Breaking news fell this afternoon that the FBI has recovered some additional Clinton emails and this new information has forced the bureau to reopen the investigation, just 11 days before the election. Sean and team break down the news and discuss what this might mean for the Trump campaign. The Sean Hannity Show is live Monday through Friday from 3pm - 6pm ET on iHeart Radio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast.
I need to open with a very critical breaking news announcement.
The FBI has just sent a letter to Congress informing them that they have discovered new emails pertaining to the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's investigation.
And they are reopening the case into her criminal and illegal conduct that threatens the security of the United States of America.
Hillary Clinton's corruption is on a scale we have never seen before.
We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office.
In a congressional hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public.
I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email.
Was that true?
Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
So it was not true.
But I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.
Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received.
Was that true?
That's not true.
There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.
I never sent classified material on my email, and I never received any that was marked classified.
Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
Was that true?
There was classified material emailed.
People across the government knew that I used one device.
Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.
Secretary Clinton said she used just one device.
Was that true?
She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
But we turned over everything that was work-related.
Every single thing.
Personal stuff, we did not.
I had no obligation to do so and did not.
Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department.
Was that true?
No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.
All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I did not participate.
Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive.
Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
No.
He directly contradicted what you said.
Let me just just add.
He not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent.
Well, Chris, I looked at the whole transcript of everything that was said, and what I believe is, number one, I made a mistake not using two different email addresses.
I have said that, and I repeat it again today.
It is certainly not anything that I ever would do again.
I take classification seriously.
I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I work.
Breaking news now.
Here's Sean Hannity.
This is one of these breaking news days.
I've got to slow myself down so I can impart to you the information that you need about how unprecedented this news is today.
If you're just getting in your car, getting out of work, the FBI has now reopened their investigation into the Clinton email use.
Let me say up top, this has to be what they have discovered in spite of what they are telling you.
James Comey writing a letter to Congress, you know, that they've learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.
11 days out of a presidential campaign, it is against the FBI's own policies to do something unless this is deep, unless this is profound, which it is.
All of this is related for all of you critics out there.
What did I say Julian Assange has done for America?
I was so critical of him 10, 11 years ago.
Number one, Wikileaks has never one time been wrong.
And what did I say?
This guy broke into NASA and our Department of Defense, our computer systems, when he was 16.
He has helped this country out if we're smart and we were to learn from it, in as much as we don't have cybersecurity.
It doesn't exist.
And if we want national defense, we need cybersecurity.
He did us a favor by revealing we have none.
And on levels that I never dreamed myself as a massive critic of government and bureaucracy and power-hungry politicians, I never thought it was this bad.
And it's worse.
Now, here is the bigger news that you probably have not heard about yet.
This just broke.
WikiLeaks has only released 35,594 Podesta emails since October the 7th.
They have over 50,000 Podesta emails, approximately 15,000 more to go.
Julian Assange via Russia Today, a reporter in London, quote, I will read it verbatim, and I want to thank our friend Jim Hoft over a gateway pundit.
He broke it, not me.
He will release more material in what he says will provide enough evidence to see Hillary Clinton arrested.
That's not Sean Hannity speaking.
That is a message from Julian Assange.
I have no doubt John Kerry is on his hands and knees begging the embassy there, what is he, in the Ecuadorian embassy to shut his internet down, handcuff him, and put him behind bars, as they know now that the presidential race is tipping in the balance over all of this.
Look, I want to go through this slowly.
What we opened with, I won't regurgitate it, but what we opened with was James Comey being grilled by South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy.
And basically, Trey Gowdy got him to admit she committed one lie, one cover-up after another, which during an investigation happens to be against the law.
You cannot do this.
Now, a lot of you are saying to yourself, Hannity, how did this break 11 days before the election?
How is it possible?
Well, we, more than anybody else that I know of in media, every night, what have I been doing on TV?
Here's what we found in WikiLeaks.
Here's what we found in Wikileaks.
And I can barely get the headlines because it's so corrupt.
It is now seven pages of just headlines that I have.
What did we learn as it relates to the private email server?
Well, we have an email from John Podesta.
Thank God you're there.
And of course, he responds to Roy Spence.
I think the State Department was hacked.
Sony hacked.
Banks hacked.
As we try to close the Benghazi chapter, and the email drip is, you know, is there ever a moment in time not to defend the decision, but lay out the fact that our servers were not hacked?
I know this is naive, et cetera, et cetera.
But then they go on to say, reluctant to go there, makes it seem like she consciously went home, went to the home server for security reasons, quote, which would fall apart under scrutiny.
How does the FBI justify interviewing Angelina Jolie for four hours about a plane ride with her husband, Brad Pitt, in which he allegedly became physical with their 15-year-old son, Matt?
He probably tapped him on the backside.
Geez, that's a crime in today's day.
He'll go to jail, but not Hillary.
She only got interviewed three and a half hours.
We know that, in fact, computer, how many people were given immunity in this deal?
For no reason whatsoever.
How is it evidence has now been destroyed as part of a proffered deal that was given to key people in this investigation?
How is it Trey Gowdy got the FBI director to admit crimes were committed?
We know now the president of the United States is involved, that he lied when he told you that I learned about it from the news media like everybody else.
Well, that was a lie.
And on top of that, then you've got John Podesta and Cheryl Mills discussing whether or not subpoenaed emails, meaning between Hillary and Obama, whether they shouldn't turn them over.
Well, there's a word for that.
It's called obstruction of justice.
And then we know that the president, you know, put two and two together here.
The president of the former president meets with Loretta Lynch 40 minutes, you know, just days before she makes her decision.
Well, I just want to, you know, the president of the United States, he was emailing her too.
He's going to be implicated as well.
You know what?
The president of the United States.
They weren't talking about their kids for 40 minutes.
I can tell you that.
Why did Obama use executive privilege on their correspondence?
Additionally, Obama on video denying he knew about the server.
That means he lied to you.
You got Paul Combetta, whatever his name is, was hired to modify the email headers that referred to a very, very VIP individual.
That shows criminal intent, obstruction of justice.
I can go through.
We have identified 16 potential laws, felonies that have been violated here.
You know, you've got the FBI saying they couldn't find intent.
What are they talking about?
The email that Wikileaks revealed in plain language, they meant to break the law.
And this is the real reason she was never indicted.
She would have taken down Obama with her.
And the Clinton campaign in direct communications with the Department of Justice in this case.
That's called collusion.
Direct connection with the State Department.
That is called collusion.
Committing a crime, conspiracy to commit a crime.
You know, do you understand RICO statutes come into play here?
Then there was collusion with the Obama White House.
How to clean up this mess, to quote the email directly.
And on top of that, we had the State Department trying to bribe the FBI to unclassify Clinton emails.
Well, we'll give you all those extra FBI agents that you want to send around the world.
That's called a quid pro quo.
That's called bribery.
Quid pro quo is a nice term.
And we haven't even touched the pay-to-play stuff.
And Comey won't even admit Comey needs to go.
And by the way, as does, this now sheds a lot of light on the fact that Hillary Clinton had raised funds for a political action committee, and they steered through their best friend, Terry McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia.
He now has his ass in a sling.
Good luck, Terry.
Remember, McCabe's husband, Andrew McCabe, he was promoted to FBI deputy director.
He was supervising this investigation.
Clinton's best friend, Terry McAuliffe, used a PAC, Common Good, Virginia.
He gave, get this, a total of $675,000 to FBI deputy director, the one looking into the Clinton email server, Andrew McCabe's wife, Jill, who, by the way, had a long shot bid for a congressional seat.
You realize most congressional seats do not spend $675,000, never mind coming from one person.
And Hillary headlined a major fundraiser for the PAC to raise the money for McAuliffe to give to the wife who's running for Congress of the deputy director that's investigating the email server scandal.
Whoopsie-daisy.
You know, we have a list of laws here that are so long.
Why won't Comey even acknowledge their investigating?
We learned yesterday we have smoking gun WikiLeaks evidence.
$116 million.
What about the Moroccan deal?
What about the Russia-uranium deal and Podesta and all these people making millions?
What about the list that, you know, the money the Clinton Foundation is raising for Haiti relief after 150,000 people die in Haiti?
And they're making a list, friends of Bill, donors to Clinton Foundation, so they can get the contracts, they can make a lot of money, and then they can shove some money right back in the Clinton Foundation.
That's called pay-to-play.
Saying I'm going to go to Morocco, pay to play.
AP, now, how relevant is that AP report?
That 55% of those people that got to see Hillary Clinton when she's Secretary of State.
By the way, this is one of these days.
My memory is so good.
So good.
I can't believe I'm remembering all this myself.
But remember, 55%.
All right, stop laughing in there.
This is serious business.
She's going to jail.
All right.
55% of individuals that saw her as Secretary of State were all donors.
Pay to play.
That's not even mentioned here.
Something has happened.
I'm putting two and two together.
Julian Assange's public statement that there will be new evidence that will allow the FBI to arrest her with FBI Comey's movements today, 11 days out of an election.
And Comey needs to go.
And McCabe needs to go.
You know, I was at a party.
I do have FBI friends that I know have been investigated.
And the agent, special agent said to me, me and everybody I work with are so embarrassed because the level that they need to get to in terms of committing crimes that that level has been.
If the media investigated Hillary like they did Watergate, she would be in jail forever.
She'd be in jail now without even having WikiLeaks.
Anyway, I got so much to get to.
I am going to try and systematically lay this out for you.
I am trying to remember every detail.
But this is big news.
The FBI reopening their investigation into the Clinton email server 11 days to go.
Julian Assange saying there's evidence he will be releasing soon that will lead to Hillary Clinton's arrest.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
If you are just joining us, our top news story of the day is: yes, the FBI has now reopened the Clinton email investigation.
Julian Assange, I think this is even bigger news via the Russia Today reporter that, quote, he will release more material than what he says will provide enough evidence to see Hillary Clinton arrested.
Now, I am going to give you, somebody writes me, poor Uma Abedeen, better watch her back.
If you believe the New York Times, they have a new story that just broke.
New emails in Clinton case came from Anthony Weiner's electronic devices.
Federal law enforcement officials said Friday the new emails uncovered and closed investigation into Hillary's use of a private email server discovered after the FBI seized electronic devices belonging to Uma Abedeen, an aid to Mrs. Clinton and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
The FBI told Congress it uncovered new emails.
Let me tell you how I am going to say something that I know is true.
This story is total bull.
I don't believe this for a minute.
Hannity, it's the New York Times.
I have no doubt the New York Times got on the record leaks that this was related to Anthony Weiner and Uma Abedeen's emails.
I have no doubt, well, maybe Uma didn't take a sledgehammer to her devices the way Hillary Clinton did.
But this is not what resulted in the reopening of this case.
No way, shape, matter, or form.
They know Julian Assange.
There's too much in WikiLeaks that is coming that has tipped them off that they're dead, that they're about to be exposed.
And that is more than anything else.
This is about preservation now.
Because James Comey, and now we get back to McAuliffe.
Then we get back to, you know, this guy, Andrew McCabe, who was the FBI deputy director supervising the investigation of Clinton not long after Terry McAuliffe through a pack gave $675,000 to Jill McCabe, the wife of the FBI deputy director looking into the investigation into Clinton for a long shot bid.
And that $675,000 came from Hillary, who went out there and raised money for the super PAC so that McAuliffe could give it to her.
That's the wife of the guy doing the key investigation here.
Now, if that doesn't impress you, I don't know what does.
Now, let's go back to Trey Gowdy grilling James Comey.
What did he say?
You know, because it was pretty, Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received classified information over a private email server.
Is that true?
Comey, our investigation found there was classified information sent.
Stop right there.
Comey is admitting a crime is committed.
Then it raises the question: well, why did Comey then make the determination on his own not to send this to a grand jury or a special prosecutor or anybody else?
In other words, the statute requires she doesn't even have to be negligent.
I'm sorry.
The statute requires negligence or gross negligence.
Yet Hillary was knowingly, purposefully in WikiLeaks proves this in her decisions and actions setting up a server under her control.
Now, here's the questions Comey's got to ask: why did you give all of these people immunity?
Why did you destroy evidence in the case as part of a proffer deal?
Why, under any circumstances, did you close this case down when the evidence was overwhelming and incontrovertible and had sent numerous other people to jail for far lesser offenses?
That's called the two-tier justice system.
That's a problem.
Later in the program, I'll read this.
There's a retired FBI agent addressing Comey on the Hillary investigation.
Even he says she's not even negligent or grossly negligent as the statute requires.
Hillary, knowingly and purposefully, in her decisions and actions, set up a server under her exclusive control and possession in order to control, violate the law, in order to control information that was available to the American public and Congress regarding her actions as Secretary of State.
Furthermore, she took those government-owned communications into her own personal possession after leaving her position, knowingly and willingly attempted to destroy them.
By the way, that's obstruction of justice, a violation of the law, penalty of which a minor offense is you never get a government position for the rest of your life, and was so nefarious in her actions, could never be known or used as evidence.
Did you clean, did you, did you wipe your server clean?
You mean like with a cloth, Ed?
You mean like with a cloth?
Did you wipe the server clean?
What, like with a cloth or something?
No.
Well, why does the FBI director, he still, up to this point, has never mentioned why he won't even tell us if he's investigating the Clinton Foundation.
This gets more curious day by day.
Now, there were reports out today that FBI agents were reportedly close to revolting over the treatment of Clinton.
They're so disgusted.
And every FBI special agent I know is answering everybody's question.
Why did he do this?
And nobody has a good answer because they don't understand why.
I mean, this is pretty deep.
And new emails tied to discovered.
I don't believe the New York Times.
And I think the FBI did this because they know what is coming.
That's my take.
Now, let me take you back in history and give you some more background on this.
James Comey, it was July 5th.
Remember, it was kind of just before the conventions.
You know, said that the State Department would not seek the indictment of Hillary Clinton, you know, to great fanfare for failure to safeguard state secrets related to our email server.
And he jumped the gun.
He made a declaration, set in motion a series of events that I'm sure he did intend.
That's my take.
You know, was his hand forced?
I don't know.
But this is the backstory.
We know the FBI began the investigation in the spring of 2015.
And that's when the New York Times finally revealed her use of a private email address for her official government work and the fact that she did not preserve the emails on State Department service.
Remember, now you got to go back to, you know, everything that we found in Wikileaks, everything that was revealed by Trey Gowdy when he was grilling Comey.
Can you bring me another copy of that in, by the way?
Yo, guys, listen, another copy of what you just handed me about.
Okay.
Anyway, so they began their investigation.
They collect evidence.
They do a round of interviews.
We don't find out till later how many people are given immunity.
Then six months later, into the investigation, the senior FBI agent in charge of the investigation resigned from the case and retired from the FBI.
Why?
Because he felt the case was going sideways.
This was a great analysis by my buddy Judge Napolitano.
Now, if you hear the words going sideways, well, that means that's sort of law enforcement talk for nowhere by design.
In other words, the guy that would have been the chief of the New York, Philadelphia, D.C. field offices for the FBI at the time of his sideways comment was the chief of the FBI National Security Branch.
And the reason for that comment must have been his realization that the Department of Justice, the FBI, and senior management decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury.
And that's nearly as fatal to any government criminal case.
And in this criminal case, the FBI and DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony for tangible things only grand juries can.
So he knew without a grand jury, the FBI's work was meaningless.
They'd have no subpoena power.
And it kind of begins to explain all the issues of immunity.
And it kind of begins to explain some of the ridiculous decisions that they've made.
So we have Gowdy getting Comey to admit that Hillary lied when she said she didn't send or receive classified information.
And he said it was not true what she said to the American people.
And Hillary Clinton, I'm confident I never sent or received information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.
Well, that then goes to the heart of, well, why did they try to bribe the FBI into reclassifying things out of the classification that would have rendered her statement false?
Gowdy said, Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified.
Is that true?
Not true, Comey says there were classified markings.
And that raises the whole question.
Remember, what does the C mean?
I thought it was like alphabetical, but there's no A and there's no B and there's no D, and there's no X, Y, and Z, only a C.
And a first grader that has any access to any kind of information like this would have known the C meant confidential.
You know, so she lied when she said nothing was marked confidential because there were portion markings on documents.
And she said, I never sent anything that was marked classified.
Then Gowdy said, Clinton said, I didn't email any classified information to anyone on my email.
There was no classified material.
Comey said there was classified material.
So Hillary lied again.
Hillary said she only used one device.
That wasn't true either because Comey said she used multiple devices during her four years.
Then we find out that they actually destroyed them with hammers.
And Comey said that, well, she said that all work-related emails returned to the State Department.
Was that true? says Trey Gowdy.
No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.
And then it gets to the question of 33,000 emails that were deleted, that were supposed to be about yoga, and supposed to be about a wedding and supposed to be about a funeral that turned out to be a big lie.
Guess what?
We've never seen.
We haven't seen one email about yoga, a wedding, or a funeral, not one.
And we have more experts telling us absolutely they could have recovered those emails.
Bleach bit, no bleach bit, acid wash, no acid wash.
There was a way to recover them had they had the desire to recover them.
And then Gowdy goes on to say, you know, she said her lawyers read every one of those emails, and they were overly inclusive.
Did her lawyers read the emails individually?
No, said Comey.
How many lies do you need to be told here before you realize this is about a criminal intent?
It was criminal from the beginning.
She didn't want to abide by the law.
The law was clear.
She told her own State Department staff to be careful as it relates to emails.
By the way, we have a development today.
Congress, Loretta Lynch pled the fifth on secret Iran ransom payments.
She wouldn't tell anybody any information.
What is this?
Who do these people think they are?
Do they not work for her?
Now, I had put out a list of laws that are violated here.
For example, 18, U.S. Code 1924, you know, penalty, imprisonment, one year, $100,000, and/or $100,000 fine.
Text, knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said information on an unauthorized location without the authority to do so.
Guilty.
18, U.S.C. 793, felony, possible imprisonment, 10 years, $250,000 fine.
Allowing, by means of gross negligence, any document related to national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed, or willfully retaining unauthorized documents related to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them,
or failure to report the unauthorized documents related to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed.
Guilty.
18, U.S.C. 2071, felony.
Imprisonment, no more than three years, a fine or both.
Whoever, having the custody of any such record proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, and destroys the same.
Guilty.
Destruction, alteration, falsification of records in federal investigations, and bankruptcy.
Felony.
Penalty, imprisonment of no more than 20 years.
In other words, whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record document or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department of the United States of America.
John Podesta, Cheryl Mills, Uma Abedeen, all of them have violated some of these laws based on my simple interpretation.
Rudy Giuliani, who will join us at the top of the hour, has identified at least 16 specific felonies that should be investigated related to this case.
At least 16.
And it's just a, you know, so what prompted them to do this?
You have to believe it's WikiLeaks.
Let's go back to WikiLeaks.
What are we finding?
That Hillary, they'd admitted, oh, this would fall apart under scrutiny.
You know, Hillary didn't use a private server for security reasons.
You know, she took it home consciously.
What are we going to do?
If it's not for security, that's going to fall apart.
They knew this was a problem.
Then we know Obama lied.
And Cheryl Mills and Podesta talked about covering up his lie.
And we've got to clean this mess up, to quote them directly.
Clean the mess up?
Because they know that she didn't have a state gov, state.gov email that he was emailing her on.
You know, how is that not classified?
Uma Aberdeen to FBI when shown an email between Clinton and Obama using his pseudonym.
Abeddine then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.
Oopsie-daisy.
That is huge.
It's cover-up involving the president of the United States.
The email proves obstruction of justice.
The Clinton campaign in direct communications with the DOG, the State Department, DOJ, the State Department, and the White House.
That's called collusion.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is bigger than Watergate.
What did Hillary and Obama know and when did they know it?
What did they know?
And by the way, all of you in the media suck.
You've all been exposed as a bunch of hacks, pathetic losers, and those out there colluding to help Hillary get elected.
This is absolutely journalistic malpractice, and the fact that none of you that have been exposed as colluding with the Clintons have not been fired is a national disgrace.
But I did say journalism is dead.
In a congressional hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public.
I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email.
Was that true?
Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
So it was not true.
But I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.
Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received.
Was that true?
That's not true.
There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.
I never sent classified material on my email, and I never received any that was marked classified.
Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
Was that true?
There was classified material emailed.
People across the government knew that I used one device.
Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.
Secretary Clinton said she used just one device.
Was that true?
She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
But we turned over everything that was work-related.
Every single thing.
Personal stuff, we did not.
I had no obligation to do so and did not.
Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department.
Was that true?
No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.
All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I did not participate.
Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive.
Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
No.
He directly contradicted what said.
Let me just.
He not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent.
Well, Chris, I looked at the whole transcript of everything that was said, and what I believe is: number one, I made a mistake not using two different email addresses.
I have said that, and I repeat it again today.
It is certainly not anything that I ever would do again.
I take classification seriously.
I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked.
All right, there you have our top story today.
Glad you're with us, hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941, Sean, the FBI reopening the investigation into the Clinton email server.
There had been reports that the FBI agents themselves were close to revolting over Comey's friendly treatment of Clinton.
Everyone forgets, by the way, you know, that the FBI agent in charge of the investigation resigned from the case and retired because he felt the case was, quote, going sideways.
That's kind of law enforcement jargon, nowhere by design.
Then we have on top of this, we couldn't get with, now that it's reopened, remember, we now bring into play why did Terry McAuliffe end up giving up to $675,000 to Jill McCabe, who is running for a long shot race congressional seat, which is an enormous amount of money for any congressional race.
And McCabe's husband, Andrew McCabe, was promoted to the FBI director that was supervising this investigation.
Anyway, so it gets more curious by the day, and we still don't have an answer from Director Comey if he's investigating the Clinton Foundation.
Two of the best, brightest, smartest minds are with us, former Speaker of the House, Newt Kingrich, and former prosecutor, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Welcome, both of you.
Mr. Speaker, your thoughts.
Well, this is a long overdue development.
They should never have closed it in the first place.
It raises real questions about the computers that they agreed to destroy, which are now, of course, not available for this reopened case.
Proves to anybody who has any doubts that the case is real, despite political pressure.
And it should sober every American to realize that if you were to elect Hillary Clinton, she might spend the entire first year of her presidency fighting to survive in a series of investigations.
I think it's a very stunning development.
Mr. Mayor, let's go over what we learned from Wikileaks.
We have emails that show that Hillary did not use her private server for security reasons.
They literally say in there, well, it makes it seem like she consciously went home to her server for security reasons, quote, which would fall apart under any scrutiny.
That was in one of the Wikileaks emails.
We know that Obama lied when he said he learned about the secret server from the press.
And then we have discussion of what I would argue is obstruction of justice when Podesta and Cheryl Mills are saying maybe we shouldn't hand it over, even though those emails are under subpoena.
We know the Clinton campaign in direct communication was indirect communication with the DOJ, in direct communication with the State Department.
That would reflect that some level of collusion was going on during an investigation.
And WikiLeaks has shown us that, too.
What do we make of this?
Well, you know, Sean, from the very beginning, you and I have been very skeptical of this investigation.
I just had occasion to review the 302 for something that I'm writing for Donald Trump.
And the 302 of her interview is what I would regard as an F- in FBI Quantico school.
For example, she says that she didn't have a memory of her exit interview from the CIA because of her concussion.
The agent never asks, how long did that loss of memory last, and what corroboration do you have for that?
She says she didn't know that C meant confidential.
The most inexperienced FBI agent would follow that up with a question such as, did you see an A, B, D, or E?
In other words, all of her 37 failures of memory, things about which she would have a hard time believing she would fail to remember.
There's no follow-up question by the FBI.
It's almost as if the investigate the interview was fixed.
The agent was told not to follow up.
It is very telling that.
I wouldn't have given that 302 as a U.S. attorney, I would have thrown it back at the FBI.
Well, it is interesting.
Angelina Jolie was questioned by the FBI for four hours about one plane trip with her husband, a commercial plight, and whether or not the husband had used physical force against their son.
But the standard is very clear.
The statute is very clear.
I'll ask both of you this.
It's not an issue of whether or not she's negligent or grossly negligent.
In this case, we know it was way beyond that, that she knowingly and purposefully made decisions and committed actions to set up a server under her exclusive control and possession in order to avoid information that legally was available to the public and to the Congress, and that they destroyed such information.
Isn't that a crime?
Yes.
And all those things that Comey has in the report about no intent, everything he writes about is the evidence that we prosecutors use at trial to prove intent.
You don't prove intent because somebody writes out on a piece of paper, I intend to commit a crime.
You prove intent by things like destruction of evidence.
Well, we had plenty of destruction of evidence.
We prove intent by false exculpatory statements.
We've got about 50 of those.
In other words, different statements at different times.
The judge will charge a jury in a case.
You can take a false statement and you can use that evidence of intent.
So I find the report completely contrary to the conclusion of no prosecution.
And now with this additional evidence coming out, it must be the source of tremendous embarrassment to all those wonderful people of the FBI that their agency blew this investigation as badly as they did.
Mr. Speaker, you hear Trey Gowdy, if I could, Sean.
Go ahead.
Because Rudy was a federal prosecutor, and as you know, I'm an attorney.
I mean, I'm a fishing attorney.
But Rudy, if you were the U.S. prosecutor looking at this total evidence, isn't it fair to say that there are literally hundreds of counts that could be brought against her?
I mean, I don't know whether, for example, each of the 33,000 emails that were deleted becomes a count.
Or each of the 50 or 60 people who came to visit her at the State Department who were donors to the Clinton Foundation.
It just seems to me, the more you look at the totality of what Wikileaks is unveiling, the clearer, and then add to that what the FBI has released, the clearer it is that you would literally have a case that had an extraordinary number of counts in it.
You're absolutely right, Newt.
The reality is, I think it was about 10 months ago that I gave Sean a list.
It began as 13 statutes that she arguably violated.
We then extended it to 15, and now I've run out of room on my iPad for all the different crimes that she, at least has probable cause to believe she committed.
Whether you'd convict her or not, I think you would, because the evidence of intent is more than I've ever seen in any case that I ever prosecuted.
But you could, if you wanted, write a 200-count indictment.
And we're not even talking about the Clinton Foundation.
And when I read Wikileaks, I can't figure out for the life of me how the FBI is not investigating that.
They're a straight quid pro quo, you know, the uranium deal with Russia when she approves uranium for Russia.
And all of Clinton's friends make millions of dollars, and they donate billions to the Clinton Inc.
Well, and it seems to me that some people like Podesta and Cheryl Mills actually would almost be under a RICO count of a conspiracy to commit crime.
Well, yeah, I think I mean, I think there's no doubt that you put together the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, and you have, I think in one of their emails, they say the Clinton Inc., which would be like their organized crime family.
And basically, different forms of crimes are being used to acquire money.
In some cases, it was straightened out bribery, like intervening for UVS with the IRS when the Clintons got about $3 million for that.
In some cases, it was conflict of interest.
In some cases, it was obstruction of justice.
But there you would have another whole big, gigantic indictment.
I mean, we're essentially on the verge of putting a criminal family in charge of the White House.
Let me step in, and that's a great transition where I want to go, Mr. Speaker.
I'll go to you on this.
You know, we've got 11 days left in this campaign.
This is a monumental development for a lot of different reasons.
And look, I would argue that all polls that currently exist get thrown out the window.
Depending, though, of course, we now know the media is corrupt and they've been colluding with the Clinton campaign.
And I'm sure that there's going to be a woman that comes out tomorrow against Donald Trump that they'll plant out there.
That's pretty much an assurity.
How does this play out as it relates to this election, Mr. Speaker?
Look, I think it's devastating.
I can't quite imagine what the Clinton campaign headquarters is like right now.
I mean, I ran in 1974 the very first time during Watergate.
And I can tell you, these things hit you like thunderbolts, and they just jar you to your teeth.
And the American people now have to ask themselves a question.
Do you really want to nominate somebody who's almost certainly going to be under a criminal investigation for years to come?
I mean, she's never going to get out from under this.
And the more we learn about it, the more we learn about Bill Clinton, the more we learn about the foundation, the more we learn about.
I'll just give you two simple examples that the IRS has to open cases on.
WikiLeaks now tells us they got all sorts of gifts.
Well, did they pay taxes on them?
Where's the list of gifts?
What were they worth?
Did she register them at the State Department when she was secretary?
I mean, there's a whole zone there that hasn't even bubbled up yet.
The foundation, I think, and again, Rudy's the lawyer, I'm not, but I think that the foundation is very liable to lose its tax-deductible status.
And then you have $2 billion in donors who are taking tax breaks who are going to have to go back and pay taxes on everything they ever gave the Clintons.
I mean, all these things coming together, and then you have things like the Raytheon case, where you really have this sense that the fix was in in a way that is really pretty amazing.
And then you're going to have a whole case about whether or not Raytheon's lobbyists arranged for the Secretary of State to arrange for them to get a multi-billion dollar contract in the Middle East.
I mean, all these things are going to keep coming.
Let me ask you both this.
Does this not make the case that we should have voting on Election Day, not early voting?
Of course, a little abstentee voting is fine, but does this make a case not to have early voting?
Well, yeah, I would say yes.
I mean, the reality is that you really want each campaign to be able to bring itself to a conclusion at a certain point.
The reality is we're going to be hurt a lot by early voting if there are more and more serious allegations against her.
Although, my goodness, Sean, it's pretty clear and has been pretty clear for a couple of weeks that they are seriously in violation of the law.
And Newt is correct.
The Clinton Foundation thing may even be bigger than these exposure of emails and the lying about emails.
I mean, this was a massive, multi-million dollar fraud.
And the idea that the foundation did good, I mean, you're going to have to examine that carefully.
A lot of that good was done by paying money to the people who donated to the Clinton Foundation to actually do the work that the Clinton Foundation paid for for the poor people, like in Haiti, that people in Haiti hate the Clintons because they were building stuff not in the place where it was supposed to be built, and I think one of Mrs. Clinton's...
Well, remember, WikiLeaks showed us, too, Mr. Mayor.
I mean, they showed two separate lists, friends of Bill, foundation donors, and the purpose was that you would...
It wasn't as if, you know, I donate money to the Red Cross.
I donate money to the Red Cross, and then the Red Cross gives me a $100 million contract.
That would be a good idea.
Well, that then becomes pay-to-play.
I mean, just like the Moroccan deal, you mentioned the uranium deal.
That's another big one.
Well, the uranium deal is straight out.
I mean, about as criminal as it gets, and also imperils our national security by giving up 20% of our uranium to Russia.
But there, Clinton's pals made hundreds of millions.
Last word, Mr. Speaker.
The Clinton Foundation made all that money back in the profit they made on the sale of the plutonium to Russia.
I mean, that's about as a crime as you're going to find in the last maybe 20 or 30 years.
Mr. Speaker, walk us through the next 11 days.
Last word.
Well, I mean, I think Donald Trump has a great positive message in his contract with the American Voter and his New Deal for African Americans.
And he now has a perfect negative message and just saying, if the FBI is reopening the investigation, how can you elect the most crooked person ever to be nominated by a major party?
I mean, I think this is a devastating blow to them because it reminds everybody that even with all the pressure Comey's been under from the Obama administration, the evidence just got too great for the FBI institutionally not to reopen the case.
Unbelievable.
All right, we'll continue to follow it.
I think both of you are on TV tonight, if possible.
If you weren't asked yet, I'm asking you now to.
I'm going to see it in.
Actually, I'll be out at Woodstock at the bookstore.
We're going to do your job.
We appreciate it.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And, Mr. Mayor, I hope you can join us as well.
All right, 800-941-Sean Tolfrey, telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Our continuing investigation into what the FBI has now reopened their investigation into the Clinton email server scandal.
More of that and much more coming up straight ahead.
In a congressional hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public.
I had Not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email.
Was that true?
Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
So it was not true.
And I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.
Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received.
Was that true?
That's not true.
There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.
I never sent classified material on my email, and I never received any that was marked classified.
Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
Was that true?
There was classified material emailed.
People across the government knew that I used one device.
Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.
Secretary Clinton said she used just one device.
Was that true?
She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
But we turned over everything that was work-related.
Every single thing.
Personal stuff, we did not.
I had no obligation to do so and did not.
Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department.
Was that true?
No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.
All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I did not participate.
Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive.
Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
No.
He directly contradicted what you said.
Let me just, he not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent.
Well, Chris, I looked at the whole transcript of everything that was said, and what I believe is, number one, I made a mistake not using two different email addresses.
I have said that, and I repeat it again today.
It is certainly not anything that I ever would do again.
I take classification seriously.
I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked.
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.
media censorship that exists in the United States where four of the five top TV networks and about eight of the nine major publications in the United States are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton.
John Kerry, the Secretary of State, and some other U.S. officials and the Hillary Clinton campaign kept putting forth propaganda to say that our publications revealing various forms of corruption and scandal within Hillary Clinton's network was in fact interference in the United States electoral process.
But this is not interference in the electoral process.
This is the definition of the electoral process is for media organizations and in fact everyone to publish the truth and their opinion about what is occurring.
There cannot be a free and informed election unless people are free to inform.
All right, we continue our top story of the day, the FBI reopening their investigation into the Clinton email server scandal.
That was Julian Assange second, which is, I actually believe on many, many levels, as I have been telling you, this is deeply related to what they think and know is coming on top of what we've already discovered.
You know, you've got to understand here, the FBI probably now has discovered something so bad that even though they tried, now that they're being exposed, they couldn't sweep it under the rug like they did everything else.
Because what they did, I mean, James Comey being grilled by Trey Gowdy is admitting she committed crimes.
He's threading the needle, admitting she lied.
They admit in these WikiLeaks that they were willing to obstruct an investigation and defy a congressional subpoena to keep the president out of this.
They admit that the president lied when he said that he had no knowledge.
So what his motivation is, I will never know.
I do know that many FBI agents have been close to a revolt over Comey's friendly treatment of Clinton.
I was at a party with an FBI agent not that long ago, and he used the words repeatedly, me and my fellow agents are embarrassed about Comey's actions.
Now, if this all comes out, and hopefully it will within the next 11 days, this shows us how corrupt your Justice Department is, how corrupt also, too, the FBI will be in this investigation.
Look, we spent a lot of time on this program.
Remember, Comey wouldn't even admit they were investigating the Clinton Foundation.
We know now through WikiLeaks, pay to play was used routinely with the Clinton Foundation selling access to Hillary Clinton.
Now, if that's not corrupt, I don't know what is.
You know, we've got the whole issue of Terry McAuliffe.
$600 and what?
$75,000 to a long-shot bid for a congressional seat of a woman named Jill McCabe.
Means nothing to you, but here's the problem.
WikiLeaks revealed that Jill McCabe is the wife of the one FBI official who supervised the investigation into Hillary's email server.
Why did she get a major cash infusion from one of the Clintons' best friends?
By accident or by design?
They've got major, major headaches for them in the next 11 days.
And I know some of you are still offended that Donald Trump at times can be crass.
But he will appoint originalist justices.
He will vet refugees.
He will say radical Islam.
He will lower taxes.
He'll incentivize multinational corporations to bring back trillions.
He's not going to fire coal miners and put coal companies out of business.
And he's going to push America towards energy independence.
He's going to push for education to be sent back to the states.
And by the way, he's going to build that wall so there'll be less competition for work and so that Americans will be more secure.
Anyway, Jim Jordan, who is the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, Ohio Congressman, is Ohio going for Trump?
I think so, Sean.
I was at an event yesterday, 8,000 people packed into a...
We know they weren't there to see you, so who was there?
No, no, no, they weren't there.
They were there to see Donald Trump, and it was great Americans who are fed up with what they see in Washington and, frankly, concerned about a double standard where one set of rules for you and me and a different set if your name is Hillary Clinton.
But maybe that changes today based on the news we've heard.
I have to believe, tell me if you agree with my theory here.
The FBI, seeing WikiLeaks every day, the drip, drip, drip of corruption, knows at a very high level that what they did for her was wrong.
And so they decided in a pretty unprecedented way that they've got to reopen this because they're getting embarrassed every day.
And we know that, you know, new evidence on a whole variety of issues, the FBI can't look the other way anymore.
And, you know, she's now huddled with her team.
They're going to formulate their lie that they hope will hold for the next 11 days.
Do you think, and by the way, I guess she can't blame the Russians anymore.
And Vladimir Putin, you know, what impact is this going to have?
Does this now tip the balance to Trump in a lot of these swing states and get him over the top?
I think he was moving in the right direction anyway, and I think he's doing well in the Buckeye State.
Look, we don't know what this information is, but the fact that they are reopening this in light of what Mr. Comey has said and what they've been through, because like you, I've talked to former agents who say this makes no sense.
Think about the case.
We have seen things, and you've talked about this, Sean.
We have seen things we never thought we would see.
When is the subject of the investigation's husband ever met with the Attorney General three days before the subject of the investigation is interviewed by the FBI?
We've never seen that in the case.
Well, we've never seen that.
I mean, how does Terry McAuliffe, one of their closest friends, how does he give $600 and isn't $675,000 an enormous amount for a congressional race, especially for somebody that's got a long shot to even win that seat?
It's almost unprecedented, isn't it?
Okay, of course it's unprecedented.
How much do you usually spend and everything else that's come out of late that just shows what and never forget the fundamentals here?
She set up a private email server with a private email address, contrary to federal records law.
She did that because right from the get-go, they wanted to hide information from the American people.
And then when they got caught, she says, we'll decide on the front end.
Her and her lawyers will decide which emails we get, which ones they keep, and then destroy.
And it was thousands and thousands, 30-some thousand emails.
They decided on the front end.
Because when I asked her a year ago in the Benghazi hearing, I said, why don't you let a neutral third party, like a retired federal judge, examine those emails that you're deciding, you and Gerald Mills and your legal team, why don't you let a retired federal judge examine that so we can all know which ones are truly appropriate to come to Congress so we can see in the American people the face.
And she would not agree to do that.
So right from the get-go, this has been about hiding information.
And now we know today what these emails are, we don't know, but now we know today the FBI is going to reopen an investigation because they found something that was hidden.
That's big.
Let me ask you this.
Do you agree with me that Comey knows that his reputation has now been sullied to such a degree that he had to do this because of all the drip, drip, drip of Wiki?
That may be, I don't want to try to psychoanalyze, but that may be the case because, look, we do know this.
Two months after that, you were just playing his announcement where he goes through all these bad things that happened and then says we're not going to prosecute.
Two months after that, he had to send a memo to every single person in the FBI re-explaining his decision from two months prior.
I don't think that's happened very often.
So there has to be people, current good agents, so many of them are great agents, who are nervous and upset about the way this thing was done.
So that has to be driving some of it, but I don't want to try to get in his mind and understand why he did it.
I assume it's based on the evidence in front of him, and hopefully we're going to find out what that is pretty soon.
Let me ask you a very important question.
I, like many other conservatives and even the Republican Party in every primary, about 65% felt betrayed by their party.
You know the reasons.
Irresponsible spending, not using enumerated powers of the purse, not repealing the parts of Obamacare that they could repeal and replacing it and standing strong.
They were timid, feared that they would be blamed for government shutdown, not stopping executive amnesty, which they promised they'd do if we gave them the Senate.
I think we need a top-bottom approach that has to transcend conventional leadership in Congress, win-lose, or draw on November 9th.
Am I right?
I think you're right.
When we hear in 11 days, 10 days, when this election is over and Donald Trump's next president, I think we really have to focus in on doing what we have told the voters over the last several election cycles, what we would do.
We make Congress way too complicated.
Do what you told the voters you were going to do when they gave you the privilege to serve.
That's what we've got to focus on.
And as a party, come together and say, we're the party of Ronald Reagan, we're the party of basic principles, basic values, and let's go fight for them.
Because if we don't, you're right.
There are people who are disgruntled, and they deserve to be disgruntled and upset with what's going on in Washington.
We've got to focus on that going forward.
It's really sad.
And, you know, we can't even get an answer from the FBI director if the Clinton Foundation is being investigated.
That's a disgrace.
I mean, we really do need a new FBI director.
I mean, I hate to say it, but this is so corrupt.
And then we need a new deputy FBI director.
And Mr. McCabe, who got money from Terry McCoff, he needs to go too.
They need to get out of this investigation because they can't do their job.
You know how many FBI agents told me they're embarrassed by James Comey over this?
Everyone I know.
And I happen to know a lot.
I mean, not because I'm being investigated.
I've not been investigated yet that I know of.
By the way, Paul Ryan would probably rather investigate me, but that's a different story.
He doesn't particularly like me.
Mike Lee won't take my calls anymore.
What's up with that?
Can you talk to these guys for me?
What I do know, Sean, is across the 4th District of Ohio, people are fed up with the double standard.
And what they saw in this investigation, what they see from Washington, they're tired of and they want to change.
And when I was at the debate yesterday with Donald Trump, I saw the energy in that room for people who say, look, we are nervous about what's going to happen to our great nation, the greatest country ever.
And if we have Hillary Clinton as president, we're concerned about fundamental liberties.
We're concerned about the debt.
We're concerned about all these problems.
If it wasn't for the Freedom Caucus, I would have no hope.
I support you, your caucus, Mark Meadows and company, and then I support Steve King of Iowa.
I don't know why he's not a member.
And I support Louie Gormer.
And I can't think of many other people I support right now.
Well, you know, you're the honorary member, so we appreciate the good work you're doing.
All right, thank you.
I may have to run one day just to hang out with you guys and buy you guys pizza.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
This is a bombshell blockbuster day.
The FBI has now reopened the investigation into the Clinton email server scandal.
Huge news.
Newt Gingrich tonight.
Laura Ingram tonight.
Our team of attorneys tonight on the Fox News channel.
We have our news roundup information overload coming up as well.
In a congressional hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public.
I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email.
Was that true?
Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
So it was not true.
But I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.
Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received.
Was that true?
That's not true.
There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.
I never sent classified material on my email, and I never received any that was marked classified.
Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
Was that true?
There was classified material emailed.
People across the government knew that I used one device.
Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.
Secretary Clinton said she used just one device.
Was that true?
She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
But we turned over everything that was work-related.
Every single thing.
Personal stuff, we did not.
I had no obligation to do so and did not.
Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department.
Was that true?
No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.
All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I did not participate.
Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive.
Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
No.
He directly contradicted what you said.
Let me just, he not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent.
Well, Chris, I looked at the whole transcript of everything that was said, and what I believe is, number one, I made a mistake not using two different email addresses.
I have said that, and I repeat it again today.
It is certainly not anything that I ever would do again.
I take classification seriously.
I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked.
All right, news roundup and information overload hour here on the Sean Hannity show.
Our big news of the day, and this is massive with just 11 days till election day.
The FBI has now reopened the investigation into the Clinton email server.
Now, one of the things that you've got to remember here, there were those of us that heard Trey Gowdy grill James Comey and point out he is admitting she lied, obstructed justice, and broke the law.
And by the way, the penalty for others is far more severe.
We have chronicled right here on this program.
One guy takes a picture of a top secret submarine for his own benefit, and he gets a year in jail.
We had the recent case of the four-star general we told you about and others.
All these people end up going to jail for far less severe examples than what we have James Comey there on tape admitting to, which is why I'm saying today, James Comey, they need to go.
This guy, Andrew McCabe, remember the $500,000, Terry McAuloff, ends up in this investigation, one of the biggest supporters of Hillary Clinton.
And the person that is responsible for helping Hillary get off the hook the first time is this guy, Andrew McCabe.
He was promoted to FBI deputy director and supervised the investigation of Clinton not long after Terry McCullough, big friend of the Clintons, Virginia governor, through his PAC, contributed $675,000 to McCabe's wife for a long shot bid at a congressional seat.
That is unprecedented money for a congressional seat.
And then, of course, we've got Loretta Lynch meeting on the tarmac and the private jet with Bill Clinton.
On top of all of this, this has always smelled to high heaven.
So James Comey writing in a letter to top members of Congress that he has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.
Let me tell you what I think is really happening here.
I think with all of the WikiLeaks information that we have been giving you on a daily basis, I am very convinced the FBI is telegraphing that something bigger is even coming from WikiLeaks that will implicate them, what they should have known, what they should have found.
You know, the whole process is, you know, Ed Henry saying, did you wipe the server clean?
Hillary, you mean like with like a cloth, Ed?
You mean like with a cloth?
Is that what you mean?
Then we find out bleach bit is used.
Why was bleach bit?
Why was a computer server basically acid washed?
Well, it was acid-washed because they were obstructing justice after these things had been subpoenaed.
And it also goes to the heart of collusion because the Justice Department was tipping off the Clinton campaign as to everything that's coming.
The State Department was colluding with the Clinton campaign as to what they were releasing.
And Obama lied, as we all know, when he said, oh, I just learned about it from the news.
And even WikiLeaks dumps show that, oh, the Clinton campaign said, wow, we've got to clean that mess up.
And then they talked about, well, should we get rid of those emails?
Which would mean that would be a felony.
That would be obstruction of justice, a conspiracy to commit a crime.
This is now much bigger than Watergate.
If we had an objective news media in this country and they investigated Hillary Clinton like they did Richard Nixon, we wouldn't even need WikiLeaks.
Now, I have all the latest poll numbers, but I'm not sure they're even relevant.
When we first booked Doug Schoen and John McLaughlin, who are back with us, McLaughlin, of course, pollster, founder of McLaughlin and Associates, Doug Schoen, pollster, Fox News contributor.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Thank you.
Does this now render all current polls meaningless, Doug Schoen?
No, Sean, we've had a long investigation by the FBI, and the poll numbers basically didn't slip then.
I don't think it's a waning eight days they're going to slip.
I think this all does smell to high heaven, but she's going to be our next president.
It smells to high heaven, but then we also, when the American people absorb that there's a chance that this is an ongoing investigation, we could have a president-elect arrested.
We can have a president impeached and charged with a crime.
Then we have the whole issue of whether or not Barack Obama pardons her or she pardons herself.
John, how do you think this is going to play out?
She's not going to get elected.
And Doug's right, it's been playing out.
These polls can change on a dime.
And you're right, this is going to affect the numbers.
We've been seeing numbers for our clients all week where at some point the straw was breaking the camel's back on corruption.
Where people always say Clinton's dishonest, she lies.
Six out of 10 voters, two-thirds of the voters say that.
But now it's relevant because now they're seeing they made millions of dollars personally by corrupting the State Department and the FBI.
Well, that was yesterday's big story.
The smoking gun, $116 million, the Clinton Foundation is ratcheting up in terms of deals for Bill Clinton from the very people that run the charity that only give 6% to charity.
And, of course, they give special access in a whole variety of ways to their big donors so that they can get contracts to rebuild Haiti.
And then we've got the uranium deal in Russia, which John Podesta is profiting from.
Right.
Those of us were saying, you know, the things about her not telling the truth, that was just, you know, people expect her to lie.
They've known her for 25 years.
But the corruption, the level, and the point about the FBI, it's not just $600,000 for a state Senate race in Virginia.
That guy who's number two at the FBI right now, Hillary Clinton did a fundraiser that raised over a million dollars for a pack that funneled money to her campaign.
And McAuliffe set this up, and he was under investigation in the past by the FBI.
So this is breaking the back with the voters that we don't want four more years of this kind of corruption.
There's one other thing that nobody, I think, is reporting on today, and that's Loretta Lynch basically pleading the fifth on the uranium ransom payments.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, when you put all of this together, Bill Clinton shouldn't have been meeting during an investigation into his wife on the tarmac the weekend before Loretta Lynch is making a decision, or the week before she's making a decision about his wife and the legality of this email server scandal.
You know, everything that James Comey admitted to Trey Gowdy was a lie and also criminal.
Those are laws that he's saying were broken.
So I think the FBI director probably anticipating that she is in far worse trouble than they ever imagined.
He probably thought that he could cover this up for her.
He's now in trouble and implicated in all this as far as I'm concerned.
You know, Sean, that was my take this morning.
I said that this play has more to do at this point with Comey and the FBI than Secretary Clinton.
Because the FBI, you talk about smelling to high heaven.
They're sure not smelling like a rose in this one, especially with what's come out this week.
There has to be, and this is my take, and I'm going to take this to the grave with me.
There has to be a reason that he did this.
There has to be something else coming here that he knows about.
There has to, and look, even announcing this so close to the election would otherwise be in violation of FBI's own guidelines in this if they didn't think it was major.
Right.
And also, when you think about it, go back to when he did his press conference laying that stuff out, it was unprecedented.
And what we don't know is, I mean, he was probably told by the White House because it was the same day he did the press conference when the president was campaigning with Hillary in the afternoon, and she had been deposed July 4th weekend by the FBI.
And then you had prior to that, you had the secret meeting with Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac.
I mean, it was in motion where they probably told Comey that the Justice Department was not going to prosecute, and the fix was in.
And he knows that.
And now he's coming out and saying we have to reopen this because it's out there in the public.
And the Clinton Foundation, what's moving the poll numbers that we see, like not just our polls, but Doug's probably seen in his polls.
But the point of the.
Well, let me give you some insider information I've got because I have pollster friends all over the country and I've been getting information.
For example, every pollster that has examined the ABC news poll, you know, it was conducted by landline cell phones, English, Spanish, random sample, the results, margin of error, plus three.
And one of the things, he must be winning the more recent nights because he was plus nine.
Right.
It was plus nine Democrat last weekend.
It's plus nine Democrats today, and Trump made up five points in that poll.
I have a friend of mine polling in Ohio and said the last two nights of polling showed Trump up by nine.
In New Mexico, I'm being told a very hard state for a Republican to win, that it's pretty much dead even and nobody in the news is talking about it.
And then in North Carolina, Florida, early voting is favoring by far Donald Trump.
Right.
So the electoral, what will happen is the national polls, that ABC poll, without a doubt, if they have, they've moved from Trump being down 12 to being only down four now, it must mean he's ahead now.
And that's parallel the corruption stories, which are just getting out there.
And it's breaking them back.
You've got to watch Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
If we see movement there, then Donald has a chance.
Absent that, it's really throwing to his face.
Well, I disagree because if he gets Indiana, which I think he'll get, and he gets Iowa, which trends show that he was probably likely on a path to get, and then he wins the three big ones, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and then he keeps every state that Romney won, yes, including Utah, then he would only need New Hampshire and Maine's 2nd District.
And he wins.
But by the way, he's not getting New Hampshire.
No, no, but he's going to.
I'm telling you, he's moving up in New Hampshire.
And Pennsylvania, you already had polls recently where, again, there's a lag in the states, but Pennsylvania Emerson had him only down 4, 45, 41, and that was like a week ago.
And I think, and, you know, you'll see other polls where these battleground states are going to start moving into Trump's column again.
I mean, Pennsylvania was moved from lean by the Real Clear Politics site from Lean Clinton to a toss-up again.
So I think the Michigans, the Wisconsin's, the Pennsylvania, they're going to move.
It's all going to move this way because what we're seeing is major changes in the polls within the last three or four days.
So what impact and how quickly will we see what's happening here in the polls?
It's going to take three or four days, John, because unlike the three of us, the American people are not information junkies, but they do get the news.
We'll see Monday or Tuesday where we stand.
What do you do?
I agree with that.
You agree with that, John?
Yes.
All right, so let's look at the path because the path has always been tough.
I do agree with Doug on this point.
For Trump to win, I mean, he's got to run the table, and there's no other way to analyze this.
And by running the table, these are the states that he must win.
Look, he's going to win Louisiana.
He's going to win Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Alaska, Kansas.
All solid Trump.
He's going to win Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina, and I'm assuming Utah, even with the latest polls.
But to win now, he's got to get Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia, Texas.
The only one at that point, then, he needs that main second congressional district.
That's a toss-up.
He needs either New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan.
Can he do that, John?
If these numbers move him, like if the battleground states follow what's going on in the national polls right now, which they will, he can win those states.
And it could be.
It's a bigger battleground than I think than the media is right now letting us know what's going on.
So the polls will follow.
And he can definitely do that.
What states do you think are most likely in play?
I got to run.
I think Pennsylvania, I think, is coming back in play.
North Carolina, I think he's going to win.
Florida is going to win.
So the must-wins he's going to have.
And I think Michigan comes back in play.
Colorado comes back in play.
Interesting.
And Pennsylvania comes back in play.
Listen, it's a tough road.
I think the next thing Doug Schoen's going to say, he's got an inside straight there, right, Doug?
It's tough.
It's tough.
But, John, we'll know Monday or Tuesday when you and Sean are talking about Israel.
All right, guys.
Thank you both.
If you can help us understand who precisely had been ruled out for prosecution, that would be look at the Clinton Foundation.
I'm not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any other investigations.
Was the Clinton Foundation tied into this investigation?
Yeah, I'm not going to answer that.
Well, that raises a whole other set of questions because of everything that we have told you.
I mean, why can't the FBI director tell us if there's an ongoing, tell the public if there's an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation now that we find out more and more every single day?
You know, by the way, they did, the FBI questioned Angelina Jolie for four hours about a specific playing trip with Brad Pitt and the kids and whether or not Brad Pitt became physical with their 15-year-old son, Maddox.
Good grief.
Four hours.
How long did they interview Hillary Clinton?
A whopping three and a half minutes.
That's it.
You know, there's so much going on.
Tony Podesta, brother of now disgraced Clinton chair John Podesta, Center for American Progress, whose files and WikiLeaks are probably the source of opening this investigation, in my humble opinion.
I think the FBI got tipped off.
Something big is coming.
And James Comey doesn't want to be totally humiliated, even though he's already in the tank for Hillary.
Anyway, so in 1988, John and Tony Podesta formed the Podesta Group.
So they worked together.
Anyway, as they've been publishing all of this, we now find out that a registered, not only is a powerful Democratic Party lobbyist, but he's a registered foreign agent.
And he gets a monthly paycheck from the nefarious government of Saudi Arabia.
I read that today.
You know, Peter Schweitzer, way ahead of the curve with Clinton Cash, a transfer of 20% of America's uranium to a Russian-controlled company, first exposed in Clinton Cash, confirmed later by the New York Times, central subject on the campaign trail.
Donald Trump has mentioned it, and of course they have been furiously writing about it.
Oh, no, they have it in the press.
I'm sorry about that.
I assume the fair.
How dumb of me.
But put aside how they don't describe the transaction, but a Russian government, the Russian government, sought federal government approval to purchase a Canadian company called Uranium One.
They control 20% of American uranium assets.
This required the approval of several federal government agencies because the deal involved uranium, which is, of course, of national strategic importance.
Hillary State Department was one of those agencies.
They signed off on the deal.
Nine shareholders connected with Uranium One contributed a combined $145 whopping million dollars to the Clinton Foundation before or during the time the review took place.
Some of those donations were not publicly disclosed at the time, as the Clintons promised they would.
These facts were revealed in his book, Clinton Cash, and also then later confirmed by the New York Times that doesn't really want to pay a lot of attention to this.
You know, the primary defense Team Clinton offered up is that, you know, there are nine agencies that reviewed this deal, okay, but no other agency head, and this is the State Department, one of our top agencies with the influence of Clinton behind the scenes and whatever other agencies are involved, they got a $145 million donation from nine shareholders in the deal.
The fact that other government agencies approved it, it's irrelevant.
She was paid off for her vote.
So if, you know, a jury comes back 9-0 for acquittal, that doesn't mean bribery took place.
If somebody, as Schweitzer points out, this was in Breitbart.
Schweitzer wrote this.
If the jury comes back 9-0 for acquittal, it doesn't mean that no bribery took place.
No conflict of interest existed.
The Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility in the area says that Hillary was not involved in the decision.
Nothing to see.
Even Washington Post fact-checkers trot this guy out.
Well, Hillary never interfered, intervened in any way.
And Time magazine and PolitiFact both incorrectly called him Jose Hernandez.
No, sorry, Fernandez.
Let's set aside that fact.
But as he points out, Schweitzer, newly released emails from WikiLeaks, provided clear evidence that Fernandez is deeply entrenched in the political campaign, Clinton political operation.
He wrote, John Podesta, I'd like to do all I can to support Hillary Clinton and would welcome your advice and help in steering me and the right persons in the right campaign.
Thanks.
No doubt, your recommendation.
I have joined the CAP Board of Trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding.
Does this sound Center for American Progress is Podesta's group?
Does this sound like someone who's impartial?
Is it a coincidence that shareholders in Uranium One were contributing to the Clinton Foundation?
That's so ridiculous.
It's all pay-to-play.
Then you can add the Moroccan deal for that.
Just, you know, give me $12.5 million.
I'll show up.
$12.5 million.
And then, of course, the Haiti deal, the list of friends of Bill and Clinton Foundation donors.
Oh, we're going to raise this money rebuilt, but let's give it to our donors.
Unbelievable.
And did the Russians half a million to her advisor, you know, did that have any impact on Iran?
Did that have any impact on anybody?
I mean, we've got to look at all of this.
Federalists exposed this.
Clinton's shadow diplomat, Thomas Pickering, and Russian's pipeline sale to Iran and Syria.
That kind of exposed how Hillary Clinton's own damaging ties to Russia and Iran while she was Secretary of State.
How else do you explain $150 million?
There's a retired FBI agent who wrote an open letter to James Comey.
I want to go through some of this again, if I may.
I know a lot of you are coming in and out, and he actually puts his name on it.
Hugh Galen, FBI agent.
He writes to Comey, I'm writing regarding your public statement July 2016, informing the American people the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton was being closed without referring it to the federal grand jury or the Attorney General of the U.S. for a decision on whether or not to indict her.
Strangely, you eloquently laid out enough of the evidence deduced from the investigation to strongly indicate there was an abundance of evidence uncovered during the investigation and interview of her to not only indict but to convict her in federal court.
However, you personally reworded and softpeddled the action she took as Secretary of State, describing her actions as extremely careless in using a personal email and an unsecured server for her communications while being Secretary of State.
You rewrote the statute, which is not your job.
As a retired special agent of the FBI, I have standing to write this letter.
My 30 years in law enforcement, including 22 years as a special agent with the FBI, have given me the knowledge, the expertise, the experience to question and confront you for your perplexing actions, which, as you well know, were outside the normal standard operating procedure of the FBI and federal judicial procedures.
Some of the finest people in the world proudly carry the credentials of FBI agent, and you have soiled them and not allowed them to speak.
But I will not be silent.
Sorry, but no, sir.
Ms. Clinton was not merely careless or extremely careless.
She was not even negligent or grossly negligent as the statute requires.
Hillary Clinton was knowingly purposeful in her decisions and actions to set up a server under her exclusive control and possession in order to control what information was available to the American public and Congress regarding her actions as Secretary of State.
Furthermore, she took those government-owned communications into her personal possession after leaving her position and knowingly and willingly attempted to destroy them so her nefarious actions could never be known or used as evidence of her corrupt moral character against her.
By the way, one of the WikiLeaks emails, you know what they said?
Oh, that's handled, right?
We handled all that.
Sir, what possessed you?
Did you give in to political pressure to unilaterally come to this decision?
I fear that is the case and the rule of law be damned.
I'm embarrassed for and ashamed of you.
You have set a precedent that can never be rectified and certainly never justified.
Shame on you, sir.
You ought to resign right now in disgrace for what you have done to tarnish the reputation of the finest law enforcement agency in the world for entirely political reasons.
Normally, an investigation will be assigned to an agent or team of agents with one being the case agent or lead investigator.
When the investigation is complete, an investigative report will be presented to the U.S. Attorney for the federal district involved.
It would be the U.S. Attorney who decides whether to decline prosecution for that investigation, not the FBI agent.
But in the Clinton investigation, you unilaterally decided not to go forward with the investigation to send it to the U.S. Attorney and Attorney General of the U.S., but instead personally made the decision not to prosecute her or even provide the information to a federal grand jury.
You were wrong to take this upon yourself.
In order to indict a subject, only a preponderance of evidence or 51% is needed for probable cause to exist.
You did not think even that level of probability existed?
Who do you think you're fooling?
What judicial proceeding did you think you were following?
Throughout my years with the FBI, along with my fellow agents, we took great pride in conducting each investigation in an unbiased manner, regardless of the subject's position or standing in the community.
All were treated equally under the law.
But, sir, but you, sir, decided to allow this corrupt, evil, nasty human being to go free and unchallenged for her treasonous actions.
Yes, treasonous, in my opinion, which threatened the security of this nation.
Furthermore, you stopped short of investigating the Clinton Foundation as a RICO case, racketeering, influenced, and corrupt organization.
This is a RICO case, if ever there were one.
Even an untrained person can tell the communications which were recovered from Hillary's email spent more time working for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State than on state business.
It may be argued that Hillary did not do any state business unless the Clinton Foundation benefited.
You decided to just let this uncomfortable truth alone without addressing it.
Well, I conclude with this.
Following my retirement from the FBI, I volunteered for a 12-month tour of duty in Afghanistan as a law enforcement professional embedded with U.S. forces as a subject matter expert in counterterrorism investigation.
For most of that year, I operated outside the wire, patrolling with troops, interviewing witnesses to IED incidents, gathering evidence on the bad guys.
The result of my work would then be reported through secure channels to the commanding officer.
All reports, communications were required to be transmitted via secure and encrypted devices.
Occasionally, my remote location in the mountains of Afghanistan made transmission impossible, and I'd have to fly back to Bagram Air Base in order to securely report to the commander of the battle space.
It would have been convenient if I could have just called the commander on my personal cell phone or written him an email on my personal laptop.
But had I done so, I would have been reporting classified information via unsecured devices, and it could have compromised that information.
Now, these were relative to Secretary of State Communications' low-level classifications of secret.
Had I ever sent even one in such a manner, I would have been prosecuted and sent to federal prison for 20 years.
That's how serious this is considered.
Now, because of you, Hillary Clinton is allowed to continue her RICO activities, running for president, the most powerful position in the world, and you have trampled on the rule of law, destroying the trust of the American people in the FBI, and in unbiased enforcement of the law.
How do you sleep at night?
It's time for you to go to work for the Clinton Foundation.
Wow.
800-94.
One, Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
All right.
Dr. Larry Kawa is on our newsmaker line.
By the way, you're on next week, I think, to talk about the efforts to expose, as a private citizen, to expose Hillary Clinton.
How are you?
What do you think?
Very good.
Thanks for having me back on, Sean.
Yeah, we were going to be discussing the TOW device, and I'm not sure if you're aware of it.
Unfortunately, the FBI was not aware of it.
But what happened was Platte River Network's subcontracted to Datto Incorporated, a Connecticut-based firm, to back up all of Hillary Clinton's emails without her knowledge.
And when the FBI found out about it in August of 2015, they insisted that Datto turn in this hardware device, which was a reflection of all of the emails, texts, photos, videos, and voicemails on her phone and everything from her personal computer.
And it is very likely that this was prior to the destruction with BleachBit, prior to the use of hammers on iPhones, meaning this could be everything, the 33,000 deleted emails.
So Judicial Watch, at my request, filed a FOIA on October 13th, which was sort of a swap out for the case where they were representing Neon Benghazi.
We had a case in the Southern District of Florida federal court where I asked for all of the emails between then Secretary Clinton and the White House for the day of the week after Benghazi.
Surprisingly, the State Department said there were no communications between Hillary Clinton and the president and anyone in the White House for that week.
Now, along that case, we discovered there was a device that was not yet searched that was in the possession of the FBI, not the State Department.
Now, since I had sued the State Department over Benghazi, and you cannot ask the State Department to search something in the possession of the FBI, we had to do a new FOIA.
Now, for personal security reasons, I didn't want to be the plaintiff on this one, and Judicial Watch agreed they would take it at my request as a swap out for ending the case on Benghazi, which they have done.
It got filed on October 13th.
Served the FBI with a FOIA asking them to produce everything that was on a Datto device.
We're losing Larry Kawa on this.
I'll tell you what, we've got to take a break.
We're running out of time here anyway.
Don't forget, Hannity tonight will have our team of legal advisors.
How bad is this?
This has to be so bad.
They never would have done this 10 days out of an election, 11 days out.
Anyway, the FBI opening the investigation in the Clinton email server.
I'm going to explain all of this in detail tonight on Hannity and Donald Trump and Laura Ingram and much more.
