jerry Nadler is absolutely out
of his mind. Number, he has hired two investigators now
who have written treatises on how badly they hate President
Trump and why he should be impeached in committed obstruction

(29:41):
of justice without any evidence and without the law on
their side. So I'm afraid, you know, the press is
picking up on everything, as we knew they would. So
today they're going to be talking about the president said
this is going to ruin my presidency having Muller appointed.
And then if you read the report, what he went
on to say was every time they tie a president
up with this kind of thing, policy gets lost, it

(30:01):
ruins the presidency. Look at what this president is accomplished,
especially in the area of foreign affairs, notwithstanding having both
arms tied behind his back, being under the gun in
the media every single day. Now he's exonerated in this report,
and you can have another witch on starting with Jerry
Nadler and the rest of his crew at Congress. It's horrible.
Well I think it's horrible, but I also think once

(30:22):
we get to the real investigation, everything's going to boomerang
back and they've got themselves a lot of problems here. Well,
you're on the winning streak. Let's keep keep it up.
I will take a quick break, we'll come back and
we'll have more of our coverage. We're going to replay
Bob Barr William Barr rather than Bob at the top
of the hour if you missed him this morning at

(30:42):
nine thirty, and then at more of our coverage continue
because what he said and the way he described it
was very powerful, which is why so many liberals right
now are clamoring that he get fired. Glad you want
us news round up information overload hour. Look, a lot
of you working a lot, are you busy? Nine thirty
the Attorney General with Rod Rosenstein with him, and of

(31:03):
course with consultation of the Special Council and the Office
of Independent Council. Yeah, they made the decision because there's
no evidence that rises to any level of obstruction. Many
of you missed it. I want you to hear it
in full. And this is the Attorney General bar from
earlier today. The Special Council's report states that his quote

(31:27):
investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign
conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election
interference activities. I am sure that all Americans share my
concern about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere
in our presidential election. As the Special Council report makes clear,

(31:48):
the Russian government sought to interfere in our election process.
But thanks to the Special Council's thorough investigation, we now
know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did
not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump Campaign,
or the knowing assistance of any other American for that matter.

(32:09):
That is something that all Americans can and should be
grateful to have confirmed. First, the report details efforts by
the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties
to the Russian government, to sew social discord among American
voters through disinformation and social media operations. Following a thorough

(32:30):
investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Council brought charges
in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for
their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending
and the individual defendants remain at large, But the Special
Council found no evidence that any American, including anyone associated

(32:54):
with the Trump campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government or the IRRA. In another way, the Special Council
found no collusion by any Americans in IRA's illegal activities. Second,
the report details efforts by the Russian military officials associated
with the GRU, the Russian military intelligence organization, to hack

(33:18):
into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals associated
with the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign. But again,
the Special Council's report did not find any evidence that
members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the
campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these

(33:40):
hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of
the Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking. The
Special Council's investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen
emails and documents on the internet. The Special Council found
that after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen documents

(34:02):
to entities that it controlled, dc leaks and goosafer two,
the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to wiki
leaks for publication. Wiki Leaks then made a series of
document dumps. The Special Council also investigated whether any member
or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played

(34:25):
a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication
of these types of material would not be criminal unless
the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. After
finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Council's report
goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President

(34:48):
could amount to obstruction of the Special Council's investigation. As
I addressed in my March twenty fourth letter, the Special
Council did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead,
the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses
potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements

(35:10):
of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and
legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with
the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the
Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed
by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that

(35:30):
the President committed an obstruction of justice offense. Although the
Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the
Special Council's legal theories and felt that some of the
episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter
of law, we did not rely solely on that in
making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel's legal

(35:51):
framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence
as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusions.
In assessing the president's actions discussed in the report, it
is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump
faced an unprecedented situation as he entered into office and
sought to perform his responsibilities as president. Federal agents and

(36:14):
prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office
and the conduct of some of his associates. At the
same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media
about the president's personal culpability. Yet, as he said from
the beginning, there was in fact no collusion, and as
the Special Counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to

(36:38):
show that the President was frustrated and angered by his
sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled
by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless,
the White House fully cooperated with the Special Council's investigation,
providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing

(37:02):
senior aids to testify freely, and asserting no privileged claims,
and at the same time, the President took no act
that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents
and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether
the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non corrupt motives
weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a

(37:26):
corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. As you will see,
most of the redactions were compelled by the need to
prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court
orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing on ongoing
investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and

(37:47):
the Roger Stone case. These redactions were applied by Department
of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the
Special Counsel's Office, as well as the intelligence community and
prosecutors are handling the ongoing cases. The redactions are their
work product. No redactions done by anybody outside this group.

(38:09):
There were no redactions done by anybody outside this group.
No one outside this group proposed any redactions, and no
one outside the Department has seen the unredacted report, with
the exception of certain sections that were made available to
I see the Intelligence community for their advice on protecting

(38:29):
intelligence sources and methods. Consistent with longstanding executive branch practice,
the decision whether to assert executive privilege over any portion
of the report rested with the President of the United States.
Because the White House had voluntarily cooperated with a Special Council,
significant portions of the report contained material over which the

(38:51):
President could have asserted privilege, and he would have been
well within his rights to do so. Following by March
twenty ninth letter, the Office of the White House count
requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the
report in order to advise the President on the potential
invocation of privilege, which is consistent with longstanding practice. Following

(39:13):
that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of
transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would
not assert privilege over the Special Council's report. Accordingly, the
public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for
the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material
has been redacted based on executive privilege. In addition, earlier

(39:35):
this week, the President's Personal Council requested and was given
the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted
report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent
with a practice followed under the Ethics and Government Act,
which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an
independent council the opportunity to read the report before publication.

(39:58):
The President's Personal were not permitted to make and did
not request any redactions. In addition to making the redacted
report public, we are also working with Congress to accommodate
their legitimate oversight interests with respect the Special Council's investigation.
We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler

(40:18):
through this process, and we will continue to do so.
Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that
the publicly released report will allow every American to understand
the results of the Special Council's investigation. Nevertheless, in an
effort to accommodate Congressional requests, we will make available, subject
to appropriate safeguards, to a bipartisan group of leaders from

(40:42):
several Congressional committees, a version of the report with all
redactions removed except those relating to grand jury information. Thus,
these members of Congress will be able to see all
of the redacted material for themselves, with a limited exception
of that which by law cannot be shared. I believe
that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the

(41:06):
Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress
has for information regarding the Special Counsel's investigation. All right,
that was the Attorney General as nine thirty this morning
as he broke the news. We've now read through this report.
We'll have more on the other side. A huge Hannity tonight,
nine eastern on the Fox News Channel quick Break, Right back,

(41:26):
we'll continue as we continue with Attorney General bars comments
from earlier this morning, as he laid out why there's
nothing to indict, no obstruction, and no collusion, whether you
like it or not in the liberal media. Mister Attorney General,
we don't have the report in hand, so could you
explain for us the Special Council's articulated reason for not

(41:50):
reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it
had anything to do with the department's longstanding gits on
non inditing as sitting president, and you say agree with
some of his legal theories, what did you disagree with him? Honest,
I'd leave it to his description in the report, the
Special Council's own articulation of why he did not want

(42:11):
to make a determination as to whether or not there
was an obstruction of fence. But I will say that
when we met with him, a Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
and I met with him along with Ed O'Callahan, who
is the principal Associate Deputy on March fifth. We specifically
asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not

(42:32):
he was taking the position that he would have found
a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion,
And he made it very clear several times that that
was not his position. He was not saying that but
for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime.
He made it clear that he had not made the

(42:53):
determination that there was a crime. Given that, why did you,
mister Rosenstein field, the need you had to take it
to the next step to conclude that there was no crime,
especially given that DOJ policy, well the very prosecutorial function
and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to
convene grand juries, and the compulsory process that's involved there

(43:17):
is for one purpose and one purpose only. It's determined
yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal.
That is our responsibility, and that's why we have the
tools we have, and we don't go through this process
just to collect information and throw it out to the public.
We collect this information, we use that compulsory process for

(43:39):
the purpose of making that decision. And because the Special
Counsel did not make that decision, we felt the Department
had to. And that was a decision by me and
the Deputy Attorney General. Special Council indication that he wanted
you to make the decision or that it should be
left for Congress, and also, how do you respond to

(44:01):
criticism you're receiving from congressional Democrats that you're acting more
as an attorney for the president rather than as the
chief law offersman officer. Special Counsel. Mueller did not indicate
that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress.
I hope that was not his view, since we don't
convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.

(44:25):
He did not. I didn't talk to him directly about
the fact that we were making the decision. But I
am told that his reaction to that was that it
was my prerogative as Attorney General to make that decision.
Asked for Robert Mueller himself to testify. Robert Mueller remained
a Justice Department employee as of this moment. Will you

(44:46):
permit him to testify publicly to Congress rejection for Bob
Mueller personally testifying, the Stinney generals, other Democrats who have
questioned some of the process here, a Republican appointed judge
on Tuesday said, you have, hope created an environment that
has called a significant part of the American public to
be concerned about these redactions to clear the president on obstruction.

(45:07):
The president is fundraising off of your comments about spying,
and here you have remarks that are quite generous to
the president, including acknowledging his feelings and his emotions. So
what do you say to people on both sides of
the aisle we're concerned that you are trying to protect
the president. Well, actually, the statements about his sincere beliefs
are recognizing the report that there was substantial evidence for that.

(45:30):
So I'm not sure what your basis is for saying
that I am being generous to the president. He makes
an unprecedented situation. It just seems like there's a lot
of effort to say, to go out of your way
to acknowledge how this well is there is there another
precedent for it? No, but it's okay. So unpresidented as
an accurate description, isn't it. Yes, there's a lot of
public interest in the absence of the Special Council and

(45:50):
efforts of his team. Was he invited to joining up
with the podium? Why is he not here? This is
his report obviously that you're talking about, the day to
report he did for me. As the Attorney General, he
is required under the regulation to provide me with a
confidential report. I'm here to discuss my response to that
report and my decision entirely discretionary to make it public

(46:12):
since these reports are not supposed to be made public.
That's what I'm here to discuss. All right, quick break
right back, We'll continue. Then we'll have a debate on
the other side of it. Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillham,
And with respect to the breaking New York Times story
about about the White House and Justice Department. The only
collusion here is colluding on this. This is actual collusion.

(46:36):
By the way, occasion warding, what does collusion look like?
It looked at like the attorney general briefing, the Attorney
general's lawyer's briefing the president before Congress of the public.
Here's a different theory is that he spent the last
twenty years watching Fox News and he's become a real
Trump supporter and he's like everyone else in the admonistration.
I was asking, there's another explanation. Yeah, okay, but I
mean not saying you don't. I just think, you know,

(46:58):
if you look at his behavior, it is not that
of a geriatric It is that of a partisan. And
although we thought going into it that he's deeply conservative
as well, that he was very close to Trump, that
he was going to be a truck lackey of the president,
it turns out that this attorney general is he was

(47:20):
under oath. He said he wasn't going to talk about
the report till it comes out. So I think people
are confused at best confused. Why would you come out
and talk about a document and shape perspective of a
perspective on a document document that nobody has been able
to see what has changed in a week. The president
is the subject of the investigation, and honestly, I've never
heard of such a thing. It's a complete breach of president,

(47:43):
It's a breach of common sense, and indeed, it makes
Trump look blatantly guilty. We shouldn't take anything that Barr
says tomorrow. You said it exactly right at the open.
We shouldn't take anything that Barr says tomorrow as anything
other than performative coonery. We shouldn't take anything that the
president says tomorrow as anything other than spit. This seems
to me it's just analysis here, exactly like something Trump

(48:08):
would do is push someone out to brand it, then
rebrand it himself, and then the report comes out and
we have to go through all of it and do
our best to deal with it fairly, with every piece
of information. Painstaking. But Michael, it's also shortsighted. He again,
he does something once again that is going to scuff
up his reputations, actually his reputations, I mean the attorney

(48:31):
I'm talking about the attorney generals. Bar may be the
person ultimately responsible for a change in how we select
our attorney generals. And it seemed bizarre at this point. Luckily,
this president has a client attorney general clearly and a
very amped up, jacked up message operation. Sean Hannity said

(48:52):
two years ago that Richard Nixon wouldn't have had to
resign if he'd had Fox News. Actually think HARALDA said
it to Sean Hannity and they chuckled. That might be true,
because this conduct is as sort of impeachable looking if
you put it in a time capsule, as Nixon's conduct.
But when Nixon didn't have was an overdrive sort of

(49:13):
social media we now know, aided it, embedded by Russian
trolls and a news network dedicated to amplifying what is
a very subjective read of a report that, in the end,
if it exonerates them, why are they so upset by
all the details? All right, they have it more of
the media meltdown. I'll take it as a compliment because

(49:33):
we told the truth. It is amazing, it's so predictable.
It's everything I told you would happen yesterday happens. But
it's over, and they don't know yet that it's over
in so many different ways. Eight hundred and ninety four one.
Sean Tolfree telephone number. Now we played in the last
half hour the Attorney General, Bill Barr and he had
Rod Rosenstein right next to him, and the Office Illegal

(49:56):
Counsel in conjunction with with consulting the Special Counsel. Yeah,
they left it to them to decide unobstruction. And for
all the reasons that we've discussed earlier in the program,
today it's over. It doesn't matter what these people think.
None of these people care about real obstruction because like

(50:18):
they cared about I believe, every woman has a right
to be believed. I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe.
Then it's a democratic governor lieutenant governor in the state
or the Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Virginia, who is
accused of rape and violent sexual assault by two separate
individuals who told people at the time give compelling interviews

(50:42):
to Gail King of CBS, and all the I believers
are nowhere to be found. They don't care about real obstruction,
but with an underlying crime, which is this is the
biggest problem here. Biggest problem they have is that they
have no underlying crime. The president is totally incompletely exonerated.

(51:02):
The idea these ten items laid out in part two
of this you know waste monotonous, boring, dull, ridiculous report
that took two and a half years to put together,
is that they have nothing except in nuendo, which is
all they're left with and process crimes. Yeah, well I

(51:23):
conclude things. I've gotten things out of this and nobody
else seems to get. And you know what, they blow
up the most insignificant things, ignoring the biggest one is
that we are vulnerable as a country, which brings to
light the danger of what Hillary did by putting top
secret classified information on a mom and pop you know server,
and then yeah, that was a real violation, fell in

(51:45):
the Espionage Act. And then of course they rigged that investigation.
And then of course the intent destroying subpoened emails and
washing her hard drive and beating up her blackberries and iPhones. Yeah,
that was all that was. The intention was to destroy
the evidence. Slam dun case. Not one person in this
corrupt rage, hatred media mob dare bring that up because

(52:10):
they lose. But it's now now everything begins to go
back to what I've been saying. Anyway, joining us Now
we have Jonathan Gillham, former FBI agent, Federal Air Marshall,
author of Sheep No More. Danielle McLaughlin, attorney, constitutional expert.
Thank you both for being with us. When you get
to the bottom line and all of this, there is

(52:32):
no collusion, there is no obstruction, there is no case
for such, and now we have this is their last
gasp at hysterical and feigning coverage of moral outrage, which
we know is selective and phony. Jonathan. Yeah, and I
think you know. I watched your show last night on

(52:54):
Fox News, John, and one thing that really stood out
is I winners. I wanted to see how media was
spending certain things and how people were going to say stuff.
What you just brought up is something that's very important
is that throughout this entire time, you all have been
showing proof. You've been saying this. You know, these are
the examples of what happened and how this case should

(53:16):
have never gone forward with the fake dossier and the
fake evidence and all these other things. And it was
very important because last night was validating for you, and
today is validating for you. But what it showed me
was that when people on the right discuss and analyze this,
they do it with evidence, not with emotion. And that

(53:37):
is the biggest thing that you see today with all
those clips that you just played, is that it's a
hundred percent emotion. And these people are are being fed
their own information that they created and then they get
emotional about it. And it reminds me of when it's
what they've wanted and they put all their credibility, not

(53:57):
that they had any on the line, and they ran
with their sources. But when you get to the whole issue,
they've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion.
And even when the Muller reported with his partisan team
of hacks, I mean you could they're seething with hatred
and dying and wishing and hoping that they can nail
this guy, and they can't, you know. And when the

(54:18):
report has the state the investigation did not establish members
of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities, the case is over.
And then you say, well, the President wanted to fire Sessions,
and he wanted to fire Muller, and he wanted to
he wanted General Flynn not to get in trouble, and
you know, all of this Okay, Well, the Danielle you

(54:41):
also had people in the deep state that wanted to
wear a wire on the president and talked openly about it,
and wanted to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment and talked
openly about it. And then you have real evidence where
Hillary Clinton, you know, had her investigation rigged from the
get go and evidence of obstruction. The double standard is

(55:02):
nauseating in this country. Good afternoon, guys. You know, there
are ten instances in this report where the president is
alleged to have obstructed justice, and there are many more
where it's reported by the investigators that he tried and
failed because people around him decided that they weren't gone
to go along. I agree, you know, Robert Muller did
his job. Bill bar did his job. They have concluded

(55:25):
basically because the president, they've decided cannot be indicted for
a crime, which is DOJ guidance that there is not
a crime there. The answer here will be political, And
the way I think about it as this, would you
lose your job if you've done these things? I would
lose my job. This is a political thing. This is
I suspect there. Maybe if you've done what if you've
done what things, what done? What? There's an eternal investigation

(55:48):
that your job, and you do go out of your
way to destroy evidence. You lie to the American people,
which is what Sarah Sanders did when she talked about
that FBI agents all of a country were glad that
Jim Komi was was fine. By the way, No excuse me.
Every FBI agent I know, and Jonathan knows more than me.
None of them like what the likes of Comey Struck,

(56:09):
Paige McCabe and others did. None of them. But that's
not what Sarah said. She said that people had told
her that from the FBI, and that was a lie.
She liked it. How do you know, Wait a minute,
I'm hearing it from my FBI friends all the time.
As a matter of fact, I'm wearing an FBI pin
a lot of nights on TV because one of my
FBI buddies said, you know, thank you for sticking up
for the ninety nine percent of us that are honest

(56:30):
and decent and hard working and and take our job
seriously and we would never do what they did here.
I have alternate respect for any person in law enforcement.
I'm talking about Sarah sand it's lying about what a
purported You keep repeating it, but you know, but I'm
telling you, I'm hearing it everywhere from the same FBI agents,
Probably Jonathan, what do you hear from your FBI buddies.

(56:52):
It's still a lie because it's not don't see what
people are looking at when they're saying that somebody instructed justice.
There was nothing there. And if you're being an investigator,
if anybody else is being investigated and they didn't do
anything wrong, I would be telling people as well. As
a former FBI agent, I would tell people, don't cooperate,

(57:13):
go get an attorney. If somebody's trying to prove you
guilty of something that you didn't do and they're fabricating
evidence and the entire case is hinging on fake evidence,
I would say, get an attorney, don't cooperate, and then
if you get a chance to go out into the
media and stand up for yourself, I would say, do that.

(57:33):
And that is exactly what the Trump administration did. There's
no obstruction of justice because there was no justice. How
can you obstruct a fake investigation? There is a difference
between not cooperating and actively obstructing. An intent to cooperate
with a fake investigation. Why would operate with a fake
investigation if you had if you weren't conducting an investigation

(57:56):
as an agent, and you knew that someone was trying
to tell people to lie, was destroy only evidence, was
telling people to lie on other accounts? Would would you
go after that person for obstructing your investigation? Daniel I
would never investigate somebody unless, and this is where the
SBA works, unless we have probable cause to believe that
they're guilty. And in this case, there was no cart

(58:16):
probable cause. It was the sake piece of evidence that
was paid for by political operatives. I would never have
brought that investigation forward, Danielle. We know about Papadopoulos, we
know about the Australian ambassador, We know about the fact
that somebody connected to that campaign knew that Russia had

(58:39):
hacked the DNC and there was damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
That is probable cause. You cannot have foreign interference in
an election. And I want to say this again, I
accept the report as all Americans should. They did not
find criminal wrongdoing. This will become a political process, and
who knows what's going to happen. We saw what happened
with Bill Clinton, New Gingrich got over his skis, he

(59:01):
went too hot, and the Republicans lost the House. So
Democrats are going to have to decide what they do.
But when I see this stuff in writing, I just think,
if I had a job and I did all this stuff,
and I'm thinking about people at HANS, would you keep
your job on? This conversation that you're having with us
doesn't mean anything because it was a completely fake investigation.

(59:22):
Let me tell you something. If you were standing you
were really hungry, and you were standing unger an apple
tree that was swarming with worms, but there was one
small apple up on top of that tree, would you
even waste your time with that? No, because it's a
spoiled tree. And that's the way justice works. We don't
look at one thing that one person said and then
build a case around that. We look at the entire

(59:44):
case and we say, is their criminal activity going on here?
And one person having one meeting when they were drinking
does not make a case, right. But it was more
than that. Okay, there were people who had ties more intree.
I had been watching for you know, three years. Were
all of these things that happened in due time? It
was firing James Comy that got the Special counselor prosecutor

(01:00:05):
because the President reportedly, and this is in the report,
asked Jim Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn, to
go easy on Michael Flynn, because Michael Flynn, and he
was on tape, he was lying about his context with
the Russian ambassador during the campaign, and I think maybe
into the transition. So folks were worried that there was
an act. There was an actor who was getting rid

(01:00:26):
of people, who wasn't investigating his friends because and so
they thought there might be something there. Turns out there
was no connection between Russia and with lex and the
Trump campaign. They could not thread those dots. And I
said to anybody in media, anyone on the left who
was still banging the drum, the facts are there. You
have to live with that. Okay, we have to live
with us, and we have to go on. And I

(01:00:46):
guess all right, let me, let me, let me go on.
Then I'm just kidding anyway, thank you both. We'll have
We're going to lay this all out tonight because this
and it tears so predictable the media. This is going
to be fun because they can't handle the truth at all.
They can't admit they're wrong ever. All Right, that's going

(01:01:07):
to wrap things up at today. Full coverage of the
Muller Report tonight. Jay Sekulo, The Great One, Mark Levine,
Sarah Sanders, Devin Nouness, Sarah greg Ken Star, Alan Dershowitz,
also the media freak out. We've got it all covered
and what's to come we look into the future. They're
out of Trump collusion coverage. It's over. They lost. Do

(01:01:32):
you think is a story that's been uncovered in the
past two years that the entire Russia collusion narrative was
made up, that the FBI and the intelligence community and
the Department of Justice began an investigation against four American
citizens simply because they worked for the opposition political candidate,

(01:01:53):
that being Donald Trump. She is taking the FBI to
task for having given unlimited, unsupervised access to raw intelligence.
What used to look at in Google, telephone information, calls, texts,
you name it. Everything every nightmare everybody has of information

(01:02:15):
being collected by Big Brother. The FBI gave three private
contractors unlimited, unsupervised access to that. All right. That was
Sydney Powell on a radio show in New York and
also on Cheryl Atkinson's She has her Sunday show called
Full Measure. Sydney Powell is the author of the number

(01:02:37):
one runaway bestseller, Licensed to Lie, as you just heard,
and it exposes corruption in the Department of Justice, and
also senior policy advisor for America First. Peter Schweitzer joins us.
Remember when he wrote his book Compromised, and he talked
about James Comey. We're going to get into how did

(01:02:57):
Comey's net worth skyrock it so much? What is this
connection to Muller? What did they have with uranium one?
And we welcome you both our two Sean Hannity Show.
Thank you both for being with us. You know, Sydney,
I'm listening very closely to what you're saying. I'm going
to ask you a two part question. Where are the
FISA judges? When do we ever get to hear from them?

(01:03:18):
Because one thing I've learned in my life about judges,
they don't like being lied to. And obviously a fraud
on a spectacular level was perpetrated on them when the
bulk of the information presented to them was the Hillary
Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier that they swear

(01:03:39):
when they presented to the judges has been verified. They
purposely didn't expose Hillary as having paid for the document,
just a slight asterisk it might have a political taint.
What do you think those FISA judges are thinking today?
They should be absolutely outraged, Sean. I mean, if our one,
I would have already had everyone who signed the applications

(01:04:01):
in front of me and under an order to show cause.
While they shouldn't be held in contempt, but I imagine
they are awaiting the report of the Inspector General on
the FISA abuses. That's the only reason I can think
of that they have been completely silent. Now, these judges
are picked in secret by the Chief Justice in this

(01:04:21):
case it would be John Roberts, and they serve varying
amounts of time in terms of their term, and there
are a number of them. Correct, that's correct, And so
would it be something that they would be able to
follow up on if it's discovered, and which it will
be that they were that a fraud was perpetrated on them.

(01:04:41):
In other words, we now know that the bulk of
information used in the applications for FISA were based on
Hillary's bought and paid for Russian dossier, and the reason
it's unverifiable is its author, Christopher Steele under oath in
that interrogatory in Great Britain, says he doesn't even believe
his own dossier, has no idea if it's true at all,
maybe fifty fifty and that it was just raw intelligence

(01:05:05):
and that's what they signed off on. Yeah. I also
think Nelly Or and Glenn Simpson wrote about as much
of it as Christopher Steele did. If Christopher Steele actually
wrote any of it, yeah, well that's pretty unbelievable. All right.
Peter Schweitzer, great to have you back, and your book
Compromised has done extraordinarily well. And you give a lot

(01:05:25):
of detail about James Comey that we never knew before,
like his net worth skyrocketed over four thousand percent when
he left the DOJ in two thousand and five, returned
to the FBI in twenty thirteen. He made six point
one million dollars after Muller's FBI. After Muller's FBI granted
his employer, Lockheed Martin, the largest contract in history. Quote,

(01:05:47):
you call it a billion dollar boondoggle. I'm not against
former law enforcement starting businesses and making money. But the
connection to Mueller goes even deeper than that. Why don't
you explain, Yeah, Sean, I mean, I think that's what
a lot of people have to realize, is that we
have to look at institutions like the intelligence community the

(01:06:08):
way that we look at other government agencies. There's revolving doors.
They have incentives to help their friends. In the case
of Komey and Mueller, they have a relationship that goes
back twenty five years and they've always sort of functioned
as the tag team. And so when you have a
circumstance where Bob Mueller is put in charge of an

(01:06:28):
investigation that James Komey, his good friend, certainly has a
personal interest in stake in, it creates enormous problem. But
add on top of that layer, Sean, the fact that
you know, when you look at the Muller rapport, the
interesting thing that stands out to me their number of things,
But part of it is when we look at the

(01:06:49):
subject of foreign interference, the foreign interference that stands out
to me is how much of m I six has
fingerprints on this, whether it's Christopher Steele, whether it's of
the stuff that was done to some of the lower
level Trump campaign of volunteers. It speaks to the problem

(01:07:09):
that when you have an intelligence community, it's a community,
and Bob Muller and James Comey have long, deep, established
relationships with people in intelligence, which is fine, but when
that spills over into interfering in a presidency and a
presidential election, you have a huge problem. And that's where
I think is a big overlooked story. In addition to

(01:07:32):
all the other headlines that we can glean from the
Muller report, what you're really saying is and this now
is coming up more and more and more, especially and
we'll have John Solomon coming up at the bottom of
the hour. But there is more and more evidence that
I'm hearing a lot more chatter from my sources that
the official start date of this Russia witch hunt was
not July thirty. First, it was not based on Papadopolis

(01:07:55):
who was being spied upon and tasked to spy on
Papadoppola and Carter Page and Sam Clovis that it started
well before that, probably in February the same year of
twenty sixteen, and that some of this might be related
to some of our allies and outsourcing of intelligence methods,
in other words, using methods that would be illegal for

(01:08:17):
our intelligence officials to use. Again, I want to put
this caveat in though you know, we have the premier
law enforcement agency known as the FBI in the entire world,
ninety nine point nine percent the same with our intelligence agents,
ninety nine point nine percent would never abuse the powerful
tools that we give them. We're talking about that tiny
one tenth of one percent, the upper echelon that abused

(01:08:38):
their power here. But did they outsource to foreign countries
or task our allies with doing things for them that
they knew they couldn't do because it's illegal here, in
other words, spy on Americans. No. I think the answer
to that yes, But I think your percentage is a
little bit hishaw on. I think we've got probably a

(01:08:58):
twenty percent problem, and a lot of the agencies. Well,
that scares me because if you're talking about the tools
of intelligence, as Chuck Schumer who probably infamously famously said
that you know, you screw with the Intelligence Committee, They're
going to get you ten ways in the Sunday right, Well,
I mean, what do you think the percentage is, Peter Schweitzer,
I think it's fifth. Yeah, it's probably fifteen to twenty percent.

(01:09:21):
I think it's highly concentrated among those that work out
of FBI headquarters in Washington, d C. I mean, you
hear this time and time again, people that work at
the Bureau. They've done great work in the field, they
moved to headquarters and it becomes much more political. But
I think to your larger point, Sean, you're absolutely right.
I mean, this is a story of outsourcing and trying

(01:09:42):
to gin up an investigation without having your fingerprints on it.
I mean, you know, look, if you and I lie
to the FBI, we all know that that's a crime.
If we file a false police reports we claim our
neighbor did something nefarious that they didn't do, that's a
criminal offense. What a species spilett Right, But you know,

(01:10:05):
but if you look at if you look at what
happened in the case of the dossier, but Clinton's essentially
paid a guy to do that and try to avoid
having their fingerprints on it. And I think that's why
what the Attorney General has said it is so important
is we need to investigate the investigation. We need to
look at the headwaters of all of this and see

(01:10:26):
how did this happen because it's had a dramatically, you know,
troubling effect on our politics, on this administration. And if
you don't deal with this, this is going to become
standard operating procedure in American politics. And I don't think
anybody wants that. So then let me go. We even
know who the private contractors are that Comey gave that

(01:10:48):
illegal access to to the raw fis the raw NSA
database that's crucial. One of them's got to be Fusion GPS.
There are a lot of indicators for that. One of
them may very well be crowds Strike, the group that
also gave the reviewed the DNC server and as heavily
Clinton connected. Sidney, let me go back to the Muller

(01:11:08):
report from yesterday. Usually, if a prosecutor or in this
case a special counsel, if they can't indict, the details
of what they may have found, etc. Etc. Never come out.
But that I think Robert Muller, because look at the
team around him. I think you're the world's biggest critic,

(01:11:30):
and I'm probably number two of Andrew Weissman, Jennie Ray
in this merry band of Democratic donors and only Democratic
donors that Muller surrounded himself with which was fundamentally unfair
in the in the first place. So we have a
definitive statement no collusion, got it, But he leaves open
we're not saying we're not clearing him, we're not making

(01:11:51):
a determination of any kind. But he really should have,
and by not doing it, he has sort of left
the door open. That to me was all political because
when Rod Rosenstein and the Office Illegal Counsel and the
Attorney General all at once, in about thirty seconds after
reading the report say does not rise to the level
of any type of indictment, then Muller did all of that.

(01:12:14):
And by the way, all the things he listed were stupid.
You agree totally? Is Yeah, this is textbook Andrew Weisman
smear tactic and throwing red meat to the Democrats to
fuel their resistance and impeachment efforts or whatever trouble they
want to cause for the next eighteen months. That's absolutely
all it is. Let me pick it up right there. Yeah,
I want to pick it up there. I mean, if

(01:12:35):
it doesn't rise to the level of an indictable offense,
and disinformation is meaningles We'll get to that more with
Sidney Powell Peter Schweitzer on the other side, John Solomon
at the bottom of the hour. Oh, and then Haraldos.
He's wondering if any Democratic Kennedy they're going to apologize
to Donald Trump. That'll be fund him and Dan Bongino
all coming up Friday edition Sean Hannity Show, Straight ahead,

(01:12:57):
right as we continue. Sidney Powell, author License to Lie,
Peter Schweitzer, author of the book Compromised, Thank you both
for being with us. I want to go back, Sydney
to the second part of the Mueller Report. He doesn't
make a determination, just lays out the facts. Basically, all
he's saying is Donald Trump publicly talked about firing Muller Rosenstein,

(01:13:17):
Jeff Sessions, and he hoped and was praying that General
Flynn didn't getting a lot of trouble. Okay, that's called
freedom of speech. He didn't do or act anyway on
any of these issues. Just like the deep state officials
that were talking about secretly taping the president or invoking
in the twenty fifth Amendment, they only talked about it,

(01:13:39):
they didn't do it. So it's not a crime. It's
not obstruction. Hillary Clinton's case was obstruction with real intent
with an underlying real crime. So Muller put it in there.
Why to throw red meat to the Democrats. It's mister
Weisman's report. I call it the Weisman report, not the
Mueller report. I guarantee. And mister Muller didn't write this.

(01:13:59):
I'd be surprised if he even read the whole thing.
Maybe he edited a word here and there, But this
is textbook, Andrew Weissman. It's a smear campaign. It's throwing
red meat to the Democrats to fuel the resistance and
whatever impeachment and other havocs they want to wreck for
the next eighteen months, to continue the harassment of the president.
That's absolutely all it is. There isn't a single case

(01:14:19):
or statute in the obstruction section would warrant an obstruction prosecution.
In fact, on page nine I think it is, they
even flag it as potentially relevant obstruction statute. That is
a huge red flag right there that they have. Absolutely,
it's a great that's a great catch. I actually picked
up on that as I was reading it. I actually
read through the whole thing. Believe it or not, there

(01:14:42):
has to be an underlying crime, and there has to
be intent. Hillary did violate the Espionage Act. It is irrefutable.
The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible, and we know that
that investigation was rigged. We know the intent when she
deleted the subpoena emails and cleaned up the hard drive
with bleach bit and usted up the devices was to
destroy evidence in that case. That is your former prosecutors.

(01:15:05):
Not that a slam dunk dunk obstruction case. Yes, one
of the stunning things about the report is the obstruction
of justice legal analysis. If only anything like that had
been applied to Hillary Clinton's concrete actions in destroying her blackberries,
having her hard drive bleach fitted and yeah, completely wiped out,

(01:15:29):
and destroying all the emails after they've been subpoena. All
of that, all of that conduct was actual obstruction of
justice and destruction of evidence. Nothing they talk about in
the report as a respecting the president was obstruction in
any way, shape or form. Last word, Peter Schweitzer, Well,
look all that they're left with, after all the claims

(01:15:51):
at the beginning of twenty seventeen that there was massive
collusion and cooperation were left now with the essentially saying
that there were some meetings and that some contact between
Trump campaign officials and Russians. If that is where it's left.
The Clinton team has far deeper ties, far closer relationships

(01:16:12):
with those same Russian entities. And I think Sidney talked
about it earlier. It's really the double standard that everybody
is set up with. If you want to have a
consistent standard, a hard standard apply to Trump applied to Clinton.
That's great, that's fine. I think that's a good thing.
But that's not what's happening. And that's why people look
at this and believe the process has a lot of

(01:16:34):
exit question yes or no answer. Will people be indicted? Sydney, yes, Peter, yes,
three yeses? All right, Thank you both, Peter Schweitzer, Sidney Powell.
We appreciate your insight as always. When we come back,
John Solomon, well, he's breaking big news next week. He'll
give us a preview. Do you feel like this public

(01:16:56):
facing document by Robert Muller in his office today correctly
and aptly explains why those investigations were started and whether
the predicate was SAMP I think it does. I think
it validates the decisions that we made, certainly in July
of twenty sixteen, to start the initial Russia focused investigation,

(01:17:16):
and then, of course the decisions that we made in
May of twenty seventeen to include the president in that
investigation personally. As you know, Rachel, the FBI, the standard
for predication to open an investigation in the FBI is
an articable factual basis to believe that a threat to
national security might exist or that a federal crime might

(01:17:39):
have been committed. We have been saying as much as
we can publicly in the last few months that those
are the reasons, looking at the facts that we had
before us, that we opened the case on President Trump
in May of twenty seventeen. The Mole report today, this
redactive versional report that we got essentially tries to address
the controversy a little bit over what it would take

(01:18:01):
to get a FI as a warrant on somebody for
which you have to prove to the court that somebody
may be acting as a foreign agent that's right, versus
no prosecutorial decision to charge that person as a foreign agent. Right?
Tell us about that distinction? Sure, So the standard you
have to prove to the fies a court that to
a not a proponents of evidence. I see this essentially

(01:18:22):
as a roadmap for prosecutors after the president has left office,
or for the Judiciary Committee while the president is still
in office, to essentially pursue those charges in a trial
after he's no longer president, or an impeachment proceedings while
he's in Congress. I think otherwise you wouldn't go to
the lengths that they go to in order to explain
the president's state of mind. It's that how you read it.
It's absolutely how I read it. You know, the Bob

(01:18:44):
Muller that I know, the Bob Muller that I worked
for for many years, is not a guy who's going
to write a report that contradicts existing DJ policy. So
he's not going to write a report that says the
president should be indicted, knowing that that's not a possibility
under the current policy. But what Director Muller has done
here is he's provided an avalanche of facts that clearly

(01:19:05):
indicate obstructive activity on the part of the president. He
calls it out plainly in ten different sections in that
volume two of the report, and he lays out why
he believes in many of those cases the intent is present.
Why he believes that the the nexus to the contemplated
or ongoing matter as present. So the analysis is extraordinary,

(01:19:26):
The scope is incredibly damning for the president. Nothing you
just heard from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is accurate.
It's not accurate on the law, it's not the interpretation
of what the Special Council said and did. Yet it
was a political document. Sure did he point out, Well, Congress,

(01:19:49):
you can take this and run with it if you want.
And by the way, good luck to anybody that thinks
that missing the fundamental issues, no Russia collusion at all.
And for a guy that is under his own criminal
investigation here and likely up to his eyeballs in more
legal trouble to make those comments and for him to

(01:20:13):
make those suggestions, all it does is reaffirm everything that
we have known and know about the deep state. Remember
he was there when all the talk about, oh, let's
secretly spy on the president, let's invoke the twenty fifth Amendment.
It was the deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe,

(01:20:35):
that allowed the fies of warrant to be based on unverified,
uncorroborated Hillary bought and paid for Russian lies. Because of
his and others disdain for all things Trump, And remember
when Page and Struck were texting back and forth and

(01:20:55):
they're talking about Andy, and they're talking about the insurance policy.
That's the same Mandy on the media side of it.
I mean, as I mentioned earlier, this hope we might
be able to resitate, resuscitate this. It's not going to work.
And the avalanche we've been talking about is coming. John

(01:21:17):
Solomon next week is going to break huge news as
he has since March of twenty seventeen when this all
began for us, he joins us. Now he's the executive
director of The Hill Investigative Reporter. And John, is there
anything I just said about my analysis about McCabe that's wrong? No,

(01:21:38):
you know, it's it's fascinating to me. As you've watched
the last few months, as Democrats have tried to sustain
the now disproven collusion narrative, they've had to turn to
less and less credible people. Who did the Democrats call
as their first witness when they have their first airing
on Trump? They called a convicted liar Michael Cohen? And
what did he do? He gave more an accurate testimony

(01:21:59):
last night? What did the networks that have tried to
sustain a false narrative. Do they turn to Andrew McCabe,
a now confirmed lawyer who's facing prosecution for that line.
And the reason they have to turn to people like
that is that credible people who now know the facts
can't say what they want to have on their network.
And I think it's a shame for journalism that what

(01:22:19):
we're getting on these television networks is less factual and
more propaganda at a time when this country deserves the facts.
The facts are Director Mueller, Special Prosecutor Mueller said no
American read that no American colluded with Russia on their
campaign to disrupt the election. That is a fact. It
is now not in dispute, and anything Andrew McCabe says

(01:22:42):
can't undercut that finding. So I think we're in a
period now where we're actually in fantasyland. Responsible networks should
acknowledge where the factual case of stands and start embracing
it and explaining it to the American people. There are
lots of important issues to be resolved, but pretending there's
still a collusion fantasy is not doing anyone any good. Well,

(01:23:04):
I don't think they can let it go. I think
it is that ingrained and it's really now a psychosis
that exists, and it's so fascinating because they just want
to double down. But what they're going to end up
doing is just, you know, slowly gradually moving on to
oh maybe the memorandum of understanding between Cummings and Maxie

(01:23:25):
Waters and the cowardly shift Adam shift, because one way
or another, they're not going to govern the country. They're
just going to try and destroy this man, as they
have from day one. The fact that it's so clear
that there was no collusion from the beginning, even the
items that are mentioned in the second part of Muller's report. Okay, yeah,

(01:23:46):
he said publicly maybe I should fire Mueller and Rosenstein
and Sessions. And he didn't hide any of his comments.
He had every right to fire Comey, why though it
was even brought up, is absurd to me. Comy in
his own words, that he could be fired for any
reason and no reason at all, or the idea, well,
don again, he wants to be the hero in all this,

(01:24:06):
and he saved the president from firing Muller, etc. Etc.
I'm like, no, you didn't, because if the president wanted
to do it, he would have done it, and knowing
Donald Trumpe as well as I do, he was venting
he was sick of it because he was an innocent
man for two and a half years being persecuted unjustly

(01:24:28):
and was pissed off rightly so and screaming it at
the top of his lungs, which I can't blame him for.
When I wrote my column yesterday, what I said is
the Democrats are trying to take the actions of an
innocent man trying to defend himself against false allegations and
make it look like obstructive behavior. You have a right
to defend yourself if you see people that are conspiring

(01:24:52):
to make a false allegation against you. We did this.
We're allowed when we face a criminal child, to knock
jurors out of vordeer because we don't think they're going
to be fair to us. What you see in Donald
Trump is that when he's thinking about mother, he's like,
I don't think he could be fair to me. Just
hired seventeen Democrats at the same time. Were some of
his comments in temperate Shore Will. He learned from some
of these things, perhaps, but at the end of the day,

(01:25:13):
to build an obstruction case on what when there is
no crime. He wasn't obstructing a legitimate criminal investigation. There
was no crime, and what he was really doing was
trying to defend his presidency and himself from what he
ultimately turned out to be truthfully saying, which was there
was no collusion. It's really remarkable. I wrote a whole
column on it yesterday, and lots of people of commenting
on it, because when you look at it from the

(01:25:35):
different perspective, would a man obstructing an investigation open up
all of his files, all of his files, his attorney
client privilege files, his executive privilege covered files, and cooperate
if he was trying to obstruct, why didn't he just
shut the investigation down. He could have just done that.
It was in his power. There's just a lot of
things about the obstruction narrative that are absurd when you

(01:25:55):
step back and you take a look at the big picture.
I have given mind list of things that are coming,
because this story is hardly over. While the collusion delusion
media will remain focused on their phony narrative and never retract, apologize, correct,
nor will they pay attention to what is the biggest
abuse of power in our country's history, and next week

(01:26:15):
it is going to get dramatically worse for them, to
the extent that it's possible. Can you give a preview? Sure, Listen.
I got to talk about a couple of things that
I think are going to become new points of discussion, investigation,
and concern. One of those is when you read the
entire Muller report, there is a theory that I think

(01:26:36):
I saw Devin Juniez first mentioned on your show a
few weeks ago, and that I've been hearing from intelligence
professionals career intelligence professionals for several weeks, and that is
it is highly likely that these contacts like the Trump
Tower and the former Russian intelligence agent that just happens
to feed steal all of his bogus information that we
now know has been disproven in the Steel dossier. They

(01:26:59):
may have been, or they may have been what is
known in the tradecraft is discoverable operations. So instead of
a secret effort by Russia to influence the election, they
used overt people. What do I mean by that? When
you interview a former intelligence officer of Russian side the
United States, everybody in the United States knows he's tied
to Russian intelligence. That's not good spy tradecraft if you're

(01:27:21):
trying to keep it secret. When you want to keep
it secret, you do what you did with Robert Hanson
for twenty years, where Moscow us cloak and dather dagger
tactics to keep his work secret. As a spy, it
was overt. The same thing. If you're going to set
up a secret meeting to coordinate with Donald Trump at
the Trump Tower, would you really send a Russian lawyer
who's in on the country only because she got a
special parole visa declaring she's a Russian government asset to

(01:27:44):
come into the United States. That would be the last
person you would use for a secret campaign. So some
of these intelligence people are beginning to reassess the original
idea that maybe this is all about helping Hillary lose
and Donald Trump win too. Maybe they were trying to
destroy both candidates, and the effort on Trump is a
very different type of intelligence effort. It's known as discoverable
intelligence operations designed to create doubt in the mind of Americans.

(01:28:08):
And if that's the case, Robert Muller's report just helped
Vladimir Putin extend the doubt outward for months more, we'll
be debating this just like Vladimir Putin on it, probably
when he sent that woman to the Trump Tower and
sent that person to Christopher Steele to dump all that
bogus dust. I've got to take a break when we
come back. There is a likelihood this all started way

(01:28:28):
before the official start date, based on Papadoppolo is having
a drink with Stefan Helper. Correct, that's correct? Right there
by that all right, I want to talk about that more,
John Solomon, And as we continue John Solomon, executive director
at The Hill Investigative Reporter. He's been in the forefront
of our ensemble cast exposing the deep state, which ninety

(01:28:51):
nine point nine percent of the media in this country
they just were selling you lies and conspiracy theories for
over two years. All right, So there's two things that
you're working on. One is Ukraine officials are now admitting
that they interfered in our twenty sixteen election, and they
want to give us the evidence they're willing, correct, Okay,

(01:29:14):
and it's real evidence. And then we have on the
other side of this, we are all beginning to believe
that all of this Trump Rusher collusion stuff didn't start
July thirty first of twenty sixteen, as we've been told
way before that maybe as far back as February or
March of that year. I think that's right, Sean, And

(01:29:35):
next week I think I'll be able to get some
new information out that will really enlighten the timeline. I
think there's another element of it too. The Obama White
House has been remarkably missing from the entire timeline, in
quite frankly, the entire discussion for the last two and
a half years. But there's one text message over and
over again that plays in my head, and that is
pietstro coming out of a meeting in August of twenty sixteen.

(01:29:58):
It was a multi agency coordination meeting on the Russian investigation,
saying and the text message, quoting someone else in the meeting, says,
the White House is running this. We've not figured out
what did that mean, and when did that start and
who knew what. I believe we'll be able to show that.
In December twenty fifteen, a Justice Department official and an
undercover operative began conversations with an eye towards Ukraine. In

(01:30:23):
January February sixteen, Ukraine and US authorities had a very
sensitive discussion about something that ultimately became the Paul Russia
collusion investigation. And by March and April the efforts had
expanded beyond White House Justice Department informant to the DNC,
the Hillary Clinton campaign, and all of these people have

(01:30:45):
the same objective. We are going to try to show
Paul Manafort and Donald Trump are agents of Russia. While
we found out yesterday donald Trump was never an agent
of Russia, but who and why and how many people participated.
I think definitely next week we're gonna get a lot
more on this, right, Yeah, that's right, right man, And
for weeks to come. I think it's a long process
and we're going to hold them all accountable. We only

(01:31:07):
just beginning, and I keep telling people that there's so
much that is coming. It is going to blow the
country away, I think. But at the end of this,
and if we don't fix it, we lose the country.
It's that serious. Great work. John Solomon once again

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Sean Hannity Show News

Host

Sean Hannity

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

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;}Best of Hannity: The Mueller Report Was Awful