Sean's focus this week was on the continued liberal media bias and the investigation into Alabama Senatorial candidate Roy Moore's allegations of sexual harassment. Speaker Newt Gingrich, Jeffrey Lord, Greg Jarrett and Peter Schweizer all stop by to share their thoughts on the Roy Moore Race and the hypocrisy that is the liberal media. The Sean Hannity Show is live weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You 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 at 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.
Teff Lord, former associate political director in the Reagan administration, wrote the best-selling book, What America Needs.
He wrote the case for Trump long before others thought that Donald Trump could win.
He has an article in today's American Spectator addressing a history of predators in politics.
You know, it's fascinating, and I'm watching as you are, and it's obviously getting worse for Judge Roy Moore every day.
You know, if you look at the entry in the yearbook, for example, that has made a lot of news, you look at that, sounded weird.
And so obviously Ted Cruz and others and John Cornyn have now pulled their support for Roy Moore.
But if you compare and contrast the treatment of Republicans versus Democrats, when these issues come up, it's very different, isn't it?
Oh, my.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And you know, one interesting thing I heard from our friend Rush today: Roy Moore was a Democrat for years.
And the first thought that went through my mind is, let's see, nothing was said about this, and he was a Democrat.
Now he's a Republican, and all of a sudden these stories are spilling out.
Well, when did he become a Republican?
You're saying that the allegations were at a time he was a registered Democrat.
By the way, not that it matters to victims.
No, no, I mean, absolutely.
There's no.
Look, Sean, I mean, as conservatives, I mean, there's just no excuse for this.
None.
This kind of behavior.
The point is here that there's a political issue.
I mean, I wrote a column a few weeks ago before we got here to Roy Moore.
It was Harvey Weinstein.
And I pointed out that in 1998 or 99, when Ken Starr had put out the Star report on Bill Clinton, and all the stories were out there about Bill Clinton, who showed up literally in front of Ken Starr's home in the suburbs of Virginia, but Michael Moore with a camera and a group of people dressed like Puritans holding the Star report up and yelling at him as he got into his car as Starr got into his car,
fornicator, sinner, et cetera.
Then they climbed on the back of a flatbed truck, were driven all around Washington and went up to Capitol Hill outside a hearing where Starr was, et cetera, mocking members of Congress.
The whole point of the exercise was that people who objected to the things that Bill Clinton had done with women were a bunch of Puritans and prudes and old-fashioned moralists, and they were out of touch with society.
Well, that was the prevailing sentiment there.
And I found a review in the New York Times of Michael Moore's television show in which he showed this clip.
And the reviewer for the New York Times thought it was just fabulous, just terrific.
Now, all of a sudden, these people are saying, my goodness, this is horrific.
Where were they?
Where were they for decades?
I mean, this is so inexcusable.
And if there's one thing that could come out of this, that's a good thing, is to put a stop for this.
In the column I have today that you mentioned, the House and Senate can separately pass resolutions putting out their sense of the Senate or the sense of the House of Representatives.
And they can condemn the Clintons, and they can call for committee action to investigate this stuff and give Juanita Broderick and these other women their time in court, as it were.
It's not going to be a court.
It'll be the halls of Congress.
But how about putting your money where your mouth is and doing this?
Where is Mitch McConnell doing this?
Where, for that matter, in Alabama is Doug Jones, the Democrat.
Well, think of all the, you know, you can take it back even further.
I mean, you know, look at the case of Mary Joe Kopeckney.
We know what Ted Kennedy did.
I mean, Ted Kennedy, you know, drives off a bridge into water.
He escapes.
He leaves this girl who's in the car in the water to drown as he went home.
He didn't tell anybody.
He told nobody.
And then only comes out the next day.
Now, well, he was a respected lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.
And many Republicans got along with him.
In 1990, he had the famous waitress sandwich incident in a back room of a restaurant that I'd been at many times called the La Brazerie, a French restaurant.
They had a private room.
He was there with Chris Dodd.
The two of them got drunk as skunks.
This waitress goes in there to wait on them, and they throw her on the table and then, you know, position her between the two men, et cetera, and they're on the floor or on the chair, whatever.
I mean, it's just disgusting.
And then what happens?
Nothing, nothing.
And when I hear, you know, John McCain waxing indignant about Roy Moore, John McCain was in the Senate with Ted Kennedy.
What did he do about this?
Nothing.
Not a single thing.
Ted Kennedy, and I don't remember, you know, many people defending in the Republican Party the likes of all the women who I just mentioned.
No, no.
I actually took the time.
I interviewed all of them numerous times.
Yes, you did, and God bless you for doing that.
I mean, because I came under fire for doing that, too.
I'm not going to anywhere else.
By the way, that's about the story of my whole life coming under fire.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, I just think, Sean, that if there's one good thing here that can come out of all this, have the Congress do something and call Clintons, both Clintons, to account on these things.
Did the issue of the yearbook have an impact on you like it did me?
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I just, how does that happen?
I mean, you know, everybody gets older and you just don't, there are just things instinctively that you just wouldn't do.
I just am appalled.
I don't know what else to do.
So what should happen?
What do you think should happen?
I really do think that the decision has to be made by the people of Alabama.
I mean, this is the United States Senate, and it's not run by senators in Washington.
It's run by the people in the states.
And, you know, I think people can get out there and say whatever they want to say, but this is a decision for the people of Alabama, and they have to make it.
All right, I got to take a quick break.
We'll come back more with Jeff Lord.
News Roundup, Information Overload.
Sarah Carter and Burgess Owen will check in in the next hour.
All right, as we continue with Jeff Lord, writes a piece in the American Spectator.
Are you surprised that, you know, I looked through these articles today and I'm looking at, you know, these are people on the left now saying, uh-oh, we now have to revisit how we treated all these Clinton women and how we were part of the efforts to slander, smear, besmirch, which I think would, if they mean it, that would be great.
I'm not sure every Democrat wants to do it.
And it seems when it comes to all-thing Clintons, it's circle the wagons at any cost.
Yeah, I was surprised.
I mean, the first one that I saw that surprised me was Chris Hayes over there at MSNBC.
And then this Atlantic article was, wow, that was pretty amazing.
Pretty amazing.
But it just gets to the fundamental truth here.
There are some things that should just be beyond partisan consideration.
And why they were quiet about all of this.
And this was, I was in the Bush 41 administration when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the court.
And I thought Clarence Thomas was smeared up and down.
And I thought that no small part of it had to do with the fact that he was black and a conservative.
But I saw all these women coming out saying that women tell the truth.
There was a column in the New York Times, you know, listen to us, all this, very sharp.
It said, well, then you got to the Clinton episode, and all these people were silent.
Not only silent, they were active supporters.
And the Clinton folks were out there trying to destroy these women, destroy their reputations, destroy everything about them.
And these people, including Hillary Clinton, were actively involved in this.
And not a peep from these women.
Women tell the truth.
Suddenly now all these people, you drag the dollar bill through a $100 bill, whatever it was, through a trailer park.
No, it was a dollar bill.
It was just disgraceful.
Yeah, it was a dollar bill.
And even Monica Lewinsky, of all people, I mean, she got it the worst.
Yes, she did.
What are they?
They called her a stalker and all of this kind of thing.
And let's recall, I mean, Bill Clinton was how old at that point?
And she was 22.
You want to talk about a power position?
He was the president of the United States.
That's right.
I mean, having worked for a president, I mean, that's it, boy.
When the boss speaks, you know, you listen.
And that kind of behavior coming from a sitting president of the United States or a past president of the United States is just beyond belief.
All right, Stan.
We got to let it go.
But, Jeff, great comments.
Appreciate it.
Talk to you soon.
Joining us now is former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
He has a piece out on FoxNews.com that says Hillary Clinton's been getting away with unethical, illegal behavior for 40 years.
You know, my sources tell me that may very well be coming to an end as now we have Republicans demanding Jeff Sessions appoint a special counsel on all this or that Jeff Sessions should resign.
And we'll talk to two of those congressmen later.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing well.
And by the way, that newsletter from Gingrich Productions, I went back, I've been at this long enough that I remembered the Cattle Futures example where she took $1,000 and kept investing it in futures until she made $100,000.
And two scholars went out and did a study.
They concluded the odds were better than a trillion to one that that was impossible to do legally.
And I think it's clearly it was insider trading.
She had guys who knew what was going to happen.
They gave her, they told her what to do.
She made the money.
This is when Bill Clinton was first governor.
And the thing that tells you, though, is not only that she was a crook, not only that she got away with it and learned that you can get away with these things, but it also tells you a lot about how liberal Democrats think about capitalism.
They think it's a rigged game because for them it is.
They expect to cheat, and so they don't understand this idea of hardworking small business people who go out, obey the law, work hard, create a company, earn a living, because they assume the whole thing is rigged, which is, by the way, part of what I think comes out of Donna Brazil's absolutely astonishing new book in which she just levels the Clinton machine and the Clinton organization in ways that I didn't think anybody would ever have the guts to do on the left.
Let me ask you, when it comes, though, you know, for a year she denied that she knew anything about fusion GPS, Russia Connections, the Russian dossier.
But now we know differently, the Clinton campaign, and she was running, according to Donna Brazil, the DNC, the entire operation as it relates to hiring and every other operation.
She was funding it.
So that's, what, $10, $12 million total that goes to paying for phony dossier that had salacious lies about Donald Trump that a former MI6 guy got from Russians, and they tried to influence an election.
Now, that sounds like the very thing to me that they were accusing Donald Trump of doing.
Well, plus it raises the question, which I think has to be answered under oath.
To what extent was the FBI decision to investigate Trump based on a totally false, politically paid-for campaign document?
I mean, does this whole thing all go back to a deliberately rigged poison fruit that the Clinton campaign was paying for?
But let me just make a point that I don't think it's possible to say too often, and I don't think most Americans will ever believe it.
She just lies.
You remember when the truth is always the next lie and the next lie and the next lie.
She just lies.
Do you remember when William Sapphire, who's since passed away, said she was a congenital liar and the outrage of people?
Right.
I think you're right.
I think they lie with regularity.
So I start with this premise.
They were totally greedy about money.
They were willing to break the law.
The reason I wrote that newsletter was to say to people, look, go all the way back to 1979.
This isn't new.
This isn't sudden.
This is the pattern these two people have had for their entire career.
And yet, because we find it so hard to deal with people who are this corrupt, we keep coming back thinking it can't really be true.
But it is true.
It's true at every level.
It's true about how she handled national security.
It's true about Benghazi.
It's true about her campaign.
It's true about deleting 33,000 emails.
It's true about the corruption of the Clinton Foundation.
And I hope that there will be an independent counsel because I agree with Alan Guelzer, the great historian at Gettysburg College, who has said publicly and has written about the fact that the Obama administration was the most corrupt administration in American history, more corrupt than the Grant administration, more corrupt than Harding, more corrupt than any administration in American history.
And had Hillary Clinton won, it would all have been swept under the rug.
But Jeff Sessions does not have to recuse himself on getting to the truth about the Clintons.
And he has every opportunity as the Attorney General to insist that the Justice Department, look, I'm not trying to get them into a criminal trial.
I would just like to get all the facts out in the open.
I'd like to get the American people to see just how deeply corrupt this system was and how totally dishonest it was in terms of lying.
And I think in that sense, history will then take care of itself.
Let me ask you about this case with Judge Roy Moore and now another accusation today with Gloria Allred.
And I guess my thoughts are, and then you see, look, I've always been a believer in the presumption of innocence.
I've taken this position my entire career.
I never apologize for waiting for facts to come in.
These are serious allegations.
It would, to me, would definitely, regardless of whether there's criminal or civil liability here because of statute of limitations, it would disqualify anybody from being a senator or having any other position in the public.
We now have McConnell saying Roy Moore should step aside, that he believes these women, the media is, you know, in five seconds, they just ran out there and it was trial by media immediately guilty.
What are your general thoughts on all of this?
Mitch McConnell is now exploring a writing campaign against Moore, and polls show that the race has tightened.
What are your thoughts on all of this?
Well, I think that Tim Scott was the one person over the weekend who made sense.
Tim Scott, senator from South Carolina, said, you know, this is really up to the people of Alabama.
What we know is that all the people who tried to beat Roy Moore in the primary would like Roy Moore to get out, and they'd like to beat him in the general.
And apparently, they would rather have a liberal Democrat for six years and maybe for the next 30 years than have somebody that they believe is tainted, who, by the way, they opposed long before the Washington Post story.
What we also know is that Roy Moore apparently is a very tough guy, and he ain't stopping.
So now it's up to the people of Alabama.
But this idea, which I heard suggested over the weekend, that maybe they wouldn't seat him if he won.
I mean, are people just losing their minds?
Under our Constitution, the people of the state of Alabama have the right to decide who their senator is.
There's no provision that says that the U.S. Senate can decide that they've chose the wrong person.
Now, whether Moore can win or not, whether he can try to knock down these stories or not, I mean, that's his problem.
And the burden is on him to convince the rest of us that he is worthy of being a U.S. Senator.
Not to convince me, I shouldn't say the rest of us, to convince the people of Alabama.
But let's be very clear.
This is an Alabama Senate race in which he has to talk with the people of Alabama.
They have to decide what their duty is.
And I am, frankly, a little disappointed in people in Washington who take the totally phony news of the Washington Post, immediately rush to judgment, and then compound by having read their own statements and decided they were right, going a step further.
This guy's never had a jury trial.
He's never been indicted.
There's never been a chance to measure up against his accusers.
And I'm not defending him.
I'm just saying it's amazing to me to watch the people.
Well, you and I are in the same position.
Listen, I don't know.
I remember still when you were a mere child, I remember Clarence Thomas walking into that Senate hearing room and talking about a modern-day lynching.
And I remember how whipped up and how excited the liberals were and how they had this wonderful witness.
And I watched all of them melt as Clarence Thomas just took them to pieces.
And so I would just say that we ought to be a little cautious.
I'm not picking sides here.
I'm just saying I haven't interviewed anybody.
I haven't looked at the evidence.
I haven't seen anything which suggests that we know right now.
And that's why in the next few weeks, the burden is on, I think the burden clearly is on Roy Moore.
And he is going to have to go out and prove his case.
But I do think that the most destructive thing they could do is set up a write-in.
And again, it's all outsiders.
I mean, I don't see any Alabama movement for a right-hand.
And so I'm just watching as an observer, trying to understand exactly what the dynamics of this are.
You know, I learned a valuable lesson.
I've explained this now many times on the air to my audience, and I just want to bring you up to speed.
You know, when I was in Atlanta, and I remember the Clarence Thomas thing as vividly as you do, and I also remember Herman Kaine, who's a mutual friend of ours, as soon as he got out of the race, no more charges, nothing.
It all ends.
But I didn't know the day the Atlanta Journal Constitution came out with Richard Jewell, the guy we thought was a hero, fits the profile of a lone bomber because he lives with his mother.
I didn't know he was listening to my radio show that day.
And I said, wait a minute, that does not make him the bomber.
And I was the only one.
And he gave me one of the first interviews he ever did because he had been listening and said I was the only one that was fair.
You know, but the media has been wrong about Duke LaCrosse.
They rushed to judgment.
They were wrong about Trayvon and Zimmerman and the jury verdict there.
They were wrong about Hands Up, Don't Shoot in Ferguson.
They were wrong about Freddie Gray and all those cops who are going to be found guilty in Baltimore.
Frankly, they were wrong about Trump even having a chance of winning or Obama.
And then you bring up Clarence Thomason.
And I am right now being excoriated because I believe in the presumption of innocence.
And I practice that since I was in Atlanta for the reasons I've just mentioned.
Well, and let me just suggest to you.
And by the way, he may be all guilty.
You're right.
He's got to now show that this is not true.
And if he is guilty, look, if he is guilty and he can't prove his case and he loses the election, he loses the election.
Well, let it be in a fair conversation with the people of Alabama and a fair chance to defend himself, not some lynch mob.
All right, got to take a quick break.
We'll come back more with Newt Gingrich and your calls, 800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
And don't forget, we have an amazing Hannity tonight you don't want to miss.
All right, as we continue, a former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Let me just suggest to you an interesting test.
Go pull up all the Republicans who said Trump ought to drop off the ticket when the tapes came out from the Spanish.
Access Hollywood, remember?
Yeah, Access Hollywood.
You know, it'd be very interesting if you take the Access Hollywood tapes.
Look at that weekend.
How many people said, well, maybe he ought to drop off the ticket and measure them against exactly the same people who are now for Roy Moore dropping off the ticket.
And now you know what the lynch mob looks like.
I mean, there are people out there whose desire to automatically assume every Republican should be defeated is amazing.
And it doesn't help grow the Republican Party.
And again, I'm not particularly for, you know, I'm not advocating Moore's election, but I do think that there ought to be some presumption of him having a chance to make his case to the only people who matter in this race.
And that's the people of Alabama, not the New York Times editorial board, not the Washington Post editorial board, not incumbent senators from around the country, but the people of Alabama.
And I want to watch and see exactly how this works out.
This is a West Point graduate, very tough guy.
He's had a long career.
And it's pretty clear from what we've seen so far, he ain't backing down.
So, you know, it's just a fascinating moment in American history.
And I think it's compounded because notice how many left-wing Hollywood types are not being, you know, they're not being exposed for 40 years ago.
They're not being exposed for a kiss.
I mean, the number of people in Hollywood and in the news media who are now being turned out because of actual behavior in the recent past is pretty stunning.
And that's sort of the backdrop for all this.
I'm never going to apologize, Mr. Speaker.
And there are people today trying to get me fired.
I will never apologize for the presumption of innocence.
I think it is fundamental to who we are as a society.
You know, and when we get information, I don't advocate like you do.
I want the truth, but I'm not going to rush the judgment on anybody.
You know, when I made my decision on Clinton, I was one of the few people that actually interviewed the women involved before I made my decision.
Thank you, sir, for being with us.
We appreciate it, as always.
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, you know, 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 1 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, you know, with foreign adversaries.
You know.
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 Sythius 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 Playme 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.
As you know, President Trump has tried to flip the script and now says the Justice Department should be investigating you.
And this week we learned that Attorney General Sessions is considering a special counsel to probe the Uranium One deal and alleged conflicts with the Clinton Foundation.
What's your reaction to this?
You know, I regret deeply that this appears to be the politicization of the Justice Department and our justice system.
This Uranium One story has been debunked countless times by members of the press, by independent experts.
It is nothing but a false charge that the Trump administration is trying to drum up in order to avoid attention being directed at them.
I mean, even Trey Gowdy, somebody who's hardly a fan of mine, said that there doesn't seem to be the basis for a special counsel.
And of course, there isn't.
But if I try to take myself out of it, which, you know, is kind of hard because it's personally offensive that they would do this.
But taking myself out of it, this is such an abuse of power, and it goes right at the rule of law.
Uranium-1 case, I know you've been asked about it.
Can you say, forget about whether it's under investigation, in the past, did the FBI or DOJ inform either President Obama, Secretary Clinton, or any cabinet secretary that it had uncovered evidence that Rossettim's main U.S. executive, Vadim McKieran, was engaged in bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering before the Obama administration approved the Uranium-1 sale in 2010.
Is it that the Mickerin matter?
The man that was prosecuted in Maryland 2014.
But there was an informant in 2009, 2010 the FBI had evidence of bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering.
Was that information conveyed to any of the relative people on the CFIAS board?
Clinton, other cabinet secretaries, or was it given to the president?
The way I understand that matter is that the case in which Mr. Mickerin was convicted was not connected to the CFIA problem that occurred two to three years before.
When the case came to the United States Attorney's Office, Mr. Rosenstein's office in Maryland, CFIAS had already been approved by two years or more.
There was an FBI informant starting in 2009.
Well, you're going to, I have not talked with him, but Department of Justice, I understand, has approved him providing information to the Congress.
And I understand it will be set up in a few days.
And you'll be able to hear from him directly.
And you should, too, because from everything I've been proffered, he has evidence of illegal conduct 2009 and 2010 before this deal was agreed to involving uranium-1.
It was all connected.
All right, that was Hillary Clinton.
Uranium-1 is false.
And this is an abuse of power.
Fascinating.
You're talking about a dual justice system coming out of the Clintons.
We'll get to that.
That was Ron DeSantis asking Jeff Sessions about Uranium One.
Sessions saying the informant will testify to Congress in a few days.
Reuters released the name of the FBI informant.
This is now all building into what is going to be a massive, massive case.
I am telling you, TikTok, everybody, it's going to get really big.
The person that got it all started is Peter Schweitzer, author of the number one New York Times best-selling book, Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Help Make Bill and Hillary so rich.
And he's also the president of the Government Accountability Institute.
Welcome back, Peter.
How are you?
Great, Sean.
Great to be back on with you.
Thanks for having me.
I want to give you an opportunity just directly to respond to Hillary and what she was saying.
Oh, this has all been, oh, this is old news.
Oh, this is about the justice system and abuse of the justice system.
What is your answer to that?
Well, you know, look, here's what's happened.
You have Hillary Clinton and her allies and some people in the media who are taking the Uranium One story, and they are cropping out of the picture certain key events.
So what they will do is they will look at, say, 2010, the Uranium-1 deal, a certain time period, and say, look, if you look at just this time period, we don't find any evidence.
And it's like taking a picture and cropping certain things out to distort what's going on.
What we know, Sean, very, very clearly is you have the head of the Kazakh uranium ministry saying in detail in 2010 in a video deposition that Hillary Clinton extorted Kazakh officials to get these uranium assets that launched uranium-1.
They extorted Kazakh officials and said she was not going to cooperate with them until those uranium assets were given to Frank Justra, who became a big Clinton Foundation donor.
And this is important, by the way, Sean, because Kazakhstan at the time was receiving tens of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money for nonproliferation efforts.
And who was on the subcommittee with oversight of that?
That was then Senator Hillary Clinton.
So there's a lot to this story that rings true.
And Hillary Clinton has never been asked about this.
She has never dealt with this issue at all.
And initially, the Clintons, Bill Clinton, claimed that he did not know this official, Zhakashev, and lied to the New York Times about it.
The New York Times then produced a photograph of this gentleman, Zhakashev, meeting with Bill Clinton in Chappaqua, in the Clinton home.
And then Bill Clinton had to change his story.
So that in and of itself is interesting.
But that's the beginning of this story that then moves to 2010, the flow of money, money that was never disclosed, this approval process.
And what a lot of critics of the Uranium One story want to do is just isolate part of the story and ignore the rest.
And you simply can't do that.
And, you know, my position has been from the beginning, we need to investigate it.
The only way you can find out what exactly, precisely happened is by investigating this.
And it's ridiculous to me, this standard that people are setting up in the Clinton camp is because we cannot prove the actual crime being committed.
You don't investigate.
Well, in all these other cases of political corruption, you start an investigation when there is suspicious evidence.
And there's more in this case than there has been in a number of other public corruption cases going back.
I want to go to the FBI informant that had infiltrated this network set up inside of this country for over four years.
Again, an FBI informant.
And I am told there are tens and tens and tens of thousands of documents and notes and evidence that this individual has that he will now be presenting before Congress, along with him having his own experience having infiltrated this network.
And this is the network where bribery and extortion and racketeering and money laundering and bribery, all that had happened.
And now we have questions about who knew what, when, and where in terms of what Putin was doing in the desire of Vladimir Putin to get into the uranium market in America.
Now, all of this has to be predicated on this fact that America does not have enough uranium and we import uranium.
And then why we would ever allow any outside entity to have any control, you know, why we would ever approve it for national security purposes.
It's just one of the dumbest decisions I've ever heard.
Never made sense on the surface of it.
But this all, they had all this information about Putin's desire to get a foothold in the uranium market in 2009.
Now the evidence is going to show this is all true and that people knew like Robert Mueller and Rosenstein and people like Eric Holder.
And then it will become what did Hillary know and when did she know it?
Let's talk about that.
Yeah, no, you're right, Sean.
I mean, look, in 2010, the Moscow Times, which is an English language publication based in Russia, actually ran an article.
People can go find it online, where the money that was used to purchase uranium-1 was released by Vladimir Putin himself at a public ceremony.
There's an article about it.
So, you know, the argument that somehow, well, this uranium sale, Uranium-1 is no big deal.
Why is the president of Russia announcing the fact that they are purchasing uranium-1?
That's the first thing that people have to get their hands around.
So this was done at the highest level.
But the second factor that is dismissed by critics is Uranium-1 not only has uranium assets in the United States, they have ones in Kazakhstan, those ones I mentioned earlier that Hillary and Bill Clinton helped the company get.
Those are some of the richest uranium deposits in the world.
They have deposits in Australia.
They have them in Africa.
And all of those had to, for this deal to be done, it had to get the approval of Cythius, the federal government, and the Obama administration.
So we are talking about vast uranium deposits, not just those in the United States, that were signed off by the Obama administration.
And look, let's remember, when this deal was being considered in 2010, you had senior ranking Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on the House Financial Services Committee, on the Homeland National Security Homeland Committee.
All of them were expressing their concerns about this deal and sent letters to Cythius saying we think that this deal is bad for American national security.
So the argument that nobody was objecting to this and there's nothing to see here is simply not there when you look at the historic record.
And the problem is a lot of people commenting on Uranium One aren't even looking at that historical record, Sean.
That's part of the problem.
I mean, you even have now, you know, the never-Trump crowd, it seems like they almost want to do everything they can do to defend Hillary Clinton on this, which is amazing.
But I don't think they're going to be able to do it because the facts are clear.
I have noticed people say, well, the timing of the payments and the money to the Clinton Foundation don't coincide with a quid pro quo, and I saw you had a very strong answer to that.
Well, that's right, Sean.
They don't line up if you cut out key events.
Look, 2005, the Clintons helped Frank Gustra get these uranium deposits in Kazakhstan.
And you have the testimony of the Kazakh uranium minister.
You had a big article in the New York Times about this.
After those assets are procured in 2005, Frank Gustra sends $30 million, and that's the beginning of donations.
That's key.
So that explains the reason you get these early donations.
Then in 2010, when it's up for federal review, you still have eight members of the board or investors in Uranium One who are contributing to the Clinton Foundation.
And those donations were not disclosed.
The actual chairman of the company, Ian Telfer, who's Canadian, donated $2.35 million that were never disclosed by the Clintons.
When the Russians took over the company, he remained as chairman of the company.
That has never been responded to.
So, you know, look, what they want to do is exclude certain events, ignore certain facts.
You can't do that.
And my point is simply, let's investigate to find out precisely what happened and see how much evidence there is in the flow of money and the decision-making process that was made.
I want to go back to the nine people that approved this, and I want to go back to the fact that the FBI knew of Putin's intentions.
How could that not grab the attention of the FBI?
How could that not have gotten to the Attorney General Eric Holder at the time?
Well, clearly we know that there's a paper trail, Sean, of communications.
State Department cables, for example, that came out in WikiLeaks, and I talk about them in the book.
There are State Department cables going to Hillary Clinton from the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan, reporting on the fact that Russia is trying to desperately work to corner the world uranium market.
Those cables exist.
Those cables were sent.
So those are not in dispute.
And there was other evidence as well, statements.
I mean, there was an article in Pravda about after the Uranium One deal went through describing how the Russian nuclear industry was now dominating the world.
So this has been well known in specialist circles, well known in the energy field.
And for them to argue that, oh, you know, no, we didn't either know about this or it's not a big deal, again, just runs contrary to the historical record itself.
All right.
As we continue, stay with us.
Peter Schweitzer is the author of the best-selling book, Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Help Make Bill and Hillary rich.
And as we continue, Peter Schweitzer is with us, and he, of course, the author of the New York Times number one bestseller, Clinton Cash, The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Help Make Bill and Hillary Clinton rich.
How rich did they get?
Well, it's hard to say because the reporting has been incomplete.
We know that they made millions of dollars in speaking fees from people that were directly or indirectly connected to the Uranium One deal.
But we also know that those that were involved in Uranium One from 2005 up to 2010 donated a combined $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, which is an astronomical sum.
And honestly, Sean, I've said this before.
I cannot imagine a situation where a, say, Secretary of Defense that was not named Clinton had a spouse who was running a private foundation who took $145 million from, say, defense contractors who wanted to influence the Secretary of Defense, that that would not even be investigated, that there would be a serious discussion to say, no, there's nothing to see here.
There's no conflict of interest.
So it's a lot of money.
The timing is there.
Barack Obama had insisted, as did John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Hillary was appointed, explicitly said you need to disclose all donations.
The Clintons promised to do that.
And in fact, they didn't.
They happened to hide and not disclose the donations that came from the chairman of Uranium One and some of the other shareholders.
And to my mind, that alone merits investigation.
How did that happen and why did they not disclose them?
All right.
Really good, informative session.
I can tell you that starting next week, if I'm the Clintons, if I'm involved in Uranium One, there is going to be an avalanche that is coming.
800-941 Sean, toll-free, telephone number.
You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
All right, we'll take a quick break.
We'll have some fun when we get back.
My buddy John McLemore is here, and I just love this guy.
Thanksgiving is coming.
When you're talking about the best food you've ever had in your life, absolutely.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
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 at Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
