Jay Sekulow sits down with Sean to discuss the latest news that James Comey and Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch were involved in crafting a strategy to spin the scandalous story about a special meeting between Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. This is a scandal the main stream media MUST report, but they won't. The Sean Hannity Show is live weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity radio show podcast.
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 my pillow.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 My Pillow premiums and two go anywhere 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 go anywhere pillows for 40% off.
And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful and 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.
You know, Linda, on this Friday, you know I am so excited is uh Diamond and Silk are actually going to be in studio later on the show today.
I heard they're like a rumor.
No, no, no.
They are the funniest people.
We've been doing the last word with them on TV.
The reaction's been unbelievable, and I just love them.
They're so funny and fun and amazing, and I love them to death.
And if people want to see for themselves, they can go to your Facebook, they have to Twitter.
It's the final world.
Final word with uh Diamond and China.
Final world.
This is it.
Final world, final word.
This is the end of the world.
Zanks Lane.
I know on a Friday, that's the last the first thing I want to hear.
It's the end of the world.
Thank you very much.
All right.
We have so much good investigative information coming up on the program today.
I can't even summarize it, but let me give you the best shot I can here.
And then I've got a lot of comments, and then I've got a lot to say, and it's in my opinion, some of the most important stuff I think I'll ever tell you.
And so many big stories.
Now, this is now breaking from the American Center from Law and Justice.
This is Jay Secular, he's the chief counsel.
He'll join us one hour from right now.
Now also counsel to the president.
The ACLJ actually put through a FOIA request, the Freedom of Information Act request.
And now finally, after all this time, remember it was what, the summer before?
Over a year ago now, that James Comey went out with his big Hillary's guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty.
Uh and I'm thinking, wow, he's gonna he's gonna do the right thing with the evidence is overwhelming, incontrovertible, and then but never mind.
Remember that?
I was like, holy wow.
Because the statute and the law is very, very clear.
Mishandling of classified material, top secret material, special access program material.
And he he said he actually it met the criteria of breaking the law.
And it was worse than that with the deletions, obstruction of justice, because they were under subpoena, and then it was you know, the black bear, then it was the blitch bit, and then it was the acid wash, and then it was the devices that are broken.
And I talked a little bit about it earlier in the week.
I won't repeat it all here, and and now we got Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I'll get to that in a second.
So anyway, they finally a year later got to get some of the exchanges between the Department of Justice and the FBI that were taking place regarding the Clinton team regarding the Loretta Lynch Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac.
And what we've discovered is that Shocker upon Shockers at a PERS that the FBI under James Comey lied in terms of the information that's available.
In other words, when they sent their FOIA request to both the FBI and the Loretta Lynch Department of Justice, remember they were in office till January 20th.
They were asking for any documents related to the Clinton Lynch Tarmac plane meeting.
The FBI, under the directorship of James Comey, they quickly replied, Oh, no records responsive to your requests were located.
None whatsoever.
Well, they now have gotten hundreds of pages contradicting what what James Comey's FBI said to them in this investigation in federal lawsuit on former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.
While the Department of Justice and the FBI had an ongoing criminal investigation into Clinton's emails.
Now remember that caused James Comey, even though there were recusal procedures in place for any conflict of interest for the Attorney General.
Remember, it was so unprecedented and frankly, absolutely out of what his role as the FBI director is.
He does the big reveal, 15-minute announcement, 13 and a half minutes of which are a stinging rebuke indictment of Hillary Clinton, and then says, never mind.
Well, anyway, the documents that the ACLJ got from the Department of Justice include several emails to the FBI that they said didn't exist and the DOJ among officials concerning the meeting on the tarmac.
And one with the subject line flag was correspondence between FBI officials, in this case, Richard Quinn, who's with the FBI media investigative publicity and and Michael Corton and DOJ officials concerning, quote, flagging a story about a casual, unscheduled meeting between former President Bill Clinton and the attorney general.
And the DOJ official instructs the FBI person, let me know if you get any questions about this, and quote, provides our talking points, DOJ talking points on this.
Now, the talking points in the Freedom of Information Act are redacted.
Now, why would the DOJ have talking points?
That's what political operations do.
The FBI and the DOJ are supposed to be above any talking points.
And what that infers is exactly what we learned when Loretta Lynch said to James Comey, and James Comey testified before the Senate Senate uh intelligence committee when he said, Oh, Loretta Lynch said to me, don't call it an investigation, call it a matter.
Let me go back if I can very briefly to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the email.
Was your decision influenced by the Attorney General's tarmac meeting with the former President Bill Clinton?
Yes, in in a ultimately uh conclusive way.
That was the thing that capped it for me that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department.
Were there other things that contributed to that that you can describe in an open session?
There were other things that contributed to that.
One significant item I can't.
I know the committee's been briefed on.
There's been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee's been briefed on the classified facts.
Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about an open setting is that 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.
Oh, a meeting.
I'm sorry, a matter, not an investigation.
Directly from Clinton Talking Points.
Thanks.
Now, I know you know about Robert Mueller, I know you know about the grand jury.
Grand jury's are particularly dangerous, and I'm gonna get into this in a second about the whole grand jury issue.
But what's happened here, and what you've got to understand, all these other issues, there's so much more evidence.
It's so much is so much corruption, and I don't see special counsel appointments appointments in these cases.
Now, another issue we're gonna, and Jay Secular will join us at the top of the next hour.
Then we're gonna get into Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida.
He's calling.
Thankfully, we're be I think my constant drumbeat here on real crimes, real felonies, real evidence, real tragedy that is going on in the country is now beginning to resonate.
And that's why I am not giving up on any of these issues.
If we're gonna have equal justice under the law, if we're gonna stop unmasking and leaking intelligence, if we're going to hold people accountable for crimes they're committed, or we're just gonna shred the Constitution and allow people like Samantha Power to go out there and request hundreds of unmasking incidents, but only of Trump people in an election year, which is politicizing and weaponizing the tools of intelligence.
And Congressman DeSantis is saying, okay, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, uh, why did you keep your former IT guy that was double billing?
Who was this guy that worked at McDonald's that was being paid as much as a chief of staff?
How did you get paid four million dollars even after having been discovered for double billing?
How is it possible Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept you on board?
And now what he's saying is he wants an investigation.
And he's right to call for an investigation by the attorney general of the United States, the guy who has an ankle bracelet, wiring 300 grand to Pakistan trying to sneak out of the country and get out of here, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz defending him till this day.
This is a huge scandal.
We have Congressman DeSantis.
Then we got the senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon who broke the story.
How is it that the former Obama UN ambassador, Samantha Powers, how did she have the ability and why would she have the power and ability to ask to unmask hundreds, hundreds of people last year, mostly associated with the Trump campaign?
We'll get into that today.
But I want to just say, you know, these are some of the biggest issues in our time.
And I just I I went into this in great detail last night, and it's amazing how we are one of a very small group of people that are exposing a lot of all of this.
And by the way, did anyone notice the Virginia, West Virginia governor last night became a Republican?
Did anyone notice in the Republican Party you weak, pathetic, visionless, identity less Republicans that don't keep promises?
Did you notice the reaction of Donald Trump and his agenda?
He's got an identity.
He's got a plan.
He's got a vision.
He's doing everything he promised.
You people are pathetic.
And when you lose some of you in 2018, if you don't get your job done, you know, don't blame Trump.
You only have yourselves to blame.
But anyway, and so I'm looking at all of these things happening.
And let me and here are the issues that we're following.
We're following the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz story.
We're following Ukrainian election interference and collusion story.
We're following the uranium one story.
We're following the Clinton email server scandal, 33,000 subpoenaed emails deleted and bleach bit and hammers smashing and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hard drive smashing and SIM card lists, uh blackberries and iPhones.
We're following Samantha Powers unmasking.
It is unprecedented for a UN ambassador to take on that role.
It's never happened.
But we've also had, I think we've had a leak a day, a deep state leak a day.
We know we've confirmed 125 and 126 days, but that's all that we've confirmed now.
But there's whoever witnessed a president of the United States' conversations with a prime minister in the case of Australia with a president, as in the case of Mexico, the entire transcript leaked.
I can't think of it.
Now we might see it 50 years later when everybody involved is dead and gone, like in the case of, let's say uh JFK and during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the tense conversations that took place.
Yes, that's great for historical purposes, but you don't do it to a sitting president.
The deep state has done that.
And then you have a 350% increase in unmasking during an election cycle.
And then you have unprecedented unmasking, leaking of intelligence against a president and his transition team, and people lost their jobs, reputations, and careers over.
So those are the things that we do differently, and I'm telling you there's so much more To come.
Um just stay with me.
I have information I can't share with you yet.
Hannity, did you get it from the president?
No.
I actually have sources on my own outside of the president.
The deep state is the biggest danger because they're shredding the rule of law.
They're shredding equal justice under the law.
They're shredding the Constitution.
They're shredding the Fourth Amendment and your rights to privacy.
Unreach of reasonable search and seizure.
All right, I'm going to get to that uh throughout the day.
Then Jay Seculo.
We'll look into his issue and his foyer request.
We'll look into why Samantha Powers had uh the ability to unmask hundreds.
We'll look into Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
It's a wide open canvas just for this audience and I and all of you.
And we're not going to stop till the truth comes out.
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 my pillow.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 My Pillow premiums and two go anywhere 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 go anywhere pillows for 40% off.
And that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the kind of peaceful and 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.
Why do I say that if the president is not able to get rid of the deep state?
His ability to achieve his agenda may be next to impossible.
Because you can't deal with daily deep state leaks seven times that of the past two administrations and not have everybody around you working for you spend all their time doing this.
And then, you know, if they're spending 85% of their time, you know, keeping their head above water.
This is all done by design.
That's why it's never happened before.
That's why the unmasking issue is so huge.
That's why Samantha Power is having the right as a U.N. ambassador to unmask hundreds of Trump people.
We have got to demand Republicans do that in their legislative agenda, considering they have the subpoena powers.
They're in charge of all the committees that should be investigating.
And it's like I have to, you know, I have to say, okay, do A, B, C, because you're too stupid to figure it out on your own.
And it's really, really pathetic.
These deep state actors, you know, the FBI looking into the finances of Trump.
I thought this was about Russia.
Now it's advanced to the finances of Trump.
Then it's advanced to his family.
Then it's advanced to campaign associates.
Now it's advanced to obstruction of justice.
Whatever happened to Russia, this investigative creep, mission creep, as I call it, is beyond the pale.
Whatever happened to Russia collusion, they can't find anything.
So let's move on to other issues if we can.
Let's justify our existence.
And this is where Robert Muller, to me, just like Patrick Fitzgerald before him and others before them are now carrying out a witch hunt.
And how is it he's close with Comey, a star witness in the case that could violate two laws, as I pointed out.
And his Democratic hit squad that donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrat.
Eight of the 16 members of Muller's team of lawyers that need to justify their existence, made political donations to Democrats, Obama and Hillary, eight others didn't donate to anybody.
Can we get one Republican donor just to act fair?
Just one.
It's eight to nothing.
Democratic donors to Republican donors on Mueller's team.
Well, Muller was a Republican, was he?
His firm donated 99.8% of their political contributions to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
99.8%.
I don't know the guy, but I'm like, this looks bad and stinks to high heaven.
We'll continue.
Is that a joke or do you really want to do it?
It was a joke.
Okay.
What I wanted to do with Needled a little bit.
Do you think Pence will be better than Trump if he were and when we finish with Trump, we have to go and get Putin.
That's he's next.
Putin or Pence?
Pence.
You mean Pence?
Wait, what?
We'll get two for one Trump and Putin.
Then we gotta go after Petra.
Can you plot was that?
Where was that?
That was on the view earlier today.
Unbelievable to me.
800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, so I am saying to you that there is real corruption.
There is real scandal, there is real evidence, there is real proof, and there is real weakness by Republicans in spite of the subpoena powers, investigative powers you gave them that they refuse to use.
And up to now that is.
But slowly but surely, me pointing out the double standard, these unprecedented times that we're living in, it now seems that we're at least waking up some of these members of Congress to the fact that, hey, guys, if we believe in equal justice under the law, maybe it's time for all of you to start doing your job.
Where are these other special counsels?
Will I get to in a minute?
Is anybody gonna, besides Congressman Trent Franks, talk about the conflicts, the many conflicts of Robert Mueller?
And by the way, I'm getting information that it may even run deeper than this.
We have eight of the 16 members of his team making donations to Hillary, Obama, the Democrats.
None have made donations.
None of them.
Nobody on his team made donations to the Republicans.
Best friends with, let's see, Star Witness in the case, and that's James Comey.
Really?
And and Rod Rosenstein is uh Ron Rose, was it Rod or Ron?
He's got conflicts in this case.
You know, I I am does this sound fair to you?
Does that sound impartial to you?
Or does it sound like it sounds to me like a politically motivated witch hunt?
And again, I go to the simple standard here, which is imagine if the tables were turned and a bunch of Republicans are investigating a Democrat and no Democratic donors.
A Republicans, a Republican donors, no Democratic donors.
What would the left be doing in the James Carmel?
Hey, I'm telling you, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And all the rest of them.
The media is not bringing any of these issues up.
They are so abusively biased, corrupt, and and so fixated on Russia and Palace Intrigue, and nothing that's going to benefit the American people.
If it happened in reverse, the left in this country, the media in this country, the Democrats in this country would be in an uproar.
And it's only the beginning of the conflicts.
I am saying that this is a very dangerous scenario that is unfolding here where all these other examples of real crimes with real evidence are being ignored.
Greg Jarrett was great last night.
You know, these grand juries are you know a grand jury is completely one-sided.
You know that they f heavily favor government prosecutors.
It's these are known facts.
You know that defense attorneys, they're not allowed to offer their evidence.
And what you have is one side.
You have the prosecutors putting forward, saying and putting forward whatever evidence they want to put forward.
Even if ultimately it would be inadmissible in a court of law.
It doesn't matter.
They'll still put it before the grand jury if they want.
And that's you know, you've heard this saying you can dying in Ham's a ham sandwich.
Alan Dershowitz recently said, give me the person and I'll give you the crime.
You can indict anybody.
Now, it cannot be ignored also that Mueller is, you know, the grand jury that's likely impaneled, is in Washington, D.C. Guess what percentage of the vote Donald Trump got in Washington, D.C., the sewer, the swamp.
He got a whopping 4% of the vote.
Four percent.
I'm sure that grand jury is gonna be really fair and balanced and impartial.
I don't think so.
And as it all relates, all of this is happening because of the deep state.
And a group of people, and we're beginning to slowly but surely identify exactly what I've been telling you is true.
And it's now the deep state gone rogue, the deep state against the American people, the deep state against the outcome of an election, a free and fair election in this country, and the deep state that is now actively seeking to take out your president that you voted for.
And the saddest part of this is we're not talking about a lot of people in the intelligence community, just the opposite.
I'm thankful for the intelligence community.
I admire the people in the intelligence community.
The work they do to protect us against China, North Korea, Iran, against radical Islamists, Al Qaeda, ISIS, oh, let's see, against Putin and Russia and against uh, you know, all these countries that hate us is amazing.
The tools and weaponry of intelligence, it's like the weapons of war.
They've gotten so big, so deep, and they're so good that oh, hang on, I gotta say something to somebody.
They're so good and they're so penetrating in terms of what they do that it's amazing.
But the scary part is the one tenth or two tenths of one percent at the highest levels in the intelligence community are now being turned on the American people and the president of the United States and privacy rights and Fourth Amendment protections, and all of these instances of unmasking and leaking, many, many of them are involving felonies.
Every leak is a felony, and we haven't seen the deep investigation that we need.
And now the question is so who are the deep state operatives?
I spent an hour on this program yesterday describing to you what the deep state is.
Well, we have more evidence every day of what the deep state is.
That you've got Obama administration holdovers, especially high ranking people, that have taken the tools and the weaponry of intelligence, and they're now using it against hang on one second.
Linda, can you just tell me what is going on in there, please?
So sorry, boss.
Uh, one of our screens that actually uh operates all of our audio just went completely dark.
So we're just trying to make it.
All right, so I'm not going to audio.
You just why don't you just say, Sean, don't go to audio because I have plenty to say anyway.
Okay, boss, please don't go to audio.
But when you all gather in a in a huddle over there, and you're all moving fast, it looks like the show went down nationally, and I'm talking to myself.
You're not talking to yourself.
I would not let you know.
You know, it's really not, you know, you just say, boss, everything's okay, we just don't call for some audio passion.
Everything is okay, please do not go off for audio.
Say boss again.
Boss.
Say New York.
New York.
Talk radio.
Talk radio.
Coffee.
Coffee.
Oh, okay.
Just checking.
Who's on first?
Who's on first?
And first of all, the intent the weapons of the these powerful weapons.
And by the way, I've learned so much.
These weapons are the best of the best.
I can't, frankly, when you know learn about intelligence gathering, and I've gotten to know some of these guys, and just the little stuff that they tell me, it if you're like me and you like MI6 James Bond movies, and you and you like Jason Bourne movies, and you realize that it's way beyond anything you've ever read or that could even be written.
That's how advanced they are.
This is the weaponry of intelligence.
But if it's used and put in the wrong hands, and it's gone rogue, and it's used against the American people, and constitutional rights to unreasonable search and seizure and privacy are violated, then the very republic that we live in is being threatened.
And that's what we now see happening.
Crimes are being committed.
And the deep state operatives that I am talking about, who is the deep state?
Those that are weaponizing these powerful tools of the intelligence community have turned them on the American people because they want to overturn your election.
They've turned them on a president of the United States.
That is the deep state.
That is a threat to our republic.
That is shredding the Constitution.
And then ignoring real crimes makes it triply worse and quadruplely worse.
Now, if you look at the headline, and we're going to have the author of this piece, former UN ambassador power unmasked hundreds in final year of Obama administration.
Sources that spoke to the free beacon said that this was, quote, unprecedented for an official in her position.
This is what I have now been telling you for months.
I've been saying it, the five forces against the president.
This is what Sarah Carter and John Solomon have been working on.
And it's not just Samantha Power.
Now we've learned that the former Obama national security, Ben Rhodes, is a person of interest.
What?
Plus, Congress is now questioning other Obama officials.
Susan Rice, Brennan.
You know, Clapper literally set the stage for this by lessening the rules of unmasking from a very few to many.
And then Obama changed the rules in 2011, and then, of course, 123, just two weeks before he leaves office where intelligence now could be shared with so many more agencies than ever before, which he never wanted to live under.
This is what I've been telling you about.
This is what I work on day and night.
This is what keeps me up at night.
And Congress is questioning these Obama officials finally.
And that then Sarah Carter.
And then on top of that, special counsel of the FBI.
And James Comey himself.
Now, and then John Solomon reporting that the former director of national intelligence, Clapper, by the way, he got a CNN gig and James Comey gets a book deal.
But Clapper made it easier for officials in the executive branch to unmask members of Congress and their staffers.
And I have it on pretty good authority that I've been unmasked among other things.
And by the way, if I find out, I am going to I am going to sanction the biggest lawsuit that I possibly can with the biggest attorneys in this country, so we can do something to stop the shredding of our Constitution.
I will do that because that is illegal.
And if my rights are violated, we will find a way to make this happen.
Anyway, and it's not happening in a bubble here.
Look at all their Hillary Clinton, the leading subpoenaed emails, bleach bit, hammering devices.
Where's the special counsel for that?
Where's the special counsel for 20% of uranium going to Russia and Putin?
You know, really, and 145 million kickback and so much other evidence of kickbacks.
Look at what Judicial Watch found out this week.
Where's the special counsel for a DNC paid operative meeting at the Ukrainian embassy with the Ukrainian ambassador, the Ukrainians leaking bad information and disseminating false information on Donald Trump and the DNC official, according to Politico, giving the information to the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
Although they don't they finally denied it six months later.
I'm not impressed.
We don't have a special counsel for Ukrainian election interference.
What's the difference between that?
What's the difference between that and Russia?
There is no difference between that and Russia.
Where is the special counsel here?
Where's the special counsel for these deep state unmaskers?
Where's the special counsel for Congresswoman Debbie Wasim and Schultz and the IT staffer and the and the smashed up government hard drives in the in the garage of this guy?
Where's the special counsel for James Comey having his friend leak government information and we're told classified information from the FBI?
Where is the special counsel investigating the general counsel of the FBI?
Where are these people?
What are the Republicans doing?
I am telling you this.
This is a war between the deep state against you, the American people, against the President of the United States.
It's a War against the Constitution.
It's a war against equal justice under the law.
Crimes are being committed with irrefutable evidence in each and every case, incontrovertible evidence.
Congress, of course, they can't pass legislation.
Maybe they can use the subpoena powers and investigative powers you gave them up to now they haven't done it.
That's how bad all of this is.
And because all the deep state noise created by the media, the Democrats, this is where we end up yesterday.
It's media, breathless induced hysteria, deep state leaks causing the hysteria, democratic regurgitation of lies causing the hysteria, and Republicans do nothing.
And you know who's losing in all of this?
You, the American people, the people that got up and worked for and campaigned for and donated to and voted on election day.
What I have just told you is truth that you won't get from the media, and I'm only just starting.
There's so much more to come.
No one else will tell you.
I'm not stopping.
You want us you want me to stop?
You're gonna have to take me out of here.
That's it.
I'm not stopping.
I'm gonna keep talking and talking and talking and talking.
Which uh there's uh look at the look.
I got the I what's wrong with him?
Is he okay?
Is he sick?
Is he dying and he's not telling us, Linda?
No, that's not.
I'm saying I'm not gonna stop talking.
This is my job now.
No one else is doing it, I'll do it.
All right, a lot coming up.
Hannity investigations.
When we come back, Jay Sekulo is foyer request.
Yeah, there was correspondence with the Justice Department and Comey's FBI on the tarmac meeting.
Wow.
And then Adam Credo, Washington Free Beacon.
How did Samantha Power, you and ambassador, get to unmask hundreds of Obama people and Congressman Ron DeSantis?
Let's now have an investigation into Wasserman Schultz.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity show toll-free.
Telephone numbers 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of this program, let me tell you what we've got today.
Major breaking news on a lot of fronts.
Uh Jay Seculo is going to join us in about one minute from right now.
The American Center for Law and Justice, also a counsel to the president.
We've got an exclusive news story today.
The ACLJ, through Freedom of Information Act requests, has now managed to secure email exchanges with the DOJ and the FBI and the Clinton team with regard to the Lynch Tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.
Now we have obtained a bunch of uh what, hundreds of pages.
It's an ongoing investigation.
Federal lawsuit on former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton just days before the decision on Hillary Clinton and the email server scandal were made, and the results here are shocking.
First, the FBI director, James Comey, shocker, lied to us last July.
They had sent in Freedom of Information Act request to both the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ, asking for any documents related to the Clinton Lynch plane meeting.
Well, I did see the president uh at the Phoenix Airport the other night as I was landing, he was headed out.
Uh he did come over and say hello and speak to my husband and myself and um talk about his grandchildren and his travels and and things like that.
So that was the extent of that.
And no discussions were held in any cases or anything of that.
And he didn't raise anything uh about that either.
The FBI, under then directorship of James Comey replied, no records responsive to your requests were located.
Well, the documents that the ACLJ got yesterday from the Department of Justice include several emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the meeting.
One with the subject line, flag was correspondence between FBI officials, Richard Quinn, the FBI media investigative pub uh publicity, uh Michael Corton, and DOJ officials concerning a flagging a story about a casual unscheduled meeting between Bill Clinton and the sitting A.G. The DOJ officials instruct the FBI quote,
let me know if you get any questions about this and provide talkers, talking points on this.
Well, when is the Department of Justice and the FBI offering talking points?
And why were the talking points that the they sent the ACLJ redacted?
Joining us now, Jay Seculow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, who did all this groundbreaking work, and also now counsel counselor to the uh president, counsel to the president.
How are you, sir?
Very good, Sean.
Big case, big result.
Uh the I the first thing you said is I what I think should have the American people outraged.
The FBI under the leadership of James Comey, after they got a letter from me asking for documents relating to under the Freedom of Information Act relating to this situation between uh Loretta Lynch and former President Clinton said in a letter to me, no records are responsive to your request.
None of those records could be located because there was nothing responsive to your request.
This is the exact words of the FBI.
No records responsive to your requests were located.
We sent the same request to the Department of Justice.
They didn't respond at all.
We filed a federal lawsuit.
Lo and behold, we get a start getting a production of documents.
And in that production of documents, guess what we find?
Documents, emails between who?
The FBI who said there were no documents and the DOJ who turned over the documents that the FBI said did not exist.
And that is just point one in the charade involving uh Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton.
That's just point one.
I'm listening.
Point two.
Point two.
And this is okay, you you know a lot of words right now about collusion, right?
Collusion of this, Russia collusion.
Well, let me give you a little collusion.
How about collusion between and and this is I guess you know, Sean, you and I have been at this a long time, so this is not really surprising here.
How about the fact that there is a chain of emails between the Washington Post interacting with the DOJ spin team at that point, implementing specific DOJ requests to change his story to make the attorney general to appear to be in a more favorable light?
New York Times reporter apologetically tells DOJ uh the Obama DOJ that he was being quote pressed into service to have to cover the story, as this story was breaking, DOJ officials stated, quote, I also talked to ABC producer who noted they aren't is interested even if Fox runs with it.
So this is what's going on between the media and the United States Department of Justice.
That's just that's point two.
Point three, it's a we requested the so-called talking points.
That's the talking points that they were gonna give to the American people.
Guess what they redacted?
The talking points.
So that we're going back to the city.
How do they get to to redact that, Jay?
I mean, what first of all, why is the DOJ acting like a political operation?
Why is the FBI acting like a political operation?
Obviously, they had to know this looked horrible.
And you know, there's another thing here.
Wasn't there a responsibility of those around the attorney general to note such an important meeting?
You would think, but there was a report from a local affiliate of ABC's that said no photos, no c no pictures, and that was one of the reporters saying that sounds like a cover-up.
They didn't want people to know.
Well, here's here's one from the uh this is an email from the reporter from the Washington Post.
This is to the Office of Public Affairs of the Department of Justice, quote, weird question, but I'm trying to confirm the reason the former uh president Bill Clinton knew attorney general lynch was at an airport in Phoenix this week.
Uh if the agents working their respective security details were coordinating during the time they were both on the tarmac.
Is anyone able to shed light on the question of how the former president knew that the attorney general had just landed and how a meeting between the two of them happened.
By the way, this comes just days before the the the actual interview of Secretary Clinton, not under oath, by the way, no grand jury and panel.
We have a lot of discussions about grand juries these days.
Uh and all that was going on while the reporters are asking questions, and they're asking it in such a way as to de-emphasize the significance of the story.
That's apologetic is the way the the one one is uh one is put forward.
But there's hundreds of pages of material here that have been redacted.
So we've got a lot of material, which is good.
But there's hundreds of pages that are redacted, and it appears to indicates that the attorney general spin team immediately began preparing talking points to respond to this, and now we're seeking, you know, Sean, we'll go back to federal court.
That's how it works.
You go back and you say, okay, we got your production.
That wasn't in response to all everything we asked.
We want the rest of the information.
So that'll be the next move we make in federal court uh Monday.
Jay, you are on my show a lot.
You know where I stand on a lot of these issues, and you know what's important to me, and one of my biggest complaints, especially in light of yesterday's news with Mueller, and I don't like his team.
Um I'll keep you out of that.
You're the the counsel to the president.
It's not a position I want to put you in.
But you know where I stand.
You know where I stand about investigations involving, let's see, the leading emails, bleach, you know, bit an acid washing uh hard drives and smashing blackberries and iPhones.
And in the case of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she got smashed hard drives, and then it's unmasking and then it's leaking, and then it's Comey, and then it's the general counsel for the FBI under investigation, especially Comey here.
You're saying Comey lied, and then it's uranium one and the Ukrainian election interference.
There's so much out there with a lot more evidence than than this Russia collusion nonstory, and and I impounding this that if we're gonna have equal justice under the law, it has got to be dealt with.
Well, yeah, I mean, and and let's talk about the James Comey aspect of this.
So ask yourself this question.
This so I'm trying to figure this out.
James Comey comes out, remember last July and makes that statement about he had and he said it under oath when he testified earlier in the year.
I had to go out, I had to make these statements because it it was put the bureau and no one would believe what happened here if we didn't make this affirmative statement.
Yet the FBI and the DOJ are spinning, which the then director of the FBI was James Comey, are determining how to spin this for the office of the attorney general.
I mean, so you have all of this going back and forth, and they're acting as if so then when James Comey comes out and plays choir boy, you know, oh uh you know, I was so outraged by this, so concerned that I I said what do you say good golly or good gosh, whatever the term was that he had, uh, you know, I had to do something.
Well, this is going in under him.
This is taking place under James Comey's watch that his FBI and the Department of Justice were in cahoots here to with the media.
I mean, these quotes from the media.
I hope I can put a rest to this.
I hate to ask this question, but I mean precedent to service.
I also talked to an Abrew B. C. producer who noted that they aren't interested, even if Fox runs with it.
So that's what the DOJ press officials are stating as this story is breaking.
So what you have here is a media spin control because what Loretta Lynch did was unprecedented.
Unprecedented, and in fact, I'll take it a step further, completely unethical, violating the law in my view, and I think if you juxtapose the case.
And by the way, we're we're not even discussing here, Jay, the oh, it's not an investigation, it's a matter, and Comey listening and going along politically with Clinton talking points.
He said if I was stronger or had more of a spine, maybe I could have stood up to it.
This was this is pathetic.
And by the way, James Comey with what he did, uh I mean, I was disappointed with the with the attorney general's press conference today.
You know, not in a because it it was just we're gonna go after leakers.
Well, they should have been doing that for six months.
Now I understand he's not going to talk about active investigations, but I think there was this kind of build-up to this was gonna be some big announcement on something ended up uh not being anything, so be it.
But uh he is warning leakers, and I will say that, don't do it.
But I think you got to prosecute him more than warning, you gotta actually take action.
But Sean, what this show is going back to this boy request.
Now, again, we're gonna have to press deeper here, and we're gonna do that.
We are going to find out what led up to these talking points and why they were pushing these talking points so aggressively between the agencies, but you and I both know the answer to that.
This was a horrible story and a horrible factual pattern for the attorney general of the United States to be in while while Hillary Clinton was being in supported uh purportedly investigated.
The worst situation for her, so they've got spin control, but you see where the media is on this.
I mean, you know, w this you know, we talk about the collusion of the media.
The CNN gives, you know, questions to uh the Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Well that seemed to be, you know, that's fine, right?
Nobody's making a big deal about that.
And here you've got them all saying, I'm hoping I could put this to rest.
I'm hoping I can tamper down.
I've been called in to have to do this, apologetically.
This tells you where the media is, but it also tells you where DOJ and the FBI were.
The problem is some of these career folks are still there.
That's there.
Stay right there, Jay Seculow.
This is huge breaking news.
How is it that the Freedom of Information Act request shows that there's a media spin team put in place on the Comey Loretta Lynch meeting on the tarmac?
It is unbelievable.
And all the other issues that need to be investigated.
We'll get to that.
All right, as we continue, Chase Seculo, he is a counsel to the president and the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
Let's go to Robert Mueller and yesterday, and what you can you tell us.
Well, first of all, there's a lot of reports initially came out said that in the reports that the special counsel had, quote, impaneled grand jury as if it was a special grand jury.
There's no evidence that that's correct at all.
Grand juries in Washington DC sit all of the time.
Uh They're constantly in session.
So you go to a grand jury if you're a prosecutor to get evidence and testimony.
It could be documents, it could be from third parties, it can be from uh people that are targets, whatever it might be, but you get a grand jury subpoena.
For instance, there's no evidence, we have no evidence that they that Bob Muller's been before any of his team has been before an actual sitting grand jury on this case.
I mean not that we would know.
You none of this, by the way, should have anybody known because it's all supposed to be a secret, but evidently we know what it is in Washington.
It's never a secret.
That's number one.
So saying it's a grand jury's been impaneled, and it became this huge news story.
But when you put it in the context of an investigation, this is the normal way in which an investigation proceeds.
As uh Ty Cobb said, who's the special counsel for the White House on this uh issue said very clearly that this is how they normally proceed and that this hopefully will expedite the process and that the White House will of course comply with um any request that they get.
We received no request uh on behalf of uh for the president at this point, we've received nothing.
So again, that White House response makes perfect sense, as does the fact that there would be a grand jury, you know, using subpoena power to get documents and get information.
That's how it goes.
Having said that, you you always evaluate uh these kind of matters as they develop, but this was not something that caught us by surprise because we were operating under the assumption that this is what this is the normal all of us uh our legal teams here have had I think we we figured out the other day the principal lawyers involved in this have collectively, I think it was a hundred and seventy or a hundred and eighty years of experience in this kind these kind of matters, and th this is not out of the ordinary.
So again, I think there's a lot of I mean, some some of the networks are still going on and on in this, but yet no one knows any details, and hopefully there won't be leaks, they're not supposed to be.
That would be uh pretty horrific if there were.
You know, Jay, I've never seen times like this, and I talk about the deep state leaks, and I talk about the unmasking.
Now we got Ben Rhodes' being investigated.
Now the general counsel of the FBI being investigated.
How did ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, have the ability to unmask hundreds?
How is that in any way her job?
And and Susan Rice, and I gotta be honest, I I I I cannot believe the the Sarah Carter story about H.R. McMaster, and I know you probably can't comment on that part, but the other part of a masking and leaking and of intelligence.
Well, first with regard to the the leaking.
I mean, you had you talk about a leak yesterday.
How about the leak of foreign conversations the president's had on the phone with foreign leaders, and the transcripts have been completely leaked out?
When has that ever happened?
It's impossible, it's not impossible, obviously happening.
It's unheard of.
It's never happened that I know in history.
No, not that I know of.
I mean, there are you know, you have archives released fifty years after the president's death.
They had the after the Kennedy assassination they released, ultimately other tapes of Jackie Kennedy, you know, fifty years later.
These are phone calls, and by the way, those those were like recorded interviews.
Is there a phone calls?
Is there a deep state leaking that wants the president to be hurt and taken out of office or my concern is, Sean?
I don't know how deep it is.
In other words, you think deep state, you think four levels down, five levels down.
I don't know.
Is it two levels down?
I don't know.
It seems very high up from Obama holdovers.
Yeah, that's what I tend to think.
And I I I this is what has me concerned.
That was a that was a big leak yesterday.
Then you've got the whole Susan Rice uh still having access to secure class right information while she's being called before Congress to testify about unmasking.
And then Samantha Powers asked this question why did the UN ambassador who has a very specific task have the authority to unmask anybody?
And how did she end up unmasking hundreds of people?
Yep.
All right, but we're gonna have you on TV tonight.
This is a huge story.
Huge.
And the media will probably ignore it.
We won't.
Ten Eastern, Hannity on Fox, Jay Secular, thank you for being with us.
Thanks, Sean.
All right, on this Friday, we've got uh the senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon breaking the story.
How did Samantha Powers get all this unmasking power?
She's the UN ambassador and Congressman Ron DeSantis at the bottom uh of this half hour straight ahead.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800 941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
I remember Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Capitol Police and you know, you can't, you know, touch my laptop, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Remember all that?
If the member loses the equipment, says they lose the equipment.
Yes, sir.
And it is found by the Capitol Police.
It is supposed to be returned.
Yes.
Ownership has been established.
Right.
Uh to an ongoing investigation or additional things that need to be turned up.
Not an ongoing investigation related to the member.
If the equipment belongs to the member, it has been lost.
They say it's been lost, and it's been identified as that members, and the Capitol Police is supposed to return it.
Correct.
Well, it's not a I can't give a yes or no answer on that because I know.
It's a simple yes or no answer.
Well, if you lose if I if a member loses equipment and it is found by the Capitol Police or your staff, and it is identified as that member, member's equipment, and the member is not associated with any case, and that is their equipment, it is supposed to be returned.
Yes or no?
Depends on the circumstances.
Uh and if the circumstances I I don't understand how that's possible.
Members equipment is members' equipment that is not it is not under my understanding, the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate members' equipment when the member is not under investigation.
It is their equipment and it's supposed to be returned.
Well, I think there's extenuing circumstances in this case, and I think I think that you know working through my counsel and um you know the necessary personnel.
If if that in fact is the case and with the permission of through the investigation and we'll return the equipment.
But until that's accomplished, I can't return the equipment.
I think you're violating the rules when you do when you conduct your business that way.
And should expect that there would be consequences.
It's outrageous.
Now we find out the IT guy, the double bill that had a that had relatives who worked at McDonald's and car dealerships that that we don't have any evidence at all worked at worked in IT getting the highest salaries in DC.
We find out he's double billing, then we find out she keeps him on.
So I want to go back and play the Capitol Police.
Now, yesterday she's now defending hulk holding on to the guy we know double billed.
And then it raises the question, why do we have busted up higher hard drives in this guy's garage, according to reports?
Not only I believe that I did the right thing, and I will do it again.
Because as I said at the beginning of this conversation, there are times when you can't be afraid to stand alone and you have to stand up for what's right.
And you know, even in the face, you have to there are times you have to spend political capital to do what's right.
Like I said, the easier thing to to do for me would have been to just fire him.
Obviously, I was the person who's had the most political challenges in the last year, so it would have been much easier for me to just cut them loose and say, you know, I'm gonna look out for my best interests and rather than stand up for what I believe in.
Uh but I have to be able to look at myself in the mirror every day.
And uh, and I'm if there's one thing I'm going to make sure that I uh that that I maintain as my integrity.
Wow.
All right, let me talk about the Capitol Police.
Why would she say that if there's something not on that laptop she really really doesn't want anybody to see?
That's my suspicion.
And then when you add the whole story together, and then when you you know, when you look at her comments that she made yesterday about her IT guy, this guy uh one and says he did the right thing, it would have it would have been easier to fire him.
I'm like, didn't he double bill?
Who were these people that worked at McDonald's that got these high salaries and and car dealerships that got these high style salaries and reports one state home and got a high salary?
Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida.
Can you answer that?
Well, I'll tell you what, Sean, I think you hit on a lot of the high points.
These people are making a hundred and sixty thousand dollars a year.
Average IT person in the Congress is probably making forty or fifty thousand, as you point out, some of them were never even seen in the Capitol, uh working at McDonald's, owning a car dealership.
We have hard drives that have been smashed with the hammer, the Hillary Clinton treatment.
You have hundreds of thousands of dollars being wired to Pakistan.
Awwan family, they have a million dollars worth of pending real estate deals.
I've asked the Justice Department to freeze any proceeds because I don't want that money being sent to Pakistan.
Um so at a minimum, I think you have a gross misuse of public funds.
Obviously, given that these guys had access to sensitive information, they were working for Democrats on the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committee.
Um, I think we know their financial crimes.
We know they're probably going to be some property uh procurement issues and crimes, but then what information do they have access to and what did they do with that information?
This is a major, major scandal.
It is a major scandal.
Let's go back to the beginning and let's talk about this guy and what you know about him and what you know about the story and the double billing issue first.
So Awan, his wife, two brothers and two friends, they made a total of four million dollars in salaries from the U.S. House of Representatives over a number of years.
And to put that in perspective, in my congressional office we obviously have need for IT servicing.
We pay about fourteen hundred dollars a month for all of our IT needs in the district and in Washington.
So there's no way I think you could ever fashion an explanation to have that amount of money being dedicated to IT.
And so the question is why were they being paid such exorbitant sums?
The guy you mentioned who had been working at McDonald's he was like a 20 year old kid.
How are you making 1600 as a 20 year old kid who's spending time at McDonald's well I mean that and didn't he stop working and then stay at home and still get this insane salary the equivalent of basically what what a chief of staff of a congressman and senators making?
That's right.
I mean and then you have people who are very experienced uh staffers who have law degrees, master's degrees who don't even make close to a hundred and sixty thousand dollars and so there's no reason on its face why they would have been given that much money.
And so I think what the criminal case will probably answer some of those questions, but I think we in the Congress have to be investigating how was our institution's money used this way and how did these individuals damage our institution and have access to information they shouldn't have had and what did they do with that information.
All right now let's go back for example you're an oversight committee member you're chair of its national security subcommittee you are now petitioning the Attorney General Jeff Sessions to disclose if federal investigators are moving to freeze these wire transfers in the one case of three hundred grand this guy sent to Pakistan the Sawan guy the top IT staffer for Schultz and and also scores of other Democrats who rightly when they found out about double billing didn't they give up this guy?
Well it was with what they found out about was that these guys were suspected of unauthorized use and unauthorized access and so they had every reason to believe that these people were risked to have working for them all of them except Debbie Wasserman Schultz discontinued employing them.
She obviously kept Awan on for months and months until he was finally arrested.
So um but he has they've already sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Pakistan.
His wife absconded to Pakistan was actually stopped at the airport by the FBI and she had 14,000 dollars in undeclared currency on her person while she was leaving the Pakistan so I don't know about you but none of this is normal behavior.
It's not normal behavior and from what I also understand that she has now you know Debbie Wasserman Schultz and all these other lawmakers this guy is now being accused of bank fraud for obtaining the loan for a rental property doesn't use sending money to Pakistan and you think this could pose a major national security problem in what way?
Well when you have those sums of money going to a country like Pakistan where we know is a haven for terrorists.
Now obviously we have a relationship with Pakistan it's not like the whole country is but you know they um they have terrorist groups operating there.
I don't know why that money would go there and I wanted an answer from the Justice Department whether they have any linkage to where those monies went and anybody who'd be receiving those monies that's been reported by the Daily Caller that Awan owed a hundred thousand dollars to an Iraqi politician who had ties to Hezbollah.
So I want to figure out what's the background of that why did he have this relationship and then what relationships do they have in Pakistan?
I mean it's theoretically possible that this is all innocent but but Sean the behavior when you start seeing smashed hard drives and you start seeing some of the other conduct I think we got to err on the side of caution and really get these answers.
You know, I agree wholeheartedly with you.
You said while we can never tolerate breaches of public trust, the wire transfer to Pakistan in particular is alarming as Pakistan is the home to numerous terrorist organizations.
That was written in your letter to to the Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
That's right.
And so when you're talking about the amount of money that's already gone over there, they have a a million dollars worth of real estate transactions that are pending right now.
And uh and I didn't actually know this before I started investigating this case, but it's easier to send money overseas if it's the proceeds of a real estate transaction than if it was just cash that you had earned.
Uh and so they have a potential to send a lot more.
So I've asked the attorney general to have DOJ freeze the sale, which they can if it's uh fruits of illicit activity, and and I'm hoping that they will act because if all that money then goes, he still may be held accountable, but some of that money may be going to illicit purposes over in Pakistan.
That's really an unbelievable situation.
All right, freezing the money is one thing.
What legally now is done and what do you make of smashed hard drives?
Are you convinced that in fact they were government hard drives in the garage of the sky a wan?
And do you believe that the effort to get them with the renter was over the top?
So I I think that there's a good chance they were.
I haven't confirmed that.
Um I am probably gonna go up to Washington and get a classified briefing on where this stands um hopefully as early as next week.
So hopefully we'll get some answers to some of those questions.
But you know, when you're talking about this amount of money, when you're talking about this type of screwy conduct, and then you start talking about smashed hard drives, the inferences are probably, you know, right to be made that that that's probably not a good thing.
Uh so we need to figure out what was on there.
There you may still be able to figure it out from what I'm hearing, um, because sometimes if you don't smash it the right way, people can still recover data from that.
But I want to know that.
I also want to know what was on the laptop that was such a big deal at that congressional hearing in May, which you quoted from earlier in your show.
All right, stay right there, Congressman Ron DeSantis, Florida.
Quick break, we'll come back, we'll continue.
It's the Sean Hannity show.
All right, as we continue with Congressman RondaSantes, and thankfully he is now called for a further investigation into what is now the the corruption uh, I believe, of the former DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Do you believe in any way that it's possible?
Remember she was fired on the eve of the Democratic National Convention with the number of other people, and remember the WikiLeaks reveal and remember, you know, the information we got about collusion and rigging the primary with Bernie Sanders.
Do you think that maybe that was trying to be hidden?
Do you have any speculation, ideas what might have been the rationale for keeping this guy on?
Which seemed absurd.
And not only that, having potentially, you know, smashed hard drives in this guy's uh garage and this guy trying to take off with an ankle bracelet, having advanced three hundred grand to Pakistan?
I think it's pretty clear that this individual had access to a lot of sensitive information of some of these Democrat members, including Steve Wasserman Schultz.
And so any time somebody has that type of access, they can learn things that perhaps you wouldn't want other people to know.
Now, I don't know exactly the extent of his knowledge about the DNC, um, although I think there's been reports that that he was involved with with some of that information.
So the way I look at it is you would not have acted the way you did if you're these Democrat members if you just didn't care if there was nothing important.
You'd just be like, hey, no problem, go ahead.
But there has been a resistance to this investigation, and you know, we can only speculate, but when people act that way, usually it's because there's something they're trying to hide.
Yeah.
Well, I think that certainly acting in ways that they want to hide stuff.
Uh, what do you make?
I mentioned earlier as we were going to break, I mentioned oh, Hillary Clinton, deleting emails, acid washing, bleach bidding, you know, hard drives, smashing, hammering devices, and sending uh phones and blackberries without SIM cards to the FBI, and now we got another report.
Yeah, oh hell, we got m we have more busted up government hard drives.
What if Donald Trump and his campaign and his pres anybody around him did any of this?
What would it be like in the media?
No, man, the New York Times would run out of space on their front page to be talking about uh smash hard drive in White House or whatever they could come up with.
I mean, it would be front page day after day above the fold News and I think you've been obviously reporting on the story, Fox has, some of the good websites have.
Uh, but it's been something that the mainstream press up to now has tried to not come to grips with.
But here's the thing, Sean, the this criminal case is going forward, and I think you're gonna see additional charges added to the original criminal complaint.
I think Debbie is now facing ethics charges because of paying him this money when he wasn't really doing anything, so that will likely go forward.
And then we in the Congress we need to do a thorough investigation to know what was breached and what information was used by these people and what they did with it.
So it's gonna be hard to ignore because I think that we've only scratched the surface of the facts in this case.
All right, I want to thank you, Congressman Ron DeSantis.
We please keep us in the loop.
By the way, are you mad that Republicans are not as supportive of the president as I am?
Yeah, Sean, how we didn't we weren't investigating the Clinton Foundation last Congress.
We should have been doing that.
We're doing more to investigate Trump than we ever did on the Clinton.
Yeah, so true.
So many investigations with so much evidence.
I'm so sick of it.
Congressman Proudia, good job, thank you.
800 nine four one Sean, the toll-free telephone number.
When we come back, uh Adam Credo, how did a UN ambassador of Obama how did she get the right to unmask hundreds of Trump people?
Wow, we'll bust this wide open when we get back.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload out.
Breaking news now.
Here's Sean Hannity.
Well, a lot of breaking news here on this Friday.
We just told you in the last hour about the American Center for Law and Justice and their Freedom of Information Act request and how literally uh James Comey and the FBI on issues involving now we have hundreds of pages about the meeting between Co with between Lynch and Bill Clinton on the eve of the decision about Hillary Clinton and our emails, and they said the FBI director told them, Oh, we have no records responsive to your request.
Well, that was a lie.
And we discovered the DOJ and the FBI.
Oh, they had a a team, a PR team in place advancing talking points, but they were redacted in the FOIA request, which is insane.
Now we have a senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon who will join us in a minute.
He broke the story yesterday on the former UN ambassador Samantha Powers and the hundreds of people.
Now she's the UN ambassador.
Hundreds of people.
She's unmasking the last year during the tenure of the Obama administration.
How is that possible?
And then it raises the question about H.R. McMaster and what's going on and all these conservatives and and those discovering the the intricacies and details of the deep state literally being almost perp walked out of the White House, two of the three people that I know.
It's unbelievable.
And he's given Susan Rice in this particular case, you know, the uh the authority to continue to have access to this information is uh it's obscene to me.
Anyway, I want to remind you first of remember Susan Rice.
Remember her testimony.
Remember what she I'm sorry, what she said publicly, Andrea Mitchell and others about unmasking, because this is so important as she said, Well, I didn't do it for political reasons.
Really?
I don't believe that, considering most of the people that are being unmasked are Trump people, even by Samantha Power.
Listen to this.
Did you seek the names of people involved in to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people uh surrounding the pre the the president elected?
Let me begin.
In order to spy on them and absolutely expose absolutely not for any political purposes to spy expose anything.
I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was a illegal lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
And I think it's important for under for people to understand what incidental means.
That means that the target was a either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation.
But the fact is that uh in the president did request uh back in December, the intelligence community compile all of the information that it had on what had transpired during the campaign with respect to the Russians involving themselves uh in the presidential campaign, and that report was provided uh to the American people in unclassified form and to Congress uh in classified form in early January.
Did the pace accelerate during the transition?
Perhaps in early December.
Uh uh perhaps when the president ordered an investigation into the hacking, the Russian hacking.
Did the pace of unmasking requests of your unmasking requests accelerate toward the end of the White House tenure?
I can't say the pace of unmasking requests would accelerate, but if you're asking were there more reports provided to senior U.S. officials after the president requested the compilation of the intelligence, which uh w was ultimately um provided in January.
Yes, what happened was as the IC went about the business committee.
Fulfilling the President's request for such a report.
They went back and scrubbed more reports.
They began to provide more such reports to American officials, including myself.
This is not uh anything uh political has has been alleged.
The allegation is that somehow uh Obama administration officials uh utilized intelligence for political purposes.
That's absolutely false.
Joining us now is Adam Cratow, he's uh senior writer for the Washington Freak Beacons.
Sir, you've been doing some great work, and we've been covering it here on the program.
I want to hear it directly from the horse's mouth.
Uh what did you think of that interview, A, and how does it dovetail into your piece yesterday about UN ambassador Samantha Power and the hundreds of people she unmasked.
Well, thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.
And yeah, look, the interview now in retrospect is beginning to look a lot more and more like obfuscation on this uh issue, and that's exactly what I think the House Intelligence Committee that's investigating these unmaskings is experiencing as well.
With power, I think this is where the issue really becomes a flash point, and we begin to understand exactly what these administration officials were up to.
It was odd enough at first to see Rice making these unmasking requests, not just one or two, but many of them, and now we see that power as well from her perch at the United Nations seems to have made hundreds of these unmasking requests.
Look, I've spoken to current former senior NSC officials, uh, intelligence community, individuals, and they said it's odd enough for an NSC staffer to make these requests, let alone so often.
It's completely bizarre for a UN ambassador to make this type of unmasking request.
So we have to ask the question what were they looking for here?
The number, the quantitative quantity of these unmasking requests, and let's remember what they are.
This is uncovering names of individuals listed in highly classified intelligence community reports, raw intelligence.
It looks like they were attempting essentially to find that needle in a haystack to unmask a large number of people and then claim, oh, well, this is what we were looking for all along.
And the question of how this information subsequently leaded to the press, I think raises even more questions.
And that's why we've seen individuals like Ben Rhodes publicly named by lawmakers as a suspect in this leak campaign, somebody who created an in-house echo chamber to promote the Iran deal and essentially mislead the public and reporters about this.
And all of this tracks back to the issue of unmasking, how these names were obtained.
Those are Trump administration officials and associates, and how they later leaked to the press in a very damaging and partial way.
Uh the full story was never reported.
It was just a little bit of information to wet the pallet and undermine and handicap the current administration.
It's so well said, and I I have been hammering.
I don't know if you watch my TV show or listen to the radio show a lot.
I know you do.
Um and you know that I keep talking about these forces in the deep state and this leaking.
You know, you you just got to look at one issue right now that uh came out yesterday.
Just the transcripts alone.
Uh uh and we've had 125 leaks in 126 days, seven times the past two administrations.
It's about one a day.
It's about one a day, and it's much higher, but that's the only only statistic we've been able to confirm, and it's not been updated, and we need to update it.
So then you've got the general counsel for the FBI being investigated for leaking, according to Sarah Carter.
Then you got James Comey and his these literally got a talking point team, you know, to manage the the not only the bad optics, but the unethical meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton days before the decision is made about his wife, and they didn't talk about grandchildren for 45 minutes, that's total BS.
And they're trying to cover the whole thing up, a whole thing.
Then you've got, on top of all of that, all of these leaks, and why would an a UN ambassador ever need to unmask anybody, and why were they all or most, as you point out in your column, political people associated with Trump.
Yeah, it it's a question that needs to be answered, and I'm hoping that the Intelligence Committee is moving forward.
Looks uh power and Rice and uh John Brennan have already been subpoenaed.
Uh we're hearing that there could certainly be more.
There's at least an interest to question other senior Obama administration officials, like I mentioned, Ben Rhodes and others.
Um one thing I would say when you point to Comey, there's a lot we don't know, but there is one thing we do know.
He went in front of Congress and testified quite clearly saying that he leaked his own memos that we now know contain uh classified information.
That in and of itself, in a normal circumstance, would be the substance for at the very least an investigation, um, probably at the very most um allegations of disclosing classified information, which of course is a major crime.
Uh back to power though, and I think this is very important to point out that all of this was done these hundreds, not over four years or eight years, but in the last year of the Obama administration when a contested election was taking place, and it just so happens that these unmaskings included confidants of President Trump, those who would later be in his administration.
I don't think it adds up, and I don't think there's a case to be made by these officials, including uh power in particular, that this was related to the function of her job.
Uh and you're right.
Why would a UN ambassador need such sensitive classified information, particularly this classified information, and what was she doing with it?
So let's say there was a justification.
I don't know what that would be, but let's say there was.
What did she later do with the information?
That needs to be investigated as well.
Let me ask this question, because I think this is key.
And I I don't I even though the names have been made public, I don't feel comfortable mentioning them.
But there are three people that have recently been, well, unceremoniously let go at the White House.
I'll leave it at that, and I I'm very unhappy with the way they were treated.
I knew two of the three of them.
And they were let go.
And I knew two of the three of them were all over the idea of of surveillance, unmasking and intelligence leaking, and deep state officials that and Obama holdovers that needed to be purged.
Then we learned yesterday from Sarah Carter that H.R. McMaster gave this this, you know, get out of jail free card, basically, to Susan Rice.
What the hell was that?
Yeah, um I I think this is all part of uh the same baggage of issues we're looking at.
On the issue of McMaster and the purges, I reported uh yesterday morning after this took place that essentially what is happening here is McMaster is on in conflict with a lot of these longtime Trump confidants people who help him get elected, uh, people who were test with implementing exactly what the voters uh wanted him to do and what he articulated while on the campaign trial.
These are the people that were marched out of as you said of the White House and fired in a very curious fashion.
Um I've heard from insiders and sources in the administration that this is just the beginning.
McMaster actually is keeping a list of officials he hoped to purge that is fire from the National Security Council in um at least in the two weeks or so.
Adam, you're doing such great work, and you know, a lot of journalists, rip print journalists suck on radio and TV.
You're really good.
I'm very impressed with you.
Well, thank you.
No, I'm telling Linda and I talk about all this time.
You got these genius journalists that do great research, and you talk to them and they can't put two words together on the radio.
You're awesome.
All right, hang on.
Oh, yeah, I know a lot of them.
They're odd people.
Yeah, they're freaking oddballs.
I mean, but they're brilliant and I admire their work, so I just have to give them credit and attribution.
I can actually talk to you.
Um you you and Sarah Carter and Solomon are like the rare exceptions, uh, and a few others.
We have some other friends.
So I'm gonna get killed for that remark, right?
Um, but it's true.
They can't do radio on TV.
���� All right, as we continue, Adam Credo is with us, senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon.
All right, you had me laughing as we're going to break there.
But if I bet some of your colleagues can't do it either.
They can't do radio or TV.
Why is that?
I don't know.
I think a lot of people get one a little bit nervous, they trip over their words, they can't speak properly.
But it it's really the plague of the writer.
Uh people who get into writing, whether it's news, fiction, whatever It is are generally odd people.
Uh they stayed at home a lot, you know.
They sat inside and stared at the wall or read books, and um I think that's really what comes out when they're put in a public forum.
It's it's a little strange.
I won't lie.
All right.
Where does the unmasking the deep state end?
Because I don't think any white house can function under these unprecedented circumstances.
If if this continues, how does the agenda get done, especially with pathetic Republicans in Congress?
You know, it it really can, and this is something I've been writing since the first weeks of the Trump administration.
When you talk about unmasking and national security leaks, uh, we all remember they started during the transition and often even during the campaign, and there was a larger point to this.
Uh the New York Times hit on it in a piece that didn't get a lot of attention, but they identified uh essentially a plot by the Obama administration to gradually trickle out national security information damaging to the Trump administration, and that's what they did.
It started before Flynn's oyster, even with those.
It started with Mike Pompeo during his confirmation, and I wrote at that time that this was actually part of a larger strategy to handicap the national security apparatus and stop Trump from implementing his agenda.
Look, these guys want the Iran deal to survive.
They don't want any concrete action in Afghanistan.
They don't want us to confront the Iranians in Syria, Hezbollah in Syria.
It's all part of preserving that larger foreign policy picture that Obama put into place, let alone Israel, where they were incredibly hostile for eight years.
So I think that this all plays into what we've seen with the national security leaks that of course are beginning being given to friendly reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post, other places.
These are the same people that carried the water on the Iran deal and carried the propaganda put out by the White House on the Iran deal.
So it's all part of the same uh that we're looking at.
Do you know if the things that I'm being told about H.R. McMaster are true?
Well, let me uh read you something, and you can tell me if it kind of answers the question.
Okay, uh yeah, see it's real quick.
Uh this is a quote that came from a uh administration insider close to the NFC.
McMaster basic basically has this list, and over the next two weeks, he's going to phase out more senior officials loyal to Trump.
They're taking out people who were chosen to best implement the president's policy that he articulated during the campaign.
You agree with me about the three people walked out, that they were good people that were the three people walked out were good people trying to un uh trying to discover the Obama holdovers, deep state leakers.
Yeah, I think there were elements of that, and I would also say anybody who takes a job like that is a serious person, is a patriot looking to best advance the interests of the country.
And that's what uh not just all of these people, but that's what these people in particular were doing.
All right, gotta take a break here.
Uh Adam, we'd love to have you on TV.
Uh and uh you did a great job today, and we really appreciate your work.
You I thought your your work this week was phenomenal.
Thank you for being with us and sharing it.
It's my pleasure.
I really appreciate it, Sean.
Okay, appreciate it.
800 941 Sean is our number.
All right, Diamond and Silk.
They've been killing it on TV the last week and a half, and everybody loves them, and they're friends of mine, and they're gonna talk about their support for the president uh when we come back.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
It's Friday.
Time to get your party light on, and and then we're gonna talk to Diamond and Silk.
All right, ready?
Diamond and Silk.
Holy, holy, holy, holy.
And I don't love you.
I don't love you.
Holy, holy, holy, holy.
Um loving you.
I'll love you.
Wow.
Why did a man Diamond you know?
I got to know you guys on the campaign trial.
Yeah.
You got when you remember when we first met.
Was it at Pastor Scott's?
It was at Pastor Scott.
It was past his remember when I went into my preacher mode?
Uh yes, and you didn't know.
Yes, it was.
He wants me to why don't we go together, all of us?
And he wants me to do a sermon, which by the way, I am the least qualified.
You know why?
Wow.
Because I'm the one that needs like the forgiveness thing.
I'm the guy that needs the salvation.
You know, I'm the one that Jesus came for.
I'm not the good person in the pew.
Um, but I got to and you guys were I w I had been watching you with uh now our president.
Yes, baby.
Yes.
And I got and you guys were so kind to me.
And it's like we just bonded.
I'm like I love those two.
I love these women.
They're awesome.
How y'all doing?
Welcome to New York.
Thank you, and we're doing well.
It's amazing.
Yes.
Now where do you live?
North Carolina.
Uh-huh.
Wow, you know, I have some family in North Carolina.
All right.
We're in North Carolina.
Badville.
Fairville, North Carolina, baby.
Okay, baby.
Um, so I asked you guys to do the the last word on my TV show.
Now I had to cancel you because of the news one or two nights, but you've been doing it now the last two weeks.
How how's the reaction?
Oh, people love it.
They absolutely absolutely love that we're doing the final words.
And we love it.
It is good.
So and then we tweet it out.
It goes crazy.
Amazing.
Amazing.
I know.
Um how did you two become friends?
How we have to give me the relationship here.
Well, we've all we've always been friends.
I know you're related, but listen, we are blood sisters.
So it's always been like this.
You're not I mean same mama, same dad.
Uh huh.
Oh, okay.
Diamond has always been Mowdy, and Silk has always second the motion.
Were you guys funny as kids?
I guess we were.
Well, first we didn't even realize we were funny until we did the video.
No, really, we didn't.
We we didn't even know this stuff was funny until we did the first video and we played it back, and the way she was looking, I'm like, girl, this is crazy.
Those reac uh-huh.
You know, and the hands and the cocktails.
Yes, that's natural.
All of that is natural.
Right, yeah.
And we we didn't know.
Why did you fall in love with Donald Trump?
Because he said everything that made sense.
That's right.
I want to secure the border.
Don't we secure our house?
Don't we?
The white house is secure, the border should be secure.
That's right.
I want to bring back jobs.
Why would you outsource good jobs from Americans?
You know, and then I want to bring back spirit.
We need spirit in this country.
Where we're walking hand in hand, we're getting some things done, and I love the fact that he wanted to put it on the body.
I'm gonna be so uh huh.
I'm gonna go, yes, ma'am.
I'm gonna amen.
You make me you you do make people say amen.
You really my audience loves you both.
Oh gosh, we love them more.
Love you guys.
And you're what do you think of all I'm talking every night.
You see how hard I'm I'm fighting back.
And by the way, they're trying to kill me.
You know that, right?
You're watching it.
But you but you're not gonna go, Donald, too worried about it.
Yes, what they're trying to do is silence you.
They're trying to silence everybody because they don't want the truth to be told that the Democrats did absolutely nothing in the last eight years.
That's the most I think I've ever heard you say silk at one time.
Silk and talk, but I know how to stay in my own lane, doing my own thing.
But you know, I keep talking, I talked a lot in the election about this.
There are 50 millions million of our fellow citizens in poverty, and on food stamps, and 94 million out of the labor force, and a 51-year low in in home ownership.
I started out with nothing.
I really did in my adult life.
Nothing.
I worked hard.
And all I had that America and my parents gave me, am I gonna give them all credit and God?
I I had a ladder to climb, and I had the rungs of the ladder there.
The rungs are gone right now.
That's right.
Yes.
The tools that that you need in order to be able to get to that point, the top of the ladder.
Is that a real diamond necklace, by the way?
Let me tell you something.
Oh my god.
By the way, Kim Kardashian's got nothing on the wow.
See, uh oh, thank you, Smooth.
Holy moly.
Thank you so much, dear.
Did Linda look at that diamond necklace?
These are beautiful women.
I'm in awe of the entire segment to be honest.
Thank you so much.
Look at those diamonds.
Wow.
But let me tell you.
Did Donald Trump give you that?
No, no, no.
This has nothing to do.
I had this before Donald Trump.
Okay, now listen, let me tell you something.
It took hard work to get here.
Because in spite of being called out of our names, being laughed at, talked about, criticized, and and during traumatized.
We got here and we made it to this point.
You took a lot of heat like we all do that support.
Anybody that supports the president's under fire.
Right.
Uh huh.
I'll tell you this.
I I don't care anymore.
That's right.
I don't even care that much.
And and I also, in the process, while we may have enemies, I got I got to be friends with you guys.
Oh bless you.
No, I'm serious.
I got to meet the most amazing people.
So this is what I'm thinking about.
My audience has been so amazing to me.
I'm thinking about doing a few stops for free around the country.
You know, I mean, it's all on me.
And I want to put together a show.
Did you like Terrence when he was on?
Terrence.
I didn't really see him.
I'm sorry.
I didn't see him.
You missed my show.
I didn't miss you.
You know him, though.
I know who you're talking about.
Terrence Williams.
I know he's talking about.
Yes.
I'm thinking and I want to bring a few of our friends that are, you know, that are on my show regularly.
And I want to do a few shows around the country, and I want to invite both of you to be a part of it.
Oh you do it.
It'd be fun, right?
It would be great and fun.
Yes.
Yeah, like you guys go up and do your thing, whatever you want to do.
Anything you want.
Have you guys thought, and maybe you're doing it already, of maybe doing what you do on the road.
Just you two.
You guys haven't done this.
It's been a thought.
Yeah, but we don't.
I'll get you the speaking guy that'll get you booked every day.
I only want 20%.
Okay, so no, no, no.
I don't want to.
I don't want to bet.
We always say if you ever want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
We had no plans for this.
And we've just been going with the flow of the city.
Right.
Are you bet very religious, both of you?
Listen, we believe in God.
We believe in the body.
I do too.
And nobody's gonna stop me for believing in God's hard to stop us.
No, you guys are the odd.
You're in the good part of the pew.
They put the the sinners on this side and then put you know, Diamond and Silk on the other side.
It's all so true.
It's so true.
Um these are pretty tough times.
I can't believe how pathetically weak Republicans are.
And you guys did a uh um uh final word the other night about I was like, you want to like cut go through it and then you go just do it because it's so good.
What do we do?
Okay, first you want to first.
Yeah, because we've done so many.
Is it about the Republican part?
Yeah, how weak they are.
Well, they are weak.
Very weak.
And they got to get themselves together.
And see, it's time for them to start working for their own greed and start working for the need of people.
That's right.
And I think, Silk, that maybe somebody may be getting some kickback patty whack, give a dog a bomb.
Oh bomb, but we're gonna have to take the bomb back.
That's because this is about the American people first.
We pay you, okay, to do a job.
Our job.
And if you can't do your job, that's right, then maybe it's time for us to repeal and replace you.
Peace out.
Boom.
Bye-bye.
Wow.
And that's just zero prep.
I mean, I um, you know, um, one of the things in these hard times, I like to kind of on Friday in this vinyl hand.
I just like to lighten it up.
Yeah.
I mean, these weeks are intense.
Yeah.
These weeks are intense.
And it's sort of like the campaign never never ended for a lot of us.
And I think you both remind everybody that we can laugh.
And you know what?
We're gonna win.
I'm sorry.
And if we don't win, I'm going down with the ship.
You guys come in with me?
Oh.
Well, listen, we're gonna win.
I'm gonna give you the lifesavers, though, and I'll just I'll swim it myself.
I'll just uh, you know, I'll just sink.
But keep the lifesavers for for for later, but we're gonna win this.
We said he was going to be the 45th president.
And he's the 40th.
We said he was gonna be the best president, and it's gonna happen.
That's right.
Listen, don't worry about nothing.
We got this.
Let not your heart be troubled.
That's right.
This TV show tonight.
Would you guys come on my TV show tonight?
Yeah, you invited us.
All right, and then I'm gonna send you to my favorite restaurant on me tonight.
Deal?
Okay, a deal.
Okay, deal.
That wasn't that hard.
All right, welcome to New York Diamond and Silk.
Go to Twitter at Sean Hannity, and you can see their commentaries from this week.
It's so good.
I love you girls.
Love you more.
Ladies, I'm sorry, but to me, you're young at heart, right?
We females, honey, straight females.
Uh-huh.
We love it, my father.
That's right.
I love you both, and you guys played an amazing role.
You had an impact in this election.
And you took great heat to do it.
I admire your your strength, your courage, your commitment.
And now that we we have become friends, and I value your friendship.
God bless you both.
Thank you.
We love you.
Thank you for making me happy.
You make me laugh.
Oh, thank you.
It makes me very happy to Hannity, tonight, 10 Eastern Fox News.
All right, a lot of stories we're covering.
Yes, documents for your request.
Now show the FBI, DOJ, were they colluding.
Why would they need talking points?
Not a political organization.
Jay Sekulo joins us tonight.
Also, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
How much trouble is she in?
We're gonna check in with Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, and really the UN ambassador, hundreds of unmasking requests, Kellyanne Conway, Larry Elder, Austin Goolsby, and much more.
