January 2, 2020 • 60 mins
Gregg Jarrett fills in for the vacationing Hannity and talks about Hunter Biden's $83,333 per month board position on the largest Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma. This is, simply put, corruption by proxy. Peter Schweizer stops by to share the latest on this scandal.
The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jared of
the Fox News Channel, filling in for Sean, who has
a few days off, and he certainly deserves it among
the hardest working men in television and radio. So Sean,
I hope you're having a good time. It's a new year, folks,
(00:20):
and it's a new decade, and it's a new presidential
election coming up to the chagrin of the Trump paiding media,
and they're vengeful, rapacious co conspirators like Nancy Pelosi, Chucky Schumer,
Jerry Nadler, and the chronically dishonest Adam Schiff, not to
(00:41):
mention the gaggle of Democratic presidential candidates who are bereft
of any good ideas that can compete with Donald Trump's
economic record. The president is poised to be re elected
to another four year term. And why do I say that,
Because historically we know that people tend to vote their
(01:04):
wallets if things are going well for them financially. They
do endorse the status quo. They reject change, change that
runs the risk of reversing the games and their well being.
And there's no reason why people shouldn't be self interested
(01:25):
in their vote that's what democracy is all about. What's
good for individuals collectively is good for the nation. And
as we began twenty twenty, the stock market continues to
hit all time high, as your four oh one K
and other investments, if you have them, are probably better
(01:49):
now than ever before. Consumer confidence has hit a twenty
year high, Unemployment is at a fifty year low, the
best employment figures in half a century, and poverty is
down substantially, in large part because wages continue to rise
(02:11):
GDP and consumer spending are incredibly strong. And whether you
like him or not, Donald Trump deserves credit for much
of this because he kept his promises. He cut taxes
that boosted not just the American workforce, but incentivized employers
(02:33):
to invest and expand. He rolled back the honorous and
expensive regulations that were choking businesses to death. And what
did Democrats have to offer? They want to reverse course.
They want to raise taxes, not cut them. They want
(02:53):
to reinstate those regulations. They want to undertake trillion dollar
ideas is like the Green New Deal and Medicare for
All that would bankrupt the federal government and lead inexorably
to inflation, maybe recession and Frankly, Americans are smarter than that,
(03:17):
and it bodes well for President Trump's reelection, and it
bodes poorly for Democrats and the complicit media who aid
and abet them. Come November, if Donald Trump is reelected,
Rachel Maddow's head will explode. And I don't want to
(03:38):
miss that one. Rachel Maddow Prime Time MSNBC, who spent
much of Donald Trump's first term claiming that he's a
Manchurian candidate, Putin's puppet acting as a covert Kremlin asset.
Take a listen, and if the president did that day
(04:01):
because he has some reason to serve that other country
rather than our own, well, then a lot that has
previously been inexplicable is now explicable. Is our president subordinate
to a foreign power? Does our president answer to a
foreign government and a foreign leader? The worst case scenario
(04:23):
that the president is a foreign agent suddenly feels very powerful.
It would change the world. Is if you know, Russia
was interfering in the election and they weren't doing it
on their own, and he was in on it. I mean,
this guy, supposedly somebody who works at the Russian Central Bank,
Why did the FSB give him a medal for his work,
a medal of appreciation right after Donald Trump clinched the
(04:46):
Republican nomination for president. If the presidency is effectively a
Russian op, right, if the American presidency right now is
the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and
an American campaign, I mean that is oh, profoundly big. Yeah,
that's the kind of nonsense, the bs that Rachel Maddow
(05:08):
was pedaling every night more than anybody else. Madow advanced
the Trump Russia collusion hoax, assuring her lapdog and unthinking
viewers that the president would be tossed out of office
once the Muller report was made public. She promised that
the Clinton funded anti Trump dossier was absolutely true. Trust me,
(05:33):
she said, night after night, and she was relying on
useful idiots like James Clapper, Obama's director of National Intelligence,
as her source, the last guy would ever trust for anything.
For example, in her monologue on August twenty third, twenty seventeen,
Matdow stated with unreserved certainty that quote nothing in the
(05:56):
dossier has been overtly disproved since it was first posted online, Right, Rachel,
except that all of the main allegations against Trump had
been overtly disproved by the FBI. Months earlier, they had
tracked down Christopher Steele's primary information source, who, according to
(06:22):
the recent IG report, admitted it was a collection of
embellishments and lies cobbled together from hearsay, built on hearsay.
Some of it was said in jest over beers. But
the conspicuous absence of real evidence did not stop the
malevolent Mattow from peddling her phantasm. Here she is September fifteenth,
(06:47):
twenty seventeen, the Christopher Steele Dossier, which is a controversial
document for lots of reasons. Quoting from that, a lot
of it has been proven. Oh yeah, a lot of
it has been proven, you know. Night after night Mattow
promised her brainless sycophants that they'd be rewarded by the
(07:08):
Special Counsel Robert Muller. Trump would be cuffed and frog
marched out of the White House thanks to the dossier
that she treated as the gospel. According to Rachel, here's
another example. July second, twenty eighteen, in a typically obtuse monologue,
Mattow informed her viewers that quote, nothing in the dossier
(07:32):
has ever been disproven, except that it wasn't even close
to being true. That same month, I published my book
The Russia Hoax, disproving the main accusations in the phony dossier.
And I wasn't alone in that sugilus reporting by my
(07:53):
colleague John Solomon, the tenacity of my friend Sean Hannity
day after, on his radio show, This radio show, on
his television show on Fox News, showed that the dossier
was demonstrably false. There was no evidence of a criminal
collusion conspiracy with Moscow. The Mueller Report would so conclude,
(08:19):
and of course, when it was released April of this year,
that's exactly what happened. So did a contrite Mattow apologize
for misleading her audience with reckless reporting and analysis? Of
course she didn't. Was she fired from MSNBC? No way.
(08:40):
There were too many other people at the network who
embraced the same fraud. You think I'm kidding. NBC's Chuck
Todd on Meet the Press willingly bought into the hoax,
the same hoax, the Matdow hoax. On April fifteen, twenty eighteen,
he stated and quote, so far with its dossier, nothing
(09:03):
yet has been proven untrue. Nice job, Chuck. You have
earned coveted membership in the flat Earth society. And it's
not just the dopes at MSNBC and NBC. The folks
over at CNN adopted the dossier as scripture. Jim Shudo
said on air, quote, the dossier in factor is far
(09:26):
from bogus. Another CNN contributor said, increasingly it's the accurate dossier.
Increasingly it's the damning dossier, except the only thing that
was damming was the stupidity of CNN and Jeff Zucker,
who runs the joint. People like Rachel Maddow have no conscience,
(09:50):
no ability to admit fault or failure. She expressed not
a shred of regret or remorse for lying to her
viewers night after night, month after month, year after year.
Media critic Eric Wimple of The Washington Post Maybe you
saw this recently condemned Mattoo as a charlatan. He wrote
(10:13):
that she rooted for the dossier to be true, and
when it fell apart, she then just shifted her attention
to something else when confronted in a podcast. According to Wimple,
she pretended she never deceived her viewers by asserting the
validity of the dossier, she called it, in fact, creepy
(10:35):
to suggest otherwise. She actually said this in the podcast quote,
It's not like I've been making a case for the
accuracy of the Steel dossier and that's been the basis
of my Russian reporting. That's not true. Ladies and gentlemen,
you just heard the clips that we just played. Think
(10:57):
about what she's saying. I mean, in the street of lies,
can you come up with a bigger whopper than the
one pedaled by Rachel Maddow? And Mattow was just one
symptom in the larger disease of medium maupractice on steroids,
and they were rewarded for it. The Washington Post for
(11:20):
the New York Times actually won the two and eighteen
Pilotzer Prize for their reporting on the dossier and Trump's
collusion with Russia, except that the dossier was a fabrication
and collusion with Russia never happened. The people who got
(11:41):
it right, John Solomon, Sean Hannity, a great many others.
Those people were mocked, they were ridiculed, they were demeaned,
and the people who got it wrong were awarded Pilitzer Prizes.
In what Upside Down World? Does that happen, I'll tell
(12:03):
you it's the world of liberal dominated journalism. They never
admit their mistakes, especially the egregious ones. Instead, they award
prizes only to leftist reporters who manage to demolish the truth, fairness,
(12:24):
and accuracy as they move on. And Rachel Maddow is
like a cult leader with end of the world predictions,
and when they fail to come true, she picks a
new date and a new prophecy. I'm going to be
talking to John Sale, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor. He's
(12:48):
going to be joining us in just a few minutes.
We'd love to hear from you. Our telephone number is
eight hundred nine four one seven three two six eight
hundred nine four one on. I'm Greg Jarrett. This is
the Sean Hannity Show. Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity. By the way,
(13:12):
if you would connect with me on Twitter, my handle
is at Greg Jarrett two gs at the end of
Greg J A R R E T T. Check out
my website, the Greg Jarrett dot com, and we love
your calls. I'm gonna be talking to John Sale coming
(13:34):
up at just a moment, one of the best lawyers
in America, former Watergate prosecutor, and we'll have him way
in on the upcoming Durham investigation. It's ongoing, actually, but
we hope there's a report that emanates from it and
maybe some prosecutions. We'll have him wag in a little
(13:56):
bit on the media as well. In my new book,
witch Hunt, The Story of the greatest mass delusion in
American political History. It's available online at Barnes and Noble
dot com or Amazon dot com. Again, the title is
witch Hunt. I opened chapter six, which is entitled the
(14:21):
Media witch Hunt, with my favorite quote from The Wizard
of Oz, where Scarecrow says to Dorothy, I haven't got
a brain, only straw, and Dorothy responds by saying, how
can you talk if you haven't got a brain, And
(14:42):
Scarecrow replies, I don't know, but some people without brains
do an awful lot of talking, don't they, And that
is the mediat Scarecrow described today's mainstream media mob and
people like Rachel Maddow perfectly. People without brains do an
(15:08):
awful lot of talking. Rachel Maddow should have read both
my books The Russia Hoax and witch Hunt, because it
tells the story of the greatest mass delusion in American
political history. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity
(15:29):
on the Sean Hannity Show. Your phone calls and John
Sale coming up next, don't go away. Welcome back to
the Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for
Sean Hannity. Very pleased to have with us today. A
former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York
and assistant Special Watergate prosecutor John Sale, who is one
(15:53):
of the best lawyers in America. For my money and John,
Happy New Year. Thanks for being with us in my pleasure. Greg,
happy to you. You know, I want to ask you
a few questions about John Durham and Michael Horowitz. Now,
Horowitz is the Inspector General at the Department of Justice
who investigated the FBI and the DOJ, and if I
(16:16):
can just broad brush a couple of his conclusions, he
determined that there were errors and omissions and deceptions by
the FBI to the fi s accord and seeking a
warrant a spy on Trump campaign advisor Carter page. And
he also looked into the origins of the FBI's investigation
(16:41):
of Trump Russia collusion that was launched July thirty first,
two thousand and sixteen. And John Durham, specially appointed by
the Attorney General William Barr to look into the origins
of the Trump Russia case, made a very unusual public
(17:02):
statement the day that Horowitz's report came out, and he
said that he disagreed with Horowitz as to the predication
and how the FBI case was opened. So what does
that tell you, John, Well, the Department of Justice rarely
makes any public statements on ongoing investigations. But the actual policy,
(17:27):
the DOJ policy is they don't comment on open investigations, quote,
unless there's a compelling public interest. So here I think
John Durham felt the American public should not think case closed.
There was no political motive in opening the investigation. But
as the consummate professional that he is and he's conducting
(17:48):
a grand jury investigation, he didn't leak anything and he's
going to investigate this thoroughly. And let me tell you,
I have not met John Durham, but I have actually
spoken to two former Attorneys general, both of whom one
Democrat one Republican who appointed him to some very sensitive
(18:10):
investigations to run. And they've both told me he's a
straight shooter, he's not political. He's going to call him
as he sees him, and he's not going to be
afraid to indict people if the evidence is there. So
I think there are some people who are going to
have a lot to be concerned about. But in fairness,
you know, I don't want to mention names. I don't
want to say who may or may not be indicted.
(18:32):
But just what John Durham was saying is stay tuned,
it's not over. Yeah. I mean, he had and he
pointed this out in his statement the day the Horowitz
report came out. He said, based on the evidence collected
to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month
advised the Inspector General we didn't agree with his conclusions
(18:54):
as to predication and how the case was open. And
he went on to state that he has access to
more information from quote other persons and entities, both in
the United States and outside the United States, so he
has far greater power, authority, and jurisdiction than the Inspector General,
(19:19):
who many people have likened to, you know, sort of
an auditor. You know, I actually liken him to sort
of a stenographer. He gets statements from people and regurgitates
them in his report. What do you think, well, he
could he did not. I think he did a very
good job considering the limitations of what he did. He
(19:39):
had to accept people's answers. He had to accept people
if they said they don't recall he couldn't. There's something
he could do by the same token John Durham as
a prosecutor, he has the grand jury. He can subpoinea
people for the grand jury. He can subpoine a documents,
He has access to records from overseas, pursuing to various
(20:00):
mutual assistants, treaties that we have with foreign governments. And
so I think Durham did a good job considering the
limited powers he had. And I think some of the
Durham findings are I'm sorry, some of the Harrowitz findings
are very, very troubling. So I don't think we can
just say that, well, Horowitz swept anything under the rug.
(20:22):
I mean he found seventeen abuses or where the Fiser
Court was misled either our omissions or very outright lies,
and even even found that a lawyer supervising the prespiser
process altered a document in a very material way. I mean,
(20:43):
the fis of court was part of legislation in the
seventies to make up for the abuses under the Hoover regime.
And by god, it assumed that our DJ lawyers and
our FBI agents would be honorable and would never deceive
a court. I do this for a living. Deceiving a
court is not forgivable, No, it's not. It's actually, as
(21:05):
I describing my book, potentially criminal. It's defrauding the court.
When you're signing off, you're swearing under penalty of perjury,
that what you're representing is true, that you verify the
information and you're right. Horowitz found seventeen significant deceptions or errors.
(21:27):
But you actually have to turn to Appendix number one
and you find a flow chart identifying a total of
fifty one inaccurate statements, errors, omissions of exculpatory evidence, and
you know, the altering of a document and outright lies
(21:49):
in deceptions. So you know, I identify various potential crimes
in my book that that could constitute. What's troubling to
me is that the judges who were deceived the face
accord and the presiding Judge, Rosemary Colliers only response so
far has been to send a letter an order to
(22:12):
the FBI saying, by thus in such a date in January,
let us know how you're going to fix this, John.
I mean, wouldn't most judges who were deceived haul the
individuals who did it in front of them for a
show cause contempt hearing? Well, it may be that they're
waiting to see what Durham is doing. And also yes,
(22:34):
of course, but the penalty for contempt may not be
great enough because I do this for a living, and
I have companies or individuals or the subject of search
wards and it's one sided. It's a one sided process.
Who is going to make up to caught a page
(22:54):
what happened here? He's an American citizen and he was
surveiled illegally. He's a graduate of the Naval Academy, and
I mean he was to put it very simply, he
was working for the good guys. He was working for us.
And the false one of the false statements to the
fires of court or one of the ulti water jackiments
(23:16):
made it seemed like he was working for the other side.
I mean, that's not a minor little error that rises
to the level of being shocking the conscience. He is
a term that we lawyers use, you know. James Cummy
seemed to be saying in his interview with my colleague
on Fox News, Chris Wallace, that, um, well, you know,
(23:38):
I just signed off on this and I'm way up
on top and this was seven layers below, to which
Attorney General Durham said, that's nonsense when he sat down
for an interview with Martha McCallum of Fox News. Yeah, Bill,
I'm sorry, Bill barr And and so, um, you know,
(23:58):
it's sort of invite the question. If Durham concludes that
the court was deliberately deceived, is it an excuse for
a guy like Calmy to say, well, I just trusted
others when I signed it. Well, one of the things
that Harrowit's testified to during the hearing was I don't
(24:22):
have the lant exact language in front of me. But
he said he couldn't really conclude whether all of the
FBI's of regious mistakes were the product of gross negligence
or something worse. So if it is true that Comy
was just above it all. He certainly should take responsibility
(24:43):
because the buck stops here. If it goes way beyond that,
and he did supervise this personally because it was the
most important investigation the Bureau was doing, then Durham will
have to make a judgment call on that. If the
FISI court has fed fifty one inaccurate statements and deceptions
(25:03):
in the withholding of exculpatory information fifty one times, and
all of them in one direction against Donald Trump, isn't
it hard to argue, you know, gross negligence. I would
rather be on the other side, and rather than trying
to defend the gross negligence, I want to give Director
(25:24):
Came and everyone else the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
Maybe that's just my nature as a defense lawyer, but
I think it, Yes, I think it is hard to
make the case that it's only gross negligence. You know,
we have played the SoundBite of Rod Rosenstein here before
in which he talks about how serious you know FISA
(25:45):
warrant applications are, and you know that you have to
be very scrupulous when you sign off on that, and
you have to make sure that the information is absolutely accurate,
has been properly vetted and corroborated and verified. I mean,
this is Rod Rosenstein on tape who has said this,
(26:09):
and yet he signed the final FISA warrant application, So
he would have no excuse to say, oh, I just
trusted others when he's on record saying you as a signature,
have to make sure that it's accurate information. Would you agree, well,
I agree that application is so serious that the person
(26:34):
at the top cannot just they are relying on others
and sign it that they have the responsibility to be
sure it's accurate. Just as in the private sector, CEOs
of companies are responsible when they sent CFOs, when they
sign off on financial statements, they're criminally responsible, not only
(26:55):
in terms of accountability to shareholders. Last question is the
launching of the Trump Russia collusion investigation. Again was formally
opened on July thirty first, two thousand and sixteen. Peter
Struck signed the papers, but it was surely approved at
the highest levels of the FBI. And in my book,
(27:18):
I go through the federal regulations of the Department of
Justice and the FBI, and it states you must have
before you open the investigation two things you must have
a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been
or will be committed, and number two, it has to
be supported by specific articulable facts. And I argue in
(27:45):
my book that George Papadopoulos hearing a rumor is not
a sufficient articulable specific fact, So that would have been
a bad basis to open up the investigation. And as
if it was the dossier that they were relying on,
(28:08):
none of it had been verified at that juncture. So
is that perhaps what John Durham is looking at when
he says he doesn't agree that the case was opened
with proper predication. Well, I think, Greg, I think it's
worse than you stated it because it was opened by
(28:29):
specific articulable facts, but they were false facts. And the
dossier they misrepresented to the court that it had been verified,
and they didn't tell the court that it was funded
by the opposition party, So it's even worse. I mean
your book, I read it. I thought it was great.
I couldn't put it down, but frankly, I wondered, is
(28:52):
it true? I mean, I thought it was a novel
and as we look at it now, I mean it's remarkable.
I mean, how you were right right on, and not
only were your research because you didn't have access to
the things that Durham and Harrow was that access to,
and you pulled things out of the public record, and
you analyze the law and the regulations. And as I
(29:15):
look at your book again, now not only is it
a great read, but it was correct, it was accurate.
John Sale, many thanks for being with us. Always great
talking here. John Sale, former federal prosecutor, former assistant special
Watergate prosecutor. Happy New Year to you, and thanks for
being with us your calls on the other side. In
just a moment, I'm Greg Jarrett. This is the Sean
Hannity Show, and welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
(29:38):
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity. All Right,
you may have noticed, maybe you saw some clips recently
of Joe Biden at a rally and being heckled by
a variety of individuals or were calling him quid pro Joe,
and of course the form of Vice President didn't like
(30:01):
it one bit, immediately sought to blame Donald Trump. This
is a democracy, this is not a Trump rally, and
the hecklinge quid pro Joe continued, Because, of course, Joe Biden,
in his immense hubris and cluelessness, we call him clueless Joe,
(30:24):
not shueless, Joe clueless. Joe. This is politics, not baseball.
You know, it seems to think that his son did
nothing wrong and that there is no evidence of impropriety
on his part. And that's not quite how Hunter Biden
put it. In an interview with ABC's Amy Rohbock October fifteenth,
(30:48):
Take a listen when he said, I hope you know
what you're doing. What did he think you were doing well?
He wrote, The press reports that I joined the board
of Brisma, which was a Ukrainian natural gas company, and
there's been a a lot of misinformation about me, not
about my dad. Nobody buys that, but ad buys this
idea that I was unqualified to be on the board.
What were your qualifications to be on the board of
(31:10):
ARESMA Well. I was vice chairman of the board of
Amtrak for five years. I was the chairman of the
board of the UN World Food Program. I was a
lawyer for boyshill Or Flexner, one of the most prestigious
law firms in the world. You didn't have any extensive
knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself though. No, But
I think that I had as much knowledge as anybody
(31:30):
else that was on the board, if not more. In
the list that you gave me of the reasons why
you're on that board, you did not list the fact
that you were the son of the of course, Yeah, no,
what role do you think that played. I think that
it is impossible for me to be on any of
the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I'm
the son of the vice President of the United States.
You were paid fifty thousand dollars a month for your position. Look,
(31:51):
I'm a private citizen. One thing that I don't have
to do is sit here and open my kimono as
it relates to how much money I make or make
or did or didn't. But it's all been reported. If
your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would
have been asked to be on the board of Barisma.
I don't know. I don't know, probably not. I don't
think that there's a lot of things that would have
happened in my life that if my last name wasn't Biden. Yeah, no, kidding,
(32:15):
that is Hunter Biden, And I don't think it's fifty
thousand a month he got from Barisma for a job
upon which he held no qualifications to have. It was
more like eighty three thousand. But we'll put that question
to Peter Schweizer, who joins US now, who is Government
(32:36):
Accountability Institute President, an author of Secret Empires as well
as Clinton Cash and he joins US now. Peter, it's
always great talking to you. Thanks for taking the time. Oh,
it's always a pleasure. Greg, great to be on with you.
So how much was he actually getting from Barisma? Hunter Biden?
He was getting eighty three thousand, three hundred and thirty
(32:58):
three dollars a month, which, if my am math is accurate,
as a million dollars a year. And he got that
beginning in April of twenty fourteen. You know what happened
is his business partner, Devin Archer, went to the White
House in April of twenty fourteen. We know that based
on White House visitors logs, and we don't know what
(33:19):
the meeting was about, but Devin Archer, Hunter's business partner
was there for you know, five or six hours meeting
with a vice president, and that we know. In the
days that followed, literally the days that followed, a Barisimus
started depositing transfers into the account of Devin Archer and
Hunter Biden, and they were each getting eighty three thousand,
(33:39):
three hundred and thirty three dollars a month. And that
is way out of proportion. You know, if you sit
on the board of Exxon or other corporations like that
in the United States that are much larger, much more legitimate,
sitting on that boards, more demanding, you're getting paid a
fraction of that. So this is a is a sweetheart
deal of sweetheart deals that or Biden had and Joe
(34:02):
Biden had been appointed as the point person by the
Obama administration in Ukraine. And at one point in Time's
he's urging Ukraine too, if I recall correctly, increase their
natural gas production. At the same time his son is
sitting on the board of the biggest natural gas company
(34:23):
in Ukraine. Right, that's right. I mean, Greg, you talk
in your book, which Hunt, about how the machine ree
of government was twisted and distorted to to get political enemies,
in this case, Donald Trump, in this case you're talking
about twisting the machinery of government to benefit your family.
(34:45):
I talk about this and call this corruption by proxy.
In other words, Joe Biden is not going to be
stupid enough to take money from Ukrainians himself. He's not
going to take money from the Chinese government himself. But
if his son in effect serves as a proxy, which
is pretty clear what happened here. I mean, the two
countries where Hunter Biden cashed in the most were Ukraine
(35:08):
and China, and those are the two countries that it
happens to be Joe Biden, as Vice president was point
person on for policy. You know, that's either one hell
of a coincidence or it speaks to the issue that
these foreign entities knew exactly what they were paying for
when they were paying Hunter Biden. And you know, most
(35:30):
people I think out in the country see that and
know that it's a big denial game. Still in Washington, Dco.
There's nothing inappropriate about this. If this happened in your
small town, or if this happened elsewhere, people see it.
They know that the gig is up. They know what's
going on, and it's just Joe Biden's continue to assist
insistence that there's no connection between his son's business activities
(35:53):
and his venturing into new fields where he has no
background in either China or Ukraine or energy private equity
just speaks to that fact, and I think it's going
to really hurt him here in twenty twenty. What did
Barisma hope to gain out of pain this enormous amount
of money, more than a million dollars to the son
(36:14):
of the Vice president. Were they hoping to gain access, influence, protection,
all of the above? Great question, I think all of
the above. You know, we know at the time that
Hunter Biden and Devin Archer joined the board together. And
remember Devin Archer was a former top aide to John Kerry,
who was Secretary of State at the time, So they
(36:36):
were kind of getting a two fer here. They were
getting the Vice president's son and a close aid to
John Kerry, the Secretary of State at the time they
joined the board. The founder of Zolachevsky, who is this
sort of pro Russian oligarch from the Anakovic government, was
facing criminal charges in London from the series fraud office,
(36:59):
from Rainians, from others in Europe. He was basically living
in Switzerland and sort of quasi exile. He was not
really allowed to come to the United States, nor was
another Ukrainian oligarch named Kolomoiski, who was actually not allowed
to visit the United States at all. That was changed
(37:19):
once these two joined the board. The case against Lechevski
was dropped by certain foreign countries, so there is that
sense that perhaps he was being protected. There's also the
sense that Bisma was ponying up at the bar as
it were to get access to USAID money the United
States Agency for International Development or in the Obama administration. Again,
(37:43):
this is being steered by Joe Biden, is passing out
aid and money two companies like Bizma certainly they wanted
to benefit from that relationship. And then I think there's
finally just the sense that in Ukraine this is how
politics is done. It's a highly corrupt political culture, one
of the most corrupt in the world. Some authorities say
(38:06):
things go on there that would make Nigerians wins, and
how corrupt it is. So they figure that's the way
they do politics in business. We're going to do that
in the United States, and the Bidens were all too
happy to do it. So Joe Biden is seen on
videotape bragging about a quit pro quel that he said
(38:29):
he would see to it that a billion dollars in
American aid was withheld from Ukraine. In less, Victor Chokin,
the then chief prosecutor in Ukraine, was fired. Sho is
on record telling, including The Washington Post in a July
twenty second, twenty nineteen published interview, that he was fired
(38:56):
because his investigators were closing in on corrupt in Barisma
and also about to investigate an interview Hunter Biden. So
when Joe Biden's and the mainstream media says, oh, there's
no connection, there, don't the facts suggest otherwise they absolutely do.
(39:21):
You know, what I can do is speak obviously to
the fact pattern and Greg, I mean you, I think
can probably break this out from the legal context of this.
But what we know is that clearly Ukrainian officials were
investigating Barisma Barisma. There were multiple investigation against Barisma because
at the time it was widely recognized in investment circles
(39:43):
in Ukraine that Bisma was not a company you wanted
to do business with, because there were all these huge
questions about money and how the company was formed and
what it was using its money for, and that's a
matter of public record. Joe can confirm that, as you
said of the Washington Post. He also confirm that to
The New York Times. Uh. And there's no reason to
(40:04):
question him. And the only defense that you know, Biden
um and his team have offered is well, you know,
lots of people wanted Shokin fired because he was corrupt,
which you know, obviously he's a question that's that's open
and that can be discussed, but is irrelevant to this question.
I mean, I think it's a it's a massive conflict
of interest for you to be the bearer of this threat,
(40:26):
of the one who's bringing forward this threat and this
clear quid pro quo to somebody who is potentially going
to put your son in legal peril um. And and
the fact that other people thought Chokin was a bad
prosecutor's corrupt is completely irrelevant. Um. And I think this
is an issue that is not going to go away
(40:47):
for Biden because he hasn't effectively honestly dealt with it.
And I think there's going to be more reporting coming
out from John Solomon and others that are going to
indicate clearly what we know about the money flows too
Drew Biden and other people connected with BISMA, Yeah, under
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it is illegal. It's a
(41:08):
crime for a public official to confer a benefit in
exchange for something of personal value to himself or to
an immediate relative, ie your son. And so you know,
I've argued repeatedly that if the President felt that Ukraine
(41:29):
had evidence of a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act by an American official, Joe Biden, he had every
right to ask Ukraine to please look into it, handover
evidence if you have any. And the fact that Joe
Biden may be running from president United States doesn't give
(41:50):
him immunity or amnesty from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
I think I think that's a that's a hugely important point,
greg And I think that that famous phone call now
that Donald Trump had with the President of the Ukraine's
Lechev's sorry Zalinski is even more important when you consider
(42:10):
the fact that Zelenski rises to power in Ukraine. His
biggest financial backer is Ukraine and oligarch named Kolomoski, who
is guess what involved with Bizma. So for the President
to raise it with the President of Ukraine, that's the
way to do it. In a sense, Trump is signaling
(42:31):
to Zelenski, I want you to look at this without
saying I know who your backers are, I know that
they may be implicated in this, but you need to
look at this, and I agree with you. It's completely appropriate.
The actions we're talking about did not occur when Joe
Biden was a private citizen. He was Vice President of
the United States. He was executing and carrying out American
(42:54):
policy in Ukraine, and his son was profiting at the
same time. So if this is going to be looked
at at all, it needs to be looked at. Now.
If Joe Biden's out of politics, people would be saying, oh,
there's no reason to look at it. He's out of politics.
It should be looked at and it was quite appropriate
for President Trump to raise this issue with Zealivsky in
the manner in which he did. Peter Schweitzer, you are
(43:16):
a wealth of information and your books are among my favorite,
the most recent Secret Empires. Thank you for taking the time.
Happy New Year. I'm Greg Jared filling in for Sean
Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show. More of your calls
on the other side or number is eight hundred and
nine four one. Sean Creed filling in for Sean Hannity,
(43:40):
and we are back now with just a couple of minutes.
Tom in Ohio has been on the line. Tom, Thanks
very much. Hey, Greg, I always just enjoy it when
you're guest hosting. I think you have a real knack
for the radio thing. And thank you. Don't quit your
day job, but glad to have you. Okay, thanks to
appreciate all that. I really appreciate all the hard work
(44:01):
you've done for the last three years exposing a lot
of the criminal behavior that's that's gone on with the
previous administration. I was hoping you could spend a couple
of minutes commenting on Susan Rice's email that she notoriously
left just prior to the end of the Obama administration,
where she memorialized the fact that the president was briefed
(44:25):
by all of the top law enforcement officers and you
know what you think that means? Going, yeah, it's a
great question, and on the other side of our break,
I'll provide the answer. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for
Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Radio Show. Well, Sean
is back on the radio sort of. I'm Greg Jarrett
(44:49):
filling in for Sean Hannity and thanks for being with
us over the course of these three hours. Sort of
because somebody recently introduced me as Greg Hannity. I'm not Kidney.
I was down in Florida given a speech in book
signing and and somebody mistakenly referred to me as Greg
Hannity in the introduction, and frankly, I take that as
(45:12):
a is a compliment. But no, we're not related, and
he's not my long lost child. I am actually considerably
older than Sean Hannity, although his hair is grand mine
is not. And no, I don't dye my hair, and
no it's not a tupei, which is you know, the
(45:34):
most frequent it's unbelievable, Ethan, the most frequent UM email
or Twitter, you know. Criticism I get is stop wearing
that awful tupei or stop dyeing your hair. I'm sorry,
but this is my real hair and I don't diet.
(45:56):
Ginger cuts my hair once a month, and she can
a chest to the fact that, No, I don't dye
my hair and it's real hair that is cut, and
I you know, viewers may not like it, and I
apologize for that, but there's nothing I can do about
my hair. It's my hair, okay. And my mother had
(46:20):
pitch black hair until the day she died at age
eighty two. And it's just a genetic thing. And what
can I tell you? And so, you know, what do
you want me to do? Color my hair gray? Should
I do that? I mean, Ethan, what do you think?
I'm just dumbfounded. That's pretty amazing. Did you think I
dye my hair? I only thought you might have, only
(46:42):
because you told us your age recently, which I didn't
believe either. I'm about to turn sixty five in April.
I couldn't believe it when you told us. To be honest,
yeah I aren't. I supposed to apply for Medicare in
the six months before I turned sixty five and not
the deal. Yeah, okay, Well help me with that. I
guess you won't. You're lying. You're not gonna help me.
(47:06):
Somebody's gonna help me with that, all right, Way off subject.
And I don't even recall how we got to it.
But tom our last caller had posed a very good question.
Can you explain your view of the Susan Rice email.
On the very last day of the Obama administration, President
Trump's inauguration day, January twenty, twenty seventeen. Tom's a smart fellow,
(47:30):
because not many people remember that email. And it's very
important because in it, Susan Rice, who was leading as
national security advisor for Barack Obama, writes this very unusual
message to herself, memorializing a conversation that she observed weeks earlier.
(47:52):
I believe it was January fifth, between Komey and Obama,
in which she quotes the President as instruct Tincomy be
sure to go by the book or some such thing
in the Trump Russia investigation. Now, why would Susan Rice
write that memo to herself. I'll tell you why. It
(48:16):
was a cya memo. And you know what that means,
cover your you know what, because at the time the
FBI wasn't going by the book. They had deceived the
FI succord to spy on a Trump campaign advisor carter page.
(48:36):
And we now know there were fifty one inaccurate statements, airs, deceptions, omissions,
and lies, including the doctrine of one email. And it
was that very month, January of twenty seventeen, that the
FBI learned that the dossier was phony. They learned it
(49:00):
from Christopher Steele's subsource. So there's this conversation allegedly between
Trump and Comey in which Obama allegedly says, Oge, make
sure you do it by the book. Now you can
draw your own conclusion, but mine is that this was
a cy a memo to cover the fact that the
(49:22):
FBI and Comey, we're not doing it by the book.
You can read more about it. Speaking of books, in
my book, which Hunt the story of the greatest mass
delusion in American political history. Let's go to our next caller.
Jerry joins us from beautiful and warm Florida. Hey, Jerry,
Happy New Year. Thank you. Greg. Hey, it's a pleasure
(49:44):
to talk to you. I think you are one of
the most logically based people on the television or radio
and I I really appreciate your thank you. So I
come from a family of Democrats, did in old Democrats,
all union people. I started, Yeah, I started my own
(50:06):
business in the mid eighties after I finally broke away
from the mindset of of you know that the nanny
state was going to take care of me. And well,
let's just put it this way. I have a business
I run that's in Oregon. But I live in Florida,
and I definitely do a lot better than I did
working for them, for you know, some big company that
(50:29):
you work for until you die, and that's what you do.
But the mindset, the mindset of the Democrats, it's really important,
and I think I really have it down path and
it part of it is the indoctrination of the evilness
of anybody that's not wearing the same color hat. It's
(50:50):
basically it's just like whether you're a Yankee or a
Foxed and Red Sox fan, it's like, by God, it
might be a crook, but by God's crook. And so
you know, they they they refused to open their eyes
to seeing anything until it literally hits them between the eyes.
(51:11):
That's what happened to me, changed my whole life. Was was
was understanding that everything I had been taught that the
Democrats supposedly stood for was all bs. And then I
saw in the in the mid to late eighties, the
news media carrying their water with you know, and I'm
(51:34):
a big hunter and gun, you know, right supporter, and
I watched the news media line just outright line about
things that the NRA were doing, and they and the
news media ran with some of the stuff that was
a complete line for years and years and it's gotten
(51:56):
nothing but worse. Yeah, you know, Jerry, since you all
your family or friends or Democrats, did you buy them
my book which hunt to set the record straight and
maybe open their eyes and minds with the truth. I'm sorry,
but you know, I'm afraid if I bought them the
(52:16):
book they would probably care out the pages and actually
light a fire with it. So they are not They
are not open minded to it at all. They all
thought I was crazy for when I started my own business.
But the point though, that I wanted to make was
that intel Republicans conservatives make a compelling argument that the
(52:38):
common man can get their head wrapped up around in
an emotional basis, which is what Democrats are really good about,
is pulling the emotion out of a subject and going
at it in a way that somebody can understand how
they are being stabbed in the back by these people
over and over again. And quit sightings, statistics and all
(53:01):
that kind of stuff that does not do anything to
sway public opinion. All right, Jerry, thanks very much from Florida. Listen,
I don't disagree with you, and you know There's two
problems here. First of all, these Democratic candidates are trying
to buy votes with you know, free this, free that,
you know, free college education, free guaranteed income, you know,
(53:25):
forgiveness of debts. You know, it reminds me of the
old Herbert Hoover. You know, a chicken in every pot,
of car, in every garage, and you know it's just
buying votes. Medicare for all green new deal. You know, Kumbaya,
We're all gonna pay for you. Americans are smarter than that.
(53:48):
They know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Next is John from Michigan. Hey, John, thanks for being
with us. Happy New Year. Thanks for having me. Greg Kennedy.
Maybe I should change my name. I don't know. Yeah,
that's right now. It's great talk to you, mister Jared.
I uh, you know, as much as I enjoy Sean,
I'm actually glad you're on because I have a I
(54:11):
have a question to pose more of a leaguer statue.
That's okay. Yeah, I'm obviously a very big believer and
I think you are to. You actually played a clip
a little while ago that the media is propetially pushing
lies and false information to fit an agenda, right, you
know that's obviously verified. Some ninety six percent of coverage
and news is negative against this administration. Yeah, so it's
(54:33):
not only just false, it's intentionality is false as well.
So while the president and now legal office can really
do anything to the media because they hide behind freedom
of the press and the constitution, what about the people?
What about the citizens? Greg, Can we do a you know,
a class action or anything against them, start holding them accountable?
I mean, because they're gonna have to address that if
(54:53):
the people stand up and say, Okay, I got sixty
million people don't want to sue us? Yeah, but your
thoughts on something like that, Yeah, you know, there would
have to be a legitimate cause of action, as it's
known in a civil action, such as a class action
lawsuit for money damages. And I can't think of any
off the top of my head. You know, it is
(55:16):
not a crime for the media to lie to the
American public. I wish it were otherwise, because they'd all
be in jail. But it's just not in the First Amendment,
you know, protects free speech. We have such a thing
as defamation. But when it comes to you know, lying,
(55:38):
you know about a public figure. You have to show
actual malice, which is a very high standard. In the
New York Times versus Sullivan, it's an impossible standard. You
have to show that a member of the media knew
that it was a lie or recklessly disregard of the truth,
and it's you know, it's just a tough standard. So
(56:00):
the answer is no. But the the response that the
American public should meet out to the corrupt media, the
line media, the biased, hating media, is to stop watching
those programs on CNN and MSNBC and stop reading the
(56:23):
New York Times and the Washington Post. And the only
way that you can let your opinions and feelings about
the dishonest media be known and be effective is you know,
to you know, vote with your eyeballs and your ears.
(56:45):
Don't listen and watch fake news media like CNN and MSNBC.
Why anybody with a brain would ever tune in to
Rachel Mattow is confounding in bewildering to me. She has
a proven track record of getting it wrong. She spent
(57:09):
two and a half years telling her viewers, promising them
that Trump was guilty of a criminal collusion conspiracy, telling
her viewers that the dossier was true, and both of
those things were absolutely wrong. In my view, she has
(57:30):
no credibility and you would have to be insane to
continue to watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. We're gonna pause,
take quick break, more of your calls. On the other side,
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in on the Sean Hannity Show.
(57:51):
Closing moments of the Sean Hannity Show. On Greg Jarrett
filling in for Sean. Let's go to our phone lines.
David in Washington, Hi, David, how are you? It was great?
How about I'm well? Thanks, which I had to write
this down just to make sure I didn't stumble over
what I was thinking. So get this to you. With
all your investigations for your book. One thing that has
always stuck out to me from the beginning was the
(58:12):
time Hillary during the debate chuckled and said to Trump,
if you lose, you'll say the election was rigged. As
we know, she was already funding the dossier. Do you
think that, from things you've learned and possibly some of
this was so that they after they quote quote won
the election, everyone would be in place and possibly put
Trump in jail. No, I don't think The plan was
(58:35):
to put Trump in jail. I think it was is
Peter struck In Lisa Page said, an insurance policy. The
Trump Russia collusion hoax was all an insurance policy, and
the unlikely event that Trump was elected, they would use
it to destroy him and drive him from office. That
I think is what their plan was, And the assumption
(58:58):
was that Trump would ever win and all of this
would be covered up. If you want to read more
about it, I hope you'll pick up my new book,
witch Hunt, The Story of the greatest mass delusion in
American political history. It tells the story from beginning all
the way to the end. There was never any credible
(59:19):
evidence that Trump had engaged in some Russian collusion conspiracy.
There was never any plausible evidence that he was a
Russian asset, and it was all based on a fabricated
phony dossier. And now we know from the Inspector General's
(59:39):
report that the FBI knew it almost immediately, within months
of launching their investigation. They had learned from the subsource
who provided all of the dossier information that it was phony,
that it was exaggeration, It was here say, built on
(01:00:01):
multiple hearsay. Some of it was said in jest, which
Hunt is my new book. I hope you'll pick it up.
I'm Greg jarrett in for Sean Hannity.
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jared of
the Fox News Channel, filling in for Sean, who has
a few days off, and he certainly deserves it among
the hardest working men in television and radio. So Sean,
I hope you're having a good time. It's a new year, folks,
(00:20):
and it's a new decade, and it's a new presidential
election coming up to the chagrin of the Trump paiding media,
and they're vengeful, rapacious co conspirators like Nancy Pelosi, Chucky Schumer,
Jerry Nadler, and the chronically dishonest Adam Schiff, not to
(00:41):
mention the gaggle of Democratic presidential candidates who are bereft
of any good ideas that can compete with Donald Trump's
economic record. The president is poised to be re elected
to another four year term. And why do I say that,
Because historically we know that people tend to vote their
(01:04):
wallets if things are going well for them financially. They
do endorse the status quo. They reject change, change that
runs the risk of reversing the games and their well being.
And there's no reason why people shouldn't be self interested
(01:25):
in their vote that's what democracy is all about. What's
good for individuals collectively is good for the nation. And
as we began twenty twenty, the stock market continues to
hit all time high, as your four oh one K
and other investments, if you have them, are probably better
(01:49):
now than ever before. Consumer confidence has hit a twenty
year high, Unemployment is at a fifty year low, the
best employment figures in half a century, and poverty is
down substantially, in large part because wages continue to rise
(02:11):
GDP and consumer spending are incredibly strong. And whether you
like him or not, Donald Trump deserves credit for much
of this because he kept his promises. He cut taxes
that boosted not just the American workforce, but incentivized employers
(02:33):
to invest and expand. He rolled back the honorous and
expensive regulations that were choking businesses to death. And what
did Democrats have to offer? They want to reverse course.
They want to raise taxes, not cut them. They want
(02:53):
to reinstate those regulations. They want to undertake trillion dollar
ideas is like the Green New Deal and Medicare for
All that would bankrupt the federal government and lead inexorably
to inflation, maybe recession and Frankly, Americans are smarter than that,
(03:17):
and it bodes well for President Trump's reelection, and it
bodes poorly for Democrats and the complicit media who aid
and abet them. Come November, if Donald Trump is reelected,
Rachel Maddow's head will explode. And I don't want to
(03:38):
miss that one. Rachel Maddow Prime Time MSNBC, who spent
much of Donald Trump's first term claiming that he's a
Manchurian candidate, Putin's puppet acting as a covert Kremlin asset.
Take a listen, and if the president did that day
(04:01):
because he has some reason to serve that other country
rather than our own, well, then a lot that has
previously been inexplicable is now explicable. Is our president subordinate
to a foreign power? Does our president answer to a
foreign government and a foreign leader? The worst case scenario
(04:23):
that the president is a foreign agent suddenly feels very powerful.
It would change the world. Is if you know, Russia
was interfering in the election and they weren't doing it
on their own, and he was in on it. I mean,
this guy, supposedly somebody who works at the Russian Central Bank,
Why did the FSB give him a medal for his work,
a medal of appreciation right after Donald Trump clinched the
(04:46):
Republican nomination for president. If the presidency is effectively a
Russian op, right, if the American presidency right now is
the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and
an American campaign, I mean that is oh, profoundly big. Yeah,
that's the kind of nonsense, the bs that Rachel Maddow
(05:08):
was pedaling every night more than anybody else. Madow advanced
the Trump Russia collusion hoax, assuring her lapdog and unthinking
viewers that the president would be tossed out of office
once the Muller report was made public. She promised that
the Clinton funded anti Trump dossier was absolutely true. Trust me,
(05:33):
she said, night after night, and she was relying on
useful idiots like James Clapper, Obama's director of National Intelligence,
as her source, the last guy would ever trust for anything.
For example, in her monologue on August twenty third, twenty seventeen,
Matdow stated with unreserved certainty that quote nothing in the
(05:56):
dossier has been overtly disproved since it was first posted online, Right, Rachel,
except that all of the main allegations against Trump had
been overtly disproved by the FBI. Months earlier, they had
tracked down Christopher Steele's primary information source, who, according to
(06:22):
the recent IG report, admitted it was a collection of
embellishments and lies cobbled together from hearsay, built on hearsay.
Some of it was said in jest over beers. But
the conspicuous absence of real evidence did not stop the
malevolent Mattow from peddling her phantasm. Here she is September fifteenth,
(06:47):
twenty seventeen, the Christopher Steele Dossier, which is a controversial
document for lots of reasons. Quoting from that, a lot
of it has been proven. Oh yeah, a lot of
it has been proven, you know. Night after night Mattow
promised her brainless sycophants that they'd be rewarded by the
(07:08):
Special Counsel Robert Muller. Trump would be cuffed and frog
marched out of the White House thanks to the dossier
that she treated as the gospel. According to Rachel, here's
another example. July second, twenty eighteen, in a typically obtuse monologue,
Mattow informed her viewers that quote, nothing in the dossier
(07:32):
has ever been disproven, except that it wasn't even close
to being true. That same month, I published my book
The Russia Hoax, disproving the main accusations in the phony dossier.
And I wasn't alone in that sugilus reporting by my
(07:53):
colleague John Solomon, the tenacity of my friend Sean Hannity
day after, on his radio show, This radio show, on
his television show on Fox News, showed that the dossier
was demonstrably false. There was no evidence of a criminal
collusion conspiracy with Moscow. The Mueller Report would so conclude,
(08:19):
and of course, when it was released April of this year,
that's exactly what happened. So did a contrite Mattow apologize
for misleading her audience with reckless reporting and analysis? Of
course she didn't. Was she fired from MSNBC? No way.
(08:40):
There were too many other people at the network who
embraced the same fraud. You think I'm kidding. NBC's Chuck
Todd on Meet the Press willingly bought into the hoax,
the same hoax, the Matdow hoax. On April fifteen, twenty eighteen,
he stated and quote, so far with its dossier, nothing
(09:03):
yet has been proven untrue. Nice job, Chuck. You have
earned coveted membership in the flat Earth society. And it's
not just the dopes at MSNBC and NBC. The folks
over at CNN adopted the dossier as scripture. Jim Shudo
said on air, quote, the dossier in factor is far
(09:26):
from bogus. Another CNN contributor said, increasingly it's the accurate dossier.
Increasingly it's the damning dossier, except the only thing that
was damming was the stupidity of CNN and Jeff Zucker,
who runs the joint. People like Rachel Maddow have no conscience,
(09:50):
no ability to admit fault or failure. She expressed not
a shred of regret or remorse for lying to her
viewers night after night, month after month, year after year.
Media critic Eric Wimple of The Washington Post Maybe you
saw this recently condemned Mattoo as a charlatan. He wrote
(10:13):
that she rooted for the dossier to be true, and
when it fell apart, she then just shifted her attention
to something else when confronted in a podcast. According to Wimple,
she pretended she never deceived her viewers by asserting the
validity of the dossier, she called it, in fact, creepy
(10:35):
to suggest otherwise. She actually said this in the podcast quote,
It's not like I've been making a case for the
accuracy of the Steel dossier and that's been the basis
of my Russian reporting. That's not true. Ladies and gentlemen,
you just heard the clips that we just played. Think
(10:57):
about what she's saying. I mean, in the street of lies,
can you come up with a bigger whopper than the
one pedaled by Rachel Maddow? And Mattow was just one
symptom in the larger disease of medium maupractice on steroids,
and they were rewarded for it. The Washington Post for
(11:20):
the New York Times actually won the two and eighteen
Pilotzer Prize for their reporting on the dossier and Trump's
collusion with Russia, except that the dossier was a fabrication
and collusion with Russia never happened. The people who got
(11:41):
it right, John Solomon, Sean Hannity, a great many others.
Those people were mocked, they were ridiculed, they were demeaned,
and the people who got it wrong were awarded Pilitzer Prizes.
In what Upside Down World? Does that happen, I'll tell
(12:03):
you it's the world of liberal dominated journalism. They never
admit their mistakes, especially the egregious ones. Instead, they award
prizes only to leftist reporters who manage to demolish the truth, fairness,
(12:24):
and accuracy as they move on. And Rachel Maddow is
like a cult leader with end of the world predictions,
and when they fail to come true, she picks a
new date and a new prophecy. I'm going to be
talking to John Sale, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor. He's
(12:48):
going to be joining us in just a few minutes.
We'd love to hear from you. Our telephone number is
eight hundred nine four one seven three two six eight
hundred nine four one on. I'm Greg Jarrett. This is
the Sean Hannity Show. Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity. By the way,
(13:12):
if you would connect with me on Twitter, my handle
is at Greg Jarrett two gs at the end of
Greg J A R R E T T. Check out
my website, the Greg Jarrett dot com, and we love
your calls. I'm gonna be talking to John Sale coming
(13:34):
up at just a moment, one of the best lawyers
in America, former Watergate prosecutor, and we'll have him way
in on the upcoming Durham investigation. It's ongoing, actually, but
we hope there's a report that emanates from it and
maybe some prosecutions. We'll have him wag in a little
(13:56):
bit on the media as well. In my new book,
witch Hunt, The Story of the greatest mass delusion in
American political History. It's available online at Barnes and Noble
dot com or Amazon dot com. Again, the title is
witch Hunt. I opened chapter six, which is entitled the
(14:21):
Media witch Hunt, with my favorite quote from The Wizard
of Oz, where Scarecrow says to Dorothy, I haven't got
a brain, only straw, and Dorothy responds by saying, how
can you talk if you haven't got a brain, And
(14:42):
Scarecrow replies, I don't know, but some people without brains
do an awful lot of talking, don't they, And that
is the mediat Scarecrow described today's mainstream media mob and
people like Rachel Maddow perfectly. People without brains do an
(15:08):
awful lot of talking. Rachel Maddow should have read both
my books The Russia Hoax and witch Hunt, because it
tells the story of the greatest mass delusion in American
political history. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity
(15:29):
on the Sean Hannity Show. Your phone calls and John
Sale coming up next, don't go away. Welcome back to
the Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for
Sean Hannity. Very pleased to have with us today. A
former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York
and assistant Special Watergate prosecutor John Sale, who is one
(15:53):
of the best lawyers in America. For my money and John,
Happy New Year. Thanks for being with us in my pleasure. Greg,
happy to you. You know, I want to ask you
a few questions about John Durham and Michael Horowitz. Now,
Horowitz is the Inspector General at the Department of Justice
who investigated the FBI and the DOJ, and if I
(16:16):
can just broad brush a couple of his conclusions, he
determined that there were errors and omissions and deceptions by
the FBI to the fi s accord and seeking a
warrant a spy on Trump campaign advisor Carter page. And
he also looked into the origins of the FBI's investigation
(16:41):
of Trump Russia collusion that was launched July thirty first,
two thousand and sixteen. And John Durham, specially appointed by
the Attorney General William Barr to look into the origins
of the Trump Russia case, made a very unusual public
(17:02):
statement the day that Horowitz's report came out, and he
said that he disagreed with Horowitz as to the predication
and how the FBI case was opened. So what does
that tell you, John, Well, the Department of Justice rarely
makes any public statements on ongoing investigations. But the actual policy,
(17:27):
the DOJ policy is they don't comment on open investigations, quote,
unless there's a compelling public interest. So here I think
John Durham felt the American public should not think case closed.
There was no political motive in opening the investigation. But
as the consummate professional that he is and he's conducting
(17:48):
a grand jury investigation, he didn't leak anything and he's
going to investigate this thoroughly. And let me tell you,
I have not met John Durham, but I have actually
spoken to two former Attorneys general, both of whom one
Democrat one Republican who appointed him to some very sensitive
(18:10):
investigations to run. And they've both told me he's a
straight shooter, he's not political. He's going to call him
as he sees him, and he's not going to be
afraid to indict people if the evidence is there. So
I think there are some people who are going to
have a lot to be concerned about. But in fairness,
you know, I don't want to mention names. I don't
want to say who may or may not be indicted.
(18:32):
But just what John Durham was saying is stay tuned,
it's not over. Yeah. I mean, he had and he
pointed this out in his statement the day the Horowitz
report came out. He said, based on the evidence collected
to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month
advised the Inspector General we didn't agree with his conclusions
(18:54):
as to predication and how the case was open. And
he went on to state that he has access to
more information from quote other persons and entities, both in
the United States and outside the United States, so he
has far greater power, authority, and jurisdiction than the Inspector General,
(19:19):
who many people have likened to, you know, sort of
an auditor. You know, I actually liken him to sort
of a stenographer. He gets statements from people and regurgitates
them in his report. What do you think, well, he
could he did not. I think he did a very
good job considering the limitations of what he did. He
(19:39):
had to accept people's answers. He had to accept people
if they said they don't recall he couldn't. There's something
he could do by the same token John Durham as
a prosecutor, he has the grand jury. He can subpoinea
people for the grand jury. He can subpoine a documents,
He has access to records from overseas, pursuing to various
(20:00):
mutual assistants, treaties that we have with foreign governments. And
so I think Durham did a good job considering the
limited powers he had. And I think some of the
Durham findings are I'm sorry, some of the Harrowitz findings
are very, very troubling. So I don't think we can
just say that, well, Horowitz swept anything under the rug.
(20:22):
I mean he found seventeen abuses or where the Fiser
Court was misled either our omissions or very outright lies,
and even even found that a lawyer supervising the prespiser
process altered a document in a very material way. I mean,
(20:43):
the fis of court was part of legislation in the
seventies to make up for the abuses under the Hoover regime.
And by god, it assumed that our DJ lawyers and
our FBI agents would be honorable and would never deceive
a court. I do this for a living. Deceiving a
court is not forgivable, No, it's not. It's actually, as
(21:05):
I describing my book, potentially criminal. It's defrauding the court.
When you're signing off, you're swearing under penalty of perjury,
that what you're representing is true, that you verify the
information and you're right. Horowitz found seventeen significant deceptions or errors.
(21:27):
But you actually have to turn to Appendix number one
and you find a flow chart identifying a total of
fifty one inaccurate statements, errors, omissions of exculpatory evidence, and
you know, the altering of a document and outright lies
(21:49):
in deceptions. So you know, I identify various potential crimes
in my book that that could constitute. What's troubling to
me is that the judges who were deceived the face
accord and the presiding Judge, Rosemary Colliers only response so
far has been to send a letter an order to
(22:12):
the FBI saying, by thus in such a date in January,
let us know how you're going to fix this, John.
I mean, wouldn't most judges who were deceived haul the
individuals who did it in front of them for a
show cause contempt hearing? Well, it may be that they're
waiting to see what Durham is doing. And also yes,
(22:34):
of course, but the penalty for contempt may not be
great enough because I do this for a living, and
I have companies or individuals or the subject of search
wards and it's one sided. It's a one sided process.
Who is going to make up to caught a page
(22:54):
what happened here? He's an American citizen and he was
surveiled illegally. He's a graduate of the Naval Academy, and
I mean he was to put it very simply, he
was working for the good guys. He was working for us.
And the false one of the false statements to the
fires of court or one of the ulti water jackiments
(23:16):
made it seemed like he was working for the other side.
I mean, that's not a minor little error that rises
to the level of being shocking the conscience. He is
a term that we lawyers use, you know. James Cummy
seemed to be saying in his interview with my colleague
on Fox News, Chris Wallace, that, um, well, you know,
(23:38):
I just signed off on this and I'm way up
on top and this was seven layers below, to which
Attorney General Durham said, that's nonsense when he sat down
for an interview with Martha McCallum of Fox News. Yeah, Bill,
I'm sorry, Bill barr And and so, um, you know,
(23:58):
it's sort of invite the question. If Durham concludes that
the court was deliberately deceived, is it an excuse for
a guy like Calmy to say, well, I just trusted
others when I signed it. Well, one of the things
that Harrowit's testified to during the hearing was I don't
(24:22):
have the lant exact language in front of me. But
he said he couldn't really conclude whether all of the
FBI's of regious mistakes were the product of gross negligence
or something worse. So if it is true that Comy
was just above it all. He certainly should take responsibility
(24:43):
because the buck stops here. If it goes way beyond that,
and he did supervise this personally because it was the
most important investigation the Bureau was doing, then Durham will
have to make a judgment call on that. If the
FISI court has fed fifty one inaccurate statements and deceptions
(25:03):
in the withholding of exculpatory information fifty one times, and
all of them in one direction against Donald Trump, isn't
it hard to argue, you know, gross negligence. I would
rather be on the other side, and rather than trying
to defend the gross negligence, I want to give Director
(25:24):
Came and everyone else the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
Maybe that's just my nature as a defense lawyer, but
I think it, Yes, I think it is hard to
make the case that it's only gross negligence. You know,
we have played the SoundBite of Rod Rosenstein here before
in which he talks about how serious you know FISA
(25:45):
warrant applications are, and you know that you have to
be very scrupulous when you sign off on that, and
you have to make sure that the information is absolutely accurate,
has been properly vetted and corroborated and verified. I mean,
this is Rod Rosenstein on tape who has said this,
(26:09):
and yet he signed the final FISA warrant application, So
he would have no excuse to say, oh, I just
trusted others when he's on record saying you as a signature,
have to make sure that it's accurate information. Would you agree, well,
I agree that application is so serious that the person
(26:34):
at the top cannot just they are relying on others
and sign it that they have the responsibility to be
sure it's accurate. Just as in the private sector, CEOs
of companies are responsible when they sent CFOs, when they
sign off on financial statements, they're criminally responsible, not only
(26:55):
in terms of accountability to shareholders. Last question is the
launching of the Trump Russia collusion investigation. Again was formally
opened on July thirty first, two thousand and sixteen. Peter
Struck signed the papers, but it was surely approved at
the highest levels of the FBI. And in my book,
(27:18):
I go through the federal regulations of the Department of
Justice and the FBI, and it states you must have
before you open the investigation two things you must have
a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been
or will be committed, and number two, it has to
be supported by specific articulable facts. And I argue in
(27:45):
my book that George Papadopoulos hearing a rumor is not
a sufficient articulable specific fact, So that would have been
a bad basis to open up the investigation. And as
if it was the dossier that they were relying on,
(28:08):
none of it had been verified at that juncture. So
is that perhaps what John Durham is looking at when
he says he doesn't agree that the case was opened
with proper predication. Well, I think, Greg, I think it's
worse than you stated it because it was opened by
(28:29):
specific articulable facts, but they were false facts. And the
dossier they misrepresented to the court that it had been verified,
and they didn't tell the court that it was funded
by the opposition party, So it's even worse. I mean
your book, I read it. I thought it was great.
I couldn't put it down, but frankly, I wondered, is
(28:52):
it true? I mean, I thought it was a novel
and as we look at it now, I mean it's remarkable.
I mean, how you were right right on, and not
only were your research because you didn't have access to
the things that Durham and Harrow was that access to,
and you pulled things out of the public record, and
you analyze the law and the regulations. And as I
(29:15):
look at your book again, now not only is it
a great read, but it was correct, it was accurate.
John Sale, many thanks for being with us. Always great
talking here. John Sale, former federal prosecutor, former assistant special
Watergate prosecutor. Happy New Year to you, and thanks for
being with us your calls on the other side. In
just a moment, I'm Greg Jarrett. This is the Sean
Hannity Show, and welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
(29:38):
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity. All Right,
you may have noticed, maybe you saw some clips recently
of Joe Biden at a rally and being heckled by
a variety of individuals or were calling him quid pro Joe,
and of course the form of Vice President didn't like
(30:01):
it one bit, immediately sought to blame Donald Trump. This
is a democracy, this is not a Trump rally, and
the hecklinge quid pro Joe continued, Because, of course, Joe Biden,
in his immense hubris and cluelessness, we call him clueless Joe,
(30:24):
not shueless, Joe clueless. Joe. This is politics, not baseball.
You know, it seems to think that his son did
nothing wrong and that there is no evidence of impropriety
on his part. And that's not quite how Hunter Biden
put it. In an interview with ABC's Amy Rohbock October fifteenth,
(30:48):
Take a listen when he said, I hope you know
what you're doing. What did he think you were doing well?
He wrote, The press reports that I joined the board
of Brisma, which was a Ukrainian natural gas company, and
there's been a a lot of misinformation about me, not
about my dad. Nobody buys that, but ad buys this
idea that I was unqualified to be on the board.
What were your qualifications to be on the board of
(31:10):
ARESMA Well. I was vice chairman of the board of
Amtrak for five years. I was the chairman of the
board of the UN World Food Program. I was a
lawyer for boyshill Or Flexner, one of the most prestigious
law firms in the world. You didn't have any extensive
knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself though. No, But
I think that I had as much knowledge as anybody
(31:30):
else that was on the board, if not more. In
the list that you gave me of the reasons why
you're on that board, you did not list the fact
that you were the son of the of course, Yeah, no,
what role do you think that played. I think that
it is impossible for me to be on any of
the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I'm
the son of the vice President of the United States.
You were paid fifty thousand dollars a month for your position. Look,
(31:51):
I'm a private citizen. One thing that I don't have
to do is sit here and open my kimono as
it relates to how much money I make or make
or did or didn't. But it's all been reported. If
your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would
have been asked to be on the board of Barisma.
I don't know. I don't know, probably not. I don't
think that there's a lot of things that would have
happened in my life that if my last name wasn't Biden. Yeah, no, kidding,
(32:15):
that is Hunter Biden, And I don't think it's fifty
thousand a month he got from Barisma for a job
upon which he held no qualifications to have. It was
more like eighty three thousand. But we'll put that question
to Peter Schweizer, who joins US now, who is Government
(32:36):
Accountability Institute President, an author of Secret Empires as well
as Clinton Cash and he joins US now. Peter, it's
always great talking to you. Thanks for taking the time. Oh,
it's always a pleasure. Greg, great to be on with you.
So how much was he actually getting from Barisma? Hunter Biden?
He was getting eighty three thousand, three hundred and thirty
(32:58):
three dollars a month, which, if my am math is accurate,
as a million dollars a year. And he got that
beginning in April of twenty fourteen. You know what happened
is his business partner, Devin Archer, went to the White
House in April of twenty fourteen. We know that based
on White House visitors logs, and we don't know what
(33:19):
the meeting was about, but Devin Archer, Hunter's business partner
was there for you know, five or six hours meeting
with a vice president, and that we know. In the
days that followed, literally the days that followed, a Barisimus
started depositing transfers into the account of Devin Archer and
Hunter Biden, and they were each getting eighty three thousand,
(33:39):
three hundred and thirty three dollars a month. And that
is way out of proportion. You know, if you sit
on the board of Exxon or other corporations like that
in the United States that are much larger, much more legitimate,
sitting on that boards, more demanding, you're getting paid a
fraction of that. So this is a is a sweetheart
deal of sweetheart deals that or Biden had and Joe
(34:02):
Biden had been appointed as the point person by the
Obama administration in Ukraine. And at one point in Time's
he's urging Ukraine too, if I recall correctly, increase their
natural gas production. At the same time his son is
sitting on the board of the biggest natural gas company
(34:23):
in Ukraine. Right, that's right. I mean, Greg, you talk
in your book, which Hunt, about how the machine ree
of government was twisted and distorted to to get political enemies,
in this case, Donald Trump, in this case you're talking
about twisting the machinery of government to benefit your family.
(34:45):
I talk about this and call this corruption by proxy.
In other words, Joe Biden is not going to be
stupid enough to take money from Ukrainians himself. He's not
going to take money from the Chinese government himself. But
if his son in effect serves as a proxy, which
is pretty clear what happened here. I mean, the two
countries where Hunter Biden cashed in the most were Ukraine
(35:08):
and China, and those are the two countries that it
happens to be Joe Biden, as Vice president was point
person on for policy. You know, that's either one hell
of a coincidence or it speaks to the issue that
these foreign entities knew exactly what they were paying for
when they were paying Hunter Biden. And you know, most
(35:30):
people I think out in the country see that and
know that it's a big denial game. Still in Washington, Dco.
There's nothing inappropriate about this. If this happened in your
small town, or if this happened elsewhere, people see it.
They know that the gig is up. They know what's
going on, and it's just Joe Biden's continue to assist
insistence that there's no connection between his son's business activities
(35:53):
and his venturing into new fields where he has no
background in either China or Ukraine or energy private equity
just speaks to that fact, and I think it's going
to really hurt him here in twenty twenty. What did
Barisma hope to gain out of pain this enormous amount
of money, more than a million dollars to the son
(36:14):
of the Vice president. Were they hoping to gain access, influence, protection,
all of the above? Great question, I think all of
the above. You know, we know at the time that
Hunter Biden and Devin Archer joined the board together. And
remember Devin Archer was a former top aide to John Kerry,
who was Secretary of State at the time, So they
(36:36):
were kind of getting a two fer here. They were
getting the Vice president's son and a close aid to
John Kerry, the Secretary of State at the time they
joined the board. The founder of Zolachevsky, who is this
sort of pro Russian oligarch from the Anakovic government, was
facing criminal charges in London from the series fraud office,
(36:59):
from Rainians, from others in Europe. He was basically living
in Switzerland and sort of quasi exile. He was not
really allowed to come to the United States, nor was
another Ukrainian oligarch named Kolomoiski, who was actually not allowed
to visit the United States at all. That was changed
(37:19):
once these two joined the board. The case against Lechevski
was dropped by certain foreign countries, so there is that
sense that perhaps he was being protected. There's also the
sense that Bisma was ponying up at the bar as
it were to get access to USAID money the United
States Agency for International Development or in the Obama administration. Again,
(37:43):
this is being steered by Joe Biden, is passing out
aid and money two companies like Bizma certainly they wanted
to benefit from that relationship. And then I think there's
finally just the sense that in Ukraine this is how
politics is done. It's a highly corrupt political culture, one
of the most corrupt in the world. Some authorities say
(38:06):
things go on there that would make Nigerians wins, and
how corrupt it is. So they figure that's the way
they do politics in business. We're going to do that
in the United States, and the Bidens were all too
happy to do it. So Joe Biden is seen on
videotape bragging about a quit pro quel that he said
(38:29):
he would see to it that a billion dollars in
American aid was withheld from Ukraine. In less, Victor Chokin,
the then chief prosecutor in Ukraine, was fired. Sho is
on record telling, including The Washington Post in a July
twenty second, twenty nineteen published interview, that he was fired
(38:56):
because his investigators were closing in on corrupt in Barisma
and also about to investigate an interview Hunter Biden. So
when Joe Biden's and the mainstream media says, oh, there's
no connection, there, don't the facts suggest otherwise they absolutely do.
(39:21):
You know, what I can do is speak obviously to
the fact pattern and Greg, I mean you, I think
can probably break this out from the legal context of this.
But what we know is that clearly Ukrainian officials were
investigating Barisma Barisma. There were multiple investigation against Barisma because
at the time it was widely recognized in investment circles
(39:43):
in Ukraine that Bisma was not a company you wanted
to do business with, because there were all these huge
questions about money and how the company was formed and
what it was using its money for, and that's a
matter of public record. Joe can confirm that, as you
said of the Washington Post. He also confirm that to
The New York Times. Uh. And there's no reason to
(40:04):
question him. And the only defense that you know, Biden
um and his team have offered is well, you know,
lots of people wanted Shokin fired because he was corrupt,
which you know, obviously he's a question that's that's open
and that can be discussed, but is irrelevant to this question.
I mean, I think it's a it's a massive conflict
of interest for you to be the bearer of this threat,
(40:26):
of the one who's bringing forward this threat and this
clear quid pro quo to somebody who is potentially going
to put your son in legal peril um. And and
the fact that other people thought Chokin was a bad
prosecutor's corrupt is completely irrelevant. Um. And I think this
is an issue that is not going to go away
(40:47):
for Biden because he hasn't effectively honestly dealt with it.
And I think there's going to be more reporting coming
out from John Solomon and others that are going to
indicate clearly what we know about the money flows too
Drew Biden and other people connected with BISMA, Yeah, under
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it is illegal. It's a
(41:08):
crime for a public official to confer a benefit in
exchange for something of personal value to himself or to
an immediate relative, ie your son. And so you know,
I've argued repeatedly that if the President felt that Ukraine
(41:29):
had evidence of a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act by an American official, Joe Biden, he had every
right to ask Ukraine to please look into it, handover
evidence if you have any. And the fact that Joe
Biden may be running from president United States doesn't give
(41:50):
him immunity or amnesty from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
I think I think that's a that's a hugely important point,
greg And I think that that famous phone call now
that Donald Trump had with the President of the Ukraine's
Lechev's sorry Zalinski is even more important when you consider
(42:10):
the fact that Zelenski rises to power in Ukraine. His
biggest financial backer is Ukraine and oligarch named Kolomoski, who
is guess what involved with Bizma. So for the President
to raise it with the President of Ukraine, that's the
way to do it. In a sense, Trump is signaling
(42:31):
to Zelenski, I want you to look at this without
saying I know who your backers are, I know that
they may be implicated in this, but you need to
look at this, and I agree with you. It's completely appropriate.
The actions we're talking about did not occur when Joe
Biden was a private citizen. He was Vice President of
the United States. He was executing and carrying out American
(42:54):
policy in Ukraine, and his son was profiting at the
same time. So if this is going to be looked
at at all, it needs to be looked at. Now.
If Joe Biden's out of politics, people would be saying, oh,
there's no reason to look at it. He's out of politics.
It should be looked at and it was quite appropriate
for President Trump to raise this issue with Zealivsky in
the manner in which he did. Peter Schweitzer, you are
(43:16):
a wealth of information and your books are among my favorite,
the most recent Secret Empires. Thank you for taking the time.
Happy New Year. I'm Greg Jared filling in for Sean
Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show. More of your calls
on the other side or number is eight hundred and
nine four one. Sean Creed filling in for Sean Hannity,
(43:40):
and we are back now with just a couple of minutes.
Tom in Ohio has been on the line. Tom, Thanks
very much. Hey, Greg, I always just enjoy it when
you're guest hosting. I think you have a real knack
for the radio thing. And thank you. Don't quit your
day job, but glad to have you. Okay, thanks to
appreciate all that. I really appreciate all the hard work
(44:01):
you've done for the last three years exposing a lot
of the criminal behavior that's that's gone on with the
previous administration. I was hoping you could spend a couple
of minutes commenting on Susan Rice's email that she notoriously
left just prior to the end of the Obama administration,
where she memorialized the fact that the president was briefed
(44:25):
by all of the top law enforcement officers and you
know what you think that means? Going, yeah, it's a
great question, and on the other side of our break,
I'll provide the answer. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for
Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Radio Show. Well, Sean
is back on the radio sort of. I'm Greg Jarrett
(44:49):
filling in for Sean Hannity and thanks for being with
us over the course of these three hours. Sort of
because somebody recently introduced me as Greg Hannity. I'm not Kidney.
I was down in Florida given a speech in book
signing and and somebody mistakenly referred to me as Greg
Hannity in the introduction, and frankly, I take that as
(45:12):
a is a compliment. But no, we're not related, and
he's not my long lost child. I am actually considerably
older than Sean Hannity, although his hair is grand mine
is not. And no, I don't dye my hair, and
no it's not a tupei, which is you know, the
(45:34):
most frequent it's unbelievable, Ethan, the most frequent UM email
or Twitter, you know. Criticism I get is stop wearing
that awful tupei or stop dyeing your hair. I'm sorry,
but this is my real hair and I don't diet.
(45:56):
Ginger cuts my hair once a month, and she can
a chest to the fact that, No, I don't dye
my hair and it's real hair that is cut, and
I you know, viewers may not like it, and I
apologize for that, but there's nothing I can do about
my hair. It's my hair, okay. And my mother had
(46:20):
pitch black hair until the day she died at age
eighty two. And it's just a genetic thing. And what
can I tell you? And so, you know, what do
you want me to do? Color my hair gray? Should
I do that? I mean, Ethan, what do you think?
I'm just dumbfounded. That's pretty amazing. Did you think I
dye my hair? I only thought you might have, only
(46:42):
because you told us your age recently, which I didn't
believe either. I'm about to turn sixty five in April.
I couldn't believe it when you told us. To be honest,
yeah I aren't. I supposed to apply for Medicare in
the six months before I turned sixty five and not
the deal. Yeah, okay, Well help me with that. I
guess you won't. You're lying. You're not gonna help me.
(47:06):
Somebody's gonna help me with that, all right, Way off subject.
And I don't even recall how we got to it.
But tom our last caller had posed a very good question.
Can you explain your view of the Susan Rice email.
On the very last day of the Obama administration, President
Trump's inauguration day, January twenty, twenty seventeen. Tom's a smart fellow,
(47:30):
because not many people remember that email. And it's very
important because in it, Susan Rice, who was leading as
national security advisor for Barack Obama, writes this very unusual
message to herself, memorializing a conversation that she observed weeks earlier.
(47:52):
I believe it was January fifth, between Komey and Obama,
in which she quotes the President as instruct Tincomy be
sure to go by the book or some such thing
in the Trump Russia investigation. Now, why would Susan Rice
write that memo to herself. I'll tell you why. It
(48:16):
was a cya memo. And you know what that means,
cover your you know what, because at the time the
FBI wasn't going by the book. They had deceived the
FI succord to spy on a Trump campaign advisor carter page.
(48:36):
And we now know there were fifty one inaccurate statements, airs, deceptions, omissions,
and lies, including the doctrine of one email. And it
was that very month, January of twenty seventeen, that the
FBI learned that the dossier was phony. They learned it
(49:00):
from Christopher Steele's subsource. So there's this conversation allegedly between
Trump and Comey in which Obama allegedly says, Oge, make
sure you do it by the book. Now you can
draw your own conclusion, but mine is that this was
a cy a memo to cover the fact that the
(49:22):
FBI and Comey, we're not doing it by the book.
You can read more about it. Speaking of books, in
my book, which Hunt the story of the greatest mass
delusion in American political history. Let's go to our next caller.
Jerry joins us from beautiful and warm Florida. Hey, Jerry,
Happy New Year. Thank you. Greg. Hey, it's a pleasure
(49:44):
to talk to you. I think you are one of
the most logically based people on the television or radio
and I I really appreciate your thank you. So I
come from a family of Democrats, did in old Democrats,
all union people. I started, Yeah, I started my own
(50:06):
business in the mid eighties after I finally broke away
from the mindset of of you know that the nanny
state was going to take care of me. And well,
let's just put it this way. I have a business
I run that's in Oregon. But I live in Florida,
and I definitely do a lot better than I did
working for them, for you know, some big company that
(50:29):
you work for until you die, and that's what you do.
But the mindset, the mindset of the Democrats, it's really important,
and I think I really have it down path and
it part of it is the indoctrination of the evilness
of anybody that's not wearing the same color hat. It's
(50:50):
basically it's just like whether you're a Yankee or a
Foxed and Red Sox fan, it's like, by God, it
might be a crook, but by God's crook. And so
you know, they they they refused to open their eyes
to seeing anything until it literally hits them between the eyes.
(51:11):
That's what happened to me, changed my whole life. Was was
was understanding that everything I had been taught that the
Democrats supposedly stood for was all bs. And then I
saw in the in the mid to late eighties, the
news media carrying their water with you know, and I'm
(51:34):
a big hunter and gun, you know, right supporter, and
I watched the news media line just outright line about
things that the NRA were doing, and they and the
news media ran with some of the stuff that was
a complete line for years and years and it's gotten
(51:56):
nothing but worse. Yeah, you know, Jerry, since you all
your family or friends or Democrats, did you buy them
my book which hunt to set the record straight and
maybe open their eyes and minds with the truth. I'm sorry,
but you know, I'm afraid if I bought them the
(52:16):
book they would probably care out the pages and actually
light a fire with it. So they are not They
are not open minded to it at all. They all
thought I was crazy for when I started my own business.
But the point though, that I wanted to make was
that intel Republicans conservatives make a compelling argument that the
(52:38):
common man can get their head wrapped up around in
an emotional basis, which is what Democrats are really good about,
is pulling the emotion out of a subject and going
at it in a way that somebody can understand how
they are being stabbed in the back by these people
over and over again. And quit sightings, statistics and all
(53:01):
that kind of stuff that does not do anything to
sway public opinion. All right, Jerry, thanks very much from Florida. Listen,
I don't disagree with you, and you know There's two
problems here. First of all, these Democratic candidates are trying
to buy votes with you know, free this, free that,
you know, free college education, free guaranteed income, you know,
(53:25):
forgiveness of debts. You know, it reminds me of the
old Herbert Hoover. You know, a chicken in every pot,
of car, in every garage, and you know it's just
buying votes. Medicare for all green new deal. You know, Kumbaya,
We're all gonna pay for you. Americans are smarter than that.
(53:48):
They know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Next is John from Michigan. Hey, John, thanks for being
with us. Happy New Year. Thanks for having me. Greg Kennedy.
Maybe I should change my name. I don't know. Yeah,
that's right now. It's great talk to you, mister Jared.
I uh, you know, as much as I enjoy Sean,
I'm actually glad you're on because I have a I
(54:11):
have a question to pose more of a leaguer statue.
That's okay. Yeah, I'm obviously a very big believer and
I think you are to. You actually played a clip
a little while ago that the media is propetially pushing
lies and false information to fit an agenda, right, you
know that's obviously verified. Some ninety six percent of coverage
and news is negative against this administration. Yeah, so it's
(54:33):
not only just false, it's intentionality is false as well.
So while the president and now legal office can really
do anything to the media because they hide behind freedom
of the press and the constitution, what about the people?
What about the citizens? Greg, Can we do a you know,
a class action or anything against them, start holding them accountable?
I mean, because they're gonna have to address that if
(54:53):
the people stand up and say, Okay, I got sixty
million people don't want to sue us? Yeah, but your
thoughts on something like that, Yeah, you know, there would
have to be a legitimate cause of action, as it's
known in a civil action, such as a class action
lawsuit for money damages. And I can't think of any
off the top of my head. You know, it is
(55:16):
not a crime for the media to lie to the
American public. I wish it were otherwise, because they'd all
be in jail. But it's just not in the First Amendment,
you know, protects free speech. We have such a thing
as defamation. But when it comes to you know, lying,
(55:38):
you know about a public figure. You have to show
actual malice, which is a very high standard. In the
New York Times versus Sullivan, it's an impossible standard. You
have to show that a member of the media knew
that it was a lie or recklessly disregard of the truth,
and it's you know, it's just a tough standard. So
(56:00):
the answer is no. But the the response that the
American public should meet out to the corrupt media, the
line media, the biased, hating media, is to stop watching
those programs on CNN and MSNBC and stop reading the
(56:23):
New York Times and the Washington Post. And the only
way that you can let your opinions and feelings about
the dishonest media be known and be effective is you know,
to you know, vote with your eyeballs and your ears.
(56:45):
Don't listen and watch fake news media like CNN and MSNBC.
Why anybody with a brain would ever tune in to
Rachel Mattow is confounding in bewildering to me. She has
a proven track record of getting it wrong. She spent
(57:09):
two and a half years telling her viewers, promising them
that Trump was guilty of a criminal collusion conspiracy, telling
her viewers that the dossier was true, and both of
those things were absolutely wrong. In my view, she has
(57:30):
no credibility and you would have to be insane to
continue to watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. We're gonna pause,
take quick break, more of your calls. On the other side,
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in on the Sean Hannity Show.
(57:51):
Closing moments of the Sean Hannity Show. On Greg Jarrett
filling in for Sean. Let's go to our phone lines.
David in Washington, Hi, David, how are you? It was great?
How about I'm well? Thanks, which I had to write
this down just to make sure I didn't stumble over
what I was thinking. So get this to you. With
all your investigations for your book. One thing that has
always stuck out to me from the beginning was the
(58:12):
time Hillary during the debate chuckled and said to Trump,
if you lose, you'll say the election was rigged. As
we know, she was already funding the dossier. Do you
think that, from things you've learned and possibly some of
this was so that they after they quote quote won
the election, everyone would be in place and possibly put
Trump in jail. No, I don't think The plan was
(58:35):
to put Trump in jail. I think it was is
Peter struck In Lisa Page said, an insurance policy. The
Trump Russia collusion hoax was all an insurance policy, and
the unlikely event that Trump was elected, they would use
it to destroy him and drive him from office. That
I think is what their plan was, And the assumption
(58:58):
was that Trump would ever win and all of this
would be covered up. If you want to read more
about it, I hope you'll pick up my new book,
witch Hunt, The Story of the greatest mass delusion in
American political history. It tells the story from beginning all
the way to the end. There was never any credible
(59:19):
evidence that Trump had engaged in some Russian collusion conspiracy.
There was never any plausible evidence that he was a
Russian asset, and it was all based on a fabricated
phony dossier. And now we know from the Inspector General's
(59:39):
report that the FBI knew it almost immediately, within months
of launching their investigation. They had learned from the subsource
who provided all of the dossier information that it was phony,
that it was exaggeration, It was here say, built on
(01:00:01):
multiple hearsay. Some of it was said in jest, which
Hunt is my new book. I hope you'll pick it up.
I'm Greg jarrett in for Sean Hannity.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.