Sean Hannity Show - No Charges For Hillary - 7.5

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 6, 2016 - Sean Hannity Show

01:35:53

No Charges For Hillary - 7.5

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	All right, this portion of the Sean Hannity podcast is sponsored by Audible.
	Now, by signing up for a 30-day trial with Audible, you'll be able to get that audio book you've always wanted to read for free.
	Now, discover where Audible audiobooks can take you.
	To get started, just go to audible.com/slash Hannity.
	That's audible.com/slash Hannity.
	Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice, in our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence that the FBI helps collect.
	Although we don't normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate given the evidence.
	In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
	Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
	Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges.
	There are obvious considerations like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.
	Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
	In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
	All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.
	We do not see those things here.
	I see them everywhere.
	Anyway, glad you're with us.
	Happy day after 4th of July.
	It was going to be off today.
	Too big a news day.
	800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
	We all lined up.
	We've got our legal experts, Jay Seculo, Judge Janine Pirro, Danielle McLaughlin, Newt Gingrich today.
	By the way, there's a poll on Trump.
	Who should Trump pick for VP right now?
	Newt's winning.
	We'll send out.
	Tell Linda when she gets back in there that we'll put a link up to the drudge report and put it on our website.
	Philip Haney is one of the founding members of the Department of Homeland Security, and we'll ask him what would have happened if he did this.
	Also, Rich Higgins, he's a vice president, intelligence, national security programs, former manager with the Department of Defense, combating terrorism, technical support, irregular, basically special ops warfare.
	Jonathan Gillum, Navy SEAL, former federal marshal, all three of those people have top talking, top security clearances, and we will get to all of them in the course of this program today.
	The only thing I can start out and say is everything that Hillary had told us about these emails, everything she lied about, just like she lied about Benghazi, just like she lied about the YouTube video, lied about it being a spontaneous demonstration.
	The whole thing here is one big, massive, corrupt lie.
	What difference at this point is when you look at the series of events as they are unfolding, even today before our eyes, starting with Bill Clinton late last week, I want to say hi, Loretta.
	Let's talk about our grandkids.
	We'll talk about a little golf.
	We'll say hello.
	I just happen to know you're coming by.
	Nothing important.
	No big deal coming by.
	I know that, you know, I'm a former president.
	I don't want to influence you in any way.
	Sliff Willie.
	And then, of course, I knew the investigation was pretty next to over on Saturday when Hillary, in fact, spent three and a half hours with the FBI in this investigation.
	And where's Hillary today?
	She's out campaigning with Barack Obama, who had pretty much exonerated her from the get-go.
	You know, one of a number of lawyer friends of mine are speculating that the real reason this was never, ever going to go anywhere was because Obama would end up having to have been a witness knowing about the illegal server because he had emailed back and forth with Hillary on the private server at least 18 times that we know about.
	So whether that's true or not, I don't know.
	But I can tell all of you right now this.
	No other person would ever get away with the things that Hillary Clinton has gotten away with.
	This was not done for convenience.
	Let me go through some of this and do a bunch of this a little bit slowly because it's so deep and it's so profound what it is that they were able to find.
	And this is what was beyond puzzling to me.
	I felt embarrassed for James Comey today.
	I mean, he took a dive, as Andy McCarthy said here on Email Gate.
	There's no getting around what title, you know, Hillary Clinton was every single box was checked.
	This was a felony violation, section 793 of the federal penal code, Title 18.
	In other words, lawful access to highly classified information.
	She acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others that are not authorized to have it.
	Do you realize in the course of this, they contradicted everything that Hillary Clinton had said when she said she never sent or received classified information?
	And I had not sent classified material nor received anything, Mark classified.
	No, I didn't ever send or receive.
	Well, 110 emails, 52 email chains, had been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time that they were sent or received.
	Either of those chains included, contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent.
	36 of those chains contained secret information at the time.
	She lied.
	Just like she lied about only, I just want the convenience of only having one device.
	Well, that was contradicted too.
	I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department.
	And I have to add, even if I'd had two devices, which is obviously permitted, many people do that, you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official.
	So I did it for convenience, and I now looking back, think that it might have been smarter to have those two devices from the very beginning.
	Oh, I should have been smarter.
	I should have.
	Well, it turns out she had three devices.
	And on top of that, it turns out to be even more complicated, as Comey said, that she used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department.
	And let me continue, used numerous mobile devices to view and to send email on that personal domain.
	She lied again as new servers equipped were employed, old servers taken out of service, stored, decommissioned in various ways.
	And for example, you know, remember, and then you got to go back to, she keeps saying the same thing.
	Well, I have 30, 55,000 pages of emails.
	Okay, that's 30,000 that they decided to hand over, 32,000.
	There's just as many that they decided to delete on their own, which is another shock here, because a lot of those emails ended up being recovered, were among those that were deleted.
	In other words, they found classified material in the deleted emails that they were able to recover, and they gave no indication that they recovered all of them.
	But we turned over everything.
	No, you did not.
	Every single thing.
	Personal stuff, we did not.
	I had no obligation to do so and did not.
	Well, it could be that some of the additional work-related emails that they recovered were those deleted by Hillary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her emails for production in 2014.
	By the way, here's another interesting thing, because that was supposed to be emails about yoga.
	That was supposed to be emails about a wedding, her daughter, a funeral, her mother, and communication with Bill, who does an email.
	The lawyers doing the sorting, we found out from Comey today, did not individually read the content of the emails.
	She had no ability to make that statement as certainly as she made it.
	You know, of course, I don't have to hand over this information.
	Well, nobody went through the information.
	In order to be as cooperative as possible, we have turned over the server.
	Yeah, turned over.
	Well, there were multiple servers.
	She keeps talking about a server.
	Well, there was the one server, then there was another server, and then another server.
	There were multiple different servers, several servers used by several administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and she used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain.
	Now, if that doesn't meet the standard of gross negligence, I don't know what would.
	And here's the most bizarre part of this: you got an FBI director who used the term extremely careless.
	Well, if you're extremely careless, that's gross negligence.
	And then he goes a step further and says that, yeah, it could have been compromised.
	Yeah, probably our enemies got it.
	Probably.
	With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain in its various configurations since 2009 was hacked successfully.
	But given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.
	We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
	We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
	She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
	Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.
	Well, that would be gross negligence, wouldn't it?
	Think of the lies here.
	I only did it for the convenience of one device, but she had multiple devices.
	She talked singularly about server.
	There were multiple servers, multiple administrators to these servers.
	She talked about not sending or receiving classified information.
	She sent and received classified information in massive numbers, including the top security clearance, which is SAP clearance.
	You know, everything she told us, everything was a lie.
	And it was a lie that was designed to avoid congressional oversight from the very beginning.
	And there's no doubt, and this is what is puzzling to me: is the first 15 of the 17-minute or however long it was presser by James Comey today, I say, oh my God, he's actually going to do it.
	He's going to recommend a criminal referral here.
	The evidence is incontrovertible.
	The evidence is overwhelming.
	He gets deeper and deeper into the weeds.
	You know, everything that she said to them and said publicly is false.
	He's contradicting everything she's saying, basically without saying it, saying she's a liar and telling us the truth.
	And then all of a sudden, however, the word however came up.
	And at that point, I said, off the hook, the fix is in.
	And if you don't think the fix is in here, you just, you do not understand your government today.
	This government is corrupt at its core.
	This government is incestuously corrupt.
	This government works in ways, it's like the establishment.
	It's like Democrats and Republicans, they wink and nod and they do their little special deals and they act like they're mad at each other.
	And the deal was struck months before.
	They talk about, well, you're going to get your spending cuts, but you're going to get your tax increases first.
	You get your tax increase.
	You never get your spending cut.
	You're going to talk about border security.
	You get the amnesty.
	You're never going to get what they promise.
	And that is how they design things like this.
	And I am telling you from my perspective, and I'm not a conspiracy theorist in any way, shape, matter, or form, but you take the events of Bill Clinton.
	Just happen to be in Phoenix.
	Want to say hi to Loretta.
	She's really hot.
	Oh, damn, her husband's here.
	Oh, crap.
	I didn't know he was going to be on the plane.
	I thought it was going to be me and her.
	Yeah, I know, bad.
	So then she meets with Comey.
	Then she meets with the FBI.
	And then after the FBI meeting, then we have the announcement today.
	And then we find a case where everything she told us is contradicted by the FBI in detail.
	Classified information repeatedly sent and received.
	She single-handedly deleted half the evidence to begin with.
	And even that of which they were able to recover some, there was still classified information.
	What, like with a cloth or something?
	No.
	Did you wipe it?
	You mean like with like a cloth?
	All right, we've got to take a break here.
	We've got all our experts coming up.
	Hey, can you put on our website, Linda, the link to the Drudge Report has a question up there.
	Who should be Trump's VP?
	You're so smart.
	All right.
	Who should Trump's VP be?
	Or just go directly to Drudge.
	But if you want to go through our website, because you can remember it, Hannity.com.
	It's that simple.
	Quick break.
	We'll come back.
	Yeah, I was supposed to be on vacation today, but I'm not.
	I'm here.
	This is too big news.
	Also, get your calls in.
	Glad you're with us.
	It's the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hannity Headline, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you anywhere you go.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.com.
	We have a lot of reaction from a lot of different people, and it's not good for James Comey or Hillary Clinton.
	I mean, there's so many damning things that the FBI said about Clinton's email, not the least of which she lied.
	She did send.
	She did receive classified information, including special access program classification.
	You know, some emails have been lost.
	And of the erased emails, there were work emails in there that were classified.
	Her email might have been hacked.
	She had many servers.
	Now the question is: why are there no charges?
	You know, listening to Comey says, I'll tell you what we found.
	You know, we don't have direct evidence that they intended to violate the law.
	They acted with extreme carelessness in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
	Well, the standard is clear, and the standard was broken.
	In other words, you know, playing word games here is frankly just insufficient for me on a whole variety of levels.
	You know, well, she didn't intend to compromise security, but intention doesn't have anything to do with it.
	We know, in fact, that she sent and received classified information.
	And anyway, we'll get to all this when we get back.
	We'll get to your calls.
	We got our team of legal experts.
	We have our team of security experts.
	We have Newt Gingrich on the political side.
	You want to vote who you think Trump's VP should be, go to thedrudgereport.com, take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	Also, tell you about people that did far less and were punished far more.
	You know, when a book just really hooks you and you just can't put it down?
	Well, with Audible, well, you don't have to.
	Discover where Audible audiobooks can take you.
	Now, maybe it's a book you've been wanting to read for a long time.
	Now, Audible has something special for everyone.
	So download your books or shows on your mobile device and listen anytime, anywhere.
	And with an unmatched selection of audiobooks, original audio shows, news, comedy, Audible is your best source for everyday entertainment.
	The Audible app makes listening a breeze with features like chapter navigation and narration speed control.
	So access your books, your shows, anytime, anywhere, right from your smartphone or your tablet.
	Join Audible today and explore the world's leading provider of audio books, all beautifully performed by talented actors and narrators.
	Now you can start a 30-day trial and download your first audio book for free.
	Just go to audible.com/slash Hannity to get started.
	That's audible.com/slash Hannity for a 30-day trial and audiobook.
	My background: I was a third-ranking official in the Justice Department.
	I was a U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York.
	And at one time, I was Jim Comey's boss.
	I am very disappointed in what he just did.
	The first and easiest one is exactly the statute that you're talking about, which I have in front of me, 18 United States Code, Section 793.
	There is a no-brainer violation of that statute.
	And he said that'd be a felony or a misfortune.
	That's a felony, 10 years in prison.
	And the words that he said, which he was ill-advised to say, was that she was extremely negligent.
	This statute requires gross negligence in the handling of information relating to the national defense.
	The definition that a judge gives a jury in a charge on gross negligence includes the words extremely negligent.
	They're one of the same thing.
	So he has found that she violated 18 United States Code, Section 793.
	Except he can't somehow bring himself to the conclusion that she should be indicted for it, which says to me he's putting her above the law.
	Second, the way prosecutors prove intent is not that, you know, somebody says, I intend to do insider trading, or I intend to give a bribe.
	We prove intent through circumstantial evidence or action.
	Yeah.
	So we have thousands and thousands of documents that she handled carelessly, that she handled with no regard for what the rules of the laws were.
	Then we have 34,000 documents she destroyed.
	That alone is evidence of guilty knowledge.
	Right.
	He gave her the benefit of the doubt on those, saying, just like anybody else, deleting emails in the course of life, you're going to make a few mistakes.
	And he gave her the benefit of the doubt.
	Where does he get the leeway to do that?
	Every prosecutor in the world uses deletion of emails as an argument of guilty knowledge.
	When he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case, you know, he worked for you.
	He knows the law.
	I think it's just the opposite.
	You think he's totally wrong?
	I mean, would you look at him and say, look, I would look at him and I would say, Jim, how do you prove intent?
	Circumstantial evidence.
	You just laid out so much circumstantial evidence, it's going to take weeks to go through it.
	Second, you got a straight-out violation of 18 United States Code, Section 793.
	Why didn't you indict her for it?
	Mayor, we know that this is all about semantics.
	You just brought that up between gross and extreme negligence.
	You just mentioned intent.
	He said there was no, quote, malicious intent.
	Does that make a difference?
	No, very few of these statutes require malicious intent.
	Willfully and unknowingly conceals.
	Willfully and unlawfully conceals.
	That's the normal intent that we prove almost always by circumstantial evidence, by things that people hide, people running away, destroying, yeah, possibly relevant documents.
	Here's the argument you make to the jury: she deleted 34,000 emails.
	Do you think, ladies and gentlemen, of the jury, she deleted those emails because they were all about Chelsea's wedding dress?
	All right.
	Mayor Giuliani, thank you very much.
	A very, very compelling case by a very strong prosecutor, and that is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
	The lies are growing.
	As I just go over this and over this, she did send and received classified information, including top secret, including special access program, which is the highest level of security.
	She did send classified information over this email server.
	She said, well, I only wanted to put it on one device.
	Well, she used multiple devices, multiple devices, multiple servers.
	She never once indicated that there were multiple servers used.
	Turned over everything that was work-related.
	That turned out to be a lie, too, because what they were able to recover of the 30-some-odd thousand deleted emails that she said were about yoga, a wedding, a funeral, and emailing with Bill, who doesn't email.
	Well, they even found and recovered some that were deleted that were classified information.
	Claim she was cooperative as possible.
	I turned over my server.
	Singular, not servers.
	She used multiple devices.
	There's so many lies here.
	It's hard to say.
	And so Comey lays out this case.
	This is where what Rudy is saying is dead on.
	She has now been put above the law.
	And don't think politics didn't play a part in this.
	Anybody else, and there are multiple examples that I'll get to in a minute, of people that have paid a huge price.
	Their careers decimated for far less than what Hillary Clinton did here.
	You know, yeah, we did find, they didn't find clear evidence that they intended to violate the laws.
	How could you say that?
	As Rudy laid out here, 34,000 destroyed emails and you found classified emails when you recovered some of them.
	How could you possibly say that?
	You have to thread a needle that, well, benefit of the doubt, prosecutorial discretion.
	No way.
	That's a crime.
	That's a felony.
	That's 10 years in prison.
	That's losing any job you could ever have in the government ever again in your life.
	You know, he goes on to explain that seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the highest level.
	Special access programs.
	I've talked a lot about them.
	When they were sent, they were special access programs.
	And then when they received, they were special access programs.
	And those chains involve Clinton both sending emails about those issues and receiving emails from others about the same issues as evidence to support the conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding, and by the way, this was widely known, she had this, about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
	In other words, it was that high a level, including potentially compromising people's identities and lives.
	In addition to this highly sensitive information, they found information that was properly classified as secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email.
	In other words, that is excluding.
	Now, if this does not meet the standard of gross negligence, I don't know what does.
	This is a joke.
	This is not justice.
	None of the emails Comey said should have had should have been of any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on an unclassified personal server, not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at the departments and agencies of our government, or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
	It was less secure than Gmail for crying out loud.
	And he writes, and he said today, separately, you know, it's something, you know, to say something about marking of classified information, this goes to the heart of it.
	Only a very small number of the emails contained, quote, classified information bore the marking saying, oh, it's classified.
	In other words, those that he's pointing out that they did find classified, sent and received, marked classified, and the thousands others that were classified and others that were classified later, she led us to believe they were all classified later.
	All of them.
	Well, at the time they weren't classified.
	Well, that doesn't matter because what Comey says, even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
	Wow.
	This is where I'm saying he's going to recommend criminal referral.
	And he goes on to say, well, our focus of the investigation, we developed evidence that the security culture at the State Department in general, with respect to the use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in government.
	Wow.
	A damning document.
	Damning information.
	And with respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, well, we didn't find direct evidence that her personal email domain, its various configurations, was successfully hacked.
	But given the nature of the system and the actors potentially involved, meaning China, Russia, Iran, he goes on to say, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.
	In other words, they got it.
	He believes they got it.
	We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
	We also assess that her use of personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
	In other words, they got it.
	That's what he's telling you.
	She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
	Given that combination, we assess it's possible these hostile actors, yeah, they gained access to her email account.
	So, what we found, finally, with no respect to our recommendation, is in our system, prosecutors make decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on the evidence, although we don't normally comment.
	And then we got to the however.
	There's evidence of potential violation of statutes regarding the handling of classified information.
	No reasonable prosecutor would bring it.
	Really?
	Everything she said in the lead up to this was a lie.
	All of this was predicated on the cover-up and the deletion of emails.
	You know, this FBI investigation undermines her entire email defense that she made to you, the American people, just like when she lied to you about a YouTube video, lied to you about a vast right-wing conspiracy.
	This is who she is.
	William Sapphire once labeled her a congenital liar.
	It's worse than that.
	Pathological congenital liar.
	It's her.
	It's who she is.
	Now, it's, I never received or sent lie.
	I only wanted one device for convenience.
	Lie.
	You mean, like, do you mean wipe it with like a cloth?
	Is that what you mean?
	Well, we have evidence that they wiped everything pretty clean.
	Very clean.
	Multiple devices.
	She decided.
	You know, in many ways, every talking point, when she says her emails weren't classified, lie.
	Sent or received, lie.
	You know, not mark classified, lie.
	And she should have known better.
	By the way, if you're interested, in August of 1999, then CIA Director George Tennant announced that he had suspended the security clearance of his predecessor, John Deutsch, for storing classified information on a private server at his home.
	Anyway, one of his last acts as president, Bill Clinton, granted Deutsch a presidential pardon, sparing him the prospect of a criminal investigation because he was going to be charged for far less.
	By the way, the watchdog group, which one is it? Filed the freedom of blah, blah, blah, blah, the government watchdog group, I think it's Judicial Watch.
	I'm guessing for the request on the Clinton Lynch meeting.
	Anyway, the GOP is now weighing in, Reince Privus, and others, and the findings are glaring, a glaring indictment of Hillary's complete lack of judgment, her honesty, preparedness to be our next commander-in-chief, and they confirm what we have long known.
	Hillary Clinton spent the last 16 months deliberately lying to the American people.
	This is grossly negligent conduct on the part of Hillary Clinton and her aides.
	But as the Obama administration has repeatedly shown throughout this process, they were never going to prosecute Clinton's criminal behavior because they're counting on her to deliver their failed agenda a third term.
	That pretty much sums it up.
	It was an online poll at ABC News.
	93% say Hillary should be indicted.
	Judicial Watch did rip Comey for being weak.
	Anyway, Tom Finton went out there and said, frankly, there's a disconnect between Comey's devastating finding and his weak recommendation not to prosecute.
	Federal prosecutors, independent of politics, need to consider whether to pursue the potential violations of law that Comey confirmed.
	Comey confirmed law breaking at a high level.
	Anyway, and of course, they're out campaigning together.
	You know, because Obama exonerated her how long ago?
	Oh, I'm sure she's not a big deal.
	Oh, by the way, I got to give Paul Ryan kudos today.
	He's not criticizing Trump for once.
	Finally, he said it's a damage is the rule of law.
	It appears damage is done to the rule of law.
	You think?
	I don't think that's quite as strong as he's getting up to the Trump level with Hillary in terms of the fierceness of the attack.
	Washington Post Comey's statement shows the email scandal was worse than we ever thought.
	It's the Washington Post.
	Comey says Hillary's server could have been hacked.
	Anyway, I don't know what else to tell you.
	She goes, she sets up this thing.
	The whole purpose of it was to avoid detection, avoid congressional oversight, to break the law.
	The whole thing was predicated on breaking the law.
	Donald Trump is weighed in.
	General Petraeus got in trouble for far less.
	Very unfair, as usual, bad judgment and corrupt.
	A friend of mine sent me a quote today from Lincoln, from Lincoln Day anyway, and said, America will never be destroyed from the outside.
	If we falter, if we lose our freedoms, it will be because we've destroyed ourselves.
	Comey took a dive for the Clinton.
	By the way, Loretta Lynch needs to resign, too.
	I don't even know where to go.
	Take a quick break.
	800-941-Sean, Newt Gingrich, our attorneys will weigh in, and also our national security experts, all coming up straight ahead.
	FBI investigators also read all of the approximately 30,000 emails that Secretary Clinton provided to the State Department in 2014.
	Where an email was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred that email to any government agency that might be an owner of that information so that agency could make a determination as to whether the email contained classified information at the time it was sent or received or whether there was reason to classify it now, even if the content had not been classified when it was first sent or received.
	And that's the process sometimes referred to as upclassifying.
	From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
	Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent.
	36 of those chains contained secret information at the time.
	And eight contained confidential information at the time.
	That's the lowest level of classification.
	Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were up classified to make them confidential.
	Those emails had not been classified at the time that they were sent or received.
	The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton to state in 2014.
	We found those emails in a variety of ways.
	Some had been deleted over the years, and we found traces of them on servers or devices that have been connected to the private email domain.
	Well, I know people have raised questions about my email use as Secretary of State, and I understand why.
	I get it.
	So here's what I want the American people to know.
	My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department.
	It clearly wasn't the best choice.
	I should have used two emails, one personal, one for work, and I take responsibility for that decision.
	And I want to be as transparent as possible, which is why I turned over 55,000 pages, why I've turned over my server, why I've agreed to, in fact, been asking to and have finally gotten a date to testify before a congressional committee in October.
	And I'm confident that this process will prove that I never sent nor received any email that was marked classified.
	And I'm going to keep talking about what the American people talk to me about, what's on their minds, and to lay out my plans for what I would do as president.
	All right, that was, of course, James Comey from his press conference earlier today.
	And then, of course, Hillary Clinton, I never sent or received classified information when, in fact, James Comey has contradicted all of that.
	30,000 emails, 110 emails, 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received, with eight of those chains containing information that was top secret at the time they were sent.
	And of course, 36 chains contained secret information at the time.
	And then, of course, we have special access program classification, which is the highest level of classification.
	So what she said about A, wanting to have a single device turned out not to be true.
	She talked about handing over her server, although it turns out to be multiple servers.
	She talks about 55,000 pages of emails handed over.
	She doesn't mention the 30,000-plus emails that she decided to elite, the delete on her part.
	In other words, that could be potential evidence in this case or any other case.
	Add to that the lies about the chains, the secret access program classification.
	She was legally bound to turn that over and then wiped it clean.
	You mean like with a cloth?
	And then she told subordinates to lie.
	Joining a former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich is with us.
	How are you, sir?
	Well, I'm doing well, but this is a very sad day for the rule of law in America, and I think is going to pose to the American people some very difficult choices.
	Clista and I were sitting here watching the director go through his list, and the longer he went, the more convinced I was he was going to announce an indictment.
	So was I.
	And so for and I don't know what Comey was doing.
	I mean, I don't understand how he constructed this because he actually made the case for the indictment and then flinched it in the last two minutes.
	And, you know, if the Comey standard is going to exist, then Obama needs to go back and pardon a number of people who've been convicted of lesser offenses than Hillary Clinton.
	I mean, there are a number of people who've been convicted for gross negligence.
	They've lost their security clearance.
	In some cases, they've been fined a substantial amount of money.
	In some cases, they've gone to jail.
	But for Comey to claim that he could not find any precedent for prosecuting, he just has to look at the record of the Justice Department, starting with Bill Clinton.
	And in the last 23 years, we've had a substantial number of espionage cases.
	And it's clear, and I just watched Rudy Giuliani on Fox walking through as a former federal prosecutor, that Comey's use of the language, you know, that she was, in effect, extremely sloppy, fits precisely the term for gross negligence.
	Well, he used extremely gross negligence.
	What's the difference?
	There is none.
	That was Giuliani's point.
	That is the textbook legal case for gross negligence.
	And to not, to say on the one hand, we clearly found that she was guilty of gross negligence, that her senior staff was guilty of gross negligence.
	Here are the cases, and as you pointed out, special access programs are the highest level of secrecy.
	She risked several of those.
	A number of the documents actually were labeled classified.
	So her entire case there is a lie.
	A number of other documents, Comey is saying she should have known.
	He then points out that her lawyers didn't even read the substance of the emails that they were eliminating.
	And you go down this list, and this is exactly why the American people are furious.
	This is the same kind of elite escaping the law that happened with the big banks in 2007 and 2008.
	It makes us look like a banana republic to be able to say, gee, as long as you're the presidential nominee, and notice, by the way, the timing.
	She just happens to be on Air Force One with the president while the director of the FBI is saying that she will not be indicted.
	Now, I'm sure there was no collusion, but boy, the timing sure looks sick.
	Sure looks sick, too.
	What did you make of Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton's meeting that just happened late last week, and then the timing of her being interviewed, which I figured was the end of the process.
	I thought they would interview her last, and then, of course, Comey's announcement today, the day after the 4th of July, when a lot of us are usually off.
	Everything that has happened from the time Bill Clinton went on the airplane with the Attorney General, totally inappropriate, up through Comey just now.
	All of this is why the American people think Washington is corrupt and that if you're powerful enough, you can get away with anything.
	And this will convince nobody who's reasonable that Hillary Clinton is not guilty.
	In fact, given the way Comey laid out the case, it's going to convince a lot of Democrats that clearly something profoundly wrong went on here.
	Yeah, I don't mean to interrupt you, but think of just what we've seen in the last two weeks.
	I mean, this woman lies with regularity.
	There were 600 separate requests by people in Benghazi at the very time the Red Cross and the Brits were getting out because of security concerns.
	They were denied every single time, even ones that went directly to her.
	During the attack, she was in the highest meeting, the highest cabinet official in the meeting, and they're discussing whether or not they need Libya's permission to save Americans.
	And then they're arguing about whether or not we can send our men and women in uniform, and they literally have those people waiting, changing clothes four separate times.
	And then afterwards, at the time she's telling her daughter, the Libyan president, the Egyptian prime minister, it's a terror attack, she's telling the American people a totally different story.
	Now, she said in the beginning she did this because she wanted the convenience of one device.
	Well, it turns out she had multiple devices.
	It turns out she had multiple servers.
	It turns out she decided on her own, and nobody even read what the 30-plus thousand emails were that they ended up deleting on their own that she claims were about a wedding, a funeral, yoga, and conversations with Bill, who doesn't email.
	So there's a lot of lying going on here and a lot of covering up here.
	So what do we even make of what Comey did?
	Well, look, the first thing you know is that no normal American could have done this without very, very severe legal consequences.
	And that this is just further proof of the corruption and the sickness of the city.
	You know, if Comey come back and said, you know, we looked at everything, we couldn't find anything that was really wrong.
	That's one thing.
	And I don't know what was going on in his head.
	I mean, to give us that initial 15 minutes, she did this wrong, she did this wrong, she did, this wrong, she did, this wrong, she did, this wrong.
	Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't recommend indictment.
	That's one of the weirdest presentations I've ever seen because it guarantees that most Americans are going to listen to the first 15 minutes and conclude that she is extraordinarily guilty.
	And they're going to wonder what's going on in his head.
	How could he say all of that?
	And then come back and say that she shouldn't be prosecuted.
	Can you answer your own question then?
	That's a good question.
	No, no.
	I mean, I think it's, you know, I don't know whether Comey felt compelled to say that she's not going to be indicted, but he wanted the country to know how sick it was, or whether he's just conflicted internally because everything he laid out is a case for indictment.
	I mean, these things are clear, gross violations of the law.
	And they're violations on a grand scale.
	I mean, if a normal person did this, at a minimum, they'd lose their security clearance.
	They'd pay a very severe fine.
	They would get a suspended sentence.
	That's the minimum.
	At a maximum, they'd go to jail for three or four or five years.
	And to lay this out, and the people, and I'm watching as various people start to write and speak out, I mean, including a guy, for example, who spent two and a half years in jail, who worked for the CIA, has said, you know, how come I got that sentence and she gets this?
	And I think you're going to find over the next few days the number of people, you know, Comey says, we couldn't find any precedent for pursuing this.
	Well, wait till he sees how many people have been prosecuted, what they've been prosecuted for.
	Don't you think he had to know that ahead of time or he doesn't know that ahead of time?
	I mean, I've got this guy.
	Is there equal justice under the law or not?
	Because it appears to be a problem.
	And the answer in this administration and in the Clinton administration is no.
	And there's an elite law, which is you get away with virtually anything.
	And there's the rest of us, which is you're a real risk.
	I mean, you look at what happened to Scooter Libby, who's a great American, a patriot, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, went to jail for a totally phony, framed job by an independent counsel that we now know, there's a New York Times reporter who was locked up for 85 days as the prosecutor tried to coerce her into testifying, has come out and said flatly that the prosecutor got her, told her, in effect,
	she was never getting out of jail unless she lied under oath that Scooter was guilty of something.
	Now, you look at what Scooter suffered for being a conservative, for being in favor of trying to do what President Bush wanted to do, and you look at what's happening with Hillary Clinton, you cannot, this is worthy of Venezuela or Cuba or some other banana republic.
	This is an absolute, total violation of the rule of law.
	And I think the American people are going to see that.
	And I think it's going to sicken most people.
	And frankly, it's going to destroy Comey's reputation because, again, I mean, he could have done one of two things.
	He could have come out and said, we did a thorough review.
	There's nothing really wrong.
	And what can I tell you?
	Or he could come out and say everything he said today and said, therefore, obviously she has to be indicted.
	Just ask yourself one question.
	Nobody, and this is a point Giuliani made, having in his own career read several thousand security clearances, you couldn't possibly get a security clearance with this report.
	But she's going to become commander-in-chief?
	Let me ask you one political question because I've got to let you go.
	We have our legal experts coming up at the bottom of the hour.
	And by the way, you can't blame me for this one.
	But on the front page of the Drudge Report right now is who should be Trump's VP, and there's a poll.
	And I'm looking right now at the results, and you happen to be in the lead with about 40% of the vote, nearly 100,000 votes.
	Joni earns the second with about 65,000 votes.
	And then it's Jeff Sessions at 14, Mike Pence with 7, and Christie with 5, and Corker with 1.5.
	First of all, Joni Ernst is a very impressive senator and somebody who has served in the military, was a state senator before.
	I know, she's great, but I mean, do you know if there's any vetting going on?
	Well, I certainly hope so.
	You know, it's really unfair.
	It's unfair because you know I'm not going to go in much harder because of our decades and decades of friendship here.
	But the question was, are you being vetted?
	Oh, you didn't ask that.
	Oh, I'm asking it now.
	Well, I think they've been very clear all along that I'm one of the four or five people that they were vetting.
	That's fair enough.
	I don't think that's news.
	When do you think that decision would be made?
	Do you think it'll be made at the convention?
	Will he hold the suspense?
	First of all, I have no idea because this is not something Trump's going to tell anybody.
	My guess is that they will do it either Thursday or Friday of next week so that it dominates the weekend news going into the convention.
	Not next week, but the week before the convention.
	Either the Thursday or the Friday before the convention, I think, which I guess is next week, will be the right date because that way you go into the convention with the weekend news all being about the new vice presidential nominee, and we're all going to be happy and we're all going to move forward.
	And I think that's what Trump will want to achieve.
	And he's been very good about not letting anybody know that he's going to be able to do it.
	Oh, he's really good at it.
	He really is very good at it.
	And he's got a good range of choices.
	I mean, I think I look at the people that he's interviewing.
	Well, can you give me a heads up?
	Because I have you booked every night for the convention.
	If you're going to be busy with other things, just let me know.
	Well, I suspect knowing you that you'll just appeal to the campaign.
	And even if I'm the vice president, you'll whine and whimper, and I'll show up every night anyway.
	Yeah, I probably won't.
	I'm not going away from you.
	All right, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
	When we come back, our legal team is next.
	Hannity Headlines.
	A bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you anywhere you go.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.com.
	All right, Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	We have our panel of attorneys.
	Jay Seculo, Judge Jeanine Pirow, will join us tonight.
	Also, the political side of this, Laura Ingram and former Governor Mike Huckabee.
	We look at the national security side of these compromised emails with Dr. Sebastian Gorker and Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters.
	Also, Eric Trump, the Trump campaign response.
	He'll join us from the Trump organization, and we'll also have the implications in terms of the VP list for Donald Trump.
	When we come back, we'll be joined by our panel of attorneys.
	Straight ahead.
	We know you never want to miss the Sean Hannity Show.
	And now you never have to.
	Just sign up for Hannity Headlines.
	A bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you on your laptop, your mobile phone, everywhere you go, even to your liberal-in-law's place in Vermont.
	So, yeah.
	And after a few hours of that, you'll be glad you brought Sean along.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.com.
	Now, let me tell you what we found.
	Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
	For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top-secret special access program at the time they were sent and received.
	Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters.
	There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
	Should have known, and he went a step further and suggested that, in fact, it was likely compromised by America's enemies, among many other things.
	How can you say, you know, the law is very clear?
	Well, there's no evidence she intended, but is that is mishandling in and of itself a crime?
	Anyway, joining us now, we have our legal experts.
	We have Danielle McLaughlin, constitutional attorney expert.
	She co-wrote the Federal Society, How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals.
	Jay Seculo, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
	Judge Janine Pirro, Fox News host.
	And welcome, all of you.
	Jay, let's start with you.
	You and I have gone over in detail the very statutes and the fact that there is no evidence that Hillary intended, which, by the way, I don't even buy that.
	I think that's really pass the smell test.
	But secondly, you don't have to intend.
	Mishandling is a crime in and of itself, isn't it?
	Yes, it is under gross negligence.
	And if you look at the director's own words, James Comey, he said it was extremely careless.
	Careless is defined under all of the legal dictionaries and the case law as an act of negligence.
	Gross negligence is conduct that is an extreme.
	So when you say extremely careless, that is the legal definition of gross negligence, which should then be a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793.
	So, you know, 13 minutes of James Comey laying out why there were violations of the law to conclude that there were no violations or at least a criminal case to be made here is absurd.
	His statements before that, in the opening of his statements, clearly indicated that there was violations of law here.
	And then he says we're not going to prosecute.
	A reasonable prosecutor wouldn't move forward.
	Intent is not the requirement for a number of these statutes.
	One other thing, Sean, and I think this is the outrage.
	I think you go back to last week, the meeting on that plane.
	Was that meeting now simply this?
	Get your wife to testify.
	We're wrapping this up.
	Well, I think that played a big part in it.
	I don't think there's any doubt about that.
	Judge Denine, let's bring you in here.
	Were laws violated?
	And Comey, give her a pass.
	You know, I have to tell you, Sean, I have been in law enforcement for 34 years, a prosecutor, a judge, and a DA.
	And I have presented many cases to the grand jury, and I have unpaneled them.
	And in my 34 years in law enforcement, I have never seen a case where the target lied about receiving top-secret emails, self-policed herself by deleting 30,000 of them.
	Some of those emails were proven to have been deleted despite being legally bound to be turned over.
	Sends an email to an aide asking that her emails, making sure they won't be discovered, wipes an unsecure server she kept in her basement, lied about why she set it up this way, destroyed scheduling memos, and admittedly may have easily been hacked by foreign governments, and then have the prosecutor announce he found no evidence of criminal intent when that is not this statute.
	This statute is gross negligent, and gross negligence.
	Make no mistake, Sean.
	When I was a judge, I would instruct juries on what gross negligence is, and it is extreme carelessness.
	And for this woman to get away with it— Well, extreme carelessness is the exact term that Comey used.
	Right.
	Well, that's what I mean.
	He's saying she was extremely careless, but he's saying there's not enough to prove a case, no reasonable prosecutor.
	Let me tell you, I consider myself a reasonable prosecutor, Sean.
	I oversaw 40,000 cases a year in my office, and we had an outstanding reputation.
	I want to slow you down.
	I want you to go back, and I want you to point out again every single thing that we know that she did here.
	We know that, one, she lied from the beginning about sending or receiving.
	Aren't we talking about 2,000 emails now?
	She lied about that.
	She lied about sending and receiving.
	And she also lied about the fact that she never had any of this stuff on her server.
	Then Comey comes out and absolutely contradicts what she says.
	He puts truth to the lie, and he says there were 110 emails in 52 separate email chains that were classified top secret, secret, SAP, 2,000 additional ones that were later determined to be classified, several thousand not given by Clinton.
	I mean, this is a woman who lied about that and then self-policed herself.
	And these emails were deleted despite her being legally bound to turn them over.
	She instructs the nade not to make these emails identifiable or discoverable.
	She wipes it clean, lies about it, lies about why she said it up, destroys scheduling.
	And he says, you know, he's not, he wouldn't be surprised if sophisticated nation states like Russia and China may have hacked into it.
	And then it was like the man went from Jekyll to Hyde.
	And I love Jim Comey, and you know I do because I worked with him.
	And he says no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute this.
	He's wrong.
	Jay, I know you only have a limited time here.
	Before we get to Danielle, I wanted to give you another opportunity to weigh in.
	Yeah, thanks, Sean.
	And I agree exactly with what the judge said.
	And let me take it a step further here.
	This is what we've said in the beginning, a faux investigation.
	In other words, the fix was in when this started.
	We just saw the fulfillment of that a couple of hours ago.
	This has never been, despite what the FBI may or may not have done, the fact of the matter, and politically this wasn't going to happen.
	And it goes back to what Judge Janine and I have been saying for a long time.
	Those emails on that private server went to the president of the United States.
	Case was closed by the FBI before they even started.
	So you'd think this is directly connected to the fact that 18 emails that we know of went to the president, and that would have dragged the president into the case.
	And do you believe that the president, along with Bill Clinton, met with Loretta Lynch and said never happening?
	Was Comey?
	The president doesn't even have to meet with Loretta Lynch.
	Message can be well received before then.
	In other words, when the president said she did nothing wrong, didn't endanger national security, even though James Comey contradicted that today?
	That's right.
	That's exactly right.
	So you know what it was?
	That was prejudge and over.
	What I'm hearing is overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence that laws were broken.
	And by the way, I don't think this is just related to the law that you cite, which is Title 18, Section 793, which is what he was referring to.
	He said Hillary checked every box required for a felony.
	I would argue she checked every box required for a felony violation.
	He even made the case, and then he said, but nobody would bring that case.
	Well, can you say the same to David Petraeus?
	I mean, isn't that a far worse, isn't this a far more egregious, more conscious effort on her part?
	Isn't this Danielle?
	And I'm going to say I jump in here and say that actually it's not, and it's very much distinguishable from the Petraeus case.
	Petraeus had eight full notebooks full of classified information, including code words, including war strategy, including the identities of covert officers.
	He lied under oath about possession and giving them support.
	Wait a minute.
	Well, slow down here because you're also diminishing here that she said she had none of these things on her email server when, in fact, we know she had top secret and above top secret classification items, including special access programs, which are the highest level of secrecy.
	Clinton always maintained that she did not send or receive classified information.
	That is proven to be true by what Comey has said today.
	No!
	Did you hear what Comey said?
	Who is it?
	It's not proven to be true.
	Comey himself said that she sent classified information.
	I believe you, Judge, what Connie said today is she absolutely did have classified information.
	What I'm saying is she said she did not, Comey today said the opposite of this.
	So I totally agree with you that what Comey said here is a terrible indictment of Clinton's behavior.
	But you know what?
	He has prosecutorial discretion.
	He is cabined by the Petraeus investigation, which was a concern at the time when those charges were laid.
	There was a relatively small number of materials that were found to be classified, and there was no evidence that, in fact, that she lied under oath or in any way obstructed justice.
	And that goes for both her and her team, and Comey said that today.
	Wasn't she legally bound to turn those over?
	Wasn't that part of the ⁇ wasn't she also legally bound?
	I mean, let's be honest here, to protect all of her emails.
	Isn't the term gross negligence what Comey described today?
	Well, I disagree with the judge and with Jay.
	Well, extreme carelessness.
	Isn't that gross negligence for somebody at her level of government?
	Gross negligence indicates some level of wantonness.
	Well, wait a minute.
	Didn't she wantonly delete 33,000 emails without any input by anybody else in government?
	He called her careless for the mishandling of the classified information.
	He didn't call her careless for the deletion of the emails that were not turned off.
	So now we're playing typical quintessential Clinton word games here and parsing words.
	But the reality is what about the fact that America's enemies, according to the FBI director, likely got access to all of these emails.
	Well, what he specifically says is there was no evidence of hacking, but there was unlikely to be anyway.
	So that's an important distinction.
	But, you know, Sean, I'm going to jump in here for a second.
	You know, your guest is saying, well, there's no evidence of lying or obstruction of justice.
	There is evidence of 18 USC 793.
	You know, it's like me as a prosecutor saying, oh, you know what?
	The guy didn't steal anything, but he did murder someone, or he didn't murder someone, but he did steal something.
	One has nothing to do with the other.
	If there is evidence, prima facie case, that goes to a grand jury.
	The grand jury makes the decision.
	These are blatantly political moves.
	It's a game.
	It's a charade where the husband meets with the attorney general.
	The president starts campaigning with the candidate.
	And the head of the FBI comes out and says, oh, no, nothing to see here, folks.
	This is, and I am telling you that I am, this is my life's work.
	How about her original statement, Hillary Clinton, telling us she wanted the convenience of having it on one single device?
	And then it turned out she had an iPad, an iPhone, a BlackBerry, and everything in between.
	And Comey goes on to describe today that I used the term singular up to this point, and then he goes, it turns out to have been more complicated as Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department and used numerous mobile devices to view and to send email on that personal domain, which goes against her original statement that she made to the American people.
	Danielle, I know you're a big Clinton supporter, but didn't she lie to us again?
	That's a lie.
	That was a lie from the get-go.
	I think that she has been very careful with her words.
	I think that the behavior within the Department of State, there was a systemic problem with high side, low side.
	I didn't ask you that.
	I'm asking you, did she lie when she did this for personal convenience and she had multiple devices, knowingly had multiple servers over the course of these years?
	Isn't that a lie?
	Wasn't that a lie from the beginning?
	I think that she visited 100 countries and did need to have the convenience of the money.
	I didn't ask you if she needed it.
	When she told us she did it for the convenience of having it all on one device, that was a lie.
	Well, she had a BlackBerry and an iPad.
	I do agree with you.
	I don't think it was a lie.
	I do not think it was a lie.
	She said that she didn't see anything that was marked.
	And you don't think it's a lie, for example, in Benghazi while she was telling her daughter and the Libyan president and the Egyptian prime minister it was a terror attack and telling the American people something else.
	You don't think that's a lie either.
	Look, I've seen that.
	So basically, I haven't seen the timeline.
	The timeline is at the exact same time she was telling them one thing, she was telling us another.
	I think if I had video of Hillary Clinton shooting somebody in the face, you'd find some rationale to excuse it away.
	That's absolutely not the truth.
	And in all honesty, I think that this has become a partisan thing as well.
	This is career prosecutors.
	This was an FBI director who was appointed two times by George Bush, who none of us have any reason to question.
	I know, Judge, that you worked with him.
	He spent an inordinate amount of time today going through exactly what they did and exactly what they found.
	Frankly, none of us were privy to what happened in the room with her on July 4th for three and a half hours.
	Last word, Judge Carol.
	Here's the bottom line.
	Last word.
	If anyone understands the law and the burden of proof that a prosecutor has, they would be mind-boggled to not go forward with this case.
	I am disappointed in James Comey.
	I thought that he was better than this.
	And although I did predict from the get-go that she would not be indicted, that there was too much going on here.
	The Clintons have danced with federal prosecutors their whole lives.
	They are not what America should be looking up to.
	We should be looking down at them.
	They got away with it again.
	All right, we're going to pick it up from here when we come back.
	800-941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we'll get to your calls when we get back.
	And we'll also check in later with Philip Haney and Jonathan Gillum.
	He's going to join us.
	Also, Rich Higgins.
	These are people that really know and understand what exactly the rules are, having founded, in the case of Phil Haney, the Department of Homeland Security.
	All right, we'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	It's the special edition of the Sean Hannity show.
	Hannity Tonight, 10 Eastern, all the latest developments, all the talk about legality, and much more.
	Well, I told you, I think, several weeks ago that there were at least 13 statutes that, according to the public record, if true, Hillary Clinton violated.
	They range from misdemeanors to felonies.
	She was taking classified information, confidential information.
	She was using it in a grossly negligent manner.
	That's a two-year misdemeanor.
	She violated the mail fraud statutes, the wire fraud statutes, the obstruction of justice statute by destroying the emails.
	I mean, the number of violations are piling up.
	First of all, you'd have her lying.
	She said that all the ones deleted were all personal.
	It now turns out that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds that were deleted were clearly not personal.
	They were anywhere from government information to top secret information.
	We also have the destruction of evidence.
	There is nothing more powerful in a trial than to have a defendant who has destroyed evidence and actually lied about the evidence that was destroyed.
	But the case is getting so strong now that it's going to be really hard to have an intellectually honest decision and walk away from it.
	We're talking about 13 to 15 serious federal statutes that, on the face of it, she appears to have violated.
	She also has proven that she is completely, grossly negligent in the handling of sensitive information.
	And we want somebody like this for President of the United States.
	All right, that was Rudy Giuliani back on my TV show in October of 2015, actually spelling out the numerous statutes that would be applicable in the case of Hillary Clinton.
	Now, I was actually scheduled to be off today, and two of the people that were filling in for me are here with me now.
	Philip Haney, remember, he is the founding member of the Department of Homeland Security, author of the new book, See Something, Say Nothing.
	Rich Higgins is the Vice President, Intelligence and National Security Programs, former manager with the Department of Defense, Combating Terrorism, Technical Support Office, and Irregular Warfare.
	That's special ops, isn't it?
	Roger that.
	Yeah, Roger that.
	Okay.
	Etc.
	Jonathan Gillum, a Navy CEO, former federal air marshal.
	Welcome all of you to the program.
	Let me start with Philip.
	I know you prefer Philip rather than Phil, right?
	Okay.
	Because I get reminded by Linda.
	And if I don't handle you perfectly, she's very defensive of you, just so you know.
	It's like I think she feels you're a member of her family at this point.
	But a very important question.
	When you come into an important job that deals with security issues, you're made aware of how to handle that information.
	Isn't that correct?
	Isn't everybody made aware of that?
	Absolutely.
	And we're constantly reminded that during the course of our career, what is allowed and what is not allowed.
	We can't even use our own cell phone in our work environment in CBP, let alone handling classified information so casually.
	Yeah.
	And is that, Richard, same experience?
	Same experience.
	Weekly, monthly, yearly reminders.
	I think what we see over and over again with this cabal is just a complete disregard for what all of us inside the system do every day as part of our professional accountability.
	Jonathan, what's your take?
	All your years you've been involved in government, the things that you've been involved in.
	I assume you had a security clearance, correct?
	When I was an FBI agent, I had top secret SCI, which is about as high as you can go, secret compartmentalized information.
	And as well, I'm sure all these guys did, which means that it's so classified that you can only know bits and parts of certain things.
	And when you're read into these programs, you know that with even if there's no classification, it's just a dialogue and there's no symbol there in dialogue that tells you it's classified, you know that that information should not be divulged in an open area, in a place where it could be listened to or taken away by the enemy.
	You have to watch these things and you just know it.
	And you're held to the standard by the law.
	Yeah.
	We are.
	One of the things that just shocked me, I mean, did you know anybody, Philip Haney, that maybe had a problem with security clearance as a result of how they handled the mishandled information?
	Yeah, I just happened to know somebody that was investigated nine times during the course of my career, up to and including revocation of my secret clearance with no specific charges ever attached.
	They just did it.
	Oh, they did add that it was not an adverse action.
	But anybody involved in the intelligence community knows if your secret clearance is revoked, that's an adverse action.
	And it was all because of the work that I had been doing, trying to fulfill my vow to protect American people from threat, both foreign and domestic, and notify my chain of command that there was a threat out there, and it was growing worse every single day.
	And is that your experience, too?
	Yeah, Sean, I think there's another angle that we're overlooking here, which is in the handling of classified information, there is a strict set of rules that actually applies.
	And in the operational environment, there's some flexibility there.
	But when you get into the management of the IT systems themselves and bringing things over into a completely open, unclassified environment from a classified environment opens up the door to any hostile intelligence service that is maybe monitoring the U.S. Secretary of State, do you think?
	I mean, it's incomprehensible.
	You know, and I guess I go to you, Jonathan, on this very same issue.
	I mean, if you have somebody like Hillary Clinton is in this position, then the FBI director, you know, he spends, you know, 15 minutes laying out the case, how security could have been compromised.
	Every claim that she had made about wanting to use one device, having deleted personal emails, they didn't even go through them, apparently, according to the lawyers that were involved in this thing.
	So we get a number of lies and a lot of different points.
	She did send and receive classified information.
	She did send and receive special access program classification, the highest level of classification.
	She did have multiple devices.
	They didn't go through the 30,000 emails that they deleted.
	She did tell a subordinate, in fact, to cover this whole thing up.
	And then he comes to the conclusion.
	We get into this word game with all these guys.
	Gross negligence is the legal term.
	And the FBI director saying extreme carelessness that may have resulted in our enemies gathering this information.
	You know, as Catherine Harridge pointed out on Fox News earlier, the law in which they were investigating this crime, under which they were investigating this crime, says that You do not have to show intent or willingness to be charged with gross negligence.
	Comey laid out that case and then turned around and recommended that she not be charged because there's not enough evidence.
	So here's what I'm seeing once again from this administration.
	And I'm sorry that I have to say Comey is a complete failure in my mind now.
	But from the get-go with this administration, with experts like you, Sean, we measure the minute detail of your perfection.
	With these people, we are measuring the size of their giant mistakes and criminal behavior.
	And I just want to say this.
	I don't want to hog all the radio time, but I didn't want to say this.
	I've never told anybody this outside of the FBI.
	One of the reasons why I got out of the bureau was because I was on a squad where a guy got arrested.
	An FBI agent got arrested because somebody made a complaint that he had accessed unauthorized access, our computer system, to find the name of an old source that had been closed.
	That's it.
	And he authored the documents.
	So he accessed ACS to look up the documents that he authored so he'd get somebody's name because he wanted to go to a football game.
	This guy was investigated and brought up at first on five felony charges, then it was dropped to five misdemeanor charges.
	When they saw that there was no case after over a year of having his life scrubbed to the point where he was just a broken man, they decided they didn't have a charge, but they had practically ruined his life.
	Let me tell you the story about Peter Van Buren.
	And the article starts out in U.S. News.
	He can't wait for the court-ordered release of Hillary's work-related emails from 2011, which was a year that nearly ruined him in a negotiated retirement that he had with the State Department.
	Anyway, the foreign affairs arm of the federal government, then led by Hillary Clinton, had accused this longtime Foreign Service officer of mishandling classified information and unsuccessfully asked the Justice Department to prosecute.
	Anyway, Van Buren says that his travails demonstrate a massive double standard at the State Department, which now defends Hillary's use of a private email system.
	And now we know it's multiple servers, multiple devices, all things that she denied, sent and received classified information, SAP classified information.
	Anyway, at the same time, Clinton, now the frontrunner, was using a private and apparently unsecure email system.
	We know that Comey said that the Russians, our enemies, may have had access to this.
	I'd bet any amount of money that they probably did.
	Anyway, so he writes this book back in 2010, and it's We Met Well, How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.
	He submits it to the department for pre-publication review after a mandatory waiting period in 2011.
	It was shipped to bookstores.
	Anyway, there were three allegedly classified details that the department claimed about the book that poised to sharpen a criticism of U.S. diplomatic affairs.
	Anyway, the details included mentioning of an unnamed CIA officer who had worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia, that the CIA controlled the budget of Iraqi intelligence services, a rehash, the author says, of mainstream press reporting, and that the CIA had once worked with Saddam Hussein.
	Anyway, the publisher concluded the contested passages clearly did not contain classified information.
	Then a ton of bricks falls on this author.
	His security clearance is suspended.
	His access to the State Department facilities becomes restricted.
	He was essentially unable to work.
	And the reason he was given, he recalls, was that he linked to a WikiLink cable on his personal blog.
	And the cable with low classification, quote, confidential, even Comey identified confidential as the lowest classification today, recounted an apparent visit by John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman that they had with Muamm Qaddafi.
	And the State Department then told this 24-year diplomat that he was being fired.
	So let me ask a question.
	Do we have a two-tier justice system, Philip Paney?
	From what I see, there's a lot of unanswered questions in the way they approach enforcement internally.
	And again, speaking from my own experience, I saw spectacular displays of abrogation of due process in my own career.
	They would never have the courtesy of explaining why they were investigating.
	They took my gun.
	They cut off access to all the systems.
	They sequestered me for 11 months.
	They revoked my secret clearance.
	And really, to this day, have never really fully explained why they did any of it.
	And you were one of the founding members of the Department of Homeland Security.
	And this happened in what year?
	This happened and started on September 21st, 2015, sorry, 2014.
	In the last 11 months of my career, I was under that shadow of investigation by three different agencies of the government all at the same time.
	But weren't you also outspoken because you were told to scrub the names of Muslims in America that had radical ties?
	I was outspoken in terms I went to Congress 45 times in four years to try to tell them because that's my authorized chain of command.
	I never went outside the chain of command the whole time that I was trying to inform my agency and or Congress of what was really going on.
	And that's why I survived it, because I didn't go outside of the chain of command.
	Yeah, and you only decided to speak out when?
	After I retired.
	Actually, it was because of San Bernardino.
	When San Bernardino happened on December 2nd, I was watching the news like everybody else, and all of a sudden the name of the mosque came up, Darlou Mal-Islamiya.
	And you recognized the name.
	I literally yelled at my computer screen.
	That's my case.
	That was the case that I've talked about before with the 67 deleted records.
	They didn't change them.
	They completely deleted them out of the system.
	And it had direct bearing on not only the San Bernardino mosque, but also the mosque in Fort Pierce that Omar Mateen attend.
	This is the most unbelievable thing, because what you're basically saying is, based on the work that the Department of Homeland Security, which you were a co-founder of, was able to accomplish, that you had advanced warning about San Bernardino.
	You had the mosque identified as one where radicalism was connected.
	You had evidence in Fort Pierce similarly with this guy Mantine.
	And you also may have been able to stop that.
	But you were told during the Obama years to delete the names of those people with radical ties.
	Initially, I was ordered to modify the records, which means taking out the linking information.
	That was 820 records related to the Muslim Brotherhood Network.
	Three years later, they didn't just say modify them.
	They completely obliterated them out of the system, bypassing their own security protocol to do it, and then turned around and investigated me for putting the records into the system in the first place.
	But the thing that they have never explained to this very day is a simple question.
	Why did you delete the records in the first place?
	Rich Higgins, was that your same experience, although coming from a different part of government?
	I think what we see system-wide across the national security apparatus right now, Sean, is a complete shutdown on discussion as it pertains to Islam.
	Any factual look at it, like what John was saying on Friday, anything that touches the truth, anything that touches reality, systematically shut down.
	To go back to your first question, is there a two-tier system of justice?
	I can tell you, and I think John will vouch for this because he and I had very similar clearance backgrounds.
	We did that.
	We would be escorted out probably at gunpoint, probably in handcuffs.
	I mean, and that's the point.
	I'm listening to Comey today until he got to the last two minutes.
	I literally was sitting there watching and saying, he's going to recommend indictment.
	Did you get the same feeling?
	He laid out a case like a prosecutor.
	He laid it out for prosecution.
	And then he pulled back on it.
	I don't know.
	Where did those other two minutes come from?
	All right, we've got to take a break.
	Stay right there.
	We'll come back.
	We'll have more.
	Top story, obviously.
	Hillary Clinton and James Comey lays out a case for indictment, very clear case, but then pulls back on it.
	Why?
	Do we have a two-tier justice system?
	We have full coverage of all of this, every angle tonight on Hannity, including the Trump campaign.
	Eric Trump will weigh in tonight.
	We have our legal panel tonight and much more.
	10 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	We'll continue with Philip Haney, Rich Higgins, and Jonathan Gillam on the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hannity Headline, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you anywhere you go.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.com.
	All right, Hannity tonight, 10 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	We have our panel of attorneys.
	Jay Seculo, Judge Janine Pirro, will join us tonight.
	Also, the political side of this, Laura Ingram and former Governor Mike Huckabee.
	We look at the national security side of these compromised emails with Dr. Sebastian Gorker and Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters.
	Also Eric Trump, the Trump campaign response.
	He'll join us from the Trump organization.
	And we'll also have the implications in terms of the VP list for Donald Trump.
	All right, when we come back more with our national security experts and your calls, 800-941-Sean is on number.
	We know you never want to miss the Sean Hannity Show.
	And now you never have to.
	Just sign up for Hannity Headlines, a bite-sized version of the show that you can take with you on your laptop, your mobile phone, everywhere you go, even to your liberal-in-law's place in Vermont.
	So, um, yeah.
	And after a few hours of that, you'll be glad you brought Sean along.
	To sign up today for Hannity Headlines, go to Hannity.com.
	I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department.
	And I have to add, even if I'd had two devices, which is obviously permitted, many people do that, you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official.
	So I did it for convenience, and I now looking back, think that it might have been smarter to have those two devices from the very beginning.
	Now, I have so far used the singular term email server in describing the referral that began our investigation.
	It turns out to have been more complicated than that.
	Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department.
	And she also used numerous mobile devices to send and to read email on that personal domain.
	As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways.
	Piecing all of that back together to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal email was used for government work has been a painstaking undertaking requiring thousands of hours of effort.
	For example, when one of Secretary Clinton's servers was decommissioned in 2013, the email software was removed.
	That didn't remove the email content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge unfinished jigsaw puzzle and then dumping all the pieces on the floor.
	The effect was that millions of email fragments ended up in the server's unused or slack space.
	We searched through all of it to understand what was there and what parts of the puzzle we could put back together again.
	FBI investigators also read all of the approximately 30,000 emails that Secretary Clinton provided to the State Department in 2014.
	All right, there was James Comey totally, completely, and utterly obliterating Hillary Clinton's excuse, which is, oh, excuse me, I did this all for convenience.
	Multiple devices, multiple servers.
	Everything she said about it turned out to be false.
	But, of course, we learned last week she lied about Benghazi, too.
	Now, by the way, the CIA director, this goes back to 1999, George Tennant at the time, announced that he has suspended the security clearance of his predecessor, John Deutsch.
	Why?
	For violating government rules by working with classified material on an unsecured computer at his home.
	And the unprecedented action against a widely respected and still powerful former official came at a time then of heightened concern over foreign espionage and the handling of classified information, clearly intended as a signal that the federal government, the CIA in particular, is determined to tighten security.
	Now, we continue this hour with Philip Paney.
	He is a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security, author of the new book, See Something, Say Nothing.
	Also, Rich Higgins, Vice President, Intelligence and National Security Programs, former manager with the Department of Defense, Combating Terrorism, Technical Support Office, and Irregular Warfare Support Programs, and Jonathan Gillum, Navy SEAL and former federal air marshal.
	And Jonathan, I think we were talking to you about how overwhelming and incontrovertible the case that Comey laid out today was, and yet she's scot-free.
	He basically, in layman's terms, what he did was he put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and then he sold him to the highest bidder.
	That's what happened.
	Explain what you mean by that.
	Well, they went through and did the investigation.
	He said himself they took all these pieces that were laid out in thousands of man hours to put this picture together, and then he turned it over to the Clintons.
	I mean, he didn't turn.
	Why would he do that?
	Why would he let her off the hook?
	Why, when so many other people have paid the price, why did he give them a break?
	We have to remember Comey is a political appointee.
	He is not an agent that rose to the ranks.
	And that's the problem with all these agencies, is they have political appointees at the top, then their allegiance is to the people that appointed them.
	All right, let's go to the standards of what we expect, for example, from the government.
	You know, we kept hearing all throughout the day gross negligence.
	In other words, isn't it by its very definition Philip Haney, if you set up an email server in a mom-and-pop shop in a bathroom so that you can keep your emails separate and private and apart, if you do that, isn't that in and of itself gross negligence?
	We're not even allowed in CBP to use our personal email anywhere near the workspace.
	We cannot mix the two, which is exactly what she did.
	So we wouldn't survive.
	We'd be fired, as Rich said, and escorted out if we came anywhere near close to the level of abrogation that Hillary Clinton did.
	It takes your breath away.
	Yeah, it's like living in Alice in Wonderland where the doormouse has a 45.
	It's just surreal.
	And you'd think if you did this, that you would be arrested.
	You'd be handcuffed.
	You would be perp walked.
	You would be fingerprinted.
	You'd be mug-shotted.
	Yeah, we have it.
	It happens.
	People do get arrested, or active duty officers, and their pictures are posted on our website.
	It's called the hall of shame.
	Nobody wants to get on the hall of shame.
	You're blackballed forever.
	You're out of federal service.
	You can never work in law enforcement again.
	And we avoid that like the plague.
	Doesn't it mean a lot that she first of all determined that 30,000, you know, let me go to you here, Rich.
	30,000 of the emails she was going to delete anyway.
	She makes a big deal about handing over 55,000 pages, but she deleted 32,000 emails and handed over 33,000 emails.
	So she deleted half of them on her own.
	And the FBI director even admitted that the people deleting it didn't know what was in them.
	And they even found Classified were able to recover some of those emails that were classified.
	Sean, I got to be honest with you.
	I mean, I'm struggling to find the words to describe this to your audience.
	It's incomprehensible.
	Are you sitting here looking at each other?
	To all the privates, to all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines out there that are doing your duty today, stay faithful.
	Believe in the system.
	The system is not totally in meltdown.
	But listen, you worked in operational warfare.
	Seriously.
	I mean, where the utmost, I mean, where security is of the utmost priority.
	Sean, this stuff gets people killed.
	This stuff gets people killed.
	We want to recruit sources overseas.
	I mean, this is a compromise.
	I can't.
	I mean, Alger Hiss, I mean, what is the precedent here?
	There is no precedent here.
	This does get people killed, Jonathan.
	That's a good point.
	Well, I tell you, and Sean, here's the other thing that is still to be determined.
	There are a lot of people in this country that are fed up.
	That is one of the reasons why Trump is doing so well because people are angry.
	But we have to start looking at the fact of who is angry now.
	Now it's not just your right-wing, your left-wing people.
	Now it's agents.
	It's people that are in the military.
	Use your best intelligence skills.
	I'll ask all of you this question.
	Let's talk about the timing of this.
	Late last week, Bill Clinton meets Loretta Lynch on the tarmac.
	They talk for a half hour, I guess, about grandchildren.
	Okay, inappropriate.
	Shouldn't have happened.
	They all admit it.
	Saturday, and I thought when they brought Hillary in, I thought that would indicate that that's pretty much the end of the investigation.
	And they would probably be trying to corroborate whether or not what they found was true or not and see if she had any excuses to explain this away.
	Clearly, Comey even recognizes she did not.
	And then we've got Comey coming out today.
	And then Hillary is out with Obama today.
	Is this all a coincidence?
	When you look at the timing of this, this tells me this whole thing was orchestrated at a very high level of government.
	What do you think?
	You know, the thing, Sean, about the truth is that the truth can be hidden.
	And by very, very deceitful, skilled people, they can hide the truth.
	But when the mob, for instance, when they get into a neighborhood and they own that neighborhood, they get loose with their actions.
	And then that's how they end up getting caught.
	What we're seeing now are people that are at so high levels in government and corruption that they just stopped caring about the perception because they know they're not going to get there's no ramifications for this.
	And today is clear evidence.
	She lied about sending and receiving classified information.
	She lied about sending or receiving more classified information.
	She was caught lying about wanting to do this for convenience.
	Just like she lied to us when she said that a spontaneous demonstration in a YouTube video caused what happened in Benghazi.
	I would think at some point somebody gets held accountable, Filipini, for lying like this at the highest level like this.
	Well, I think this is a clarion call for Donald Trump.
	It's time for him to go after her now.
	No holds barred.
	The games are over.
	This is full-on cultural warfare from this time forward.
	If he holds back, he has to go full-on right now.
	No more.
	Because it's over.
	All the pretense is gone.
	They've made their decisions.
	They're going to go on with the campaign.
	She apparently is not going to get indicted.
	And if we, the people, as Donald Trump as a representative, don't address this, we're going to miss a historical opportunity.
	It's time for the American public to stand up.
	Enough is stinking enough.
	You know, Rich, wasn't it interesting?
	You go back to the Valerie Plain case.
	And, you know, here's a woman that was never a covert operative, never was exposed by anybody in the case of Scooter Libby or anybody else.
	We also know that the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, in that particular case, knew who the leaker was the very day he started the investigation.
	All right, so they knew who the leaker was.
	It was Richard Armitage.
	And then they set a perjury trap for poor Scooter Libby and the idea that, well, this may have compromised security.
	Today I heard the FBI director tell us that it is very possible that every one of her emails, including special access program classification, top secret classification, and confidential classification, may be in the hands of our enemies.
	And I don't hear anybody as upset on the Democratic side when they were all freaked out that somebody who was not a covert operative's name was mentioned, not even by the guy that ended up getting convicted in the case.
	I think they have that Cheshire cat grin on their face right now that they know they got away with one.
	I have two quick points.
	Number one is, I want to know what Loretta Lynch's handicap is because I just don't believe she was talking golf.
	Just don't believe it.
	Do you?
	That's an interesting question.
	Well, by the way, Hillary Clinton's big excuse about the 30-plus thousand emails.
	Remember, her excuse was she was talking about yoga, a wedding, her daughter's, a funeral, her mother's, and communicating with Bill, who we learned later doesn't communicate on email at all.
	I just have a hard time believing Loretta Lynch is a big golfer.
	It's just incomprehensible to me as well.
	Well, with the job, she's probably very busy.
	But, you know, Colby said today there was no evidence that what she did, she intended to do, and I think it's just quite the contrary.
	Everything she intended to do here was to prevent congressional oversight.
	And then the second thing is to double down.
	There's one way that she's going to be held accountable, and that is going to be at the ballot box in November.
	And the American people need to stand up and be heard.
	You know, I think that's all true.
	But you know something?
	A lot of people, you know, their eyes gloss over on stuff like this.
	But I've lost faith in everything, even the ballot box.
	I mean, look at the record that's been shown us again and again this year alone.
	The primaries are rigged.
	Who's being chosen is rigged.
	Even Bernie Sanders is not getting a fair share.
	And at what point do the American people just stand up and say, this is just a rigged system that's controlled by the very few that do not subscribe to the laws that we subscribe to?
	At what point?
	So a known liar, somebody who's dishonest, untrustworthy, and somebody who put people's lives in jeopardy, I think you can argue, and especially covert ops, who's going to be the president of the United States potentially.
	And I know you guys would agree with me on this.
	If Trump gets elected, and I hope he's listening to this, he must realize he has to come in and not just bring his cabinet in.
	He needs to go to all these agencies and clean house because the people that are at the top of these agencies, the same thing happened to George Bush after eight years of Bill Clinton.
	But a different attorney general, the statute of limitations would not wear out.
	And if it was, let's say, Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani appointed by Donald Trump as president.
	Philip, I saw you reached over for something you want to share.
	Go ahead.
	It looks like your Constitution.
	If the Declaration of Independence.
	By the way, for the record, I want you to know I have my handy one right here.
	Second paragraph in the middle.
	That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.
	That mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
	But it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.
	So the bottom line is it's now this, if you want a corrupt, dishonest president that has violated numerous laws that is not trustworthy, vote for Hillary.
	And if you want really some real change in Washington, like energy independence and a border wall built, and you want to identify radical Islam for what it is, vote for Trump.
	It's really that simple.
	All right, I want to, by the way, I want to thank Philip Haney and Rich Higgins.
	They both came in to do the show today.
	And as a result of the news and being in New York, I was able to come in and do the show.
	They will do the show for me tomorrow.
	I will at least attempt to resume my vacation.
	And thank you guys so much.
	And I know my audience was going to look forward to hearing.
	Are you in the show tomorrow too or no?
	I don't think so.
	I'll be in spirit.
	I know he guests hosted Friday.
	I was, because you called me and said, you need to get to the studio.
	And I'm like, I can't get to the studio.
	I'm half intoxicated.
	I have two beers.
	So anyway, guys, you'll do a great job tomorrow.
	Philip Haney, Rich Higgins, and Jonathan, we love you guys.
	Thank you so much for being with us.
	Appreciate your time today.
	Thanks, John.
	All right, Hannity, tonight, 10 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	Full, complete coverage and updates on this developing story and much more.

▲