Sean Hannity Show - Sessions Under Fire - 6.13

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 14, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:36:00

Sessions Under Fire - 6.13

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, so I have insomnia, but I've never slept better.
	And what's changed?
	Just a pillow.
	It's had such a positive impact on my life.
	And of course, I'm talking about my pillow.
	I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer, and now you can too.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Use the promo code Hannity and Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, has the special four-pack.
	Now, you get 40% off two MyPillow premiums and two GoAnywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made here in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
	Go to mypillow.com right now or call 800-919-6090, promo code Hannity, to get Mike Lindell's special four-pack offer.
	You get two MyPillow premium pillows and two GoAnywhere pillows for 40% off.
	And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, and comfortable, and deep healing, and recuperative sleep that you've been craving and you certainly deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity.
	You will love this pillow.
	I heard in passing with the Russian ambassador during that reception.
	I do not remember it.
	After the speech, I was interviewed by the news media.
	There was an area for that in a different room, and then I left the hotel.
	But whether I ever attended a reception where the Russian ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.
	Let me state this clearly, colleagues.
	I have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States.
	Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign.
	I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you, and I participate.
	And the suggestion that I participated in any collusion, that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country, which I have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie.
	Relatedly, there is the assertion that I did not answer Senator Franken's question honestly at my confirmation hearing.
	Colleagues, that is false.
	Senator Sessions, just taking to his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, a combative and outraged, it is an appalling, detestable lie.
	I have served my country for 35 years with honor and distinction, which goes right to the heart of the narrative that doesn't exist.
	The big lie, the black helicopter conspiracy theory, the tinfoil hat.
	News media destroyed Trump news media conspiracy out there.
	Trump-Russia collusion, which we learned last Thursday doesn't exist.
	And there are so many different things.
	All right, hang on one second.
	What are you telling me, Linda?
	Why are you talking so much?
	We can continue to carry the I'm aware.
	I've got a lot to say here.
	All right, we're going to get to that in a second.
	You know, he said these false attacks will not intimidate me.
	Events have only strengthened my resolve.
	I'm literally watching this.
	Let's dip in and then we'll get right back to this analysis in a second.
	I will not allow this great department to be deterred from its vital mission.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Warner.
	I have a great honor to appear before you today, and I will do my best to answer your questions.
	General Sessions, thank you.
	Thank you for that testimony.
	I'd like to note for members the chair and the vice chairman will be recognized for 10 minutes.
	Members will be recognized for five minutes.
	And I'd like to remind our members that we are in open session.
	No references to classified or committee-sensitive materials should be used relative to your questions.
	With that, I recognize myself at this time for 10 minutes.
	General Sessions, you talked about the Mayflower Hotel where the president gave his first foreign policy speech, and it's been covered in the press that the president was there, you were there, others were there.
	From your testimony, you said you don't remember whether Ambassador Kislyak was there, the Russian ambassador.
	Is that correct?
	I did not remember that.
	I did not remember that, but I understand he was there.
	And so I don't doubt that he was.
	I believe that representations are correct.
	In fact, I recently saw a video of him coming into the room.
	But you never remember having a conversation or a meeting with Ambassador Kislyak?
	I do not.
	And there was in that event, was there ever a private room setting that you were involved in?
	No.
	Other than the reception area that was shut off from this really closely.
	I think I can help you more if I bring you up to speed on everything that's happening here.
	It's always a tough decision to make programming-wise.
	Do you run with the tape?
	Do you run with the testimony?
	It's very slow-moving.
	A lot of you don't have the background.
	Let me give you some background that I think will help context and texture to all of this and enhance your understanding of what is actually going on today.
	So the Attorney General, he did this voluntarily.
	He agreed to meet with the Senate Intelligence Committee.
	This is an open setting.
	And I think there's a certain sign here on their part that, yeah, we're willing to investigate.
	You just heard his opening statement.
	35-year public servant.
	I find it appalling and detestable the lie that I would ever collude or somehow work in conjunction with a foreign entity to influence the election process in this country.
	And he was pissed.
	And I've known him for many years.
	That is not his usual demeanor.
	That is somebody that is really ticked off.
	And also, he asked that the hearing be open.
	He asked for that.
	And a full public view, what you're now listening to, what we're dipping in and out of here.
	And if you look at his life and his background, he has been, you know, all the things that are being alleged here.
	When he was a U.S. Senator, it is his job to meet with ambassadors and foreign leaders and foreign dignitaries.
	That's what all members of Congress do.
	In the case of this ambassador from Russia that they're talking about, oh, let's see, Pelosi and Schumer and Jack Reed and Cantwell and McCaskill, all of them met with this particular guy.
	So it would make it, if that's scandalous, so are the efforts of these other senators who were also doing their job.
	And, you know, one of the meetings was, quote, international outreach at the Obama State Department.
	80 diplomats during the Republican National Convention, they organized it.
	And they're making something into this that it's never been, as we learned last week.
	No collusion, none whatsoever.
	As it relates to Donald Trump and the Trump campaign, nothing.
	Zero zip, nada.
	And the lie continues.
	It just goes on and on.
	And that's what's so outrageous about this.
	Now, if you look at everything that we have learned from James Comey, you know, confirmed multiple times that not only did the Trump White House, the president himself, his staff, all of them, did not ask to stop the Russian investigation.
	The president encouraged it.
	He wanted it to continue.
	He said, all right, if there's any satellites around me, I'd like to know.
	I think it's important for people to know.
	And he's done nothing wrong, no evidence of collusion, but yet this narrative continues.
	And it gets worse because you got this investigation, you got that investigation.
	Where do you hear the information I've got on Robert Mueller today, who should recuse himself?
	You know, is that Director Comey, in all of this testimony, you know, all of this talk was never even investigating the president.
	And Director Comey admitted, well, what?
	He's a leaker.
	He went out there because he wanted a special counsel, ends up being one of his best friends, one of his mentors.
	And where do you see the people that Mueller of Mueller is surrounding himself with?
	And if Comey is so concerned about conversations with President Trump, and he's shocked, and maybe if I was a little stronger and I was nauseous and everything and didn't know what to do, and well, he had an obligation and duty to stand up, walk out and report it as a matter of law, 18 U.S. Code 4.
	Now, I'm going to tell you something here.
	You know, we've seen this sideshow before, and that is I was retweeting Alan Dershowitz today.
	Is there any liberal that is willing to put aside their obsessive, compulsive hatred of the president and objectively discern civil liberties, the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States?
	Because as Dershowitz has been saying and a few others, there's no possibility of obstruction of justice here.
	Zero evidence of collusion.
	Show it to me.
	I'll look at it.
	As I've been saying now for a long, long time.
	You know, one of the big stories that we will breaking later in the program, and by the way, Sessings did say that he did not meet with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel.
	You know, but they cannot, from their vantage point, stop this obsession.
	And now you've got Robert Mueller involved in this because why?
	Because James Comey wanted it.
	James Comey, a disgruntled, fired ex-FBI director who clearly had an agenda.
	When I tell you what Sarah Carter broke today, it will blow your mind.
	And nobody else seems to be willing to report what is real obstruction of justice that she and John Solomon have discovered.
	But you got now, oh, what did we discover?
	Was on Breitbart earlier today, you know, that in fact, Robert Mueller, who's, you know, was appointed by the Deputy Attorney General Robert Rosenstein, who took independent control after the recusal of the Attorney General in this particular case, Sessions.
	Anyway, that, you know, and Sessions leaking the document.
	Anyway, so now we've got a more controversial pick of Mueller's working on the team, a former prosecutor, Wilmer Hale, a partner, Jeannie Ray.
	And in 2015, according to Politico, she performed work for the Clinton Foundation, defending it from Freedom of Information Act requests related to Hillary Clinton's private email server.
	How did this possibly happen?
	You want a fair, balanced, objective investigation and you hire a Clinton Foundation lawyer for the Russia probe?
	And that's tolerable to people?
	That is insane in terms of a conflict of interest.
	And former Speaker of the House, this is now a witch hunt officially.
	It is a witch hunt.
	Now, it gets worse than that.
	Now we find LifeZet had this today, a great piece, you know, talking about Speaker Gingrich's comment in a tweet challenging the fairness of this investigation and, you know, pointing out, and he'll join us later in the program, the early hires of Robert Mueller, you know, Republicans, quote, he said, are delusional.
	If they think the special counsel is going to be fair, he's right.
	You think back to Patrick Fitzgerald, when Patrick Fitzgerald started his job, Valerie Plame, who leaked Valerie Plame?
	Okay, he knew on day one who the leaker was.
	We didn't find out till later.
	The investigation should have been shut down then and there.
	It goes on, what, two, three years?
	And at the end of the day, they go so far outside the realm of what it is that they were originally supposed to be investigating because he knew the answer.
	So he has to justify his existence and the existence of all the office people that they put in place.
	And he's a guy by reputation that doesn't sleep in the middle of a case.
	So he'd be damned if he doesn't get something at the end of the day.
	So we call it investigation creep, where you start at one place and you go 100 different directions in the other way.
	And what did he get?
	A perjury trap for Scooter Libby.
	It's ridiculous.
	At this point, it's the same thing.
	We already know no obstruction of justice.
	We know no collusion.
	And then the question is, why are we still doing all of this?
	And why is he hiring not only a Clinton Foundation lawyer for the Russia probe, now he's stocking his staff with Democratic donors to Hillary and Obama?
	You've got four lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, including Obama, including Clinton.
	It takes my breath away.
	Why would you put partisans on all of this?
	This is beyond disturbing.
	This is now, I've talked about five enemies the president has, the deep state, the Democrats.
	They wanted to impeach him from day one.
	They can't take the election loss.
	Then you got the destroy Trump media.
	Then you got weak Republicans that won't ever stand up for anything.
	And then you got the never Trumpers that want to desperately have their images rehabilitated and become relevant again.
	Wait till I explain what the interaction between Loretta Lynch and James Comey that was discussed in closed session last week as broken by John Solomon and Sarah Carter.
	That's coming up next.
	And we'll be following the Attorney General's testimony.
	Hey, with optimism, once again, on the rise in America, the working people of this country are more important than ever.
	Well, now they have a podcast that celebrates them and tells their stories on the job from hired to retired.
	Well, it's a new podcast from our friends at Express Employment Professionals that digs into the lives of men and women at work and explores their journeys as they fight to make the American dream a reality.
	On the Job takes the listener through the ups and downs of making a living in America.
	Now, check out the new podcast, On the Job, from Hired to Retired, on iHeartRadio, iTunes, or wherever you download your favorite podcasts.
	Or just go to expresspros.com/slash podcast for more information.
	All right, let's dip in Attorney General Sessions now before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
	Let's step in with Democrat Mark Warner.
	Before I was confirmed and before he was confirmed, it's something that we both agreed to that a fresh start at the FBI was probably the best thing.
	It just, again, seems a little, I could understand that if you talked about that before you came on, you had a chance for a fresh start.
	There was no fresh start.
	Suddenly, we're in the midst of the investigation.
	And with timing that seems a little peculiar, what kind of, at least to me, was out of the blue, the president fires the FBI director.
	And if there are all these problems of disarray and a lack of spree de court, the FBI, all things that the acting director of the FBI denied is the case, I would have thought that somebody would have had that kind of conversation with Director Comey.
	He's at least been owed that.
	Let's go to the May or the April 27th meeting.
	It has been brought up, I think the chairman brought it up.
	By the time April 27th came around, you'd already been named as the chair of then-candidate Trump's National Security Advisory.
	So showing up that meeting would be appropriate, not only my understanding was that the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was at that meeting as well?
	I believe he was, yes.
	You don't recollect whether Mr. Kushner had any conversations with Ambassador Kislyak at that session?
	I do not.
	Okay.
	And to the best of your memory, you had no conversation with Ambassador Kislyak at that meeting?
	I don't recall it, Senator Mora.
	It would have been certainly, I can assure you, nothing improper if I'd had a conversation with him.
	And it's conceivable that that occurred.
	I just don't remember it.
	But there was nothing in your notes or memory so that when you had a chance, and you did, and I appreciate correct the record about the other two sessions in response to Senator Frank and Senator Leahy, this one didn't pop into your memory that maybe in the overabundance of caution that you ought to report that this session as well.
	Well, I guess I could say that I possibly had a meeting, but I still do not recall it.
	And I don't know if you can.
	These hearings get so monotonous.
	When we come back, we'll give you some of the big highlights that have so far happened.
	We'll update you.
	We've got a lot coming up today.
	Former Speaker of the House, New Gingrich, we have the biggest blockbuster story about, well, an incident between Loretta Lynch and the FBI Director Comey that raises tremendous questions about obstruction of justice, legality, and collusion.
	Straight ahead.
	All right, this is Senator Risch now with Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General.
	Let's just dip in a little more, although it's fairly monotonous, to be honest.
	Conversations with officers of other governments or ambassadors or what have you are everyday occurrences here, multiple-time occurrences for most of us.
	Is that a fair statement?
	I think it is, yes.
	And indeed, if you run into one in a grocery store, you're going to have a conversation with them.
	Is that fair?
	Could very well happen.
	Nothing improper.
	All right.
	On the other hand, collusion with the Russians or any other government for that matter when it comes to our elections certainly would be improper and illegal.
	Would that be a fair statement?
	Absolutely.
	Are you willing to sit here and tell the American people, unfiltered by what the media is going to put out, that you participated in no conversations of any kind where there was collusion between the Trump campaign and any other foreign government?
	I can say that absolutely, and I have no hesitation to do so.
	Mr. Sessions, you're a former U.S. Attorney, former United States Senate, and the Attorney General of the United States.
	You participated, as you've described, in the Trump campaign.
	And as such, you traveled with the campaign, I guess.
	I did.
	You spoke for the campaign at the time.
	Well, on a number of occasions, I was not continually on the based upon your experience and based upon your participation in the campaign.
	Did you hear even a whisper or a suggestion or anyone making reference within that campaign that somehow the Russians were involved in that campaign?
	I did not.
	What would you have done if you'd have heard that?
	Well, I would have been shocked and I would have known it was improper.
	And headed for the exit, I suppose.
	Well, maybe.
	So this was serious.
	This is a serious matter because what you're talking about, hacking into a private person or DNC computer and obtaining information and spreading that out.
	That's just not real.
	You know what's amazing about all this?
	Because he's saying it, by the way, Linda, the same person as your answer.
	What's so amazing about this is he answers the question and then they'll come back and ask it 50 different ways.
	And it's an easy question to answer because they don't have much to go on here.
	And even the president, as we learned from Comey, was never under investigation.
	There's no evidence of collusion.
	I don't even have time today to play the longer and longer and longer montage of everybody, Democrats included, all saying no evidence of collusion.
	And if we had evidence, I'd talk about it, but it doesn't exist.
	And it just goes on and on, this monotonous dog and pony show that is, you know, out there.
	Let's dip into Diane Feinstein a little.
	Essentially, he told them that he learned on May 8th that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey.
	When you wrote your letter on May 9, did you know that the president had already decided to fire Director Comey?
	Senator Feinstein, I would say that I believe it's been made public that the president asked us our opinion.
	It was given, and he asked us to put that in writing.
	And I don't know how much more he said about it than that, but I believe he has talked about it, and I would let his words speak for themselves.
	Well, on May 11th, on NBC Nightly News, two days later, the president stated he was going to fire Comey regardless of the recommendation.
	So I'm puzzled about the recommendation because the decision had been made.
	So what was the need for you to write a recommendation?
	Well, we were asked our opinion, and when we expressed it, which was consistent with the memorandum and letter we wrote, I felt comfortable, and I guess the Deputy Attorney General did too, in providing that information in writing.
	Oh, so the president asked me.
	All right, this gets monotonous.
	So the president asked me to do something and to give a recommendation.
	Didn't tell me what the recommendation should be, but I gave him my recommendation as he asked.
	It was getting really assigned.
	All right, just to sum up what's happened so far, it's pretty obvious.
	Look, any suggestion he says that I was aware of collusion against the United States, I find appalling and I find detestable.
	He recused himself from the Russian probe over DOJ stipulation on campaign involvement.
	He never intended to not disclose meetings with the Russian ambassador.
	And as a matter of fact, he said he was not silent when Comey expressed concern contradicting the former FBI director.
	In other words, he went on to say in great detail, excuse me, I was in the room and I gave a long answer when, of course, we're going to do everything properly, he said.
	Of course we will.
	He said he did not have interactions with Mueller since his appointment.
	Oh, I guess he didn't, I guess he didn't collude the way Comey did before his testimony.
	Or let's just say, maybe collusion is the wrong word.
	Maybe we're using that word a little too much in the American vernacular at this time.
	It's an overused word.
	Maybe we'll say advice from the special counsel.
	He said he hadn't had any interactions with him.
	The accusal was due to DOJ rules, not because of wrongdoing.
	So he's trying to be as ethically sound as he can.
	He said there's nothing wrong with the president talking to an FBI director.
	He said there's a long-standing DOJ policy to not disclose conversations as attorney general that he has at the White House.
	He said, I'm not claiming executive privilege.
	That is the president's power.
	He said, I did not have conversations with Comey about the FBI leadership performance.
	He says he couldn't recall any conversations that he or Jared Kushner had with the Russian ambassador in April of 2016, which is the one I told you about earlier.
	FBI, by the way, we've learned, is now in possession of the Comey memos, which were always government property that ended up being leaked to the New York Times by his friend.
	You see what's going on here?
	Do you understand what this is about?
	Now we've got Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is out there, and one of the attorneys he's hires is a Clinton Foundation lawyer.
	Do you know how breathtaking that is?
	Why would you not see an obvious conflict of interest here?
	You know, William Hale partner, Jeannie Ray or Ree, according to Politico, performed work for the Clinton Foundation defending it from Freedom of Information Act requests related to Hillary's private email server.
	Is that not a red flag to anybody?
	Is that not evidence of a witch hunt that is emerging here?
	Is this not Patrick Fitzgerald mission creep, investigative creep, redux?
	Alan Dershowitz, this is dangerous to civil liberty.
	Show me the man and I'll find you the crime.
	Said some Democrats are outdoing each other, searching for criminal statutes that can be stretched to fit what they would like to see as crimes by President Trump.
	That is exactly what we're living in here.
	It is the five enemies that I have talked about.
	It is the deep state.
	It is the Democratic Party that never got over Trump's win.
	It is the destroy Trump media.
	It is weak, spineless Republicans that can't even stand up to what is a witch hunt here.
	And then, of course, the Never Trumpers, they just want relevancy and they want to say, see, we were right.
	That's where we are.
	And meanwhile, Americans still exist in poverty.
	Americans are still suffering.
	Americans, you know, are on food stamps.
	Americans, you know, are out of the labor force.
	It's unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	You know, I'm going to tell you something.
	Somebody's lying here.
	And my viewing of this is it seems to be Comey.
	And the angry, disgruntled employee was Comey.
	Now, here's where I know, and this is what we're going to get into in our final hour of the program.
	You don't want to miss Sarah Carter today.
	So Sarah Carter, John Solomon, I think, have the biggest blockbuster story that you're not going to hear about from the mainstream media because they're so corrupt.
	And this is important.
	In his testimony, Comey said, well, you know, nothing, you know, Sessions, you know, he never said to not leave the room and leave him alone with the president.
	And he told the committee, the Senate Intel Committee, that, you know, he didn't say a word back.
	Sessions just testified two seconds ago that he answered Comey with a long answer, agreeing that everything should always be done properly.
	So Comey's lying or Sessions is lying.
	And I'm betting it's Comey.
	Look at this whole thing now where he wanted a special counsel and he got it.
	And it turns out to be his best friend.
	All right, now let's take another look at Comey.
	We know Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies.
	You know, the legal standard is very clear, gross negligence.
	He used the words extreme carelessness.
	There's no difference.
	Mom and pop shop bathroom.
	You know, an email server, top secret, classified special access program information on it.
	That is the mismanagement.
	That is gross negligence of intelligence.
	That is a felony, destroying top-secret, classified special access program information.
	These are felonies committed by Hillary Clinton.
	Now, we already know about the inappropriate contact as it relates to Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch.
	Now, listen to this.
	Now, the FBI director, or ex-fired, disgruntled, angry J. Edgar Comey, privately told members of Congress that he had a frosty exchange with Obama's Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year when he confronted her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
	Now, pay attention.
	What he was told is Loretta Lynch put the kibosh on any indictment for Hillary Clinton.
	So pay attention.
	This is important.
	And during his testimony last Thursday before the Senate Intel Committee, Comey alludes to the exchange between him and Lynch after publicly discussing an encounter with Lynch where she ordered him to refer to the criminal probe of Clinton and the handling of classified emails as, well, don't say it's an investigation, just call it a matter, which was right along the talking points of the Clinton campaign.
	And he even suggested it smacked a political spin rather than the professional way that law enforcement officers talk.
	Now, if he's so concerned about obstruction, pay close attention here.
	That concerned me, Comey said, because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work.
	And that's concerning.
	Well, it's more than concerning, Mr. Comey.
	And then Comey said the conversation occurred well before the email probe was shut down and shortly before both Comey and Lynch were expected to testify in Congress about and possibly field questions about the candidate's email.
	She wanted him on the same page before that testimony.
	He said her request gave him a queasy feeling.
	Now, Democratic Senator Feinstein said, I would have a queasy feeling too, though, to be candid with you, I think we need to know more.
	And that's the only way to know about this is to have the Judiciary Committee take a look.
	God bless Feinstein.
	She's saying, really?
	That sounds like obstruction without her saying it.
	And in multiple private conversations and private sessions over the last few months, Comey has told lawmakers about a second later confrontation with Attorney General Lynch shortly before the email probe was shut down by him.
	And he told lawmakers in closed-door sessions that he raised his concern.
	And by the way, this happened in the closed session last week, I'm told, that he raised concerns with the Attorney General that she had created a conflict of interest by meeting Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac while investigating wrongdoing of his wife.
	And get this during the conversation, Comey tells lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested, get this, Lynch had agreed to put the kabosh on any prosecution of Clinton.
	That, ladies and gentlemen, is called a smoking gun.
	That is obstruction of justice.
	And by the way, we're not even talking about the Russia connection with Uranium One that she signed off on, having money funneled back millions to the Clinton Foundation.
	Comey said the Attorney General looked at the document.
	Again, communication between two political figures suggesting Lynch.
	We have this in the bag.
	This is what it said.
	That Lynch had already said she'd put the kibosh on any prosecution.
	The fix was in.
	No wonder she wasn't indicted.
	And then Comey said the Attorney General looked at the document, looked up with a quote, steely silence that lasted, quote, for some time, and then asked him, Do you have any other business with her?
	If not, he should leave her office.
	Comey then took the interaction and the fact that is obstruction.
	She needs to be prosecuted, as well as Hillary Clinton.
	They're doing all the wrong investigations here.
	They're interviewing all the wrong people, and they've got this ass backwards, the whole thing.
	If you care about truth, justice, the Constitution, equal application of the law between the Clintons and then the rest of America.
	This is a disgrace, what's gone on here, a national disgrace.
	All right, top story today.
	Well, we got two of them.
	We've got, of course, the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and his testimony that's going ongoing now.
	We're dipping in and out at the Senate Intelligence Committee.
	And our other top story is: oh, my goodness, it looks like Attorney General Lynch under Obama, apparently James Comey confronted her with a piece of evidence, a communication between political figures that suggested Lynch had put the kibosh on any indictment or prosecution of Hillary Clinton.
	Sarah Carter, who broke that story, will join us.
	Newt Gingrich will join us next, and we'll get his take on all that's happening.
	We'll also get your calls in here, and we'll be dipping in and out of this hearing throughout the day.
	Quick break, right back, we'll continue.
	I recuse myself from any investigation into the campaign for president, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations.
	At all times, throughout the course of the campaign, the confirmation process, and since becoming Attorney General, I have dedicated myself to the highest standards.
	Question is: Mr. Comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn't talk about them.
	What are they?
	Why don't you tell me?
	They are none, Senator Wyden.
	There are none.
	I can tell you that for absolute certainty.
	This is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me, and I don't appreciate it.
	Wow.
	That was the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, fiery before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and what is really backfiring on the Democrats, and they just keep going back to the same questions again and again and again and again.
	Joining us now, former Speaker of the House.
	He's got a brand new book out today.
	And by the way, understanding Trump, he is going to be in Ridgewood, New Jersey tonight at 7 p.m.
	And Mr. Speaker, we also look forward to having you on TV, which is always fun to have a rare in-studio appearance.
	And congratulations on the book.
	And we'll get to that in a second.
	But Ridgewood, New Jersey at Bookends, which is a great place to have a book signing.
	You said, you know, can you think of one thing Trump can do worse than, you know, the whole issue that this is a witch hunt with Robert Mueller?
	No, look, I think it's amazing.
	And by the way, I thought Jeff Sessions was just magnificent in the way he stood up, pointed out both the difference between recusal over a specific issue and failure to run the FBI, which was his duty, pointed out that his personal integrity was being impugned.
	And I thought it was a tremendously compelling opening statement by the Attorney General.
	I was very, very proud of him.
	Very compelling, but also his answer that we just played to Ron Wyden was particularly amazing, too.
	And it's like, you know, this is now character assassination.
	You know, the whole thing here seems to hinge on a very basic fundamental question that we now had answered last week.
	We know the president wasn't being investigated.
	We know that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
	And I can play all the Democrats saying, well, no evidence of collusion, which I've done many, many times.
	And then, you know, one has to ask itself, why are we having the investigation at this point?
	Because we already know the answer, according to James Comey.
	Well, the whole thing is astonishing.
	You know, it hit me because I've been digging deeply into Comey's background and our experience of Comey in the past and then how he manipulated the entire system to get Mueller to be the special counsel, and then Mueller hiring four Democratic lawyers, one of whom had worked for the Clinton Foundation, one of whom had a track record of concealing evidence from the defense in a way that is illegal.
	And it hit me as I dug into all this stuff that the real ⁇ remember, this is coming in a period where Kathy Griffin is holding up an image of Donald Trump's head bleeding.
	It's coming at a time when a New York public theater is showing the assassination of the president.
	By the way, we found out, by the way, just a little while ago that this assassination theater group did, in fact, collect millions of dollars in taxpayer grants after days of reports claiming taxpayer dollars weren't used to fund Shakespeare in the park, which, you know, the depiction of President Trump as Julius Caesar suffering a bloody assassination.
	Well, and my point is, you have to see everything that's going on in the context.
	I was reminded of Arthur Miller's extraordinary play, The Crucible, about the Salem witchcraft trial, because what you've got now on the left is the equivalent of the Salem witchcraft trial.
	These people know that Trump and that the Attorney General and that others are guilty.
	They don't know what they're guilty of.
	But it's literally the same kind of psychological emotion that Miller portrayed so vividly in his play about the witchcraft trials in Salem back in the 17th century.
	And so you get this wave of weird stuff.
	And it doesn't matter what you say.
	I mean, for example, there's solid evidence that the Russian ambassador visited the White House 22 times.
	Well, he's the Russian ambassador.
	He's supposed to go visit the White House.
	But whether or not in a large group meeting, the Russian ambassador in passing actually saw Sessions, and then it's the, remember this whole report by Comey, and I think Comey is a maliciously destructive person.
	The whole way Comey framed it was based on what apparently is an intercept of the Russian ambassador sending a message back to Moscow exaggerating his ability to have a conversation with Sessions.
	Everybody who was at the reception who showed up has said, no, this is simply totally untrue.
	And you get this again and again.
	And every time one of them gets knocked down, there are two new stories.
	And I'll be fascinated to see what comes out of it today because I think Jeff Sessions, who's a very smart and very, very honorable person, is going to do more than enough to handle his former colleagues.
	And at that point, the left is going to have to find a whole new excuse for the hysteria that they're in the middle of.
	You raised a couple of points.
	One is that Robert Mueller has stocked his staff with Democratic donors.
	And I think even more breathtaking than this is that Mueller hired the Clinton Foundation lawyer for this particular Russian probe.
	Now, this particular woman was somebody that her name is Jeannie Ray, and according to Politico, she performed work for the Clinton Foundation defending it from Freedom of Information Act requests related to Hillary's private email server.
	Now, if that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
	I really don't know.
	Look, I mean, I said today on one of the shows as we were launching this.
	What do you mean there is no other show by my show?
	Well, look, when you're a struggling author, doing the best you can to get off the ground, you've got to go where you can go, you know?
	By the way, the book is phenomenal.
	If you can stay longer, by the way, tell me again.
	I'm happy to because I'm thrilled by understanding Trump.
	But I said to one of the audiences earlier today, if Mueller wants to prove that we should genuinely respect his neutrality, what if he established a rule he has to hire one pro-Trump lawyer for every pro-Clinton lawyer?
	I can't believe that nobody besides me seems to have picked up on this.
	You know Sarah Carter from Circa News.
	Sarah Carter, this is probably the most unbelievable story.
	Describes a situation of a confrontation.
	Now, beyond Bill Clinton on the tarmac with Loretta Lynch, apparently the FBI director Comey got information from two politicos that actually suggested that Loretta Lynch had already put the kibosh on any possibility of any Clinton indictment, that she was in the tank for Hillary.
	He confronts her.
	She says nothing but looks at him with steely silence, according to the testimony that apparently took place in closed session.
	And is that not obstruction of justice?
	Does that not warrant an investigation in and of itself?
	Well, by the way, to her credit, Senator Feinstein, the senior Democrat in the intelligence committee, has said publicly that she believes clearly that Attorney General Lynch has to be investigated and that this whole thing really is so bad that she wants to see something done to dig much deeper.
	And I think it's a commentary on the Republicans just not being adequately aggressive and thinking in terms of having energy and following up that nobody on the Republican side has said, you know, Senator Feinstein is exactly right.
	And we should do on a bipartisan basis what Senator Feinstein has recommended.
	I mean, it just can't be that hard to do that.
	It really shouldn't be that hard to do that.
	You know, I've got to, you suggested Congress put an end to all of this.
	I think that the president has five enemies now that he's dealing with that all want his destruction.
	Number one, the deep state.
	As his attorney said, the selective leaking on this president of top secret intelligence information is unprecedented.
	Number two, Democrats, as you point out, wake up every day.
	They still can't believe they lost the election, and they wake up with the thought, how do we destroy the president?
	Number three, a deeply lying and corrupt news media that not only colluded with Hillary in the campaign, they've been out to destroy him from day one.
	Then you've got weak Republicans who won't take your suggestion and fight back because, frankly, this whole special counsel needs to be shut down now.
	And then you've got the Never Trumper people, the five groups, and they want relevance and they want to be able to say to the world, C told you.
	So I don't know at this point in time, where are his allies?
	Well, I've been recently, ever since I began speaking up late last week about this whole sickness of Comey and Mueller and this whole thing, I've gotten a surprising number of Republican congressmen and senators contacting me and asking me to get more involved in talking about what we should do to get back on offense.
	And I think that there's a lot bigger hunger for having a positive approach that reaches beyond the current cycle than people might have thought.
	And I think we may be surprised to find out how many people are eager to have a chance to get involved and to do something positive.
	Yeah, well, listen, I'll tell you the people that have been most defensive of the president that see this the way we see it are the Freedom Caucus members.
	And then the very people that it wasn't Paul Ryan that got the health care bill passed in the House.
	It was the Freedom Caucus.
	And I think it's beyond frustrating, Mr. Speaker, that we find ourselves in a position where we now have a special counsel that got appointed because you had a selective leak by an FBI director.
	In and of itself, may be a felony committed by him.
	He might have violated the Records Act.
	He might have also violated 18 U.S. Code 4 in terms of, you know, he had a legal obligation if he thought somebody was trying to obstruct justice, and he stood there shocked.
	And perhaps if he was stronger, he would have left if he thought something was inappropriate.
	And he didn't leave.
	He selectively leaks government information and then gets his mentor and his cohort, Robert Mueller, to be the special counsel, which he set out to do.
	Well, and let me make a point here for all of our listeners, because I think this is one of the things that confuses Washington.
	Comey has Comey's part of the deep state, but Comey's part of the sickness.
	Nobody should be confused about this.
	And I'm going to give you two examples.
	Comey was deeply worried that when President Trump said something to him about whether or not General Flynn might be innocent, that it would have a chilling effect on FBI agents.
	You go back and read the exact text.
	Well, Barack Obama said publicly that he thought Hillary Clinton was innocent.
	Now, why is it if Barack Obama says the president, then President of the United States, says publicly he thinks somebody under investigation is innocent, that doesn't have a chilling effect?
	By the way, can I just be a little bit of a wise ass like, I think you've known me all these years?
	Oh, no, come on.
	You're not going to do this to me.
	No, I got to do this.
	You know, if we're all upset about, you know, governments influencing elections, which, by the way, we've had testimony, the Russians did it before this election.
	They'll do it after this election.
	And yeah, of course, they tried to break in, but no votes were changed at all.
	But does it matter that Barack Obama used State Department funds to try and unseat and used his political team to unseat an ally in Israel by the name of Prime Minister Netanyahu?
	I mean, did he not do the very thing that everyone thinks they're so aghast and shocked by?
	Well, and of course, that's part of the whole problem of the modern world.
	But look, I don't think, I don't want to in any way defend the Russians.
	No, I'm not either.
	I'm just saying we put in.
	But this whole gigantic double standard is more than astonishing.
	All right, stay right there.
	Now, the brand new book, he's going to be at Bookends in New Jersey, Ridgewood tonight at 7 o'clock.
	Newt Gingrich is going to give a talk, and then he'll be signing books and hopefully make it back to Hannity, which may not happen because I'm promoting the living daylights out of this.
	The crowd's going to be so long you're going to call me, say, the hell with your show.
	I'm going to be on the show.
	All right, so we're going to have the speaker tonight, Ten Eastern.
	His book is called Understanding Trump.
	I think the definitive book now written about the president and how he was able to outperform all expectations and win the presidency.
	Quick break more with Speaker Gingrich.
	His book is up on Hannity.com, and it's called Understanding Trump.
	Straight ahead.
	All right, former Speaker of the House, Newt Kingrich.
	He's written a brand new book.
	And if you don't understand, or honestly, if you don't want to be spun by the media and you want to understand this Trump phenomenon, everybody was laughing.
	Nobody thought he could win.
	And the attacks against him by the swamp, this is the definitive book, and it's called Understanding Trump.
	He's going to be at Bookends in Ridgewood, New Jersey for all our WOR listeners in New York.
	At 7 o'clock tonight, he'll be speaking and signing books.
	Tell us what you, you know, give us some headlines about the book.
	Well, look, the book's an effort to say, first of all, this guy, you know, Trump is really different.
	And one of the problems with the elite media, other than the ideological hatred, is they keep trying to place him as though he were a normal politician.
	This is a pure entrepreneur, a guy who believes in action, a guy who believes in dreaming big, a guy who takes huge risks, and he plays by the rules that fit if you're an entrepreneur, the kind of guy who builds Trump Tower or builds his 18 golf courses or creates the number one rated TV show.
	And you go down the list of what Trump has achieved.
	And I think people need to understand you can't measure him as though he's Barack Obama or George W. Bush or even a Ronald Reagan.
	He's one of the most unique people.
	I rank him, frankly, with people like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln as people who are really outside the norm.
	And the news media cannot relax and just try to say to themselves: if this guy's so smart, he not only got to be a billionaire, he then pivoted and beat 16 Republicans for the nomination, he then pivoted and beat the news media and a billion dollars in Hillary Clinton for the presidency.
	Maybe there's something he understands.
	And they just cannot bring themselves to do that.
	And so I decided, as close to me, I knew him a good while, that I would write a book that really tried.
	It's not called Predicting Trump.
	I don't believe you can predict Trump.
	I don't think Trump can predict Trump.
	But it's called understanding him because I do think there are underlying patterns.
	I'll give you one that you know well because you're a New Yorker.
	You've known him for years.
	Trump will always counterpunch.
	If you hit him, he will instinctively, immediately counterpunch.
	By the way, you know what I am?
	What?
	A counterpuncher.
	Exactly.
	See, I mean, you two get along well.
	Yeah, we really do.
	He's seen some of my own fights, and he's like, man, you fight as hard as I do.
	All right, the book is called Understanding Trump.
	Ridgewood, New Jersey, tonight, 7 o'clock, Speaker Gingrich will be speaking, signing books.
	When we come back wide open telephone, Sarah Carter blows open this Loretta Lynch-Comey connection of obstruction.
	I am on this side of the dais.
	So a very simple question that should be asked is: did Donald Trump or any of his associates in the campaign collude with Russia in hacking those emails and releasing them to the public?
	That's where we started six months ago.
	We have now heard from six of the eight Democrats in this committee, and to my knowledge, I don't think a single one of them asked that question.
	They've gone down lots of other rabbit trails, but not that question.
	Maybe that is because Jim Comey said last week, as he said to Donald Trump, that on three times he assured him he was not under investigation.
	Maybe it's because multiple Democrats on this committee have stated they have seen no evidence thus far after six months of our investigation and 11 months of an FBI investigation of any such collusion.
	I would just suggest, what do we think happened at the Mayflower?
	Mr. Sessions, are you familiar with what spies called tradecraft?
	A little bit.
	That involves things like covert communications and dead drops and brush passes, right?
	That is part of it.
	Do you like spy fiction, John LeCorre, Daniel Silva, Jason Matthews?
	Yeah, Alan First, David Ignatius.
	Jason Borneus' book.
	Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?
	No.
	Yes.
	I do.
	Have you ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history of ESCO?
	Thank you for saying that, Senator Cotton.
	It's just like through the looking glass.
	I mean, what is this?
	I explained how, in good faith, I said I had not met with Russians because they were suggesting I as a surrogate had been meeting continuously with Russians.
	I said I didn't meet with them.
	And now the next thing you know, I'm accused of some reception, plotting some sort of influence campaign for the American election.
	It's just beyond my capability to understand.
	And I really appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity at least to be able to say publicly, I didn't participate in that and know nothing about it.
	And I gather that's one reason why you want to testify today in public.
	Last week, Mr. Comey, in characteristic dramatic and theatrical fashion, alluded ominously to what you called innuendo, that there was some kind of classified intelligence that suggested you might have colluded with Russia or that you might have otherwise acted improperly.
	You've addressed those allegations here today.
	Do you understand why he made that allusion?
	Actually, I do not.
	Nobody has provided me any information.
	Thank you, my time.
	I'm just limited.
	I have a lot of questions.
	Mr. Blunt asked you if you had spoken in response to Mr. Comey's statement to you after his private meeting with the President on February 14th or February 15th.
	You said that you did respond to Mr. Comey.
	Mr. Comey's testimony said that you did not.
	Do you know why Mr. Comey would have said that you did not respond to him on that conversation with you on February 14th or 15th?
	I do not.
	It was a little conversation, not very long, but there was a conversation and I did respond to him, perhaps not to everything he asked, but I did respond to him, I think in an appropriate way.
	Do you know why Mr. Comey mistrusted President Trump from their first meeting on January 6th?
	He stated last week that he did, but he didn't state anything from that meeting that caused him to have such mistrust to believe that.
	I'm not able to speculate on that.
	Let's turn to the potential crimes that we know have happened.
	Leaks of certain information.
	Here's a short list of what I have.
	The contents of alleged transcripts of alleged conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak.
	The contents of President Trump's phone calls with Australian and Mexican leaders.
	The content of Mr. Trump's meetings with the Russian foreign minister and the ambassador, the leak of Manchester bombing, the Manchester bombing suspects' identity and crime scene photos.
	And last week, within 20 minutes of this committee meeting in a classified setting with Jim Comey, the leak of what the basis of Mr. Comey's innuendo was.
	Are these leaks serious threats to our national security?
	And is the Department of Justice taking them with the appropriate degree of seriousness in investigating and ultimately going to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law?
	Thank you, Senator Cotton.
	We have had one successful case very recently in Georgia.
	That person has been denied bail, I believe, and is being held in custody.
	But some of these leaks, as you well know, are extraordinarily damaging to the United States security.
	And we have got to restore a regular order principle.
	We cannot have persons in our intelligence agencies, our investigative agencies, or in Congress leaking sensitive matters on staff.
	So this is, I'm afraid, will result in, is already resulting in investigations.
	And I fear that some people may find that they wish they hadn't leaked.
	Thank you.
	My time has expired.
	But for the record, it was stated earlier that the Republicans' platform was weakened on the point of arms for Ukraine.
	That is incorrect.
	The platform was actually strengthened.
	And I would note that it was the Democratic Party.
	I'm going to jump in here.
	That is Senator Cotton of Arkansas.
	I mean, he is submerged as the total hero today.
	You just heard him.
	Well, you know, the president wasn't under investigation, 11 freaking months.
	Is there any evidence of collusion?
	Because there are people on this committee that have said there's no evidence of collusion 11 months in, six months into their specific investigation, 11 months of black helicopter conspiracies and tinpoil hat conspiracies never ending in the Destroy Trump media.
	Anyway, I thought that was an amazing day today on top of Jeff Sessions' very forceful, just opening remarks, just blew it out of the water.
	Jay Seculo is with us, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, and is now apparently working with the president.
	Welcome back to the program, Jay.
	How are you?
	Thanks.
	Great, John.
	I think Jeff Sessions has done just an incredible job today testifying.
	Yeah, I mean, this is what really amazes me as I'm watching this.
	11 months, Jay.
	Right.
	No evidence.
	And people on that committee have said no evidence.
	Why are we still here?
	Well, this is the politics of it because there's no case.
	I mean, James Comey laid out that there was no case.
	So if we look at what James Comey has already said, both in his written testimony and in his oral statements, he acknowledged that the president was, you know, it's not just he's not under investigation.
	He was never under investigation.
	That's number one.
	Number two, James Comey acknowledged that there was no obstruction of justice as it relates to this Russia probe.
	And number three, as I've said, James Comey is the leaker.
	Jeff Sessions today forcefully, directly, and properly said that while he appreciated the opportunity to appear before the committee, he said he's going to follow long-standing Justice Department of Practice and cannot and will not violate my duty to protect the confidential communications I've had with the president, unlike James Comey.
	Let me ask you.
	What is your juxtaposition?
	I mean, this is the most amazing thing.
	There you have a guy, James Comey, who purposefully leaks, which, by the way, I think, and I think you agree with me, is a violation of the Records Act, on top of the fact that he had an obligation.
	I was stunned.
	Had I been stronger, I would have left.
	And I'm not sure if there was obstruction.
	That's up for Mueller to decide.
	And I'm thinking, okay, then if you thought that, then you're violating also 18 USC 641 and 18 USC 4.
	Okay, you're the lawyer, not me.
	Then.
	Go ahead.
	No, no, you.
	No, I was going to say, here's the irony of this.
	He said he's not the one to make that determination, except with the case involving Hillary Clinton.
	He did it.
	He was the one.
	So he likes to play judge and jury when it suits his agenda, and he doesn't want to play judge and jury when he can leave something hanging.
	And, Sean, you said something critical that people are forgetting.
	And we've got to remind people of this.
	This investigation didn't start on May 17th when a special counsel was appointed.
	This investigation has been going on for nine months.
	Well, how is it that, Jay, how is it that I'm reading report after report after report today?
	Mueller is stocking his staff with Democratic donor lawyers and literally hiring the swamp, including a Clinton Foundation lawyer that was hired by Hillary to fight back against Freedom of Information Act requests against their email server.
	Well, look, I mean, here's what you've got, and this is just the situation as it exists.
	A special counsel has been appointed, and the special counsel has a mandate.
	Now, the thing that always makes me concerned when I look at these cases, and I've been involved in case, look, I was in the middle of the lead lawyer in the IRS targeting scandal that was involving the IRS and the subsequent investigation by the Department of Justice.
	People tend to want to forget that.
	That's my case.
	So I know what these Department of Justice investigations are like or not like, depending on the circumstances.
	And here's what you've got.
	That mandate at the end and matters related there too.
	But I'm going to go back to a fundamental issue here, and that fundamental issue, whether it's Bob Moeller and the entire staff that he's got as a special counsel, the issue is going to be, was there criminal culpability aimed at or targeting the president of the United States?
	And the answer to that is there's nothing.
	And they've all acknowledged there's nothing.
	I mean, you have said that.
	Well, this is what I don't understand.
	I haven't seen any evidence of any of this.
	It reminds me of this whole thing is nonsense.
	It reminds me of Patrick Fitzgerald, and he knew on day one that Richard Armitage was the leaker and the investigation should have been shut down then and there.
	Listen, I can't believe I'm saying this.
	Alan Dershowitz has been dead on accurate about all of this in 100 different ways about civil liberties and equal application under the law.
	Find me a person, I'll make up a crime for them.
	You know, and think, you know, after three years and all the money spent, you know, the only thing he could get was, what, scooter Libby on a perjury charge, which is, by the way, a perjury trap.
	So I'm asking you this.
	Yeah.
	If, you know, if you look at the congressional and DOG DOJ investigations.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Now you have Comey that sets it up to get a special counsel hired.
	Now you have his mentor that's in charge of it.
	And now you have his mentor hiring all these Democrats, including people that obviously have a conflict of interest, having been on Hillary Clinton's team regarding emails.
	Now you have done, you know, you have handled a lot of these things issues as a lawyer.
	Right.
	And, you know, and you've done criminal cases, a lot of criminal cases.
	And you won a Supreme Court decision at the Georgia Supreme Court last year, I recall.
	Biggest, biggest criminal case in the country representing the state of Georgia in a major criminal case.
	So you're going to ask me the criminal question.
	I know where you're going, all right?
	I'm asking the criminal question.
	Yeah.
	So there's no there there.
	And what's going to happen, Sean, and this is where what happens in these, you've got multiple three parties, basically, Congress, the House and Senate, and the special counsel trying to investigate this at the same time, which is a collision course.
	I mean, that's what happens on these.
	It's a collision course.
	And I think what Rod Rosenstein said today is, you know, you look at the situation.
	He's the attorney general acting, basically, for this investigation.
	And the fact is, it comes down to, and this is the point, I can't get past this point.
	You cannot legally get past this point.
	That James Comey, in his written submissions, said never under investigation, not under investigation, no obstruction with regard to the Russian probe.
	And then he's the leaker.
	And that argument he's made, which is ridiculous, that this was his personal document instead of the document of the Department of Justice.
	Well, let's see what he's done.
	He writes a memo about a conversation he had with who?
	The president of the United States, in his role as the director of the FBI.
	By the way, he writes it in a government car and a government computer.
	Whose property is it according to the Records Act?
	It's our property, United States of America.
	Then he puts it in his government desk where he holds it in his government desk until he decides after he gets fired to take it out of that desk or to remove it before he got fired and send it to a law professor who leaked it to the New York Times for the sole purpose of obtaining a special counsel, which he did.
	Now, this committee that's doing the questions today, as far as I know, have not received that memo.
	You're kidding me.
	My understanding is right now that memo has only been established right now with the special counsel.
	These committees haven't seen this memo.
	What about the conflict?
	I mean, if he, I mean, did Jeff Sessions coordinate his testimony today with the special counsel?
	Well, what about, well, how does Comey get away with doing that?
	Well, you know, I think it raises an interesting legal issue, and that is under the conflict section.
	I mean, the idea that James Comey's a witness, if there was, but again, there's nothing there, but if they were to proceed down some rabbit trail path of saying there's some type of trying to show establish an obstruction, which I, again, impossible in my view.
	Why would you let your witness, if it was James Comey, get on the stand, so to speak, or appear before the United States Congress?
	I mean, that raises a whole host of issues.
	Now, those issues, as Rod Rosenstein said today in his testimony, those issues will be addressed at the time that they're addressed.
	And that's how you do those.
	You don't speculate the what-ifs and what might.
	We know what the law is.
	The law's the law.
	And Rod Rosenstein would have to make a determination if there was a conflict or if some lawyer had to not be involved in one part of the case or whether if there was an investigation of James Comey, which I think there should be, whether that's done by the special counsel, whether that's done by DOJ, those will come up in due course.
	And as lawyers, we'll handle those in due course.
	As the lawyers for the president, you handle those in due course.
	You don't speculate on the what-ifs, what-maybe.
	Here's what I'm saying.
	What do you think of Sarah Carter's discovery and their blockbuster piece?
	She's going to join us next.
	That, in fact, that James Comey confronted Loretta Lynch about the fix being in and her putting the kibosh on any indictment of Hillary Clinton.
	I mean, that is breathtaking to me.
	That is breathtaking.
	I will not be shocked if that ends up being the actual conclusion.
	Remember, this is an attorney general that according to if he was telling the truth, James Comey said that, call it a matter.
	Don't call it an investigation involving the Clinton campaign.
	And then, of course, then on the tarmac.
	And I know Senate Judiciary Committee members are demanding Lynch now testify.
	All right, Jay Secula, always a pleasure.
	Thank you.
	We'll see you tonight on Hannity 10 Eastern on the Fox News channel, along with Newt Gingrich.
	We got a great lineup tonight.
	Sarah Carter will join us tonight.
	She joins us at the top of the next hour.
	All right, when we come back, we'll get to your calls.
	Sarah Carter is up next.
	What a blockbuster report she has about Comey confronting Loretta Lynch about the fix being in on the Hillary Clinton email server matter.
	But Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge, there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	We did not conclude any evidence in our report.
	And when I say our report, that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office.
	The Director of National Intelligence had anything, any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that in our report.
	Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?
	I think he's right about characterizing the report, which you all have read.
	We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that included in our report.
	Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts?
	I don't know whether or not such collusion, and that's your term, such collusion existed.
	I don't know.
	The big questions, of course, is, is there any evidence of collusion you have seen yet?
	Is there?
	There is a lot of smoke.
	We had no smoking gun at this point, but there is a lot of smoke.
	Do you agree with this conclusion that the president has reached that there was no evidence of collusion?
	You know, we haven't seen any of that whatsoever, George.
	We've been looking and selling everything that they possibly have.
	That has not led to that.
	We have ultimate, all of us have the utmost respect for Bob Mueller, both on the Democrat and Republican side.
	I believe he's going to do his job thoroughly.
	We will accept his recommendation and pathway forward.
	And I think that's extremely important that we all agree this is the right person, the right time to do this type of work.
	So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
	In theory, yes.
	Has it happened?
	Not in my experience, because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something without an appropriate purpose.
	I mean, we're oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it.
	But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason.
	That would be a very big deal.
	It's not happened in my experience.
	At one point, the Attorney General had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me.
	But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly.
	Well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we had refused to confirm the existence, as we typically do, of an investigation for months.
	And it was getting to a place where that looked silly because the campaigns were talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work.
	The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security review, matters, things like that, for what was going on.
	We were getting to a place where the Attorney General and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about it.
	And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation?
	And she said, yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter.
	And I said, why would I do that?
	And she said, just call it a matter.
	And again, you look back in hindsight, you think, should I have resisted harder?
	I just said, all right, this isn't a hill worth dying on.
	And so I just said, okay.
	I mean, this is the President of the United States, with me alone saying, I hope this, I took it as, this is what he wants me to do.
	Now, I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
	The Attorney General, previous Attorney General, asking you about the investigation on the Clinton emails, saying that you'd been asked not to call it an investigation anymore, but to call it a matter.
	And you had said that confused you.
	Can you give us additional details on that?
	Well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we had refused to confirm the existence, as we typically do, of an investigation for months.
	And it was getting to a place where that looked silly because the campaigns were talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work.
	The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security review, matters, things like that, for what was going on.
	We were getting to a place where the Attorney General and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about it.
	And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation?
	And she said, yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter.
	And I said, why would I do that?
	And she said, just call it a matter.
	And again, you look back in hindsight, you think, should I have resisted harder?
	I just said, all right, this isn't a hill worth dying on.
	And so I just said, okay.
	The press is going to completely ignore it.
	And that's what happened.
	When I said, we have opened a matter, they all reported the FBI has an investigation open.
	And so that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work.
	And that's concerning.
	It gave the impression that the campaign was somehow using the same language as the FBI because you were handed the campaign language and told me to be able to use the campaign.
	And again, I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but it gave the impression that the Attorney General was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate.
	We had a criminal investigation open, as I've said before, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	We had an investigation open at the time, and so that gave me a queasy feeling.
	You know, those tapes are amazing.
	I mean, Comey, never pressured.
	Well, I was pressured by Comey.
	I was pressured by the president.
	I was pressured by Loretta Lynch.
	Okay, if you can't get that straight and you're under oath, any Republican would themselves be looking at a perjury charge, maybe an obstruction charge.
	It's unbelievable, the double standard that exists.
	Now, you know, the list keeps getting longer.
	How is it that nobody else in the media is playing for you what we play?
	And that is really simple.
	That is no evidence of collusion.
	All right, joining us now, we talked about it earlier, Sarah Carter with circa.com and her blog poster story today about this interaction between Lynch and Comey.
	Thanks, Sean.
	Yeah, John and I were able to kind of track down that second meeting, that meeting that former FBI director Comey had with Loretta Lynch.
	And what was so fascinating to me, and I think this is the area of the story that's most interesting, is that when Director Comey approached her with this like sensitive document, it was a communication between two political figures.
	This document is classified, but it was a communication that basically said Lynch was going to put the kibosh on any kind of indictment, on any kind of probe into Hillary Clinton.
	And when he confronted Lynch, this is according to lawmakers who were directly briefed on this.
	I want to slow down here.
	She had put in writing that she is going to block any investigation into the Clintons, any law breaking.
	Well, it was two political figures connected to Lynch that were one was reassuring the other that don't worry, Lynch has already made a promise that she's going to put the kibosh on any kind of indictment or prosecution of Hillary Clinton.
	And when he approached her with this piece of evidence at the DOJ, he went to the Department of Justice to meet with her.
	She stared at him.
	This is according to lawmakers that were briefed by Comey.
	She stared at him for what seemed a steely silence.
	He described it that lasted a long period of time.
	It was very uncomfortable.
	And then she asked him if there were any more questions, and he said no.
	And then she asked him to leave the office and did not answer him at all.
	Isn't that called obstruction of justice where you come from, Sarah?
	If the evidence, yeah, if the evidence proves to be true, if that piece of evidence, which he briefed, now, this is not just our sources.
	On Sunday, what was really interesting was Lindsey Graham actually brought this up, and he talked about this on one of the Sunday shows, and he said, you know, this piece of evidence that is out there that, you know, right now, Congress is trying to verify whether this is actually true or not.
	But Comey had a piece of evidence that he presented to Loretta Lynch that basically said between two political figures that she would put the kibosh on this.
	So I think there definitely lawmakers want answers to this.
	They want to know what that was.
	And I'm sure this is something that he briefed the lawmakers in closed session about.
	That was why he couldn't talk about it in the public hearing.
	It was basically because of how that evidence was collected, how it was obtained, and what evidence it was, where it came from.
	This is, to me, is the most unbelievable thing.
	Why was this done in the closed session after we watched the public session?
	Why wasn't this brought out in public?
	Why did Comey, what possible justification could Comey have for not moving forward with an investigation into obstruction, especially when you add to that the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton?
	Well, apparently, the way that this evidence was obtained and how it was obtained and where it was obtained from was the reason behind its classified nature, according to lawmakers that we spoke with.
	So that was the area that they were most concerned about.
	And they didn't want to talk about that in a public setting because obviously there's reasons for intelligence collection that they don't want to discuss publicly.
	Now, remember, there was a Washington Post story, and I just want to bring you back to that.
	A Washington Post story that stated that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, there was this dubious email from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I believe it was Podesta.
	I'm not 100% sure on that, but there was an email between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and someone else who said that Lynch would basically not go forward with any, and it was actually given to the FBI by the Russians, that this evidence was actually given to the FBI by the Russians.
	And what happened was the Washington Post said that the story was dubious, that he based all of his investigation into Hillary on this faulty email.
	And what some people are saying is, no, there really is an email.
	There really is a communication out there that's sensitive that has been verified as facts.
	Stay right there, Sarah.
	I got to do this real quick.
	All right, Joe, we continue with Sarah Carter, her new blockbuster, along with John Solomon at circa.com, is James Comey.
	I mean, a fascinating story met privately with members of Congress.
	This is after his testimony last week and explained a frosty exchange with Loretta Lynch, the attorney general at the time, when he confronted her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document that she was, quote, unaware that the FBI possessed.
	And during his testimony last Thursday, Comey alluded to the exchange with Lynch where she ordered him not to refer to a criminal probe of Clinton handling of classified emails as an investigation, but rather as a matter.
	And he suggested it smacked a political spin, but then he ended up doing it anyway because I guess he's not strong and everything.
	And then he found this other, I want to go back now.
	So two other lawmakers say, oh, everything's fine.
	No worries here, right?
	Don't worry.
	She's got it covered.
	We're going to put the kibosh on any indictment of Hillary because Loretta Lynch is in our pocket.
	Isn't that pretty much what they said?
	Well, apparently that was what was being discussed.
	I mean, apparently between the people that these emails, now we don't know this specific classified email, other than what we know from what the Washington Post reported, which Comey later said was nonsense on the Hill.
	He said those stories are not true.
	And that's interesting because there was another lawmaker that spoke with us that said, you know, Comey's account to Congress, what he was saying to Congress behind closed doors doesn't sync with those media reports, which means it isn't in line with what the Washington Post was reporting on that story.
	Could there be two separate emails?
	Could there be information that was coming from the Russians?
	And then there was this other piece of evidence.
	I mean, we don't know that.
	What we do know is that there's a highly sensitive communication that Comey had his hands on that made him very concerned.
	And according to the lawmakers who were briefed on this, that was not a dubious piece of communication.
	It was actually something that the FBI felt was very valid.
	And that's why he presented it to Lynch.
	It was interesting because according to the lawmakers who were briefed by him, you know, he asked her the question about Bill Clinton meeting Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix last year.
	But then he followed it with, would you please take a look at this?
	And handed her that communication.
	And it was at that point when she looked at the communication that everything went silent and she no longer wanted to talk to him and asked him to leave.
	How does he take that, not follow up on that, not begin an investigation on that, and not conclude, oh my God, the Attorney General is now running interference for Clinton and has conspired to stop any investigation or any possible indictment when we know she committed felonies.
	And do you know what the timeline is on all of this?
	You know, Sean, I think that's the great mystery here, right?
	I mean, when we hear his testimony, he lets more out.
	This last testimony that Comey gave, he talks about the way Lynch had asked him to call it a matter and not an investigation.
	Then he talks about this other incident that he can only talk about behind closed doors because of its classified nature.
	But then he also goes, you know, Trump and alludes to the fact that, well, the reason I did it, I didn't go to anyone is because, well, I really couldn't.
	I wasn't sure what was going on over at the DOJ.
	There weren't the right people in place there.
	I felt kind of cowardly.
	I didn't want to tell the president.
	You know, I didn't want to face the president and tell him these things.
	If I would, if I could look back now, I would have done it differently.
	This is all kind of strange coming from a man who heads the FBI.
	You know, personally, I think that the talk of being cowardly and all of that, it seems it's, I would like to question him on that.
	Basically, I'm not saying that it isn't true.
	I mean, that's his own feeling, but he's a strong man and he's very smart and he's very calculating.
	And so for me, what's interesting is that he laid everything out on the table at this hearing.
	He kind of spilled it all out there.
	And you have to wonder if there's some other kind of motivation behind that.
	Is there a reason for him to do this?
	Is he trying to get information out there and why?
	Unbelievable story.
	Credible reporting, as always.
	Sarah Carter, circa.com, we're going to stay on this, I promise you.
	And you'll be joining us on TV tonight, 10 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	You've been doing an amazing job, and thank you for your hard work.
	We really appreciate it.
	800-941 Sean, at the bottom of the hour, we'll get to your calls.
	We'll recap the day.
	Attorney General Sessions, you know, outraged today at any thought that he may have colluded with anybody.
	He was pissed off today as the hearings began.
	We'll recap that and more straight ahead.
	High 25 now till the top of the hour.
	Toll-free telephone number on this busy breaking news day is 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Obviously, top story today, the Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which, by the way, as I pointed out earlier, he did voluntarily.
	As I pointed out earlier, and the rest of the media just seems to not really care about the truth.
	Now, maybe it wasn't the best decision.
	Are they now going to expect every single solitary member of the Trump administration to talk about their contacts with Russia?
	Well, he agreed to meet in public with these people.
	He agreed and allied their fears, if that's what it even is at this particular point in time.
	You know, as a senator, it is part of your job.
	And every senator, all 100 senators meet with foreign dignitaries.
	That's kind of standard operating procedure protocol, you know, ambassadors and dignitaries.
	And, you know, it's part of what their duties are.
	And in this case of the Russian ambassador and other Russian officials, they also simultaneously met with dozens of Democrats, Pelosi and Schumer and Casey and McCaskill and Cantwell.
	And it just goes on.
	It's almost everybody.
	And the meetings that Sessions had, you know, despite all these efforts to turn them into the biggest scandal in the history of mankind, the guy's doing his job.
	And the DOJ has consistently denied the existence of a third meeting at the Mayflower Hotel with the Russian ambassador.
	I mean, you know, God forbid, I meet with so many people on a regular basis, talk to so many people on a regular basis, do four hours on air a day.
	If anyone ever asked me what I did on the show yesterday, I'm going to be like, I could not tell you the lineup of last night's show.
	Let's put it that way.
	I know, Linda, can you tell me the lineup of last night's TV show?
	Because what happens is that show's finished, and then I'm focused on the next show.
	I mean, I can, but that's because I watch and DVR you like all good citizens should.
	No, I agree.
	And of course, but I honestly would have trouble.
	I'd have to really go back in my mind's eye and think.
	Like, I know we started the show with my opening monologue, and then there's nothing going on, Sean.
	I mean, there's just nothing going on.
	You know, you just have plenty of free time, lots of time to think about all of the different stories at length because, you know, it's just, it's quiet.
	Well, the funny thing is, is my friends talk about the Hannity brain and say, oh, ask Hannity what Reagan's, you know, statistics were after eight years in office.
	I got one better than that.
	What's that?
	You do have a ridiculous memory.
	I think one of your best and weirdest qualities is your ability to remember all over 500 affiliates we have.
	You know their call letters.
	You know what the station logo is.
	You know who the people are that work at the station.
	You know, that's a good point.
	Probably people think you put it up on the screen.
	No.
	You never know.
	I don't know.
	I have to look it up.
	You know it by heart.
	All right.
	But here's the other thing.
	Now, that's my business.
	This is my work.
	Now, if I meet somebody out someplace and I see them the next night, I'll forget their name, which is so embarrassing to me.
	I will forget.
	And it's not.
	That is true.
	I've tried the, you know, the Carnegie, you know, what does it mean?
	Mnemonics.
	Yeah, it just doesn't work for me.
	And then I'll give you another example.
	Like right now, I have to, I'd have, I could not tell you what was on Monday night's TV show.
	I can't tell you.
	I can't tell you who the guests were on this show on Monday.
	So I'm like the worst person ever put under oath because they're going to think you're lying.
	And then they'll go to me and they'll say, all right, well, remember Reagan's statistics and I'll rattle them all off.
	And then they'll say, well, tell us your affiliates, you know, which are talk Kansas, and I'll be able to rattle it off.
	And that's frustrating.
	I mean, it would not be good for me.
	I'd think you'd be bringing me a cake.
	I think the brain does a wonderful thing, and that is that it retains that which is important and gets rid of the rest of it.
	Well, that means that the people I meet whose names I forget are not important.
	That's a horrible thing.
	No, but you remember what they look like.
	You'll look at them.
	Oh, I know that person over there.
	I met them at a freaking concert.
	It was 2010.
	I'm like, what's wrong with you?
	Listen, I've even been at dinners with people that I've known for years, and I'll be whispering to either a friend or my wife or whoever you, if you're there, you know, if it's an event.
	And I'll be like, who is her?
	What's her name?
	Okay.
	It's embarrassing.
	And it's not that I don't love the people.
	I do.
	I just, I don't know.
	It's like there's only so much capacity in terms of the actual.
	I don't think you knew my name for the first four or five years.
	Oh, shut up.
	Oh, come on.
	You know it's true.
	That's a crime.
	What's that new girl's name?
	That is a cross.
	She's too slow.
	What's her name again?
	The one that used to be the intern.
	Remember her?
	Sunshine?
	No, me.
	That's what you used to say about me.
	No, that was to get under your skin because I was testing you.
	Well, you succeeded.
	And you, by the way, you absolutely hid who you are for years.
	Oh, God, yeah.
	You just were like, quiet, quiet.
	And all of a sudden, boom.
	That's right.
	Look what happens.
	Sneak attack.
	I'm like, all right.
	Well, it reminds me a little bit of my daughter because if you meet my daughter, hi, how are you?
	Your daughter's ridiculously nice.
	Hi.
	No, no, no, until you get to know her.
	Then she is off the hook, out of control, in charge, the funniest, most entertaining person you'll ever meet.
	But not if you just meet her.
	Like, if you just meet her, you'll think she doesn't talk.
	No, that's true.
	She's very shy at the outset.
	At the outset.
	Sort of like my dog, Gracie.
	You meet Gracie, she's insane for the first five minutes, and I'm just like, all right, you got to ignore her for five minutes and then act like you don't care if she's in the room and then she'll be all over you with love.
	I love that dog.
	Yeah, that dog's the best.
	Well, Marley's the best too.
	I love Marley.
	They are.
	They're both awesome.
	Marley's great because Marley plays catch with me.
	I love that part.
	Or you play catch with her.
	Oh, she just brings me the toy constantly.
	And I have to throw it at least five times.
	If it's less than five, she gets annoyed.
	You know, so all right, let me get to the phones here.
	Let's say hi, Victor is in Hollywood, Florida.
	Victor, hi, how are you?
	Probably pretty hot down there like it is in New York today.
	What's going on, sir?
	Hey, Shrews, how are you?
	I'm good.
	I have a comment about the Comey testimony when he was asked his interpretation of Trump's telling him, I hope you can let this go.
	And he interpreted it in his words as an order, correct?
	Correct.
	It wasn't what you got from there.
	Even though he said that I hope, he interpreted, I hope, as an order.
	Okay, so my question is, how often do you ignore or not listen to the president's order?
	If you take it as an order, I mean, it reminds me of the movie A Few Good Men when Nicholson is on the stand.
	You can't handle the truth.
	Well, when he said, sir, when you give an order, is it possible that order was ignored?
	No, it was not.
	Is it possible that order was forgotten?
	No, it was not.
	But here's the difference.
	Now, you've got to remember, because Comey also had a legal obligation.
	If he thought that was an order, what he's saying is the president was ordering him to, in fact, do something that he felt was unethical, inappropriate, and even bordering on obstruction, which is how the liberals and the left are interpreting it.
	Well, then 18 USC 4 kicks in, and that means that he had a legal responsibility to report it.
	And I was so stunned I couldn't leave the chair.
	I was, you know, to be honest, if I had been stronger, I was nauseous.
	I mean, all the emotionality.
	So go ahead.
	Finish your point, though.
	Well, the point is, again, how often does anybody who works under the president ignore the order?
	If you're not going to report it, as you said, was his obligation, okay, then why, who in the past, I would ask that, see, I want to follow up with different questions than some of these senators, congressmen, because I believe they miss the mark a lot of times.
	I don't know if it's on purpose or not.
	But I would have said, how often, Director Comey, have you, in your experience, ever ignored or not followed a direct order from the president of the United States?
	And he would have probably answered, well, never.
	It's never been done.
	I can't recall a time when anybody's ignored an order.
	So then why did you ignore it?
	Why did you not follow it, let alone report it?
	Okay, so it doesn't, it just contradicts his whole testimony.
	It just exposes him more as the liar that he is.
	Well, look, you know how I feel about Comey.
	And I'll be honest, you know, some people are saying what I've concluded about him is unfair.
	I honestly, you know, I've known so many law enforcement officials in my life, but I can tell you this.
	I know guys in the FBI.
	I love these guys in the FBI.
	Some of them are my friends in the FBI.
	And they were so devastated in July of last year when he laid out a case for obstruction of justice and then said, never mind.
	You know, extreme carelessness does meet the legal standard of gross negligence.
	They were shocked.
	One guy told me he was embarrassed and everybody he worked with was embarrassed.
	Now, I'm sure that there are some people that like James Comey, but I think others like me see that he was fully and completely politicized, sadly, for his part.
	And I don't know what else to say.
	He just lost it in the end there and contorted and just in this, you know, the only decision he made was to protect Hillary.
	The only decision is we just had Sarah Carter on is to protect Loretta Lynch.
	The only decisions he's making here were self-serving for Democrats.
	Victor, good call.
	Appreciate it.
	Back to our phones.
	Madeline is in Illinois.
	Madeline, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called the Sean Hannity show.
	Hey, thanks.
	Great listening to you guys every afternoon.
	Thank you.
	My complaint is that Comey has deep ties with the Clintons.
	Why this has never been investigated?
	I went back, found an article from the Washington Standard dated September 29th.
	Both he and his brother, Peter, have profited millions from the Clinton Foundation, and I want to know why that is not brought up.
	Listen, there were two articles that I brought up today, and that was one of them.
	I do not know.
	One was the Breitbart piece, and that is Mueller hires Clinton Foundation lawyer for Russia probe.
	That was the one you're talking about here.
	The second is Robert Mueller stocks his staff with Democratic donors.
	I am, you know, I tweeted out Alan Dershowitz today.
	Now, years ago, Alan and I had a stupid fight on radio, and to be perfectly blunt, I regret it at this point in my life.
	I'm a little more mature.
	I don't always agree with him.
	He's political, but the guy's smart.
	Harvard professor.
	I think we agree on so much, especially as it relates to Israel and, you know, the battle against anti-Semitism and radical Islam.
	I mean, I've read his stuff over the years, but he's tweeting out something that is very profound about the law.
	And he's tweeting out that these special counsels have this investigation creep mode that they get into.
	And he is pointing out there's no obstruction, no way, shape, matter, or form.
	And he's like, all these Democrats know it, and they're doing it anyway because they're playing politics.
	And he's saying, does anybody here care about civil liberties, our Constitution, the rule of law?
	And he's on to something here.
	Any honest attorney, constitutional lover, someone that believes in equal justice under the law, is going to conclude exactly what Dershowitz has concluded here.
	And so I've been retweeting him.
	I don't think he knows me for a hole in the wall, although I did meet him once at a Pat Robertson event, interestingly, years ago.
	And we actually had a nice exchange then, and we kind of were letting bygones be bygones, but it became one of the classic Hannity fights during the impeachment time.
	But that's what's at stake here.
	This is now, you know, Patrick Fitzgerald all over again.
	On day one, Patrick Fitzgerald knew Richard Armitage was the leaker.
	He should have shut down the investigation.
	But he goes on and on and on for years.
	And what does it end up with?
	It ends up with a perjury trap for scooter Libby.
	It's so ridiculous.
	And, you know, I'm looking at who they're hiring here.
	They're hiring the swamp.
	Clinton Foundation lawyers, no conflict of interest here, especially if you want the real Russian conspiracy.
	You know, then we got, you know, stocking his staff with Democratic donors.
	You know, Newt Gingrich is right.
	He sparked a media meltdown with his tweet challenging the fairness of this investigation.
	And I'm standing by my position that Mueller needs to shut it down because we know now there's no obstruction of justice.
	Congress should shut it down.
	And they're too stupid and they're too pathetic and they're too weak.
	And, you know, of my list of five people that are trying to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump, Republicans are on it.
	Weak Republicans.
	Never Trumpers.
	They're on the list.
	Deep State, it's on the list.
	Democrats on the list.
	Destroy Trump media on the list.
	I mean, it is an obstacle that is so monumental for this president to get, you know, I mean, I'm so happy to see that the mining industry, oh, their first profitable quarter in a couple of years.
	Well, that's good.
	And, you know, Mad Dog Mad is slamming Congress for inhibiting military readiness.
	And, you know, then we've got decision time at the Supreme Court.
	Imagine if Hillary had picked the Supreme Court justice.
	Oh, by the way, a Trump apprenticeship plan is aimed at filling 6 million job vacancies.
	Well, that's pretty good.
	Just getting people back to work, getting them out of poverty, getting them off of food stamps, getting them to participate in the labor force once again.
	All right, one more quick call here as we say.
	Hi to Patty is in Ventura, California.
	I lived a little south of you for five years in Santa Barbara.
	All right.
	Well, that's a little north, actually, but that's cool.
	Oh, I'm sorry, North.
	You're right.
	North.
	I apologize.
	As south is Los Angeles.
	Beautiful place up there, too.
	Yeah, I agree.
	Sean, I know we're just so all sick of the extreme left.
	They're such sore losers and the destroyer Trump media.
	They've just, I'm so sick of them obstructing Trump and his administration from doing their job for like six months now.
	And I'm just sick of their filing lawsuit and creating so much smoke and there's no fire.
	So here's a thought.
	I'm just wondering, can someone like Trey Gowdy or Jay Seculo, anybody, could they please maybe file a lawsuit for obstruction of justice against the establishment Democrats and liberal media on behalf of all of us?
	The only way is there's a couple of tort reforms we need.
	Number one, we've got to change the libel laws in the country.
	And if you libel somebody, the press needs to start paying for their lies.
	Number two, and that is if it's a provable, outright, scandalous lie, you've got to have some recourse.
	As it relates, if the president doesn't clean out the deep state now, it's at some point you're going to have to blame him and the Obama holdovers.
	And when it comes to the media, I guess it's my job.
	I'm taking on my shoulders to do everything I can do to expose them as the liars they are.
	But it's as bad as I've ever seen it.
	Hannity, tonight, 10 Eastern on the Fox News channel, Newt Gingrich will join us.
	Of course, we'll talk about Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
	More importantly, Loretta Lynch confronted by James Comey over the fact that she may have put the kibosh on any possibility of a Clinton indictment over the email server scandal.
	Well, if that's not obstruction of justice, I don't know what is.
	Sarah Carter's blockbuster report.
	All of this covered in ways the media will not.
	10 Eastern live.
	Hannity, tonight, Fox.
	See you back here tomorrow.
	Thanks for being with us.

▲