May 25, 2023 • 32 mins
Peter Schweizer and Eric Eggers joins Greg Jarrett to discuss the latest battle between the Government Accountability Institute and the New York Times. America's civil liberties are really under fire.
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):
Well, we'll come in.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Your sentence.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
A way against and saying you a constell will be
entire high tell and if you want a little bag
in ye, I come along.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
When it comes to whistleblowers, you were not entitled to it.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
That's an individuestion of mister Allen. Mister these individuals have
been determined got to be whistle blowers. These are not whistleblowers.
They've been determined by the agency not to be whistleblowers.
And I'm proud of the progress my administrations made. We
reduced the deficit in the first two years by one
point seven trillion dollars in the first two years. I
wish we could have just a normal human being as president.
(00:43):
That's what I want, afraido.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Is that in style.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Welcome to the.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Coming your sentence, going the way against as and.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Saying you a concert sell.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Sean Hennity Show.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
I see on breaking news.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
And more bold inspired solutions for America. Stay right here
for our final news roundup and information overload, and.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show. On Greg Jarrett
filling in for Shawn. He's taking some well deserved time off,
and I'm happy to be here. Check out my columns
on my website, Thegreg Jarrett dot Com, follow me on
Twitter at Greg Jarrett, and I hope you'll pick up
my new book, The Trial of the Century, about the
(01:38):
famous Scopes monkey trial. It was one hundred years ago,
but it is as relevant, if not more relevant, now
than ever before, where we find rampant acts of government
abuse and misuse, and America's civil rights and civil liberties
being egregiously violated by corrupt government Actors. Joining me now
(02:04):
are Peter Schweizer and Eric Eggers of the Government Accountability
Institute and hosts of the Drill Down podcast. Gentlemen, thanks
for being with us.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Great to be with you, Greg.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Thanks Greg.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Look, one of the reasons I was so anxious to
talk to you is because you guys apparently are now
in the crosshars of the New York Times, which frankly
is a badge of honor, and like Howard Beale, you're
not going to take it anymore. Right, So you came
(02:39):
out with your podcast and you have defended yourselves and
are challenging the New York Times. Tell us what's this
all about?
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, Greg, it's great to be with you as always. Yeah,
I mean for us, the issue really comes down to
the fact that at the Government Accountability Institute, we're about
government accountability. We write book books things like Clinton Cash
and books about the Bidens, etc. But we also have
this mission that if we're contacted by congressional committees, were
by the FBI, we're glad to talk to them. We
(03:11):
were approached by the FBI in twenty fifteen under the
Obama administration. They were investigating the Clinton Foundation. They were
fascinated by the mature we had in Clinton Cash. So
we had a series of conversations with the FBI at
the early stages of that investigation. Now it turns out
that certain people in the FBI, it appears to be
(03:32):
people like Tim Tebow, etc. Leaked the fact that we
were communicating with the FBI to the New York Times,
and they went after us and essentially said we were
part of this plot to frame Hillary Clinton, which is laughable.
We were approached by the FBI. The material we attached
and gave to them was, of course public records and
(03:55):
financial records things like that. Unlike the dossier, which was
totally you know, the Trump dossier, which was totally based
on false anonymous made up information, and that's what we're
so frustrated about. We're happy to cooperate with law enforcement
at any time, but the way it was presented I
think was outrageous.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Yeah, how it was presented, to be clear, Greg is
it was presentative. Peter Schweitzer and the government accountabili insuit
is attempting to sell information about Hillary Clinton or about
Hunter Biden. Actually, they put it in the article about
Hunter Biden as if we're proactively approaching them, said hey,
here's some stuff you should take a look at it,
when in fact the opposite is true. The FBI proactively
because of the quality of the work that we've done
(04:36):
here in both Clinton cash and secret empires that detailed
the information the Hillary Clinton's relationship with Russia, Hunter Biden's
relationship with a variety of people in nefarious regions of
the world. They came to us and said, hey, what
do you have We'd like to learn more about that.
That's kind of the opposite of the way that New
York Times presented it.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Yeah, no kidding. I mean what journalists in America hasn't
been contacted by law enforcement that says, hey, look, we
understand you may have some information of value to us
in enforcing the law. You know, we would like access
to it. I you know, when I was a young
(05:12):
reporter in Kansas, I remember getting a call from the
FBI and I said, look, most of what I do
is you know, public record, but I'm you know, issue
a standard subpoena and him We'll comply with the law
and turn it over to you. And you know, that's
what I did. Ended up that the guy had been
reporting about, who was clearly a crook, went to prison.
(05:38):
The FBI pursued him, and he was prosecuted and convicted
by a jurym went to prison. So, I mean, this
is not uncommon, but it strikes me that what The
New York Times is doing here in misrepresenting your work
is that they're trying to smear you, right, I mean,
(06:00):
is that their motivation?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Yeah? I think I think that's part of it. Yes,
And it's part of this larger debate that they have
of sort of going after I think conservatives in America.
And you know, here's the irony.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
You know, in all of this, this was presented in
the context of the Russian dossier, sort of defending the
Russian dossier, which we know of course was made up
and as fictional and is not true, and yet they
try to present it as we're sharing this information with
(06:34):
the FBI and the context of trying to undermine the
Russia dossier investigation, which I just you know, think is laughable.
And there was even a Twitter exchange that I had
with Peter Struck, you know, the famous FBI guy who
who again tried to say, oh, you know, the FBI
is dealing with you know, Peter Schweitzer. This is you know, terrible,
(06:55):
this is outrageous. And look, we have always been greg
as we've talked about, We've always been about information that
is real, that is factual. You can retrace the evidence
that we find. It's hard to find. You have to
find in court records, financial records sometimes you know, shipping records,
et cetera. But you can retrace our steps and to
try to sort of, you know, besmirge what we're doing,
(07:18):
and that they were having some kind of clandestine discussion
with the FBI that's nefarious, is just laughable. We'll talk
to any law enforcement agency that is interested in our
work and if they have a legitimate investigation going on,
same with the Congressional Committee. We'll talk to them. We're
glad to do it. And this is I think, what
is happening. So desperate in the attempt to protect people
(07:41):
like Tim Tebow and the FBI who killed the Hillary
Clinton investigation, who pushed the Trump Russia collusion investigation, in
a desperate attempt to support them, You've now got outlets
like The New York Times that are attacking the work.
Here's the irony, though, Greg, The New York Times actually
ran in twenty fifteen a four thousand word front page
(08:03):
piece confirming our findings in Clinton Cash.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
I remember it.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yeah. And by the way, the New York Times in
there new they've now run two stories on our discussions
with the FBI. In neither story, Greg, they ever mentioned
the fact that they actually confirmed our reporting in twenty fifteen.
It's outrageous, you know.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Because I either they know it and want to conceal it,
or they don't even remember that they did that, you know,
And I'm not sure which it is.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Well, here's the real irony, Greg, is that the fact
that the Steele dest exists in the first place is
due in large part not just for the reporting that
we did in Clinton Cash, which exposed the scheme by
which the Clinton Foundation took in over one hundred million
dollars from people that made money on the sale of
uranium assets, including US uranium assets that ended up in
(08:54):
the hands of Vladimir Putin. But the fact that The
New York Times would then validate, confirm, and build on
that reporting in their own story helped create this idea,
and the Clinton campaign knew about this vulnerability that they
had hey as they did poland she was ramping up
her campaign for president. The number one vulnerability they had
was that storyline, and so as a way to dodge
(09:14):
and perform some political jiu jitsu, they fabricated the idea
that the Trump campaign was a Russian asset. They then
paid for and got the Steele dossier created, They laundered
it through political operatives in the intelligence community, fed into
the mainstream media. So the whole idea of the Trump
being a Russian asset came because the Clintons knew they
were vulnerable with this Russian narrative, and that, by the way,
(09:36):
has impacted not just the twenty sixteen election, but the
twenty twenty election because the idea that the Hunter Biden
laptop was suppressed came from the fact that, well that
might be Russian disinformation. Again, the whole Trump Russia connection
came from the Clintons because, in part of the vulnerabil
it was created by the New York Times own reporting.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
It's wildly ironic. Yeah, I mean, it totally is. And
you know your New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash. I
read o and over again, so impressed with it. I
actually quoted from your book in my subsequent book, The
Russia Hoax, and the subtitle is the illicit scheme to
(10:13):
clear Hillary Clinton framed Donald Trump. There was this scheme
to clear Hillary Clinton and it wasn't just her email scandal,
in which she quite obviously committed crimes under the Espionage
Act obstruction of justice in destroying thirty three thousand documents
under subpoena. But you know what we find out in
(10:38):
your book, Clinton Cash, is, you know, the tens of
millions of dollars in Russian rubles or dollars that are
lavisht on the Clinton Foundation, which I recall, Peter you wrote,
you know, the Clintons treated as their personal piggybag.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Yeah, that's that's right, Greg. And by the way, the
subtitle of your book, I mean, boy, was that prophetic
You nailed it five years ago. Yeah, I mean, we
exactly know that now, and I would commend to everybody.
I don't generally encourage people to read the Columbia Journalism Review,
but a couple months ago, Jeff Girth, formerly of the
New York Times, had a long story on how did
(11:20):
this whole Trump Rush acclusion narrative start? And it's precisely
that point. It started because the Clinton campaign did internal
polling and they found their number one vulnerability was this
charge concerning uranium one and them making money from the
Clinton Foundation. That's why they went ahead and did this dossier.
And you're quite right. I mean, the whole issue with
(11:42):
Clinton cash was the fact that the Clintons were essentially
laundering money through the Clinton Foundation, and they were taking
from very nefarious sources, including some one hundred and forty
five million dollars from shareholders in Canada and elsewhere who
acquire uranium minds in the United States and in Kazakhstan.
(12:03):
That was approved by our federal government, including Hillary Clinton.
And then months later they turned around and sold those
assets to a huge profit to Russia, to Rosatom, the
Russian state atomic agency. So it was a clear operation
of enrichment to the Clintons, and I think everybody knew it.
And the New York Times confirmed that they confirmed the
(12:26):
fact that the Clintons were hiding the donations even though
they had signed a written agreement with Barack Obama's presidents
saying they were going to disclose all of them. So
all of that was out there, and that was clear,
and we uncovered the scheme. And all you need to
know is basically that when the Clinton Foundation, when Hillary
Clinton lost in twenty sixteen, within two years their donations
(12:48):
from overseas dropped by more than seventy five percent. It
was a scheme of self enrichment. Once she wasn't going
to be president, these foreign oligarchs had no reason to
pay her money anymore.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, and the money began to suddenly just vanish. You know,
she's not president though, we're not gonna pay her anymore,
you know. And it's so funny the New York Times
not remembering their own reporting confirming your work, must have
the same contagious case of amnesia that James coming. I
(13:22):
don't remember anything about the doncie, Hey, you're the Russia
hooks or anything, all right, guys, stick around for just
a second. We're gonna pause and take a quick break.
Lots more to ask you about, including the finding in
the Durham Report that there were four criminal investigations and
do Hillary Clinton operations and James Commy made those magically vanish?
(13:48):
He's a magician. We'll be right back with more of
the Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jared filling in for
Sean Hennedy, and welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show.
I'm Greg Jared filling in for Sean. Want to continue
our conversation now with our guests Eric Eggers Peter Schweitzer
of the Government Accountability Institute, and we were talking about
(14:11):
you know, you're now in the cross airs of the
New York Times. They're trying to smear you as I
don't know, colluding with the FBI, which is, you know, absurd.
But one of the things that we find out in
the Durham Report is that there were not one, not two,
but four criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton's activities. And we
(14:36):
find out in the Durham Report that thanks to James Comy,
all of those were shut down and they magically disappeared.
What do you make of that.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Yeah, it's pretty stunning. I mean, traditionally, the way the
FBI works in a matter like this is if you
have four individual investigations taking place at four different field offices,
those investigations continue coming. The leadership did was consolidate all
of them so they could basically control it. And the
Duram report is devastating. It talks about the fact that
(15:08):
senior FBI officials are saying, you know, we don't really
want to do this investigation because she might be president
one one day and we don't want to be on
her bad side. And as far as I'm concerned, that's
not the way you run a criminal investigation based on
thinking that that person might be president.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Now, one of the key differences between Peter Schweizer and
I is that when law enforcement calls me, I tend
to try to duck the call, but you know, Schweizer
is happy to take it and cooperate. And I think
that that's really the big takeaway from this is that
it's not like we sent information to the FBI said, hay,
take look at this, four different offices, four different agents,
four different supervisors, said, hey, these findings reek of corruption
(15:47):
of influence pedaling of things that might be violation of
US law, things that, by the way, a violation of
international law if you tried to do them elsewhere. They're
and so like, there's clearly legitimacy here. Four different offices
thought so. And only because they thought Hillary Clinton might
be president did they say that they were tiptoeing quote
unquote around the law. We have email exchanges that Lisa
(16:09):
Page is talking to Peter Strukes like, Hey, you can
be very careful here. And I think what the Dermamport
does a great job of contrasting the kit gloves they
treated the Clintons with as compared to the Trump Russian investigation,
which we now know is based on a total fabrication.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Guys, great work, and thank you for taking the time
to explain it. Eric Eggers, Peter Schweizer of the Government
Accountability Institute. As always, thanks for being our guest here
today on the Sean Hannity Show. We're going to pause
and take a quick break, but I'm Greg Jarrett filling
in for Sean Hannity. Lots more to talk about. Be
sure to pick up my new book, The Trial of
(16:45):
the Century. Order it pre sale online. I'm Greg jarreted,
this is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
Sleepy Joe just signed more executive actions in one week
than most presidents did in their entire term. So much
our democracy looks like Joe is the new dictator. Entities
on right now.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show. On Greg
Jarrett filling in for Sean. You can follow me on
Twitter at Greg Jarrett. You can go to my website
Vgreg Jarrett dot com, and there you'll find more information
about how to buy my new book. It comes out
in just a few days. It's called The Trial of
(17:27):
the Century. It's about the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. And
you know, people say, why did you decide to write
about a trial as famous as it may have been
in nineteen twenty five, What does that have to do
about today? Because it was all about our free speech
and civil liberties. They were on the precipice, they were
(17:51):
in jeopardy, they were at risk, and a courageous school
teacher and his legendary lawyer stood up for American rights.
And those rights, by virtue of their work, are sustained
and we enjoy them today. You know, history books tend
(18:12):
to overlook this critical moment in American history, when in
the nineteen twenties, this deep religious fervor swept the nation.
Almost overnight, books on evolution were banned under the mistaken
belief that Darwin's cornerstone theory undermined the Bible, which it
(18:32):
did not. In Tennessee, it became a crime to teach
evolution in public schools. And I say this young school
teacher by the name of Johnskol Scopes was arrested and
charged with the crime of teaching out of a state
approved textbook evolution. And the legendary attorney Clarence Darrow volunteered
(18:58):
at his own expense to defend Man Darrow's brilliant, devastating
cross examination of the fundamentalist icon. William Jennings Bryant, who
was the prosecutor in the case, think of this. The
defense attorney called the prosecutor to the witness stand. That
confrontation was described of the New York Times as the
(19:20):
most amazing court scene in Anglo Saxon history. And most
Americans know nothing about it, which is why I wrote
the book, and the stunning outcome dramatically shifted public opinion.
It spelled the beginning of the end for the kind
of government intrusion that our constitution for bids and free
(19:44):
speech rights were rescued by Daryl in that trial. Generations
of Americans became Darrow's beneficiaries. It's the reason I became
a lawyer. And isn't it entry that it foreshadowed today's
front culture wars where our civil liberties are again in jeopardy.
(20:09):
You just heard it in the last segment with my
guest Peter Schweitzer and Eric Eggers, an incredible story about
government abuse and media abuse. So you can get our book,
The Trial of the Century, available in bookstores nationwide beginning
on Tuesday. Order it right now Amazon dot Combarnesennoble dot com.
(20:33):
But let's talk a little bit more about government abuse
and corruption. You will find it in the recent congressional
investigation that uncovered an ungodly amount of foreign money flowing
into the Biden family bank account. So here's how it worked.
When he was vice president, Joe Biden would fly off
(20:55):
to countries overseas. He'd meet with leaders there as well
as wealthy business operators, nearly all of whom had close
ties to those governments. And isn't it curious that Within
weeks of those visits, huge amounts of GASH began secretly
being sent to shell companies and LLC's controlled by Hunter Biden,
(21:21):
tens of millions of dollars. It happened after every single
Joe Biden visit to China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Romania. It's
a long list all of those countries over which Joe
Biden had foreign policy influence. So what were those countries buying?
More to the point, what was Joe selling? Was he
(21:44):
pedaling access as well as promises of future influence that
would benefit America's adversaries. Well, it sure looks like it,
doesn't it. And House Oversight Committee was informed by a
credible whistleblower that the FBI now has in its possession
(22:05):
a smoking gun document depicting and here's a quote, a
criminal scheme involving Joe Biden and a foreign national in
the exchange of money for policy decisions. The Committee is
trying to get the document. The FBI is not denying
that it has the document, but the agency refuses to
(22:29):
turn it over. They told the committee, oh, trust us,
everything is okay, you don't need to see this. Well,
who in their right mind would ever trust the FBI.
Trust is earned. The FBI has squandered that trust. We
know it from the Durham Report. The bureau weaponized its
authority to launch a damaging investigation of Donald Trump in
(22:53):
twenty sixteen, quote without any actual evidence of and the
FBI lied to the PHISI Court, despy Comy and others
lied to the President, They lied to Congress, they lied
to the American people. When the Mueller Report eventually found
no collusion conspiracy, did the FBI apologize, No, They're undeterred.
(23:18):
But it's worse than that. The Durham Report also reveals
something we never knew before. The FBI conducted two hundred
and seventy eight thousand improper, warrantless searches on US citizens
under FISA. So they weren't just spye on Donald Trump's campaign.
(23:40):
They were spying on you two hundred and seventy eight
thousand times. Hey, here's the news flash. Why don't we
abolish the FISA court. It was always a bad idea.
It was a recipe for disaster, it was ripe for abuse,
and it happened. But you know, it wasn't just about
(24:01):
the twenty sixteen election. In the next presidential contest twenty twenty,
the same FBI went about influence the outcome in favor
of Biden against Donald Trump. They directed social media platforms
to suppress and center censor the Hunter Biden laptop story,
(24:22):
despite the fact they'd already confirmed it. They knew it
was authentic, they verified its contest. They didn't tell you
about that. They kept it a secret. The FBI's crooked
actions worked, Pulling data shows that sixteen percent of Biden
voters would have cast their ballots differently had they known
(24:44):
the truth. And when Biden was sworn in the FBI
the DOJ, they went about covering up Biden family corruption.
They buried incriminating evidence, which helps to explain why no
criminal charges have been brought in a five year old
criminal probe despite a plethora of compelling evidence of criminality.
(25:09):
US attorneys appointed by Joe stepped in and actually blocked
the planned prosecution. You know, I laugh whenever I hear
Democrats in their sycophant members of the media say, well,
you know, influence pedaling is wrong, it's unethical, but it's
not a crime. Nonsense. It's a variety of serious crimes, bribery, fraud, conspiracy,
(25:34):
a criminal violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a
violation of Faroh laws. Those are all crimes. There is
only one explanation for why no criminal charges have been brought.
The fix is in. Biden is being protected by a
corrupt FBI and a rotten Justice Department with Attorney General
(25:58):
Merrick Garland at the helm. This is exactly what our
founding fathers feared the most. They worried that a future
president might violate his sacred oath of office by secretly
conspiring with malign foreign actors to betray our nation for
(26:19):
cold hard cash. Our founders feared Joe Biden. When we
come back, we're going to talk about the latest efforts
to stop Donald Trump from becoming president all over again.
This time, it's not a criminal investigation that he colluded
with Russia. No, it's a flurry of planned indictments, none
(26:41):
of which are based on believable evidence or sustained by
the law. That doesn't matter to his enemies, local prosecutors
and a Garland appointed special counsel. I'm Greg Jarrett filling
in for Sewn on the Sean Hannity Show. Be sure
to pick up my new book It's out next week.
It's called The Trial of the Century, a fascinating look
(27:05):
into America on the precipice when our free speech rights
and civil liberties were in jeopardy. I'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show. I'm Greg Jarrett
filling in for Sean. Telling me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
Go to my website Vgreg Jarrett dot com. My new
(27:26):
book comes out in just a few days, The Trial
of the Century, about the famous Scopes Monkey trial. Now,
this was the most important case of the twentieth century.
The great Clarence Darrow's seminal defense a freedom of speech
helped form the legal bedrock on which our civil liberties
(27:47):
depend today. It was the biggest legal blockbuster of a
generation and the most heralded courtroom drama in America. You
can also order The Trial of the Century now online.
Go to my website. A couple of clicks you can
buy the book. And if Clarence Darrow were alive today,
(28:10):
he would volunteer to defend Donald Trump. How do I
know this? Here's what I wrote in my book in
just the first few pages. Quote Darrow detested the unchecked
authority and unlimited resources of prosecutors who cared more about
netting convictions than rendering true justice. End of quote. I
(28:35):
mean Darrow always railed against government abuse, especially prosecutors who
selectively targeted people they dislike. Sound familiar, Yes, well it should.
That's what's happened to Donald Trump. In New York, for example,
an unscrupulous Manhattan DA, Alvin Braggandi died the former president
(28:59):
without bothering to state an underlying crime. Why well, because
none exists under law. Bragg ran on the campaign promise
of getting Trump, and so doing, the DA shredded the
code of ethics that govern his conduct.
Speaker 4 (29:19):
It is a.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
Purely political prosecution. Everybody knows it. His own deputy wrote
a book confessing it's a political prosecution. They hated Trump,
they wanted to stop him from becoming president again. And
in Georgia, same scenario unfolding and equally on principled DA
(29:39):
Fanny Willis is her name, poised to indict Trump for
supposed election fraud. There's no evidence whatsoever that Trump urged
anybody to phony up ballots or manipulate the vote count.
The bias DA has seized on a snippet of a
conversation and miscan strewed it and mangled it. You know,
(30:03):
Trump argued that legitimate ballots had not been counted, and
that illegitimately cast ballots had been counted. He had a
legal right to make that request to Lodge of protests.
That's not a crime. There's no other evidence that Trump
directed or pressured anybody to commit election fraud. But Fanny Willis,
she wants to be famous. She wants to be the
(30:26):
one to stop Trump. That's what this is about. Nothing more.
Then there's the absurd mar A Lago documents case. Garland
appointed a special council, Jack Smith, the mindless media drooling
over the prospect of an indictment. You know, never mind
that Joe Biden did the same thing, except he scored
(30:46):
classified documents in four locations, not one. But he's a Biden,
he gets a pass. I said from the first day
of the infamous FBI raid. You cannot prove that Trump
intended to violate the law. Why he didn't pack up
the presidential papers and take him to Florida. He didn't
box up anything. By law, that is a job required
(31:10):
to be done by the Governmental Service Administration, the GSA.
Merrick Garland wanted a spectacle, and it's an egregious abuse
of government authority, misuse of power. But it's nothing new.
As I write in my new book, The Trial of
the Century, it happened nearly one hundred years ago when
(31:34):
states tried to take away rob you of your civil liberties,
your right to free speech, your right to education in
a classroom. I hope you'll check out my new book.
You can go to my website and order it Vgreg
Jarrett dot com. It comes out next Tuesday in bookstores nationwide,
(31:55):
and check out some of the interesting conversations I've been
having on social media with Devin Nunit's new gingrid My Cuckapie.
I want to wish everyone a happy and safe weekend
as we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm
Greg Jarrett in for Shawn on the Sean Hennity Show.
(32:18):
Thanks for being here. We'll see you next time.
Well, we'll come in.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Your sentence.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
A way against and saying you a constell will be
entire high tell and if you want a little bag
in ye, I come along.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
When it comes to whistleblowers, you were not entitled to it.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
That's an individuestion of mister Allen. Mister these individuals have
been determined got to be whistle blowers. These are not whistleblowers.
They've been determined by the agency not to be whistleblowers.
And I'm proud of the progress my administrations made. We
reduced the deficit in the first two years by one
point seven trillion dollars in the first two years. I
wish we could have just a normal human being as president.
(00:43):
That's what I want, afraido.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Is that in style.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Welcome to the.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Coming your sentence, going the way against as and.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Saying you a concert sell.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Sean Hennity Show.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
I see on breaking news.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
And more bold inspired solutions for America. Stay right here
for our final news roundup and information overload, and.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show. On Greg Jarrett
filling in for Shawn. He's taking some well deserved time off,
and I'm happy to be here. Check out my columns
on my website, Thegreg Jarrett dot Com, follow me on
Twitter at Greg Jarrett, and I hope you'll pick up
my new book, The Trial of the Century, about the
(01:38):
famous Scopes monkey trial. It was one hundred years ago,
but it is as relevant, if not more relevant, now
than ever before, where we find rampant acts of government
abuse and misuse, and America's civil rights and civil liberties
being egregiously violated by corrupt government Actors. Joining me now
(02:04):
are Peter Schweizer and Eric Eggers of the Government Accountability
Institute and hosts of the Drill Down podcast. Gentlemen, thanks
for being with us.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Great to be with you, Greg.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Thanks Greg.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Look, one of the reasons I was so anxious to
talk to you is because you guys apparently are now
in the crosshars of the New York Times, which frankly
is a badge of honor, and like Howard Beale, you're
not going to take it anymore. Right, So you came
(02:39):
out with your podcast and you have defended yourselves and
are challenging the New York Times. Tell us what's this
all about?
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, Greg, it's great to be with you as always. Yeah,
I mean for us, the issue really comes down to
the fact that at the Government Accountability Institute, we're about
government accountability. We write book books things like Clinton Cash
and books about the Bidens, etc. But we also have
this mission that if we're contacted by congressional committees, were
by the FBI, we're glad to talk to them. We
(03:11):
were approached by the FBI in twenty fifteen under the
Obama administration. They were investigating the Clinton Foundation. They were
fascinated by the mature we had in Clinton Cash. So
we had a series of conversations with the FBI at
the early stages of that investigation. Now it turns out
that certain people in the FBI, it appears to be
(03:32):
people like Tim Tebow, etc. Leaked the fact that we
were communicating with the FBI to the New York Times,
and they went after us and essentially said we were
part of this plot to frame Hillary Clinton, which is laughable.
We were approached by the FBI. The material we attached
and gave to them was, of course public records and
(03:55):
financial records things like that. Unlike the dossier, which was
totally you know, the Trump dossier, which was totally based
on false anonymous made up information, and that's what we're
so frustrated about. We're happy to cooperate with law enforcement
at any time, but the way it was presented I
think was outrageous.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Yeah, how it was presented, to be clear, Greg is
it was presentative. Peter Schweitzer and the government accountabili insuit
is attempting to sell information about Hillary Clinton or about
Hunter Biden. Actually, they put it in the article about
Hunter Biden as if we're proactively approaching them, said hey,
here's some stuff you should take a look at it,
when in fact the opposite is true. The FBI proactively
because of the quality of the work that we've done
(04:36):
here in both Clinton cash and secret empires that detailed
the information the Hillary Clinton's relationship with Russia, Hunter Biden's
relationship with a variety of people in nefarious regions of
the world. They came to us and said, hey, what
do you have We'd like to learn more about that.
That's kind of the opposite of the way that New
York Times presented it.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Yeah, no kidding. I mean what journalists in America hasn't
been contacted by law enforcement that says, hey, look, we
understand you may have some information of value to us
in enforcing the law. You know, we would like access
to it. I you know, when I was a young
(05:12):
reporter in Kansas, I remember getting a call from the
FBI and I said, look, most of what I do
is you know, public record, but I'm you know, issue
a standard subpoena and him We'll comply with the law
and turn it over to you. And you know, that's
what I did. Ended up that the guy had been
reporting about, who was clearly a crook, went to prison.
(05:38):
The FBI pursued him, and he was prosecuted and convicted
by a jurym went to prison. So, I mean, this
is not uncommon, but it strikes me that what The
New York Times is doing here in misrepresenting your work
is that they're trying to smear you, right, I mean,
(06:00):
is that their motivation?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Yeah? I think I think that's part of it. Yes,
And it's part of this larger debate that they have
of sort of going after I think conservatives in America.
And you know, here's the irony.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
You know, in all of this, this was presented in
the context of the Russian dossier, sort of defending the
Russian dossier, which we know of course was made up
and as fictional and is not true, and yet they
try to present it as we're sharing this information with
(06:34):
the FBI and the context of trying to undermine the
Russia dossier investigation, which I just you know, think is laughable.
And there was even a Twitter exchange that I had
with Peter Struck, you know, the famous FBI guy who
who again tried to say, oh, you know, the FBI
is dealing with you know, Peter Schweitzer. This is you know, terrible,
(06:55):
this is outrageous. And look, we have always been greg
as we've talked about, We've always been about information that
is real, that is factual. You can retrace the evidence
that we find. It's hard to find. You have to
find in court records, financial records sometimes you know, shipping records,
et cetera. But you can retrace our steps and to
try to sort of, you know, besmirge what we're doing,
(07:18):
and that they were having some kind of clandestine discussion
with the FBI that's nefarious, is just laughable. We'll talk
to any law enforcement agency that is interested in our
work and if they have a legitimate investigation going on,
same with the Congressional Committee. We'll talk to them. We're
glad to do it. And this is I think, what
is happening. So desperate in the attempt to protect people
(07:41):
like Tim Tebow and the FBI who killed the Hillary
Clinton investigation, who pushed the Trump Russia collusion investigation, in
a desperate attempt to support them, You've now got outlets
like The New York Times that are attacking the work.
Here's the irony, though, Greg, The New York Times actually
ran in twenty fifteen a four thousand word front page
(08:03):
piece confirming our findings in Clinton Cash.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
I remember it.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yeah. And by the way, the New York Times in
there new they've now run two stories on our discussions
with the FBI. In neither story, Greg, they ever mentioned
the fact that they actually confirmed our reporting in twenty fifteen.
It's outrageous, you know.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Because I either they know it and want to conceal it,
or they don't even remember that they did that, you know,
And I'm not sure which it is.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Well, here's the real irony, Greg, is that the fact
that the Steele dest exists in the first place is
due in large part not just for the reporting that
we did in Clinton Cash, which exposed the scheme by
which the Clinton Foundation took in over one hundred million
dollars from people that made money on the sale of
uranium assets, including US uranium assets that ended up in
(08:54):
the hands of Vladimir Putin. But the fact that The
New York Times would then validate, confirm, and build on
that reporting in their own story helped create this idea,
and the Clinton campaign knew about this vulnerability that they
had hey as they did poland she was ramping up
her campaign for president. The number one vulnerability they had
was that storyline, and so as a way to dodge
(09:14):
and perform some political jiu jitsu, they fabricated the idea
that the Trump campaign was a Russian asset. They then
paid for and got the Steele dossier created, They laundered
it through political operatives in the intelligence community, fed into
the mainstream media. So the whole idea of the Trump
being a Russian asset came because the Clintons knew they
were vulnerable with this Russian narrative, and that, by the way,
(09:36):
has impacted not just the twenty sixteen election, but the
twenty twenty election because the idea that the Hunter Biden
laptop was suppressed came from the fact that, well that
might be Russian disinformation. Again, the whole Trump Russia connection
came from the Clintons because, in part of the vulnerabil
it was created by the New York Times own reporting.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
It's wildly ironic. Yeah, I mean, it totally is. And
you know your New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash. I
read o and over again, so impressed with it. I
actually quoted from your book in my subsequent book, The
Russia Hoax, and the subtitle is the illicit scheme to
(10:13):
clear Hillary Clinton framed Donald Trump. There was this scheme
to clear Hillary Clinton and it wasn't just her email scandal,
in which she quite obviously committed crimes under the Espionage
Act obstruction of justice in destroying thirty three thousand documents
under subpoena. But you know what we find out in
(10:38):
your book, Clinton Cash, is, you know, the tens of
millions of dollars in Russian rubles or dollars that are
lavisht on the Clinton Foundation, which I recall, Peter you wrote,
you know, the Clintons treated as their personal piggybag.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Yeah, that's that's right, Greg. And by the way, the
subtitle of your book, I mean, boy, was that prophetic
You nailed it five years ago. Yeah, I mean, we
exactly know that now, and I would commend to everybody.
I don't generally encourage people to read the Columbia Journalism Review,
but a couple months ago, Jeff Girth, formerly of the
New York Times, had a long story on how did
(11:20):
this whole Trump Rush acclusion narrative start? And it's precisely
that point. It started because the Clinton campaign did internal
polling and they found their number one vulnerability was this
charge concerning uranium one and them making money from the
Clinton Foundation. That's why they went ahead and did this dossier.
And you're quite right. I mean, the whole issue with
(11:42):
Clinton cash was the fact that the Clintons were essentially
laundering money through the Clinton Foundation, and they were taking
from very nefarious sources, including some one hundred and forty
five million dollars from shareholders in Canada and elsewhere who
acquire uranium minds in the United States and in Kazakhstan.
(12:03):
That was approved by our federal government, including Hillary Clinton.
And then months later they turned around and sold those
assets to a huge profit to Russia, to Rosatom, the
Russian state atomic agency. So it was a clear operation
of enrichment to the Clintons, and I think everybody knew it.
And the New York Times confirmed that they confirmed the
(12:26):
fact that the Clintons were hiding the donations even though
they had signed a written agreement with Barack Obama's presidents
saying they were going to disclose all of them. So
all of that was out there, and that was clear,
and we uncovered the scheme. And all you need to
know is basically that when the Clinton Foundation, when Hillary
Clinton lost in twenty sixteen, within two years their donations
(12:48):
from overseas dropped by more than seventy five percent. It
was a scheme of self enrichment. Once she wasn't going
to be president, these foreign oligarchs had no reason to
pay her money anymore.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, and the money began to suddenly just vanish. You know,
she's not president though, we're not gonna pay her anymore,
you know. And it's so funny the New York Times
not remembering their own reporting confirming your work, must have
the same contagious case of amnesia that James coming. I
(13:22):
don't remember anything about the doncie, Hey, you're the Russia
hooks or anything, all right, guys, stick around for just
a second. We're gonna pause and take a quick break.
Lots more to ask you about, including the finding in
the Durham Report that there were four criminal investigations and
do Hillary Clinton operations and James Commy made those magically vanish?
(13:48):
He's a magician. We'll be right back with more of
the Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jared filling in for
Sean Hennedy, and welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show.
I'm Greg Jared filling in for Sean. Want to continue
our conversation now with our guests Eric Eggers Peter Schweitzer
of the Government Accountability Institute, and we were talking about
(14:11):
you know, you're now in the cross airs of the
New York Times. They're trying to smear you as I
don't know, colluding with the FBI, which is, you know, absurd.
But one of the things that we find out in
the Durham Report is that there were not one, not two,
but four criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton's activities. And we
(14:36):
find out in the Durham Report that thanks to James Comy,
all of those were shut down and they magically disappeared.
What do you make of that.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Yeah, it's pretty stunning. I mean, traditionally, the way the
FBI works in a matter like this is if you
have four individual investigations taking place at four different field offices,
those investigations continue coming. The leadership did was consolidate all
of them so they could basically control it. And the
Duram report is devastating. It talks about the fact that
(15:08):
senior FBI officials are saying, you know, we don't really
want to do this investigation because she might be president
one one day and we don't want to be on
her bad side. And as far as I'm concerned, that's
not the way you run a criminal investigation based on
thinking that that person might be president.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Now, one of the key differences between Peter Schweizer and
I is that when law enforcement calls me, I tend
to try to duck the call, but you know, Schweizer
is happy to take it and cooperate. And I think
that that's really the big takeaway from this is that
it's not like we sent information to the FBI said, hay,
take look at this, four different offices, four different agents,
four different supervisors, said, hey, these findings reek of corruption
(15:47):
of influence pedaling of things that might be violation of
US law, things that, by the way, a violation of
international law if you tried to do them elsewhere. They're
and so like, there's clearly legitimacy here. Four different offices
thought so. And only because they thought Hillary Clinton might
be president did they say that they were tiptoeing quote
unquote around the law. We have email exchanges that Lisa
(16:09):
Page is talking to Peter Strukes like, Hey, you can
be very careful here. And I think what the Dermamport
does a great job of contrasting the kit gloves they
treated the Clintons with as compared to the Trump Russian investigation,
which we now know is based on a total fabrication.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Guys, great work, and thank you for taking the time
to explain it. Eric Eggers, Peter Schweizer of the Government
Accountability Institute. As always, thanks for being our guest here
today on the Sean Hannity Show. We're going to pause
and take a quick break, but I'm Greg Jarrett filling
in for Sean Hannity. Lots more to talk about. Be
sure to pick up my new book, The Trial of
(16:45):
the Century. Order it pre sale online. I'm Greg jarreted,
this is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 4 (16:51):
Sleepy Joe just signed more executive actions in one week
than most presidents did in their entire term. So much
our democracy looks like Joe is the new dictator. Entities
on right now.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show. On Greg
Jarrett filling in for Sean. You can follow me on
Twitter at Greg Jarrett. You can go to my website
Vgreg Jarrett dot com, and there you'll find more information
about how to buy my new book. It comes out
in just a few days. It's called The Trial of
(17:27):
the Century. It's about the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. And
you know, people say, why did you decide to write
about a trial as famous as it may have been
in nineteen twenty five, What does that have to do
about today? Because it was all about our free speech
and civil liberties. They were on the precipice, they were
(17:51):
in jeopardy, they were at risk, and a courageous school
teacher and his legendary lawyer stood up for American rights.
And those rights, by virtue of their work, are sustained
and we enjoy them today. You know, history books tend
(18:12):
to overlook this critical moment in American history, when in
the nineteen twenties, this deep religious fervor swept the nation.
Almost overnight, books on evolution were banned under the mistaken
belief that Darwin's cornerstone theory undermined the Bible, which it
(18:32):
did not. In Tennessee, it became a crime to teach
evolution in public schools. And I say this young school
teacher by the name of Johnskol Scopes was arrested and
charged with the crime of teaching out of a state
approved textbook evolution. And the legendary attorney Clarence Darrow volunteered
(18:58):
at his own expense to defend Man Darrow's brilliant, devastating
cross examination of the fundamentalist icon. William Jennings Bryant, who
was the prosecutor in the case, think of this. The
defense attorney called the prosecutor to the witness stand. That
confrontation was described of the New York Times as the
(19:20):
most amazing court scene in Anglo Saxon history. And most
Americans know nothing about it, which is why I wrote
the book, and the stunning outcome dramatically shifted public opinion.
It spelled the beginning of the end for the kind
of government intrusion that our constitution for bids and free
(19:44):
speech rights were rescued by Daryl in that trial. Generations
of Americans became Darrow's beneficiaries. It's the reason I became
a lawyer. And isn't it entry that it foreshadowed today's
front culture wars where our civil liberties are again in jeopardy.
(20:09):
You just heard it in the last segment with my
guest Peter Schweitzer and Eric Eggers, an incredible story about
government abuse and media abuse. So you can get our book,
The Trial of the Century, available in bookstores nationwide beginning
on Tuesday. Order it right now Amazon dot Combarnesennoble dot com.
(20:33):
But let's talk a little bit more about government abuse
and corruption. You will find it in the recent congressional
investigation that uncovered an ungodly amount of foreign money flowing
into the Biden family bank account. So here's how it worked.
When he was vice president, Joe Biden would fly off
(20:55):
to countries overseas. He'd meet with leaders there as well
as wealthy business operators, nearly all of whom had close
ties to those governments. And isn't it curious that Within
weeks of those visits, huge amounts of GASH began secretly
being sent to shell companies and LLC's controlled by Hunter Biden,
(21:21):
tens of millions of dollars. It happened after every single
Joe Biden visit to China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Romania. It's
a long list all of those countries over which Joe
Biden had foreign policy influence. So what were those countries buying?
More to the point, what was Joe selling? Was he
(21:44):
pedaling access as well as promises of future influence that
would benefit America's adversaries. Well, it sure looks like it,
doesn't it. And House Oversight Committee was informed by a
credible whistleblower that the FBI now has in its possession
(22:05):
a smoking gun document depicting and here's a quote, a
criminal scheme involving Joe Biden and a foreign national in
the exchange of money for policy decisions. The Committee is
trying to get the document. The FBI is not denying
that it has the document, but the agency refuses to
(22:29):
turn it over. They told the committee, oh, trust us,
everything is okay, you don't need to see this. Well,
who in their right mind would ever trust the FBI.
Trust is earned. The FBI has squandered that trust. We
know it from the Durham Report. The bureau weaponized its
authority to launch a damaging investigation of Donald Trump in
(22:53):
twenty sixteen, quote without any actual evidence of and the
FBI lied to the PHISI Court, despy Comy and others
lied to the President, They lied to Congress, they lied
to the American people. When the Mueller Report eventually found
no collusion conspiracy, did the FBI apologize, No, They're undeterred.
(23:18):
But it's worse than that. The Durham Report also reveals
something we never knew before. The FBI conducted two hundred
and seventy eight thousand improper, warrantless searches on US citizens
under FISA. So they weren't just spye on Donald Trump's campaign.
(23:40):
They were spying on you two hundred and seventy eight
thousand times. Hey, here's the news flash. Why don't we
abolish the FISA court. It was always a bad idea.
It was a recipe for disaster, it was ripe for abuse,
and it happened. But you know, it wasn't just about
(24:01):
the twenty sixteen election. In the next presidential contest twenty twenty,
the same FBI went about influence the outcome in favor
of Biden against Donald Trump. They directed social media platforms
to suppress and center censor the Hunter Biden laptop story,
(24:22):
despite the fact they'd already confirmed it. They knew it
was authentic, they verified its contest. They didn't tell you
about that. They kept it a secret. The FBI's crooked
actions worked, Pulling data shows that sixteen percent of Biden
voters would have cast their ballots differently had they known
(24:44):
the truth. And when Biden was sworn in the FBI
the DOJ, they went about covering up Biden family corruption.
They buried incriminating evidence, which helps to explain why no
criminal charges have been brought in a five year old
criminal probe despite a plethora of compelling evidence of criminality.
(25:09):
US attorneys appointed by Joe stepped in and actually blocked
the planned prosecution. You know, I laugh whenever I hear
Democrats in their sycophant members of the media say, well,
you know, influence pedaling is wrong, it's unethical, but it's
not a crime. Nonsense. It's a variety of serious crimes, bribery, fraud, conspiracy,
(25:34):
a criminal violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a
violation of Faroh laws. Those are all crimes. There is
only one explanation for why no criminal charges have been brought.
The fix is in. Biden is being protected by a
corrupt FBI and a rotten Justice Department with Attorney General
(25:58):
Merrick Garland at the helm. This is exactly what our
founding fathers feared the most. They worried that a future
president might violate his sacred oath of office by secretly
conspiring with malign foreign actors to betray our nation for
(26:19):
cold hard cash. Our founders feared Joe Biden. When we
come back, we're going to talk about the latest efforts
to stop Donald Trump from becoming president all over again.
This time, it's not a criminal investigation that he colluded
with Russia. No, it's a flurry of planned indictments, none
(26:41):
of which are based on believable evidence or sustained by
the law. That doesn't matter to his enemies, local prosecutors
and a Garland appointed special counsel. I'm Greg Jarrett filling
in for Sewn on the Sean Hannity Show. Be sure
to pick up my new book It's out next week.
It's called The Trial of the Century, a fascinating look
(27:05):
into America on the precipice when our free speech rights
and civil liberties were in jeopardy. I'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hennity Show. I'm Greg Jarrett
filling in for Sean. Telling me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
Go to my website Vgreg Jarrett dot com. My new
(27:26):
book comes out in just a few days, The Trial
of the Century, about the famous Scopes Monkey trial. Now,
this was the most important case of the twentieth century.
The great Clarence Darrow's seminal defense a freedom of speech
helped form the legal bedrock on which our civil liberties
(27:47):
depend today. It was the biggest legal blockbuster of a
generation and the most heralded courtroom drama in America. You
can also order The Trial of the Century now online.
Go to my website. A couple of clicks you can
buy the book. And if Clarence Darrow were alive today,
(28:10):
he would volunteer to defend Donald Trump. How do I
know this? Here's what I wrote in my book in
just the first few pages. Quote Darrow detested the unchecked
authority and unlimited resources of prosecutors who cared more about
netting convictions than rendering true justice. End of quote. I
(28:35):
mean Darrow always railed against government abuse, especially prosecutors who
selectively targeted people they dislike. Sound familiar, Yes, well it should.
That's what's happened to Donald Trump. In New York, for example,
an unscrupulous Manhattan DA, Alvin Braggandi died the former president
(28:59):
without bothering to state an underlying crime. Why well, because
none exists under law. Bragg ran on the campaign promise
of getting Trump, and so doing, the DA shredded the
code of ethics that govern his conduct.
Speaker 4 (29:19):
It is a.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
Purely political prosecution. Everybody knows it. His own deputy wrote
a book confessing it's a political prosecution. They hated Trump,
they wanted to stop him from becoming president again. And
in Georgia, same scenario unfolding and equally on principled DA
(29:39):
Fanny Willis is her name, poised to indict Trump for
supposed election fraud. There's no evidence whatsoever that Trump urged
anybody to phony up ballots or manipulate the vote count.
The bias DA has seized on a snippet of a
conversation and miscan strewed it and mangled it. You know,
(30:03):
Trump argued that legitimate ballots had not been counted, and
that illegitimately cast ballots had been counted. He had a
legal right to make that request to Lodge of protests.
That's not a crime. There's no other evidence that Trump
directed or pressured anybody to commit election fraud. But Fanny Willis,
she wants to be famous. She wants to be the
(30:26):
one to stop Trump. That's what this is about. Nothing more.
Then there's the absurd mar A Lago documents case. Garland
appointed a special council, Jack Smith, the mindless media drooling
over the prospect of an indictment. You know, never mind
that Joe Biden did the same thing, except he scored
(30:46):
classified documents in four locations, not one. But he's a Biden,
he gets a pass. I said from the first day
of the infamous FBI raid. You cannot prove that Trump
intended to violate the law. Why he didn't pack up
the presidential papers and take him to Florida. He didn't
box up anything. By law, that is a job required
(31:10):
to be done by the Governmental Service Administration, the GSA.
Merrick Garland wanted a spectacle, and it's an egregious abuse
of government authority, misuse of power. But it's nothing new.
As I write in my new book, The Trial of
the Century, it happened nearly one hundred years ago when
(31:34):
states tried to take away rob you of your civil liberties,
your right to free speech, your right to education in
a classroom. I hope you'll check out my new book.
You can go to my website and order it Vgreg
Jarrett dot com. It comes out next Tuesday in bookstores nationwide,
(31:55):
and check out some of the interesting conversations I've been
having on social media with Devin Nunit's new gingrid My Cuckapie.
I want to wish everyone a happy and safe weekend
as we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm
Greg Jarrett in for Shawn on the Sean Hennity Show.
(32:18):
Thanks for being here. We'll see you next time.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.