Sean Hannity Show - A Scientific Corner for Roy Moore - 11.15

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 16, 2017 - Sean Hannity Show

01:36:18

A Scientific Corner for Roy Moore - 11.15

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	So like many of you, I have trouble sleeping.
	I have insomnia.
	No matter what I tried, it wouldn't work until I met Mike Lindell and I got my very own MyPillow.
	It has changed my life.
	What makes my pillow so different is my pillow's patented adjustable fill.
	In other words, you can adjust the patented fill to your exact individual needs so you get the support you need and want to help you get to sleep faster and stay asleep longer.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 1-800-919-6090.
	Remember, use the promo code Hannity.
	When you do, Mike Lindell will give you his best offer ever.
	Buy one pillow and get another one absolutely free.
	MyPillow, made in the USA, 10-year unconditional warranty, and it has a 60-day, no-questions-asked money-back guarantee.
	You have nothing to lose.
	So it's time for you to start getting the quality of sleep that you've been wanting and we need.
	Just go to mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
	Promo code Hannity.
	Take advantage of Mike's special two-for-one offer, mypillow.com.
	Promo code Hannity.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of this extravaganza, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, we got so much happy.
	Jim Jordan, who took on yesterday, the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he will join us.
	I have, I can't believe I'm actually starting the program with some good news for once today because I've just come to realize there is absolutely nothing that is going to stop the furious pace that is this news cycle in America today.
	It's just, it's absolute insanity.
	It's just, I've never seen anything like it.
	I've been in radio 30 years.
	I'm now in my 23rd year at Fox, and it's just fast and furious, and it never, it just never seems to stop.
	Now, I want to talk about a lot of different things today.
	Now, we do have Congressman Jim Jordan on the program.
	Also, have legal analyst Greg Jarrett is going to join us in the program today.
	You know, there's so much legally at stake as it relates to Hillary Clinton and Fusion One, Fusion GPS.
	And then we've got an update on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but also Uranium One.
	And then, of course, the email server scandal that has never been, you know, we've never gotten to the bottom of any of these things.
	So the good news today is the U.S. Senate today.
	Yeah, that U.S. Senate that doesn't get a whole lot done.
	This is momentous.
	This is incredible.
	They're on the verge of realizing a long-sought goal for those of us that know and understand the number of career, high-paying jobs that would be available to the forgotten men and women of this country that are in poverty on food stamps and out of the labor force.
	And that is all of the energy resources this country has.
	I've always been an all of the above guy.
	You figure out a better way for energy that is cleaner burning and more efficient.
	I'm all for it.
	But in the meantime, the lifeblood of capitalism in our economy is energy, oil, natural gas, coal.
	That's it.
	Nuclear energy, which we could do and do safely if we wanted to.
	But, you know, because you got so much environmental input on all of these issues, you're not allowed to do the basic, simple, fundamental things that create jobs, high-paying jobs for people.
	Anyway, legislation now to open.
	This is a President Trump initiative, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Oil and Gas Exploration.
	We've actually gone there, taken videos of it, showing them on TV.
	And it's a wilderness, a vast wilderness.
	I actually talked about this in my first book going back, however, 2000 and whatever, you know, 2001 or so.
	I don't remember what, 2002.
	Anyway, so it's going to happen.
	Even Joe Manchin, a Democrat, he actually joined with GOP lawmakers.
	Well, he's from West Virginia.
	He's looking at his potential defeat, so I'm suing politics played a part in that.
	Anyway, they passed it, the legislation, 13 to 10 vote.
	Manchin was the only Democrat to join Republicans in passing the bill.
	And it is a $1.1 billion budget reconciliation bill.
	Now heads to the full Senate for a vote.
	Clear sign that that likely will happen.
	So we're going to wait, watch all of that carefully.
	So a lot of you got annoyed with me last night, which, by the way, I knew would happen when I said, you know, all of a sudden, Judge Roy Moore said there are two issues that concern me that I said he needed to address in 24 hours.
	And I said, otherwise, you know, let me backtrack.
	Let me just say this.
	I have, in these 30 years in radio, and I have in my 23 years at Fox, this is not my first rodeo.
	Okay?
	This is not the first time in my life we have dealt with what we call October surprises.
	You know, what was the October surprise in 2016?
	That was the Access Hollywood tape.
	It was designed to be the, not to use a bad analogy, a kill shot to politically destroy Trump.
	That's what that was.
	And there was digging and digging and digging into everything Trump ever said, every interview he ever did.
	And then they got raw footage.
	He doesn't know his mic's on.
	Locker room talk goes into the second debate.
	This broke, what, two days before that debate, there were people even debating whether or not he'd show up that night, I remember.
	And I thought by far that was his best debate, in my opinion.
	And yeah, I'm guilty.
	I said it.
	Locker room talk.
	It was just stupid.
	And that just totally diffused it.
	Now, if you listen to the experts, the experts were telling you, oh, he's done.
	That's it.
	He's finished.
	And by the way, mathematically, it's not a bad observation if a tape like that comes out on the eve of an election.
	What is an October surprise, though, supposed to be about?
	An October surprise is meant to manipulate the voting population at a close proximity to the actual election in the hopes it will tip the balance to the person that is sitting on the information or their associate that is sitting on the information.
	It happens almost every election cycle.
	And I'm hearing something in my ear back there.
	Now, George W. Bush on the eve of the 2000 election.
	I bet a lot of you probably forgot what happened to George.
	A DUI, a Deewee, showed up from when he had been much younger.
	And it comes up, it's like the weekend before the election.
	Why was it released then?
	Did people not know until the last day?
	These elections now, you got to understand, Senate election, they go on for months and months and months.
	Presidential elections, we begin the process.
	We began it in March of 2015 for crying out loud in terms of 17 candidates rolling them out.
	We traveled around the country.
	So we've seen plenty of October surprises.
	It also happens.
	Look at the case of Clarence Thomas.
	That's a classic case.
	Clarence Thomas on the verge being a Supreme Court justice.
	And oops, last minute, you know, here comes Anita Hill.
	And then, oh, you know, Democrats are giddy.
	Politics is a dirty, brutal, ugly blood sport.
	There's nothing nice in the world of politics.
	Your opponents, politically speaking, I'm putting emphasis, politically speaking, want to destroy you and kill you off.
	They want you done.
	They want that power.
	They want to win.
	And in the course, you know, of elections, basically, there are no lines for many candidates, none whatsoever.
	And we saw it with Herman Cain, another example.
	Look, I can go through these examples all day here today.
	And so now we have, and I have an affinity for Alabama.
	Why?
	Because my first professional radio job was in Huntsville, Alabama.
	And as somebody that grew up in New York, do you ever see the movie my cousin Vinny?
	Do you ever see that movie?
	It's hilarious.
	Buck Sexton is in the stool.
	Hey, Buck, how are you?
	You ever see my cousin Vinny?
	All right, Joe Petchy.
	I'm in freaking Alabama.
	And then Marisa Tourme, you know, posi traction.
	You know, you spin it and you clay.
	You ever have that happen?
	And one wheel spins and the other wheel doesn't.
	If both wheels spin, that's posi traction.
	All right, that's my best.
	This is one of my favorite movies.
	She's like, everybody knows you've been stuck in the mud in Alabama on wheel stays.
	There you go.
	The other one does not.
	Exactly.
	I love Alabama.
	Now, I was a kid growing up from New York.
	My accent was a shock to the people in Alabama.
	And it was almost Linda-like in terms of first of all.
	Mourse.
	Coffee.
	Much, much worse than yours.
	Yours is nothing.
	Coffee, talk radio, how you doing?
	First of all.
	So I'm down in Alabama.
	I love Alabama.
	I came to love that state.
	I know the people in that state.
	It was so different than where I grew up.
	Now they are hit with their own October surprise, in a sense.
	And that is these charges against Judge Roy Moore.
	And here's where we are with this: the charges are serious.
	There is nobody in this audience that would ever want to vote for at all, somebody that in any way, shape, matter, or form, as a 32-year-old man, was responsible for groping and grabbing a 14-year-old girl.
	And if you knew that and you still wanted to vote for it, I'm sorry.
	That is just morally repugnant.
	And you hope somebody like that gets arrested because they're predators.
	It's evil.
	All the things that I have been saying.
	Then you got to balance that between all of false charges that are often made as October surprises.
	And that is now the people of Alabama, which I have faith in.
	I really do have faith in the people.
	This shouldn't be Mitch McConnell's decision or the Republican Party's decision.
	And what I said last night is when Gloria Allred brings out an accuser that said that then in his 30s, Roy Moore, that's not the word, assaulted her.
	And when she was 16.
	And Roy Moore said that he had never met this woman.
	And then we see an entry in a yearbook.
	And I know everybody's been using the handwriting experts, et cetera, et cetera.
	I already know.
	So I said last night, I want answers.
	I said, the people of Alabama, the Republican Party that he represents, the country deserves answers.
	We have way too many problems.
	And I have felt that the answers have been inadequate.
	When the interview that I had, I felt up to that point.
	And when I first asked Roy Moore, I said, Roy, you know, I said, would it have been your practice to date a 32, as 32, to date a girl 17 or 18 or in her late teens?
	Not my usual practice.
	That would not be.
	And then I, and I'm like, what does that mean?
	That's not a no.
	And then I asked, okay, would you, you know, not without the permission of her mother?
	And it creates, in a lot of people's minds, including mine, confusion.
	Now, the third time I asked him, he did say, I said, unequivocally, can you tell me no?
	Now, some people aren't good at interviews.
	I'm not making an excuse.
	I don't know the full truth here.
	I don't know.
	And anyway, so without giving away details, you know, I have gotten an answer from the Roy Moore campaign on the questions that I had.
	And like everything else, the sad part about any late allegation against anybody, what if the person's innocent like the Duke LaCrosse kids?
	What if?
	What if it's George Zimmer and everyone thought George Zimmerman guilty?
	What if he was proven innocent?
	In the trial, jury of his peers.
	What if in the case of, and I mentioned so many examples, this can happen?
	You know, so unfortunately for the people of Alabama, they're now going to have to listen to these answers.
	I was told that explanations are coming today.
	And at the end of the day, my thoughts are these.
	It doesn't matter what the media says.
	It doesn't matter what Mitch McConnell says.
	Who cares what Mitch McConnell says?
	He's trying to influence the people of Alabama the whole time in this election.
	And I just have faith in the people of Alabama.
	They're the ones that will and should decide.
	Not Sean Hannity in a studio in New York.
	And what I try to do is give you information that you can make an informed best decision.
	And they're going to give you that explanation will come out publicly today.
	And it's going to be up to the people of Alabama, which is the right thing to do, or the people of any state.
	And at the end of the day, you know, and then they're, well, we won't see it.
	We won't do it.
	You know, you'll have to deal with it at the time.
	But I have gotten an answer.
	And the answer is they will address this today.
	All right, 800-941-Sean.
	But at the end of the day, I love the people of Alabama.
	And I trust the people of Alabama.
	And you know what?
	If they decide this is the person they want, they believe this or they don't believe it.
	I don't know if there'll be any more evidence, any more allegations.
	Nobody knows.
	Who knows with these things?
	Hey, you know how I love hearing great American success stories and sharing them all with you.
	Well, our favorite t-shirt, underwear, sock company, Tommy John, well, that's one of them.
	Now, Tom Patterson grew up in a small town in South Dakota.
	After college, he had a successful career.
	He was selling medical devices on the West Coast.
	But he quickly became fed up with the way his undershirt kept coming untucked.
	So despite having zero background in men's fashion whatsoever, Tom sketched up some designs for smarter undergarments.
	Now, starting out of his apartment and growing Tommy John to the globally recognized company it is today, well, he achieved Tom Did the American Dream.
	Now, of course, they're super soft.
	They're undershirts.
	Guess what?
	They never come untucked.
	Plus, all of Tommy John underwear is backed by the best pair you'll ever wear, guarantee, or it's free.
	Go to tommyjohn.com/slash Hannity for 20% off your first order.
	TommyJohn.com/slash Hannity.
	You get 20% off your first order.
	TommyJohn.com/slash Hannity, 20% off.
	That's TommyJohn.com/slash Hannity.
	So, in light of all of this, let me tell you, there's a couple of stories today.
	One is a female congressional staffer say that Capitol Hill has a creep list.
	Wow.
	But I want to say, I got a tape I'm going to play you at the bottom of this half hour, right after the news.
	You know, and why does so many men get the idea that they could get away with sexual harassment, sexual assault, or worse?
	Where did this all begin in our lifetime?
	You know, the actual John Podhoritz, not exactly my biggest fan, points the finger at the world's most famous sexual predator who indulged in everything from indecent exposure, Paula Jones, to the Oval Office, Monica Lewinsky, and then the allegations by Juanita Broderick of rape.
	And thanks to all his adoring liberal fans, well, guess what?
	Many of them female, Bill Clinton got away with all of it.
	Now, this is a time of reckoning, and now most people are beginning to say, wow, all these Democrats that stand in their sanctimony, self-righteousness, et cetera, et cetera, how many of them defended?
	Wait, do you hear what I'm going to play at the bottom of the hour?
	And that is the New York Times published an op-ed this week.
	I believe Juanita thus accepting the most incentive, he was charged with rape.
	That was in the New York Times this week.
	Now, this one was not about propositioning.
	This was not about, you know, showing, dropping his pants or having affairs with Jennifer Flowers or consensual sex or groping, grabbing, fondling, kissing against her will, Kathleen Willie, although that was close.
	New York Times, Michelle Goldberg, said she believed Juanita Broderick, who said that Clinton violently raped her in 1978.
	This was in the New York Times.
	And it was painful, she acknowledged, to bring these matters up because she didn't want it to appear that she'd somehow surrendered to a right-wing lynch mob.
	Way do you hear the tapes we've got?
	And when you put it through the prism of what we discuss every day, it's going to be enlightening to you.
	That's next.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
	The president takes some questions.
	We'll probably dip in and out of that in a second here.
	So here you have now the New York Times publishing an op-ed, I believe Juanita.
	I want you to just take this in through the prism of how the Clintons have been revered for all of these years.
	And I brought some of this up yesterday, how they have been defended all of these years.
	You can start.
	You can go back to the National Enquirer when Jennifer Flowers talked about the affair that they had.
	By the way, he eventually admitted that, well, it was only one time under oath in the Monica Lewinsky case.
	But for the interim period, all those years, they referred to her as a liar.
	That's what they did with Jennifer Flowers.
	And then, of course, you have the case of Paula Jones.
	Paula Jones was paid out a massive sum of money.
	He lost his law license as a result, and he was impeached as a result against all of the Democrats that all surrounded the wagons and defended Bill Clinton on the issue of Monica Lewinsky.
	Okay, you could say it was consensual.
	Is that not a position of power?
	She's an intern, 20, whatever years old.
	You know, is that not similar to what we're talking about today in that sense?
	The question I'm asking Roy Moore about, and I'm not, listen, I'm just, I am making a point about a double standard.
	And how did we get here?
	And can you thank Bill Clinton for the fact that, you know, people thought they can get away with sexual harassment as long as you have the right political point of view.
	This is a pretty, this is a watershed moment.
	I've got to give the New York Times some credit, although I got to say, also a little late to the game.
	But anyway, they, you know, it is, you know, when you go on to read this, the Times, Michelle Goldberg said she believed Juanita.
	Juanita Broderick claimed that she was raped by Bill Clinton.
	And I was the second interview with Juanita Broderick.
	And this one was not about Clinton propositioning women.
	This was not Jennifer Flowers, a consensual relationship.
	This was not, as we are told, Monica Lewinsky.
	In the case of Paula Jones, he had dropped his pants and said, you know, whatever, in front of somebody.
	I mean, we're all creeped out by Louis C.K. That's what we're talking about here, exposing oneself to a woman.
	So it was painful.
	She said, well, she didn't want to surrender to the right-wing lynch mob.
	I guess she's admitting that conservatives, I don't call conservatives right-wing lynch mobs, that they told the truth.
	And what's more is Goldberg said that liberals were right to be skeptical of women's claims against Clinton during his presidency due to the right-wing campaign to delegitimize him.
	In this environment, it would have been absurd to take accusations of assault and harassment made against Clinton at face value.
	These women withstood more smears, more slander, more besmirchment, more character assassination.
	And in many ways, they took more than anybody that I've ever said.
	Now, in that sense, for them to speak up and go through what they went through, and it was done by Clinton's team.
	It was done by all of those around him.
	He was enabled by Hillary Clinton himself.
	And I'm not even talking about Hillary Clinton taking money from countries that abuse women, practice Sharia, kill gays and lesbians, people that persecute Christians and Jews.
	Anyway, so she said she cannot keep herself from seeing the truth that was evidenced during the Clinton presidency to anyone with eyes to see.
	Bill Clinton was a sexual reprobate whose ascension to the Democratic nomination after the revelation of his relationship with Jennifer Flowers during the primary was a hinge moment in American history.
	No one before him would have survived it.
	He did by denying it.
	Hotley was saved by the flames of all this by Hillary Clinton.
	And she sat there on 60 Minutes, supported him, even as she said she wasn't the type of woman who just stand by her man.
	Remember that infamous interview?
	1998, when the news of the liaison with Lewinsky became public, she did it again.
	They did it again.
	Bill said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman.
	That woman.
	Monty Lewin.
	I'm going to get back to your job of the American people.
	Hillary goes on the Today Show and talks about a vast right-wing conspiracy.
	Now, in that sense, how does this impact where we are today?
	Now, I do think people can make charges later.
	I've said that since day one with this issue of Roy Moore.
	I do think that people could be so traumatized by the evil of an assault.
	Yeah, I do think that that can happen.
	I've said from the beginning that I only want the truth.
	And I guess, you know, if, you know, and this is where these October surprises I was talking about become so difficult for everybody.
	You know, you have a story, the Daily Caller, in January of 2013.
	Well, the Democratic media mounted a full core press to spread the allegations that, you know, on Roy Moore here, et cetera, et cetera.
	But not only do court documents, you know, filed by the Obama Justice Department, you know, they actually claim that Senator Bob Menendez had sex with underage Dominican prostitutes.
	Those same documents say Menendez's encounters with these underage girls have been, quote, corroborated by federal investigators.
	Reading from the Daily Caller in January 2013.
	Now we have a report where one woman who says she was 16 when Menendez first had sex with her actually gives her firsthand account of what happened.
	Anyone going to ask Chuck Schumer about that today?
	Anybody?
	Then you have these groups like, you know, Media Matters defending Robert Menendez.
	Let me go back to that line.
	Quote, it says, the Obama Justice Department contained, they claims that he had this sex with these underage Dominican prostitutes.
	Same documents say Menendez' encounters with these underage girls have been, quote, corroborated by federal investigators.
	He's on trial now, as we all know.
	Senator also likes the youngest and newest girls.
	The woman wrote on April 21st, 2012, according to an English translation provided to the Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker.
	Little noticed email published online by the group crew, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, that this woman wrote nine months ago that she had slept with Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by this doctor guy that's involved in this whole thing, this mess.
	You get where I'm going?
	I want to just go back.
	And this is what, you know, with all these October surprises, this is what now the people of Alabama with an October surprise have to sort through and try to get to the truth.
	And that's why I'm saying that it is, you know, for anybody looking on the outside, you want to be sensitive.
	Obviously, if anybody is guilty of something that he's being charged, you never want somebody like that.
	They should be in jail if you offend a child like this or abuse a child like that.
	I'm not talking about statute of limitations.
	I'm talking about just truth.
	On the other hand, you know, these October surprises, they pop up a little too often.
	Anyway, so they're going to explain it later today.
	And at the end of the day, it's going to be the people of Alabama, as it should be.
	And all these people in Washington that, well, I didn't hear the same criticism of Menendez.
	I didn't hear any criticism of Clinton coming out of these Democrats.
	Just listen to what we put together for you.
	woman sleeps with your husband, you're not going to necessarily embrace them.
	I wonder why she didn't have, that's why when he brought up this, these allegations, I wonder if she missed the opportunity to address it in a way that the public would understand that that's just not how you behave.
	She's a bigot.
	I would like to apologize to those tramps that have slept with my husband.
	Maybe she could have said that.
	Her husband's affair or affairs, alleged affairs.
	He's going right for the jugular when it comes to Hillary Clinton and going after Bill Clinton and alleged misconduct with women.
	Last night, Trump fired a shot squarely at Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton.
	In one case, it's about exposure.
	In another case, it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will and rape and rape.
	Donald Trump using that word unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News' Sean Hannity, bringing up a discredited and long-denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton, dating back to 1978 when he was Arkansas Attorney General.
	I'm not going to let you all continue to say that she allowed him.
	She doesn't.
	Wait, no, she didn't.
	How did she facilitate?
	What's she wanting to see what I'm saying?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Because that's rape culture, Kenny.
	You're blaming someone who succumbed to it.
	Someone committing adultery on her.
	We're Christians, so let's talk about what that is.
	She was accused of facilitating it last night, and she was dehydrated.
	And you're wrong.
	She did not deny it.
	But you know why?
	Because it's effing ridiculous, dude.
	It's so ridiculous.
	That's crazy.
	Do you think Donald Trump used you as a political prop today?
	No.
	You don't think that is there to scare Hillary Clinton?
	Their presence at the debate, seen as a political stunt and distraction by top Clinton campaign officials.
	Do you worry you're being used as a distraction by Donald Trump to change the conversation?
	No, not.
	The rape accusation is decades old and discredited.
	They were referring to a trio of women who say Bill Clinton made unwanted sexual advances in the 80s and 90s.
	Mr. Clinton denies it.
	Two of the cases were plagued by factual discrepancies.
	The issue of Bill Clinton's past is that fair game?
	And it would be if he were running for president, but he isn't.
	Hillary Clinton is running for president.
	But he's a chief surrogate for her.
	So what do you do now that Trump has opened this up?
	Well, I think that you stick with what is important to the American people.
	And what is important to American people is their financial stability.
	That's what this election should be about, not about what Bill Clinton did two decades ago.
	She was not implicated in any misconduct.
	She was not someone who was accused even of doing anything untoward with regard to these women.
	I mean, there have been that Donald Trump is raising the specter of misconduct.
	I mean, there is just not even an allegation.
	There are allegations by the women.
	I mean, the women say that they felt intimidated by her.
	There's no evidence of that, but Juanita Broderick says that, you know, she gave her sort of side glance and shook her hand too long and lingered and said something in a coded way.
	Juanita Broderick, by the way, another matter investigated by Ken Starr, the alleged sexual misconduct of Bill Clinton with regard to Juanita Broderick, which he did not decide to bring any charges from.
	In your book, the three women brought onto stage by Trump attacking your husband, and you kind of dismissed them.
	Was that the right thing to do?
	Are you sure about that?
	Well, yes, because that had all been litigated.
	I mean, that was the subject of a huge investigation, as you might recall, in the late 90s.
	And there were conclusions drawn, and that was clearly in the past.
	The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.
	Yeah.
	Well, now the New York Times looks at it.
	You know, so when people politicize these types of things at this point, I just think, and I said this at the beginning of this whole thing, as it related to the charges, but more is it, we've got to wait for the evidence to come in, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
	So I said last night, all right, give me some.
	I want these questions answered because it's too serious.
	And they are going to give answers today.
	And you know what the bottom line here at this is when you're balancing October surprises, believability of women, the desire to get to the truth.
	You know, now this is what the people of Alabama have to face.
	And it really is going to be their decision at the end of the day.
	But, you know, the fact that liberals who defended the indefensible all these years are lecturing everybody about, oh, their sanctimony and they have the high road.
	Baloney, they just voted for a woman that defended somebody she knew had to be guilty.
	She knew.
	And she took money from countries that abuse women.
	It's unbelievable.
	It's unbelievable.
	I trust the people of Alabama.
	They're going to have some more time to sort through this.
	And I hope and pray we get to the truth for their sake and the country's sake.
	And that's my position.
	It's going to be up to them.
	Quite a lot coming up, Sean Hannity's show.
	We shall check in with Congressman Jim Jordan.
	He's the one that had the shootout with Attorney General Sessions yesterday.
	He'll join us.
	Also, Congressman Biggs will join us.
	Later on, we got analysis on Uranium One, an update on fusion GPS, and we got an update today.
	Investigative reporter Luke Roziak will join us as it relates to Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	We have an amazing Hannity about Democratic hypocrisy tonight.
	I'm telling you, wait till you hear it and see it.
	Thanks.
	Do the FBI pay Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier?
	Those are matters you'll have to direct to the, I think maybe the special counsel.
	And why is that?
	I'm just asking if someone...
	Well, I'm not able to reveal internal investigatory matters here that's under the investigation of anybody, but particularly, I think...
	This happened in the summer of 2016.
	We know the Clinton campaign, the Democrat National Committee paid through a law firm, Fusion GPS, to produce the dossier.
	We know the author was Christopher Steele.
	It's been reported that he was on the payroll of the FBI.
	I'm just wanting to know if, in fact, that is the case.
	I'm not able to provide an answer to you.
	Did the FBI present the dossier to the FISA court?
	I'm not able to answer that.
	Do you know if the FBI did the established process protocol in evaluating claims made in the dossier?
	I'm not able to answer that.
	On January 6th, then FBI Director James Comey briefed President-elect Trump up in New York about the dossier.
	Shortly thereafter, the fact that that meeting took place and the subject of the meeting was the dossier was leaked to CNN.
	Do you know who leaked that information?
	I do not.
	Are you investigating who leaked that information?
	That would be a matter within the investigatory powers of the special counsel.
	You said you got a number of investigations going on, Mr. Attorney General, regarding leaks.
	Is that likely one of those that you're investigating?
	I'm not able to reveal the existence of investigations or not.
	But my concern is we sent you a letter three and a half months ago asking for a second special counsel.
	And if you're now just considering it, what's it going to take to get a special counsel?
	We know that former FBI Director James Comey misled the American people in the summer of 2016 when he called the Clinton investigation a matter.
	It's obviously an investigation.
	We know FBI Director Comey was drafting an exoneration letter before the investigation was complete.
	We know Loretta Lynch, one day before the Benghazi report came out, five days before Secretary Clinton was scheduled to be interviewed by the FBI, met with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix.
	What's it going to take to actually get a special counsel?
	It would take a factual basis that meets the standards of the appointment of a special counsel.
	And is that analysis going on right now?
	Well, it's in the manual of the Department of Justice about what's required.
	We've only had two.
	The first one was the Waco, Janet Reno, Senator Danforth, who took over that investigation, as special counsel, and Mr. Mueller.
	Each of those are pretty special, factual situations.
	Let me ask it this way.
	And we will use the proper standards, and that's what I only think I can tell you, Mr. Jordan.
	Well, I appreciate that.
	You can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standard special counsel.
	Well, we know one fact.
	We know the Clinton campaign, the Democrat National Committee paid for, through the law firm, paid for the dossier.
	We know that happened.
	And it sure looks like the FBI was paying the author of that document.
	And it sure looks like a major political party was working with the federal government to then turn an opposition research document, the equivalent of some national inquirer story, into an intelligence document, take that to the FISA court so that they could then get a warrant to spy on Americans associated with President Trump's campaign.
	That's what it looks like.
	And I'm asking you, doesn't that warrant, in addition to all the things we know about James Comey in 2016, doesn't that warrant naming a second special counsel, as 20 members of this committee wrote you three and a half months ago asking you to do?
	Well, Mr. Comey is no longer the director of the FBI.
	Thank goodness.
	We have an excellent man of integrity and ability and Chris Wray, and I think he's going to do an outstanding job.
	And I'm very happy.
	He's not here today, Attorney General.
	I'm R, and I'm asking for a special counsel.
	I would say it looks like there's not enough basis to appoint a special counsel.
	All right, that's from yesterday's hearing.
	Congressman Jim Jordan is going to join us in a minute to discuss that exchange with the Attorney General.
	Joining us now, though, in the meantime, is Congressman Andy Biggs is with us.
	Andy, how are you?
	Welcome back to the program.
	What did you think of that exchange?
	Well, I think that, first of all, thanks for having me.
	But I think that I was a little bit disappointed because I think what Jim Jordan was talking about when he said it looks like this, it looks like that.
	What he was doing is he was laying out the factual basis for probable cause of a crime or multiple crimes that have been committed.
	And if that is the case, which I think it is, then the Attorney General at that point, when he says, well, we're going to look at it on the factual basis, well, you've had it for months and months and months.
	You should be appointing a special counsel.
	That's the position I took yesterday when I heard that.
	That's why my questioning went the way it did.
	And I didn't get that from Attorney General Sessions, who I think is a good man, but here he can't defer to his second in command, who is Rod Rosenstein, for Pete's sakes.
	He can't do that.
	He has got to make the tough decision.
	That tough decision is we need a special counsel to investigate this whole series, this litany of corruption.
	And what I've said is the scandal of our time.
	He needs to appoint someone.
	Well, listen, I think so too.
	But I'm also being told, and I'm kind of getting very strong feedback that, in fact, there is an ongoing investigation, that he never recused himself from Uranium 1 or the whole issue as it involves fusion GPS.
	And he was asked specifically yesterday by John Conyers, you know, about the issue of whether he's recused himself of the investigations involving Hillary.
	He said he couldn't answer that.
	He said he didn't recall talking about George Papadopoulos, by the way.
	He said he can't answer if recusal impacts investigation into fusion GPS or Uranium One.
	The man that was questioning him so in a tough way yesterday is Jim Jordan of Ohio, Freedom Caucus, of course.
	How are you, sir?
	I'm doing fine, Sean.
	Good to be with you.
	All right, let's talk about what did you think of those answers?
	Well, I mean, I think maybe the most telling part was when Matt Gates asked him a few questions, too, in particular.
	He said, are you recused from the Uranium One issue?
	And he said no.
	And then later in that five minutes, he was asked the same question.
	He says, I don't know.
	So that's the point.
	We don't know what Jeff Sessions is recused from, what he isn't.
	We do know Bob Mueller is inherently compromised on the Uranium One issue.
	So I would prefer we didn't have to name a special counsel.
	But I don't see how you can avoid it.
	Logic says if the Attorney General doesn't know what he's recused from or what he isn't, and if Bob Mueller is inherently compromised, we're not going to get the answers to all those things Andy just talked about unless we have a special counsel.
	And if it's someone with inside the department, right now, no one will believe what those investigations produce because, oh, did Jeff Sessions appoint this guy?
	Or was it a career person?
	So the only way to get this done, and I think done in a way that Americans will accept the verdict or accept the findings of the investigation, is to have a special counsel.
	Well, I agree with you on the special counsel.
	I've been calling for it for a long time.
	What if it does turn out?
	And I mean, you know, here's the difficulty when you interviewed Jeff Sessions.
	I mean, okay, he said, and then he clarified his remarks, as you know, after the exchange that he had with you, is that he was just talking about what the standard for a special counsel, which means that he hasn't decided if a special counsel is going to be necessary.
	I'm also hearing a lot of rumors that there's going to be dramatic changes at the FBI in the next week or so.
	So that should be interesting.
	But more importantly, you know, if he's sitting there knowing that there's an investigation into fusion GPS, Russian interference as it relates to Hillary or Uranium One, he can't tell you that.
	Yeah, but, well, maybe that's the case, but that was not the impression we got.
	The impression we got is the facts have to be there to one as special counsel.
	And I would come back to, how about these facts?
	How about the fact that the Democrat National Committee and the Clinton campaign were paying for the dossier, and at the same time, it sure looks like the FBI was paying Christopher Steele, the author of that dossier, and it was taken, we believe, to the FISA court to a federal judge, and it was the basis for spying on people associated with the Trump campaign.
	How about that?
	If that's not a fact haven, if everything points to that took place, we don't know for certain, but it sure looks like that's what happened.
	If that's not factual enough information to say we have to look at this and it requires a special counsel, I do not know what does.
	I do not know what does.
	And that's what we were trying to get at yesterday.
	It's what Andy was trying to get at, Mr. DeSanas, and all of us who've called for this.
	Yeah, well, I agree on so many fronts, but so much has happened.
	So much has gone on.
	And every time the Clintons skate, Congressman Jordan, every time.
	I don't think, you know, at this point in time, here we've spent a year investigating Trump-Russia collusion.
	Now we know Hillary and the DNC funded this phony dossier full of Russian lies and propaganda and salacious misinformation to influence our election.
	And then she says, well, there's a difference between op research and collusion.
	Meanwhile, that's the very thing they were accusing Donald Trump of.
	And yet we don't see the investigation on the other side.
	And people like me, and obviously you are getting frustrated.
	No, Kennedy, you said it, Beth, Sean.
	You said this last night on your show.
	You said it there, too.
	They were doing the very thing that they're accusing us of.
	And frankly, that shouldn't surprise us.
	This is how the left operates.
	Again, all the more reason why we need someone from the outside that everyone respects who can come in here and objectively investigate.
	We're going to continue to investigate in Congress.
	We're going to do everything we can to uncover everything, but we need a special counsel.
	That's obvious.
	Let's make it happen.
	Let's move on.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	And let me go to you, Congressman Biggs.
	You know, Congress has to get a response when they ask for a special counsel.
	Isn't that the standard operating procedure?
	Yeah, that would be normal.
	That's right.
	Okay.
	Say yes or no.
	All right, but so three and a half months ago, the first request went in.
	Yeah.
	Okay, and now you get these answers yesterday, which is, well, I can't talk about if there's an investigation.
	I'm not sure this rises to the standard of a special counsel.
	There's certain criteria that it's got to meet.
	What's your reaction to that answer?
	Well, I think it's inadequate.
	I mean, and you couple that, Sean, with the fact that the day before the hearing, we got a letter from the Attorney General saying that, well, we'll consider it.
	That's pretty weak.
	And then when he talks about who's going to be involved in considering it, he's referring to Rob Rosenstein.
	And so we have the same people who have the same conflicts as in the Mueller incident.
	We have this going on over here.
	It's, in my opinion, it's woefully inadequate.
	Woefully inadequate.
	Yeah, well, I mean, it's really this simple.
	We know Killery mishandled classified information.
	We know that that information was picked up by five foreign entities and intelligence agencies.
	Then we know that she destroyed classified top-secret special access information.
	These were subpoenaed emails, and then she just destroys them, deletes them, acid washes, bleach bits them, and bashes up devices with hammers.
	That, to me, is a classic case of obstruction, and I don't think I would not be in jail over that.
	Would I be in jail over that?
	Yes, you would, and so would I, and so would most every other American.
	But for some reason, people just jump on and protect the Clintons, and that's what we have said.
	Look, we just want a fair and objective investigation, and we haven't had it.
	The Clintons haven't had it.
	Evidence keeps coming out.
	We've adduced all kinds of evidence indicating both obstruction on the part of Hillary Clinton and the election collusion everybody's talking about with Russia.
	It turns out it's with these guys, the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign, and we want that to be investigated.
	That isn't too much to ask in a free society that honors and reveres the rule of law, I don't think.
	All right.
	Now, let me ask about James Comey in particular.
	I mean, and Robert Mueller, Jim Jordan.
	Robert Mueller was the FBI director in 2009.
	He knew that Vladimir Putin was trying to get a foothold into the uranium market in America.
	We know that his agents in America were involved in bribery, kickbacks, money laundering, extortion, and other racketeering crimes.
	And they knew in 2009.
	And we have an informant that was on the inside asked by the FBI to stay there.
	So we have first-hand account.
	We have documents, emails, and tapes.
	And with all of that information acquired, knowing this is happening, why would anybody sign off on giving away 20% of our uranium when we don't have enough uranium in the country?
	We have to import it anyway.
	Exactly right, Sean.
	It's been also reported that he didn't share that knowledge you just went through with any.
	He didn't share it with Congress.
	He didn't share it with the American people.
	But probably most importantly, it's been reported that it was not shared with the committee, this Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, made up of folks from federal agencies, several federal agencies.
	He didn't share that information with them.
	You got an informant giving you all this kind of information at a time when there's this uranium-one deal that's moving forward, and there's a committee who decides whether the deal happens or not, and you don't share the information with them.
	Why didn't you share that information?
	And now we have an informant who, and the informant who gave him all this was put under a gag order.
	Again, how can Robert Mueller, that special counsel, look into that situation?
	He was part of the whole deal, part of the investigation at the time.
	So, again, just underscoring why we need a separate special counsel to look at that issue in conjunction with everything else involving Mr. Comey.
	All right, we'll take a break.
	We'll come back more with Congressman Andy Biggs and Jim Jordan.
	Well, take it this way: well, back in 2010, yes, your federal government took over the student loan industry.
	Well, guess what happens?
	Wouldn't you know it?
	Student loan debt explodes.
	In fact, there's over 44.2 million Americans today that have student loans, and it totals over $1.3 trillion.
	To tell you how big this is, as we continue, Congressman Jim Jordan is with us.
	Congressman Andy Biggs is with us.
	You know, as it relates to Mueller, let me just dig a little bit deeper into all of this.
	If he's involved himself in knowing all of this about Putin and Russia and their desire to get a hold of uranium and they didn't do anything about it, and might himself, if there ever is an investigation, have to answer questions himself.
	Does that warrant a recusal of him in any way, shape, or form, Congressman Andy Biggs?
	Yes, it does, Sean.
	In fact, the federal statutes are very explicit that you cannot conduct an investigation if you're either the subject of the investigation, which Mr. Mueller would be, or if you're a witness in the investigated issue, which he would be, or if you're affiliated or related to anybody that would be there, which he would be because it was his agency that he was overseeing.
	So, yeah, he has conflict in bright neon lights.
	And so, yesterday, when I asked, I asked Attorney General Sessions, you know, do you even have a formal system to evaluate conflicts of interest?
	He said, no, there is not one in the Department of Justice.
	And I said, well, how do we determine then?
	Who determines it?
	He says, the individual attorney.
	So are you telling me that Mr. Mueller, it's all up to Mr. Mueller to determine whether he has a conflict of interest?
	That's a problem.
	That's a real problem.
	And that isn't the way it's done in private practice.
	I can tell you that.
	So I was very disappointed by that.
	All right, guys, I got to let you both go.
	I appreciate it.
	Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs.
	800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	What are you doing to find out how the Russian takeover of the American uranium was allowed to occur despite criminal conduct by the Russian company that the Obama administration approved to make the purchase?
	Mr. Chairman, we will hear your concerns.
	The Department of Justice will take such actions as is appropriate, I know.
	And I would offer that some people have gone to jail in that transaction already, but the article talks about other issues.
	So without confirming or denying the existence of any particular investigation, I would say I hear your concerns and they will be reviewed.
	I think I know why you're probably reluctant to go into some detail on that, but I would like to remind you that Deputy Attorney Rosenstein directly supervised the criminal case when he was U.S. Attorney in Maryland.
	I don't think it would be proper for him to supervise a review of his own conduct.
	Do you?
	It would be his decision.
	He's a man of integrity and ability.
	If he feels that he has an inability to proceed with any investigation, it would be his responsibility to make that determination and should consult, as I told you I would, and as I have done, with the senior ethics people at the department.
	Reports suggest that the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars from interested parties in the transaction.
	Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow, June 2010, from the Russian Government Aligned Bank.
	The same month as a speech, Russia began the uranium acquisition process.
	This fact pattern raises serious concerns about improper political influence by the Clintons during the Obama administration.
	Has the Justice Department fully investigated whether the Russians compromised the Obama administration's decisions to smooth the way for transactions?
	And if not, why not?
	Mr. Chairman, we're working hard to maintain discipline in the department.
	It wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on any ongoing investigation.
	Mr. Attorney General, does your recusal from investigations related to the interference by Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign apply to any investigations regarding efforts by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to secretly fund a scurrilous and widely discredited dossier on candidate Donald Trump?
	Mr. Chabot, anything that arises in this nature that may be or may not be connected to my recusal on the question of the campaign in Russia would be discussed between me, the senior ethics advisor at the Department of Justice, and that's how I make my decision.
	That's what I promised to do when I was confirmed before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that's what I will do.
	And I'm unable to provide information to you as to what decision has been made in this matter.
	All right, 24 now till the top of the hour.
	That, of course, Jeff Sessions back in October with Senator Grassley, and that was him yesterday talking about whether or not recusal took place, among other things.
	The question is, what is the Attorney General doing?
	My sources have told me that he has not recused himself from issues like Uranium One, and investigations are ongoing.
	Joining us now is Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett.
	Greg, welcome back to the program.
	Look, we heard his answer, the exchange yesterday with Jim Jordan, the congressman from Ohio, and it was pretty testy, and that was on the issue of a special counsel.
	On the issue of whether or not there's investigation, that's a whole different issue because he wouldn't be able to comment on an investigation taking place.
	My interpretation, that also includes sources of mine, makes me conclude that there has been and is an investigation ongoing.
	Well, I think your sources are correct.
	And indeed, on Monday evening, just before his Tuesday testimony, he did finally, belatedly, three and a half months later, respond to the House Judiciary Committee's request for a special counsel.
	And he said that he had directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate whether there's a special counsel needed.
	So he's dancing on a very fine line here between his confirmation recusal and actually being involved in the decision-making and overseeing an investigation.
	I think there is one.
	It's pretty clear there is one.
	And he may be relying on those senior federal prosecutors to make a decision for him as to whether a special counsel is needed.
	You know, as you and I have talked about, it's a no-brainer.
	There is a plethora of compelling evidence that Hillary Clinton appears to have used her office to confer a benefit to the Russian government in exchange for money.
	And that would be, you know, bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and probably racketeering.
	Let's go through the specifics, because one of the things that I love when you do your columns is you take the evidence of what we're looking at and the things that we know and the facts that we know, and then you sort of marry it together with whatever the laws that would be applicable in that case happen to be.
	Let's stay on Uranium One for a minute.
	I guess if we start at the beginning, now we know that there was an FBI informant that had infiltrated this network that clearly Vladimir Putin had set up in America to get a foothold in the uranium market.
	And that's where the FBI informant discovered bribery and kickbacks and extortion and money laundering and a bunch of other racketeering issues.
	That was in 2009.
	Robert Mueller was the FBI director.
	Eric Holder was the attorney general.
	This guy stayed in there at the request of the FBI for four plus years.
	He accumulates his own eyewitness testimony because he's on the inside.
	He has documents.
	He has emails and he has tape recordings, we're told.
	And so all of this now is going to come out because he's been under a gag order.
	Walk us through how we would ever sell or allow anyone to have any control over 20% of our uranium, knowing these are Vladimir Putin actors that are involved in this effort to do it.
	Why would we ever do that?
	Well, there's two answers to that, stupidity and corruption.
	Stupidity would be on the part of President Obama and the Obama administration to think that it was a good idea to sell the fundamental elements of nuclear bombs to your enemy, which already has 1,200 strategic nuclear missiles aimed at the United States.
	So, I mean, that's just plain dumb.
	But it's the whole kumbaya, President Obama method of dealing with foreign adversaries.
	The corruption part would be Hillary Clinton's involvement, pay-to-play scheme, which, as I mentioned, violates all kinds of anti-corruption statutes.
	But it also involves the cover-up to which you just alluded.
	You're talking about three or four people who knew about this within law enforcement.
	Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew Weissman.
	And they never told Congress what they knew, that they knew of the illegality by the Russians to secure the deal.
	They had a legal duty to tell Congress.
	Congress, had they known, would have stopped it.
	And I'm not sure they told all the members of the Scythius committee, even though Eric Holder sat on the committee, and he is the fourth person who knew.
	And yet they all hushed it up.
	That strikes me as a cover-up.
	It's clearly wrongful behavior.
	And that is one of the reasons why Mueller and Rosenstein and Weissman, all of whom are now involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, must recuse themselves.
	But it's not happening.
	Because there's nobody to force them.
	Although Paul Manafort's attorneys can file a motion now that they have legal standing, having been indicted, to argue to the judge that Mueller's appointment was unlawful and therefore he ought to be removed and the indictment set aside.
	I wonder in the end, is that good or bad for everybody involved in this, considering that would probably be a reset and then we just start all over again.
	And who wants to put the country through this again?
	Well, you make a strong argument because so far it appears that there is no evidence that touches Donald Trump.
	Wasn't that what?
	I mean, though, that raises another question.
	I mean, you look at the Manafort indictment.
	What does that have to do with Trump-Russia collusion?
	Nothing.
	Zero.
	Nothing to do with Russia.
	No, it all deals with basically tax fraud and his businesses that predate his involvement with President Trump.
	So you're right about that.
	Although, you know, you do wonder about people like Papadopoulos, which nobody had ever really heard of.
	I'm not sure the president remembered that he sat on a council that met once.
	But it's interesting.
	Papadopoulos was only charged with lying to the FBI, not charged with collusion.
	Why?
	Because his meetings with Russians violate no laws.
	So, you know, it reminds me a little bit of Patrick Fitzgerald, you know, spends all this time, what, three years, and the only thing he came up with was Scooter Libby.
	And yet, when he first took the position, he was looking into who was the leaker in terms of the Valerie Playmiss issue.
	And, number one, she wasn't even a covert agent, but number two, he found out on day one that the leaker was Richard Armitage.
	Now, in my mind, that was the express reason for the special prosecutor in that case.
	And I don't know why he didn't close his doors, close up shop, and say, okay, we got the leaker, we know who it is, and move on from there.
	That never happens.
	Right.
	And the interesting thing about the special counsel statute is that if the special counsel finds evidence of unchargeable wrongdoing, he's not even allowed to talk about it.
	He can only reveal and talk about chargeable crimes.
	So, in the Scooter Libby case, that's all he could ever talk about.
	And nobody ever found out about Dick Armitage until later.
	And, you know, this is.
	After it's all said and done, he knew from day one.
	And then, you know, this is the thing that I worry about for people that go before, you know, grand juries or they talk to the FBI.
	And I know I don't have a perfect memory.
	I would have to scan my memory deeply.
	And I don't even think I could tell you who was on my TV show last Thursday night if you asked me.
	I honestly could not give you an honest answer.
	Now, if you want how the statistics on how Ronald Reagan, you know, what he did for the economy and peace through strength and tear down this wall, I can give you chapter and verse.
	But I mean, you know, to ask somebody three years later, and let's say they don't remember it 100% accurately, then you charge them with perjury.
	That becomes, in my mind, a perjury trap.
	It is, and it's been abused by the federal government and especially the FBI.
	Look, if somebody's memory is different about a conversation than how the FBI interprets the conversation, that's not a crime.
	It never should be.
	And yet, the FBI uses that all the time to either bring frivolous prosecutions or they do it to try to gain leverage to get somebody to flip.
	It's reprehensible and it's illegal, but the FBI does it all the time.
	And as we continue, Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett is with us.
	All right, let me ask, though, we talked about Uranium One.
	What about the fusion GPS dossier?
	I mean, is it possible that the Hillary Clinton DNC bought and paid for salacious lies on Donald Trump?
	Is it possible that that was used as the pretense to go to a FISA court and get surveillance on Donald Trump, the opposition candidate, either candidate Trump or President-elect Trump?
	And what would that mean if that was the case?
	I mean, basically, bought and paid for Hillary lies, opens up wide open surveillance against her opponent.
	If Comey knew that the dossier upon which he relied to get the FISA warrant was not valid, then he has committed a crime.
	That needs to be part of a second special counsel investigation, as the House Judiciary Committee has demanded.
	And then, of course, the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, paying money to a foreign national to gain this information in a political campaign, that's a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
	And clearly, they didn't account for it in their financial disclosure forms.
	That is also a crime.
	So the DNC and Hillary Clinton could be charged with two crimes there, not to mention Comey's alleged criminal activity.
	Where do we stand as it relates even to the email server scandal?
	Because, I mean, on all three, Uranium One, the Fusion GPS dossier, and on the email server scandal, you have identified multiple, multiple felonies.
	Would this be under the heading of one special counsel, two special counsels?
	Is there any way that we can, is there any statute of limitations issues at this point?
	No, there are no statute limitations that we're coming up against.
	And the House Judiciary Committee, when they sent their July 27th letter demanding the special counsel, laid it out pretty nicely.
	I reviewed it again last night.
	And insofar as the email scandal is concerned, the committee has asked that the special counsel reopen that case to determine whether Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director Comey obstructed justice in an effort to exonerate Clinton.
	And the exoneration letter that he penned two months before he ever interviewed her is damning evidence of that.
	All right, Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, thank you for being with us.
	We appreciate all your expertise on all this.
	We've got a lot more to cover here.
	We are expecting momentarily Roy Moore as an attorney, I understand it, is going to be given a press conference.
	We'll find out what that is all about.
	I assume it's to address the issues involving what Gloria Allred, the fifth accuser, and we'll see what they have to say.
	And we'll also get to your calls, 800-941 Sean is our number.
	We go to Alabama now where Bill Armistead is the campaign chairman for Roy Moore and Roy Moore's attorney are now just beginning a press conference.
	As you know, Judge Moore has been falsely accused of things that he did not do 40 years ago.
	This is a campaign, so you can expect most anything to come out.
	But, you know, we can't just stand by idly and let false charges go without some answering.
	We've had a lot of people tell us different things about some of these stories, and we're checking them all out.
	But one thing I can tell you is we do have some information that we're going to share with you today, and we know that you're going to share it with those folks that you're communicating with about some of these charges.
	I am Bill Armistead, chairman of the campaign for Judge Moore, and I want to introduce to you Philip Jiragi, who coincidentally was chairman of Judge Moore's campaign for Chief Justice back in 2000.
	That's right.
	He's an attorney, and he's representing us in this case.
	And I'd like now to turn this over to Mr. Jiragi, and he'll make some comments.
	Thank you, Bill.
	Thank you, Philip.
	Appreciate y'all being here today.
	This is very important.
	Of course, there have been some serious, serious allegations, and we really appreciate the media and what you guys do to help get the word out and spread the truth.
	Just as an aside, I've known Judge Moore for 24 years.
	When these allegations came out within the last week, it was incredibly, incredibly painful for him, for his wife, his mom, his daughter, grandchildren.
	You know, in these types of cases, there's always someone who's alleging and the other person.
	And in those cases, when it's true, it's horrible for the person making the allegations.
	But when the allegations are made and it's not true, it's also horrible for the person who those allegations are directed against.
	Back in 2000, the Judge Moore asked me to be his campaign manager, campaign chairman, and it was one of the greatest honors and remains today and always will be one of the greatest honors of my life.
	During that time and afterwards, he asked me to be his attorney, and I was one of the attorneys that represented him in the Ten Commandments case.
	And as you know, there have been some other cases over the last 20 years.
	And I've traveled with Judge Moore all over the state, different states across the nation.
	I've been with him in probably over 100 different meetings and been around probably in excess of 10,000 different ladies in Judge Moore's presence.
	And not once, not one time, have I ever seen him act even remotely inappropriate against any woman toward any woman?
	Not when they were walking away, not when he and I were in private afterwards.
	That's the man that I know and that I've known for the last 24 years.
	Now, the allegations that have come out, I hope you understand it takes time to work through this.
	We don't have a $20 million budget as a campaign.
	It takes time, and we want to be correct.
	We want to make sure that when we say something, it's proper.
	Okay, so we're still working through some things, but there are some things that you need to know and that we want to make you aware of.
	During the press conference that Ms. Nelson and Gloria Allred had on Monday, they both said that Ms. Nelson, after the allegations, had never seen nor had any contact with Judge Moore.
	As it turns out, in 1999, Ms. Nelson filed a divorce action against her then-husband, Mr. Harris.
	Guess who that case was before?
	It was filed in Ettawa County, and the judge assigned was Roy S. Moore, circuit judge of Etawa County.
	There was contact.
	Judge Moore signed an order in that case as well, and we'll talk about that in a minute.
	We've also had a handwriting expert looking at the evidence that was submitted.
	You may remember on Monday, Ms. Nelson and Ms. Allred in support, really the only piece of evidence they had in addition to the allegations was a yearbook where they claimed that it had been signed.
	And they said very specifically, look back at what they said.
	Everything on that page they said was written by Judge Moore.
	Now, Judge Moore not only has denied everything she said before, but now flatly denies that.
	And he says it's not true.
	We have a handwriting expert, pardon me, that's looking at those.
	But here's the problem.
	A handwriting expert can't look at a copy on the internet, right?
	They've got to look at an original.
	So right now, Trenton Garmin, our attorney, has sent a letter or is sending a letter to Gloria Allred demanding that the yearbook be released.
	We'll send it to a neutral custodian who'll keep chain of custody, and our professional expert will examine it and we'll find out is it genuine or is it a fraud?
	There are a couple things also that you need to know.
	I'm not going to go into everything that's on that paper because again, we need to have our handwriting expert draw some conclusions.
	I'm not going to draw them today and I'm not going to make any allegations that we can't support with an expert.
	There are a couple things that you need to look at.
	Look at the 1977 after Merry Christmas.
	Look at those two sevens.
	And then look below at the 77.
	And I want to ask you, do you think it was written by the same person?
	I want you to look at old Hickory House, which they say Judge Moore wrote.
	Judge Moore says there's no way in the world that's his handwriting.
	And I want you to look at it.
	Look at some other writing of his and make your own determination.
	That's what our expert will be doing.
	But for now, I'm asking you all to take a look.
	Use your judgment.
	And then finally, after Judge Moore's signature, it has the initials capital D period, A period.
	Remember, I told you about that 99 divorce action.
	Judge Moore looked at that DA after his signature, which they allege was because he was the district attorney.
	Well, he wasn't.
	He was the assistant district attorney.
	But Judge Moore says he can't ever remember ever signing his name with DA after it, but he had seen it before.
	You know where he had seen it?
	When he was on the bench, his assistant, whose initials are capital D period, A period, Delborough Adams, would stamp his signature on documents and then put capital D period A period.
	That's exactly how the signature appears on the divorce decree that Judge Moore signed, dismissing the divorce action with Ms. Nelson.
	Knowing these things, I've got a question, Gloria Allred and Ms. Nelson.
	Do you still hold that everything written in that yearbook was written by Judge Moore or was it written by somebody else?
	That's not an allegation, it's a question.
	And finally, we demand that you immediately release the yearbook to a neutral custodian so that our expert, you can send your expert as well if you'd like to, so that our expert can look at it.
	Not a copy on the internet, the actual document so that we can see the lettering.
	We can see the ink on the page.
	We can see the indentations and we can see how old is that ink.
	Is it 40 years old or is it a week old?
	Release the yearbook so that we can determine is it genuine or is it a fraud?
	Thank you very much.
	Mr. Eggie, what do you say to the experts?
	I have some information that I'll be happy to pass out to you guys.
	We have, first of all, you've probably seen a lot of this on the internet.
	Please step up to the mic.
	You've probably seen a lot of this on the internet.
	These are copies of what was shown by Mrs. Allred.
	And I'll just let you all pass them out if that's okay.
	And also, what we have here is the copy of the divorce papers, not the entire thing.
	We show the cover page.
	And then what's so important is we show the final page, which has Judge Moore's signature on it with the DA.
	Sir, I have two quick questions.
	Are there any?
	I see we have the Roy Moore signature here and the DA, which was added by his assistant.
	The same DA initials that are written on the yearbook.
	Bill, does Judge Moore plan to testify under oath?
	And I'll be glad to start these on this side.
	It says this is a legal matter.
	The legal expert has spoken to me.
	Does Judge Moore say that he's not going to be able to do that?
	Thank you very much.
	Why is it a rich interview with Kennedy, sir?
	All right, there you have it.
	There was the campaign manager for Roy Moore, as well as the attorney for Roy Moore.
	The bottom line is that they went through a number of issues here.
	They want a handwriting expert to look at the actual yearbook.
	These were the questions that I said they had to answer.
	And they want that book.
	Gloria Allred will be getting a letter, and they are saying unequivocally it's not true.
	They are demanding the release so a professional can actually look at the letter and they won't draw a conclusion until their expert has a chance to do that, also encouraging the media to get their own experts on that.
	And Judge Roy Moore apparently had an assistant, her name's Deborah Adams, who would sign for him and put DA in the instances when they signed and that he wasn't the district attorney at that time.
	It was the ADA.
	And that's what they're saying at this particular point in time.
	Now, they did raise, I've seen all of this on the internet.
	I've seen an analysis of the sevens.
	One thing that any expert will be able to tell is, okay, was that ink old or new?
	Very simple.
	Find out in seconds.
	This is not going to be, that's not going to be hard forensic discovery.
	We actually brought on a, we have a forensic, I told you early in the program, I knew what was coming out today, but I, you know, because I had put this question out last night, because people don't need to know the truth.
	This is too serious, too serious a time.
	42 years, forensic document examiner specializing in handwriting.
	Carl Schaffenberger is with us, a certified document examiner.
	How are you, sir?
	42 years you've done this?
	Yes, sir.
	Am I right in saying you'd be able to tell if the ink is new or old?
	Well, that's really a specialty.
	This industry is becoming very specialized, and there is the person we call the ink guy.
	And that's not something that I would do.
	I would send it to him, but yes, that's something that can be done.
	Okay.
	And is it done with a fair amount of accuracy?
	For example, would you know if it's in the range of 40 years ago or say recently?
	Yes.
	If the issue was, was this done today or last week, I don't believe he could do that.
	But when you're talking 40 years, yes, that's something that could be done.
	Okay, let's talk about the sevens that were referred to, the two different versions of 7-7 on the document.
	I assume you've seen it at least on the internet.
	Is that true?
	I've just seen it on TV.
	I haven't had a real good look at it.
	I look at them and I've seen them on the internet.
	This isn't what I do, obviously.
	Can there be variations where you would know with 100% certainty if it was a forgery or accurate?
	Well, 100% certainty.
	I think so.
	But you have to remember also that this was allegedly written how many years ago?
	40 years ago?
	About 38, 40 years ago, somewhere in there, yeah.
	38 or 40 years ago.
	If I were to do this case, I would want contemporaneous standards.
	I wouldn't want to see his handwriting now.
	By the way, it was 40 years.
	It was 1977, so it's 40 years.
	Right.
	I would want to see contemporaneous standards for his writing.
	I would want to see how he wrote then.
	A person's handwriting will evolve over time, and standards that he wrote today or samples of his handwriting from today may not be helpful.
	You know, it's funny because over the course of my career, I've signed many books for people.
	And then, you know, by the time you start a book signing, three hours later, your signature is very different.
	But the bottom line is, you think that what they said today, is this something that you think that experts and professionals will get to the truth and the bottom of?
	That's what people, I think the people of Alabama deserve and need the truth.
	Will they be able to get to the bottom of it based on what you just heard?
	I believe so.
	I think if the powers that be are cooperative and give whatever expert is dealing with this case what they need, I absolutely think they could get to the bottom of this.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	By the way, 42 years.
	Wow.
	You must really be good at what you do.
	That's a long time.
	I think it's fascinating that you can, it's an art, it's a science, right?
	It's both an art and a science, yes.
	Yeah.
	Well, Carl, thank you for taking the time.
	We really appreciate it.
	800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity's show, 800-941-Sean.
	All right, if you missed it.
	Now, one other thing, if you didn't see this press conference by the attorney for Roy Moore and his campaign manager, one thing they pointed out that Gloria Allred and her client, Ms. Nelson, at this particular time, after the allegations, he said she had never had or had any contact with Roy Moore.
	And in fact, Roy Moore's people now claiming that, well, in fact, he was the judge and signed their divorce, a divorce that Ms. Nelson had had sometime in 1999.
	And they're now demanding a handwriting expert.
	And Judge Moore says it's not true.
	And they're demanding to look at the original copy of the yearbook.
	And this was the question I had yesterday.
	He said you never knew her, never met her, never.
	Okay, now there's two instances where there's contact.
	All right, so they address that.
	And now the second part, to me, this has now come down to simple science.
	Does anyone in there disagree?
	Because you're going to be able to tell, as we just had a forensic expert on handwriting, you're going to be able to tell if the ink is old or new.
	These handwriting experts, they are masterful.
	This guy, 42 years, and he's a forensic document examiner.
	This is what they do.
	Now, I look at it, and I've seen these things on the internet.
	I'm looking and I'm looking and I'm looking.
	I'm like, oh, I can see a little difference.
	What do I know?
	But they're going to be able to, as he said, he thinks it's 100% certainty that he is going to be able to ascertain the truth.
	And what did I say from day one?
	I said, the people of Alabama deserve the truth.
	I said, the people of Alabama deserve the truth.
	And ultimately, now, this is all going to be in their hands.
	And, you know, I will say one thing.
	It gets very arrogant for the people in Washington.
	or people in their comfortable studios in New York to make a determination for the people of Alabama.
	But I have great faith.
	I live there.
	Love the people of Alabama.
	I know some are asking, roll tide, war eagle.
	Wartime.
	Well, we'll talk about that another day.
	All right, we'll come back.
	Wide open phones.
	We'll get your reaction to all of this.
	We're going to take very fast calls next half hour of the program.
	800-941, Sean.
	We have full details.
	And Bill Clinton, you can thank him for a lot of the sexual harassment that's rampant today.
	I'll explain tonight.
	Yeah, I'm here.
	Relax.
	Relax.
	800-941, Sean.
	If you just missed the press conference, Roy Moore.
	What part did you want to play?
	You want to play a part of?
	Which part did you want to play?
	No, that ship has sailed.
	I just wanted to.
	We just ran it at the top of the last hour.
	I know, but you know, I just wanted to enumerate the one part.
	I just think it's there.
	I mean, listen, they've put their cards on the table and they're asking them to supply the yearbook and they'll all examine it together.
	I think in one sense, they've now, I think you can argue they have now put themselves, backed themselves into a scientific corner, especially.
	How did you find this handwriting expert?
	That guy fascinated me.
	His name's Carl Schaffenberger, and we just had him on.
	If you just missed the last half hour, you missed a lot.
	That's why you got to listen three hours a day every day.
	That's all we ask.
	In other words, you got to be like those Soros and billionaire, millionaire funder people, the paid hit people out there.
	You got to listen.
	They get paid to listen to this program.
	Can you imagine getting paid to listen to this program?
	And imagine if you hate what I say every day.
	You just, it's, you know, it would be very hard.
	Uh-oh, hang on.
	Maybe breaking news here.
	Let me see.
	Hold on.
	On the top of Drudge.
	Okay.
	A new Roy Moore accuser.
	Is this just breaking?
	Gadsden woman says Roy Moore groped her while she was in his law office on legal business with her mother in 1991.
	Moore was married at the time.
	This literally just broke seconds ago.
	In the past week, Moore has been accused by five other women.
	We all know what the charges are anyway.
	So she says that the woman's name, they put it, I'm not going to give her name, that in the fall of 91, she sat in the then law office of then attorney Roy Moore, gives the street address in Gadsden, Alabama.
	Her mother sat in the chair next to her.
	Moore sat behind his desk across from them, and she remembers she was wearing a black and white dress.
	And almost from the moment she walked in Moore's office, Moore began flirting with her.
	He kept commenting on my looks, telling me how pretty I was, how nice I looked.
	He was saying that my eyes were beautiful.
	It made her uncomfortable.
	I was thinking, can we hurry up and get out of here?
	And she says she was 28 years old in a difficult marriage headed towards divorce, unemployed.
	She was at the office to sign over custody of her 12-year-old son to her mother with whom he'd been living.
	And her mother had hired Moore to handle the custody petition.
	All right, so that's what they're saying now.
	Hang on a second.
	Me get this, pick this up here.
	And so, and the custody position.
	Anyway, so it's Johnson had two daughters at the time that were young with her then-husband and her son, and wanted to live and said the son wanted to live with his grandmother.
	At that point during the meeting, she said Moore came around the desk, sat on the front of it, inches from her.
	He was so close, she said, that she could smell his breath.
	And according to Johnson, he asked questions about her young daughters, including what eye color they had, if they were as pretty as she was.
	She said that made her feel uncomfortable.
	Once the papers were signed, she and her mother got up to leave.
	After her mother walked through the door, she said Moore came up behind her.
	It was at that point she recalled he grabbed her buttocks.
	That's what it says.
	He didn't pinch it.
	He grabbed it.
	She was so surprised she didn't say anything.
	She didn't tell her mother.
	Okay, now this is that just broke a few minutes ago.
	All right, let's get to some phone calls here.
	Let's say, hi to Sherry is in New Jersey.
	Sherry, hi, how are you?
	Glad you called.
	Hey, Sean, how are you?
	I'm good.
	How are you?
	All right.
	I just want to say thank you for all that you're doing with bringing out everything about the Clintons.
	It's just, it's fantastic.
	And that board that you had up last night was stunning and disgusting at the same time.
	I really appreciate it.
	Listen, you know, I love this meeting.
	You know, they put these memes out on, what do you call those things on Twitter?
	And they, yeah, the meme, it's just hilarious because you watch people that fill in this name and that name and this name and that.
	People are funny.
	People are so funny.
	I appreciate it.
	But you know what?
	We're going to have more on that tonight as well on Hannity, Nine Eastern Fox News Channel.
	George is in New York.
	The all-new AM710 WOR, the talk of New York, New Jersey, Long Island.
	What's up, George?
	How are you?
	I'm doing well.
	Thank you, Sean.
	Just one comment about Judge Moore.
	If he steadfastly denies all these allegations, I think the simple remedy would be to take a lie detector test.
	And if he passes the thing, then he's passed the biggest test, the court of public opinion.
	I think it would be that simple.
	I know that's, look, there's mixed reviews on lie detector tests, but I actually think there's something to it, but it's just not 100% precise.
	I think if it was me, I probably would do it.
	That's what I would do.
	But I mean, you know, I think now, did you hear our forensic handwriting document examiner?
	He's an expert.
	You know, that to me is, you know, he's now basically thrown it in the hands of science, and they said this is probably what happened, and we don't think this happened then, and so on and so forth.
	And I think in that sense, they just hand it over to the scientists.
	And if he's thinking he can get it done 100% certainty, then I say, you know, Vom Gloria all red, and I would hand it right over.
	I'd let them absolutely have somebody that can monitor it, be with it the whole time so it can't be altered and let it out there.
	Don't you think?
	I think that would be one remedy, but again, I think they've come a long way in polygraph detection as well.
	They have.
	They absolutely have.
	But it's not perfect.
	That's the point.
	Well, no, but they can get within a 10% margin of certainty according to everything that I've said about it.
	About it.
	I'm sorry.
	No, no, I think you're right.
	And I don't think it's a bad idea when you're under fire like this.
	Good call, George.
	Diane in Ohio.
	What's up, Diane?
	you?
	Diana, are you there?
	It's an honor to speak.
	It's a, it's a.
	It's an honor to speak to my name.
	Honor to speak to you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	So I just want someone, one of these congress people, to ask sessions when he says on another subject, and he says that he conferred with senior ethics people at the FBI.
	The question is, are those the same senior ethics people that didn't see anything wrong with one of the top people at the FBI, McCabe's wife, getting, what, around $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe while he was supposed to be investigating Hillary, his McCalliff?
	You're talking about McCabe, yes.
	The wife of this guy.
	Right.
	And then finally, Sean, you ought to be up for a poll surprise.
	You know, the legacy of Woodward and Bernstein, you're the only one doing it.
	Certainly not the Washington Post.
	So thank you so much for what you're doing for our country.
	All I want to do is get to a lot of truth, and we've made a lot of inroads on a lot of these issues.
	I appreciate it, Diane.
	Thank you.
	Back to our telephones as we say hi to Patricia in Saratoga Springs, New York.
	What's up, Patricia?
	How are you?
	Hi, Sean.
	I hope you can hear me.
	I can.
	I want to say thank you so much for what you do and for putting the truth out there.
	And so I'll make this short.
	I just thank you for having our back.
	I think we should get to the truth regarding the Roy Moore issue and move forward with the handwriting analysis and see what happens.
	Yeah, listen, I mean, I think in that sense, scientifically, they box themselves in in a lot of ways.
	And I don't know about this new accuser, but I'm sure all of this needs to be vetted, and he needs to answer the questions.
	You know, this is so important.
	I've said and believe this should all transcend politics, in my opinion.
	Ivanka Trump said today, there's a special place in hell for child predators.
	I agree with that.
	There is a special place in hell.
	And, you know, I've read Dante's Inferno.
	I'd put it in the lower rung, lower circle, if you will.
	And when you're talking about something this serious, you want the truth.
	And the people of Alabama deserve the truth.
	Jen in Cincinnati, 55KRC.
	What's up, Jen?
	Hey, Sean.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for remaining objective about Judge Roy Moore.
	I think there is a pattern where the left fights harder than the right to take somebody out.
	And if you remember former Attorney General Phil Klein, who was the first prosecutor to go after Planned Parenthood with felonies, nobody grill-aided this because it's eight years later.
	They went after a license, Trump had charges against him.
	They took him out because he went after a billion-dollar industry.
	Judge Moore has stood up for the abortion issue.
	He stood up for the gay rights issue.
	And there is no question in my mind, this is a way of trying to keep him out.
	And the status part, Sean, is the cooperation of the establishment of Republicans that's going on with this.
	He is buried.
	And I believe he will end up winning this race.
	And his reputation is ruined.
	Wait till you see tonight's show.
	I'm going to do something obviously no one else in the media will do.
	You know, I think you can really thank, you know, and this is separate and apart from Roy Moore.
	I'm not talking about that issue here.
	You know, all these issues of sexual harassment that are now rampant and the left with their feigned outrage.
	It is feigned because you know what?
	For all these years, they protected the biggest predator out there, the president of the United States at the time.
	And they defended and they lied and they lied and defended and they smeared and they slandered and they besmirched and they used character assassination against all these women.
	Well, now finally, this week, the New York Times says, I believe Juanita.
	Okay, progress a little late.
	A little late.
	And that's why, you know, people say to me, well, why did you ask for answers?
	Because the people of Alabama deserve answers.
	They deserve truth and they deserve to know the truth before they go into the ballot box.
	I love the people of Alabama, and I want them to know the truth.
	And, you know, one of the reasons these October surprises are so, so sinister.
	You know, all these last-minute, oh, a DUI for George W. Bush the weekend before the 2000 election.
	Oh, access Hollywood just a couple of weeks outside of Trump's, you know, election against Hillary.
	Oh, let's bring in all of a sudden Clarence Thomas is horrible.
	Don't forget the borking of Judge Robert Bork.
	You know, I've said I have a pattern and I've been very, very, very consistent.
	And that is, you know, I wait before I rush to judge.
	I don't believe in rushing a judgment.
	And for that, I've been excoriated this week.
	I've been excoriated by everybody this week.
	Saying not rush to judgment and saying that more needs to answer these questions.
	The people of Alabama have a right.
	They started the process today.
	You know, listen to, let's go after, you know, let's go after, let's play this montage again of how the left treated the women and the media treated the women that accused Bill Clinton of his actions.
	If a woman sleeps with your husband, you're not going to necessarily embrace them.
	I wonder why she didn't have, that's why when he brought up these allegations, I wonder if she missed the opportunity to address it in a way that the public would understand that that's just not how you behave.
	I would like to apologize to those tramps that have slept with my husband.
	Maybe she could have said that.
	Her husband's affair or affairs, alleged affairs.
	He's going right for the jugular when it comes to Hillary Clinton and going after Bill Clinton and alleged misconduct with women.
	Last night, Trump fired a shot squarely at Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton.
	In one case, it's about exposure.
	In another case, it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will and rape and rape.
	Donald Trump using that word unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News' Sean Hannity, bringing up a discredited and long-denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton, dating back to 1978 when he was Arkansas Attorney General.
	I'm not going to let you all continue to say that she allowed him.
	She just said that.
	Wait, no, she didn't.
	How did she facilitate?
	What's she waiting for?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Because it's not, that's rape culture, Kathy.
	You're blaming someone who succumbed to it.
	Someone committing adultery on her.
	We're Christians, so let's talk about what that is.
	She was accused of facilitating it last night, and she was dehaling.
	Hailey accused her.
	And you're wrong.
	She did not deny it.
	But you know why?
	Because it's effing ridiculous, dude.
	That's so ridiculous.
	That's crazy.
	All you have to do is.
	Do you think Donald Trump used you as a political prop today?
	No.
	You don't think?
	To scare Hillary Clinton?
	Their presence at the debate, seen as a political stunt and distraction by top Clinton campaign officials.
	Do you worry you're being used as a distraction by Donald Trump to change the conversation?
	No.
	Why not?
	The rape accusation is decades old and discredited.
	They were referring to a trio of women who say Bill Clinton made unwanted sexual advances in the 80s and 90s.
	Mr. Clinton denies it.
	Two of the cases were plagued by factual discrepancies.
	The issue of Bill Clinton's past is that fair game?
	And it would be if he were running for president, but he isn't.
	Hillary Clinton is running for president.
	But he's a chief surrogate for her.
	So what do you do now that Trump has opened this up?
	Well, I think that you stick with what is important to the American people.
	And what is important to American people is their financial stability.
	That's what this election should be about, not about what Bill Clinton did two decades ago.
	She was not.
	All right, I got to bail out of this only for the constraints of time that are on the program here.
	You know, wait up tonight's monologue.
	Above all the breaking news, we have updates on Uranium One and the dossier, but more importantly, I'm going to show you how the media and liberals in this country, how they defended to the ends of the earth Bill Clinton on the issue of what he did as a predator.
	And Menendez is another example.
	In other words, news and information you won't get anywhere else.
	But at the end of the day, now it's going to be the people of Alabama that take all this in and they decide all these outside influences.
	You know what?
	I trust the people of Alabama.
	They're going to sort through this.
	All right, Hannity, tonight at nine.
	Hey, guess who you can thank for sexual harassment, well, being so widespread.
	Maybe the left supporting Bill Clinton tonight at nine.
	See you then.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.

▲