All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 19, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show
01:34:02
Who Is Andrew Weissman? - 2.19

Sean sits down with Sara Carter, David Schoen and Sidney Powell to discuss the future of the Mueller investigation. Who is Robert Mueller's "pit bull" Andrew Weissman? Sean digs into this prosecutor's sketchy past. The Sean Hannity Show is on 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.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
Let not your heart be troubled.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what?
That's not fun.
You know, I tried everything.
I couldn't get a good night's sleep.
And this is neither drug nor alcohol-induced.
That's right.
It is my pillow.
Mike Lindell invented it, and he fitted me for my first MyPillow, and it's changed my life.
I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
And the good news, you can too.
Just go to mypillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
You get 50% off to MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows.
Now, MyPillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow tossing internee that's not working for you.
Just go to mypillow.com right now.
Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, and comfortable, and deep healing, and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Sean.
All right, glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
What a week we've got lined up for you.
800-941 Sean, if you want to join us.
How corrupt is the special counsel?
You do not want to miss hour two of today's programming.
And the guy that the New York Times refers to as Robert Mueller's pit bull, his name is Andrew Weissman, in two separate cases, apparently withholds exculpatory evidence and gets excoriated by a judge.
And then, of course, he got overturned 9-0 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
I've been telling you about that.
Meanwhile, tens and tens of thousands of Anderson accounting people lost their jobs.
And then he puts four Merrill execs in jail for a year.
And guess what?
They were innocent.
That got overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
So why would Robert Mueller ever appoint such a person?
Now, we have so much new information than we did have on Friday with the announcement of the 13 indictments and the three companies that were indicted that I want to get to here.
And what you have, though, is, you know, since the day this president was elected, you have everybody on the left, you have everybody in the media.
They have been trying to tell you again and again and again that President Trump colluded with the Russians in order to win the election.
There has to this day not been a single shred of evidence, no evidence in any way, shape, matter, or form of such an allegation.
And they've been digging and digging and digging and digging and digging.
If you show me evidence, I'm interested in seeing it.
But as of now, let's see.
The only examples that we know of where Russia was involved in the last election was because Hillary Clinton hired a foreign national through a company, Jeep Fusion GPS, a former MI6 agent with broad contacts all over Russia, and he used Russian government sources and Russian government propaganda to go out there and basically lie to the American people with salacious details about Donald Trump.
Now, the big thing that I think came out of Friday when, besides the indictment, is that Rod Rosenstein goes out there, and it was pretty interesting to me.
And Rosenstein goes into this long diatribe about how the DOJ is charging 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for committing federal crimes while seeking to interfere with the 2016 elections.
Said no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity.
No allegations that the election outcome was altered in any way.
The Russians organized protests for and against Trump.
So it was what they really wanted to do was pretty obvious, and that was just create as much chaos as they possibly can in the election.
And the indictment shows that this was pretty widespread, although Byron York makes a good point, maybe not as influential as we thought.
I'll get to that in a second.
But it dates back to 2014.
This dates back to the Obama administration.
This dates back, you know, frankly, even years before that.
Now, we know on the Uranium One deal, we know that our government had an informant inside.
This is 2009.
This is the beginning of the Obama administration.
That you had Putin and Russian operatives on the ground in the United States.
And we had an FBI informant telling our government that they were committing bribery and extortion and money laundering and involved in kickbacks because they wanted to get a foothold into the uranium market in America.
We knew this in 2009.
This guy spent six years total underground in this operation of Russia and Putin in America.
And then what did America do?
Stupidly.
Well, we end up giving away uranium, which is a very scarce resource, the foundational materials of nuclear weapons, and we gave it away.
And that was 18 months after we knew that Putin operatives were committing these crimes in America.
As it relates to the election, Hillary hires this foreign national, former MI6 guy.
She works with Fusion GPS, pays them.
They funnel money through a law firm, which funnels money to Christopher Steele, and they come up with salacious lies about Donald Trump, none of them verified by Fusion GPS, none of them verified by the FBI.
And they end up using that as a means to lie to the American people in the last election.
Now, just before the 2016 elections, well, what happened?
Well, Barack Obama weighed in, as he always does.
Listen to what he says, telling Trump to stop whining, that he's never seen a politician trying to discredit the election process like Trump was.
Voter fraud claims are based on no facts.
He says no serious person thinks you can rig an election.
There's no evidence that it's happened.
This is the same Obama that was warned in 2014.
Devin Nunes was one of the people warning him.
I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.
It's unprecedented.
It happens to be based on no facts.
Every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found.
That keep in mind, elections are run by state and local officials, which means that there are places like Florida, for example, where you've got a Republican governor who's a Republican appointees are going to be running and monitoring a whole bunch of these election sites.
The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida, it's because of those people that you have to watch out for.
That is both irresponsible.
And by the way, doesn't really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you'd want out of a president.
You start whining before the game's even over.
If whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else, then you don't have what it takes to be in this job.
Because there are a lot of times when things don't go our way or my way.
That's okay.
You fight through it.
You work through it.
You try to accomplish your goals.
But the larger point that I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.
There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.
And so I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.
And if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government.
And it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he said about me or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to this Capitol in which there would be a peaceful transfer of power.
That's what Americans do.
That's why America is already great.
One way of weakening America and making it less great is if you start betraying those basic American traditions that have been bipartisan and have helped to hold together this democracy now for well over two centuries.
How arrogant, especially considering that Obama was warned in 2014 that all of this could happen.
Now, if you look at all the president, the ex-president, former president, has a lot of explaining to do.
Why didn't he act?
Why didn't his team act?
You know, how does he explain to the American people this couldn't happen?
You're crazy if you think this could happen.
Oh, okay, but you're the one that was warned about this potentially happening, weren't you?
So there's nothing, if you really look at it here, there's never been any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion.
You have a media that's obsessed with telling you something that's not true.
Then you've got all these other issues now that have broken in the last three or four days, going back to late last week.
The Daily Caller reporting that Bruce Orr, the demoted DOJ official, he didn't disclose to ethics officials that his wife was being paid by Fusion GPS.
She was part of this group that was involved in building this phony Russian dossier against Donald Trump.
They're the ones that Hillary was paying, the DNC was paying.
They're the ones that hired the MI6 guy.
Byron York reporting, why isn't James Comey's memos let out?
Now you have somebody like Congressman Trey Gowdy saying that if they're released, that's exhibit A for the defense on any obstruction of justice narrative.
And that if he ever wanted to make a case, this would be it about not being involved in obstruction of justice.
I wish he'd stay off Twitter.
I really do.
I wish he'd quit commenting on ongoing probes.
But the obstruction of justice, remember, that started being discussed when Comey had these memos that he said he made.
I've read the memos.
I've read every one of Comey's memos.
They would be defense exhibit A in an obstruction of justice case, not prosecution exhibit, defense exhibit A. If Comey felt obstructed, he did a masterful job of keeping it out of any of his memos.
Okay, so that's the other point.
Now, let me tell you something.
You go back to this indictment.
It never said in any way that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.
Nobody has ever brought any evidence about that.
It doesn't say anybody in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.
They say that some people might have unwittingly been given information, but nobody knew because they did such a good job of hiding who they were from the American people.
So it doesn't say that the president obstructed justice.
It doesn't say Donald Trump Jr. Involved.
And the same goes for General Michael Flynn.
There's something going on with the Michael Flynn case that I think is fascinating because the judge in that case is now demanding that the special counsel hand over any and all exculpatory evidence for the defense.
That would be Michael Flynn.
This is the same judge that was involved in the corruption case where exculpatory evidence was held back on Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
So something's going on there.
And then, of course, they had put off the sentencing date to May.
I hope and pray that General Flynn gets off the hook at the end of the day.
But the biggest example we have, we have concrete evidence about collusion with Russia.
We have a bought and paid for dossier full of Russian lies, even Russian government lies at this point, peddling their propaganda, trying to influence the election, trying to lie to the American people.
Then, even though it's not vetted or verified in any way, it still becomes the bulk of information that's used to get a FISA warrant against an opposition party candidate in an election year.
You can't make this up.
And then, of course, the Uranium One deal.
All right, so you got 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies.
No American knew who they were.
When you look at the amount of money, which I'll get to in a second, it is insignificant when you look at the money and compare the money that was actually spent.
You even have a Facebook vice president saying that, no, this isn't it.
So you have Obama telling the country, no serious person thinks you can rig the election.
And there's no evidence it's happened just before the election.
He was warned.
Trump should stop whining.
Make America less great by alleging voter fraud based on no facts.
Okay, but you were warned about this.
That's the whole point of it.
You know, the indictment shows, yeah, a sophisticated effort by the Russians to gain influence.
My only question is why anybody's surprised.
The same people in 2009, Vladimir Putin, the Russians had literally a network of operatives within the country that we all knew about, involved in numerous felonies and crimes.
And we did nothing to stop them from getting a hold of 20% of our uranium.
We need to import uranium.
It's ridiculous.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
And, you know, we had the FBI informant warning us the entire time.
Nobody listened.
Robert Mueller was the FBI director at the time.
I'd like to ask him some questions about this.
These allegations that we see from Friday beginning in 2014, Russian nationals.
Donald Trump wasn't running in 2014 that I know.
Working together with a troll farm.
Now, one of the things that I found most interesting this weekend was Byron York's analysis of this indictment.
And the more we learn about this so-called big indictment, the more it's running on fumes because it turns out the Russians allegedly, their massive attack on the American presidential election, a top media Democrat paired it, who was it?
Nadler of New York, Gerald Nadler, to Pearl Harbor.
They spent a total of $3,111 in three key battleground states.
Wisconsin, $1,979.
Michigan, $823.
Pennsylvania, they spent a whopping $300.
And the indictment's vague in terms of what the Russians spent in total.
They said by September of 2016, nearly the end of the campaign, the operation spent $1.25 million a month.
But in terms of what the Russians paid for social media ads, which were the focus of Mueller's investigation, the indictment just says thousands of dollars every month.
They don't know.
Well, they could have had operations all over the world, which I would not be surprised about.
Now, if you compare less than $3,200 to the combined spending of the Clinton and Trump campaign, that was $2.4 billion.
And then the Facebook vice president of ad product, Rob Goldman is his name, he tweeted out Friday night that he can very definitely say that swaying the election was not the main objective of Russian actors that meddled in the 2016 elections using social media, but rather sowing discord was their goal.
Okay, we all know about that.
That's exactly right.
Sowing discord was their goal.
And so you got to now ask yourself a question.
And Devin Newnes was dead on accurate about this, too.
He pointed out the Putin regime presents a pressing threat to American interests.
Everybody knew, including through Moscow's long-running influence operations in the United States.
And the House Intelligence Committee chair had been investigating these threats for years.
In 2014, the Russians begin this operation, targeting 2016.
He says, I warned about Russia's worldwide influence operations.
And in April of 2016, I stated the U.S.'s failure to predict Putin's plans and intentions is the biggest intelligence failure that we've had since 9-11.
Now, I'm going to explain, if this is all true, what it means, and where Hillary is in trouble.
That's next.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, here is a phenomenal article.
Where did you get?
I forgot where I got this from.
I guess it was one of the law websites.
And the headline is, this Mueller indictment mean Hillary campaign can be indicted for Christopher Steele.
Now, think about this.
This is pretty sharp and profound.
So if Robert Mueller is indicting foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens, again, think about this.
Because those citizens didn't register as a foreign agent nor record financial expenditures to the FEC.
Well, by that theory, when is Mueller going to indict Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, Perkins Cooey, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign?
Because his indictment against 13 Russian trolls and three companies claimed that their social media political activity was criminal because they were foreign citizens, that they tried to influence an election, that they neither registered under the FARC Act, the Foreign Agents Registers Act, nor reporting their funding to the FEC.
And Mueller's theory, if it's correct, three things make Steele then a criminal.
He's a foreign citizen.
He tried to influence the election.
He received payments to do so, including maybe from the FBI itself.
And he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the FEC.
And also, according to the FBI, along the way, Steele lied a lot.
And the dossier was full of phony, fraudulent, false information and lies that were bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton.
So if Mueller's theory is correct, three things then make Fusion GPS.
What role would they have in all of this?
In other words, they knew Steele was a foreign citizen.
They paid Steele to influence the election.
They knew that they facilitated all of this in every capacity.
And Steele neither, you know, registering as a foreign agent or reporting his funding from the DNC and the Clinton campaign to the FEC.
So if Mueller's theory is correct, wouldn't it make sense then that the three things that make Perkins Coy the potential target was Steele the foreign citizen?
You know, it knew and paid.
They were paying Steele to influence the election.
Cooey, whatever.
Perkins Cooey.
And this all came from then.
If Mueller's theory is correct, then the three things make the DNC also a potential target in all of this.
And the Clinton campaign a potential target in all of this because they're disguising their payments to Steele by going through the other side of this.
Anyway, think about it.
One other thing: if Mueller's theory is correct, and the three things, the Clinton campaign, they would be a target.
Did they know Steele was a foreign citizen?
Did they know he was getting paid?
Did they know Steele was trying to influence the election?
Did they know that Steele wasn't registered as a foreign agent and wasn't reporting the income?
And why are we not getting that indictment or investigation?
Mueller's choosing his targets here because he knows they're never going to appear in court.
This whole thing that we saw on Friday was not meant to scare the Russians because the Russians are never going to be put on trial here in the United States.
They're not going to contest the charges.
They're not going to be arrested.
They're not going to be extradited as Russian citizens.
Anyway, Mueller's prosecution, I think, raises, as this article points out, Robert Barnes wrote this piece.
I think it points out a lot of different things here.
And it talks about fundamental fairness.
You know, you just got to go back.
Now, if the amount of money as analyzed by Byron York is correct and it's less than $3,200, if that's the key in Battleground States, then what influence did they possibly have in all of this?
That would make Rod Rosenstein's comment it didn't influence the elections 1,000% right.
Or the Facebook vice president of AdProduct, Rob Goldman, tweeting out Friday very definitely that the swaying of the election was not the main objective.
Their main objective was what Rosenstein said, was to sow discord.
And then you have Devin Nunes.
Devin Nunes said in an interview with Cheryl Atkinson this weekend, nobody's paying attention to it in the media.
And I think one of the most obviously illegal aspects of the Obama surveillance scandal here, and therefore one of the least covered by the media, we have Samantha Power.
Samantha Power is a U.N. representative, and her claim that she was appropriated without her permission by some unidentified Obama official using her name to illegally unmask hundreds of American citizens during the 2016 campaign.
Now, Devin Nunes told Cheryl Atkinson that he thinks Samantha Powers is lying.
He said, on the unmasking, she asked, you know, one very tangible bit of evidence that to me looks like a crime is the fact that the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, it looked like she made a masking request on a near daily basis, which is pretty amazing considering the year 2016.
This is where we all got started in this, with the surveillance, the unmasking, the lack of minimization, the leaking of raw intelligence.
In the case, for example, a crime was committed against General Michael Flynn.
Anyway, she told Congress most of those were really not her.
If it's not her, then who was it?
Who's unmasking American citizens that are caught up incidentally in surveillance?
And why are we using the powerful tools and weaponry of intelligence on American citizens?
Nunes said, we don't know what the truth is here.
He said, I think it's highly unlikely that she was not the one who was giving permission to make those unmasking requests.
So did she lie before Congress?
Who do you believe?
Now, Nunes says, I just don't know how her story is possible.
Now, if Nunes is right and Samantha Power was the person who actually unmasked 300 American citizens or thereabouts during the 2016 presidential campaign, she needs to be indicted.
That would include perjury, and she would need to be jailed until and unless she identifies whatever Obama official told her in conducting this unmasking business.
You know, the statement here, this is not a surprise.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that we're at this point in terms of Russians trying to interfere in our election.
They got 20% of our uranium.
I remember when some people got annoyed that I interviewed Julian Assange.
And I've said this before.
I'll say it again.
In many ways, had we paid attention when Julian Assange was 16 and he broke into NASA and the DOD, how old is Julian Assange now?
45, about 45 years old.
So all of those years, we knew we had a vulnerability in terms of cybersecurity.
Now the question is, why didn't the federal government do something about it in the intervening decades to fix the problem?
And there were other people that we know that had hacked into American Department of Defense, other big departments as well.
And at some point, if it goes on 16, 26, 36, if it goes on 29, 30 years, at what point do we say our government's at fault considering they've known that these people are doing it all of these years?
Yeah, okay, you can say, oh, well, we can blame this person and that person, but I blame our government because they've had ample warning and opportunity to fix what is an obvious problem.
And they haven't done it.
And the reality is, if you leave yourself open this way, then all of this stuff's going to happen.
Similarly, if Vladimir Putin was able to put his operatives on the ground in America and they're able to get away with bribery and extortion and money laundering and kickbacks and racketeering in America, and they have a stated goal of getting America's uranium, and they put together this corrupt scheme to get a foothold in America's uranium market, and we've got an informant telling our government, hello, hello, this is all happening,
and we don't respond and we don't stop it.
At that point, you know, are we really going to blame the Russians or are we stupid?
We're just ridiculously stupid that we ever allowed that to happen.
And then it raises serious questions.
It never made sense, did it, in any way, to give up America's uranium to a foreign entity, any foreign entity, friendly or not, in this case, it's hostile.
So the surprise that Russia would try to do this or, you know, Obama taking a shot at Donald Trump just before the election, stop whining.
No serious person thinks you can rig an election.
No evidence that's happened.
And I've never seen a politician trying to discredit an election process.
Voter fraud claims are based on no facts.
Well, what about all the influence that was going on?
Do we not think that the Iranians are trying to do this?
They are.
Do we not think the Chinese are trying to do it?
They are.
Do we not think other hostile nations are trying to do it?
They are.
We even have friendly nations that are hacking in and trying to hack into America and find out what's going on in here.
We do it to them, and they do it to us.
And you can actually go back and literally see the instances where we've done this to other countries.
We've done it ourselves, which, by the way, I'm not against.
I want the United States to have the best intelligence available.
I just don't want the intelligence being used or turned on the American people in any way.
But at the end of the day, we're still at the same point where we were.
It has nothing to do with Trump campaign allegations of collusion.
That's separate.
No American had any knowledge of what these Russians were doing.
That was announced by Rod Rosenstein.
They did devise an elaborate scheme.
It seems well-funded.
They did want to sow discord in the country, and they did.
You know, the new Russian indictment from Friday is, yeah, the Russians campaigned for and against Donald Trump.
Went against both.
It went both ways because it's really America that they're going after.
And then that becomes a big problem.
You know, let me give you some other examples of meddling.
You know, over the weekend, you had the House Russia Gay Committee member Adam Schiff.
He was actually blaming the Obama administration.
There's no denying that Obama, what he said in October of 2016, it couldn't happen when he was warned about it in 2014.
So Schiff had to at least gently criticize Obama for this.
But I have to ask about this indictment because it says that Russian interference has been going on since 2014.
That was halfway through the president's second term, excuse me, President Obama's second term.
Do you believe that President Obama and his administration bear some responsibility for not stopping this well before the 2016 presidential election?
I've said all along that I thought the Obama administration should have done more.
And indeed, when we discovered and we could attribute the conduct to Russia, Senator Feinstein and I took the first steps to make public attribution because at that time we couldn't get the Obama administration to acknowledge the Russian interference.
They were very wary of appearing to be putting their hand on the scale in the election.
Now, they did make an acknowledgement the following month, but I don't think that was sufficient.
I think they should have engaged in conversations about sanctions at that time.
Oh, okay.
So, you know, let me give you some examples here.
And I think we were one of the few people to point this out.
Remember the Israeli elections in 2015?
Remember the Obama administration?
Remember the Victory 20 group?
Remember the money that was spent?
Remember John Kerry?
Remember they illegally intervened in, you know, this is our closest ally in the Middle East.
And you had the Obama administration trying to undermine the prime minister in his reelection attempt, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
They were covertly funneling State Department grants to opposition groups and all the reports of Obama people on the ground in Israel and what they were trying to do.
Obama's State Department gave $350,000 to a group called One Voice Movement, V20, you know, for supporting peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu.
There are other instances, too, we've done over the year.
Look at what the Obama administration did when they were encouraging President Jose Mubarak and intervening in that election to ensure what?
That Mohamed Morsi, the guy that once referred to Jews as descendants of apes and pigs, our government was supporting this radical Muslim Brotherhood leader.
He was elected president.
Then Obama's State Department gave him jets, $1.5 billion in foreign aid.
And by the way, didn't Hillary Clinton, didn't she interfere in Libya, not only politically, but militarily as well?
Didn't she orchestrate a series of policies designed to get Muammar Gaddafi out of power?
Now, it would be a stretch to call Gaddafi an ally in any way, but at that point, he seemed to have been cooperating, gave up his nuclear program during the Bush years.
And anyway, but supposedly was trying to help.
You know, what about other so many other.
What about Macedonia?
What about we can go all around the world?
Thought liberals were against this sort of thing.
You know, there's got to be some context and texture to everything that's happening.
I'm glad our country gets involved in important foreign policy issues.
There is a certain argument, though, to be made.
I mean, we have got to protect our country.
And I go back and I just, if we knew in 2009 what Putin and Russia were doing and we didn't stop it then, then on some level, you got to say, well, we're encouraging them because we're too stupid to fight back when we had the chance.
You have an informant inside the FBI, and I'd love Robert Mueller to answer this question.
Did you not know what the informant was reporting?
Putin's operatives in America.
Extortion, bribery, money laundering, kickbacks.
And then he gets 20% of our uranium.
He didn't stop Cepheus.
Why didn't you stop CPIs?
Quick break.
We'll come back.
Sarah Carter, Sidney Powell, and David Schoen.
You're going to love this guy next.
The indictment charges 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for committing federal crimes while seeking to interfere in the United States political system, including the 2016 presidential election.
The defendants allegedly conducted what they called information warfare against the United States with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.
According to the allegations in the indictment, 12 of the individual defendants worked at various times for a company called Internet Research Agency LLC, a Russian company based in St. Petersburg.
The other individual defendant, Yevgeny Viktorovich Brogozhin, funded the conspiracy through companies known as Concord Management and Consulting LLC, Concord Catering, and many affiliates and subsidiaries.
The conspiracy was part of a larger operation called Project Lockda.
Project Lochta included multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation, and others targeting foreign audiences in multiple countries.
Internet Research Agency allegedly operated through Russian shell companies.
It employed hundreds of people in its online operations, ranging from creators of fictitious personas to technical and administrative support personnel with an annual budget of millions of dollars.
Internet Research Agency was a structured organization headed by a management group and arranged into departments, including graphics, search engine optimization, information technology, and finance departments.
In 2014, the company established a translator project focused on the United States.
In July of 2016, more than 80 employees were assigned to the translator project.
All right, that was Rod Rosenstein talking about the Department of Justice now charging 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, for committing federal crimes while seeking to interfere with the 2016 elections.
No allegations in the indictment of any American who was a knowing participant in any illegal activity.
No allegation that the election outcome was altered.
And then we have new information today that actually adds to that point.
When Byron York breaks it down in his piece over the weekend, I mean, literally, if you look at the states, the total spent on ads in Wisconsin, it's $1,979.
All told in key battleground states, we're talking about less than $3,200.
Meanwhile, both campaigns spent a combined $2.4 billion.
Facebook executive, their vice president of ad product, Rob Goldman, tweeted Friday that he can very definitely say that swaying the election was not the main objective of the Russian actors that meddled in 2016 in the elections using social media, but rather sowing discord was their goal, which Rod Rosenstein also pointed out.
And one of the things that I think is most interesting in all of this is, you know, the fact that this effort for this campaign, 2016, started in 2014.
Devin Nunes is the House Permanent Select Committee Chairman of Intelligence.
He said the Putin regime presents a pressing threat to American interests.
He actually said this about last year when he said, he goes, including through Moscow's long-running influence operations against the U.S., the House Intelligence Committee has been investigating these threats for many years.
In 2014, the year the Russians began their operation targeting the 2016 elections, I warned about Russia's worldwide influence operations.
In April of 2016, I stated that the United States and their failure to predict Putin's plans and intentions is, quote, the biggest intelligence failure that we have had since 9-11.
Although the Obama administration failed to act on the committee's warnings, it's gratifying to see Russian agents involved in all these operations have now been identified and indicted.
All right, here to sort through all of this, and we have so much more today.
We welcome back Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor, and Sidney Powell, federal appellate attorney and former federal prosecutor, author of the book License to Lie, Exposing Corruption at the DOJ, and also David Schoen.
We talked about him last week, civil rights criminal defense attorney.
He's here to talk about Sarah's piece and what he knows about Andrew Weissman and this team that Robert Mueller has put together.
Thank you all for being with us.
We appreciate it.
Sidney, let me start with you, and let's start with what Rod Rosenstein is saying here, because what I'm hearing is, okay, this has nothing to do with the Trump campaign, no allegations of collusion.
No American had any knowledge of what the Russians were doing.
And when you look at the actual impact, it seems to be next to negligent.
Yes, unfortunately, the indictment is a nice story, but in practical terms, it's not going to amount to a hill of beans.
I don't think anyone named in the indictment is in this country now and could actually be brought to trial on the charges.
The conspiracy charge is a bunch of hooey.
It's a nice story, but it's not a criminal offense.
They've described a number of things that are criminal offenses, and there are some criminal offenses in the indictment like wire fraud and bank fraud.
And there's actually apparently visa fraud, too.
These people committed identity theft, and those things are charged, but they have nothing to do with any American and absolutely no effect on the election.
Well, that to me would be a pretty important point in all of this, considering this is what we've been hearing for nearly 18 months.
Sarah Carter, let me bring you into all this.
No allegations that the Trump campaign was involved in any collusion.
That's the second part of the investigation.
It didn't happen with the Paul Manafort indictment.
It didn't happen in any other, it didn't happen in the General Flynn part of this case.
You got the Russian defendants devised an elaborate scheme to sow discord.
You know, on the one hand, they're supporting Trump.
On the other hand, they're undermining Trump.
All of that was in the indictment.
Absolutely.
I mean, and this is what Devin Nunez, others had warned about in the past.
I mean, this is nothing new to the U.S. intelligence community that knows Russia creates and works very diligently on what they call disinformation campaigns.
They're experts at this.
That's what they do.
They didn't want to sway the election either way.
And this goes directly to sources I've been speaking to as early as we started breaking these stories last year.
And you remember there were all these little elements coming out of Clapper, James Clapper, John Brennan, everybody who tried to kind of push in the direction that there was some kind of nefarious action taking place between Russia and possibly people within the Trump campaign.
But what we see here directly in this indictment was exactly what Russian experts, Russian analysts at the CIA and other agencies had said from the beginning.
Look, they didn't want it didn't matter whether it was Trump or Hillary Clinton.
They wanted to sow discord.
They wanted to make life impossible.
And guess what?
Some in the media, some of the Democrats, maybe some Republicans are responsible for actually feeding into the Russian discord, doing exactly what the Russians wanted, and then spreading these malicious rumors and lies.
I mean, the Russians didn't have to go as far as you see how little money they invested in this fire.
And that was part of the tweet that the president made, that a point he made this weekend in a tweet.
You know, they're laughing their asses off at us in all of this.
Let me welcome to the program David Schoen.
And David, you are a civil rights and criminal defense attorney, correct?
Yes, sir.
Now, this gets to the heart of what this special counsel has been appointed to do.
I can play person after person after person on Intel committees, the Senate, the House.
I can play Clapper and Brennan and Feinstein and Joe Manchin and even Maxime Waters all saying, well, there's plenty of smoke, but there's no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
This has now gone on for well over a year.
And I look at this team that Robert Mueller has assembled.
You happen to know what the New York Times refers to as Mueller's pit bull, a guy by the name of Andrew Weissman.
And apparently, you were the 2015 whistleblower.
You met with the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.
We're expecting his report in March at some point, and several FBI officials to discuss Weissman.
What do you think of a special counsel that would appoint somebody like Andrew Weissman?
Right, I think it's a horrible development.
That's frankly what attracted me to interested me in this issue in the first place.
That is, when we're dealing with something as weighty as an investigation of the President of the United States, it seems to me at least that any investigative team has to be above reproach by any standards.
Why on earth would Mr. Mueller pick someone who, by any standards, has been the subject of real documented, substantiated criticism on ethical matters?
You know, I go back 20 years with this fellow.
My first introduction to him was standing in line waiting to see a client at a holding facility, and a lawyer in front of me had been dealing with him for a while.
And we talked about Weissman and the case, and he said, oh, you know, we call him the pathological liar.
This is after, you know, Saturday Night Live character at the time.
And I asked why, and he gave me a lot of examples.
That was my first introduction.
I don't think it scratched the surface.
So I think that, you know, we see now certain pundits, James Clapper, others saying, well, we're going to see more from Mr. Mueller, and it may yet tie it to President Trump, etc.
The problem here is, the broader problem is there can't be any credibility in an investigation or the results of an investigation when the messengers have no credibility.
And by the way, I have to say to you, I don't limit it to Andrew Weissman.
I know that Mr. Mueller is held out as a hero by many, and he did serve his country at some point.
But I would suggest you, or the listeners, look at a 2011 article in the Boston Globe, for example, that suggests that Mr. Mueller was involved in the same kind of conduct Andrew Weissman was involved with covering up corrupt relationship between the FBI and an informant at the time.
And by the way, you know, I'm saying this to you as the son of a former FBI agent, an agency that I have great regard for.
But this kind of.
By the way, so do I.
I have great regard for the FBI, but not the upper echelon in this case.
That's right.
And so we just, there's absolutely no reason.
But what is the reason?
The reason is there's always been a connection for many years between Mr. Mueller, Mr. Weissman, and others in Mr. Weissman's crew in the Eastern District of New York who constantly— Comey and Rod Rosenstein, you know, Andrew McCabe.
They all go way back.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's like— Sidney, go ahead, weigh in.
Yes, well, as I've said before, I literally wrote the book on Andrew Weissman.
It's called License to Lie, Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.
And you can trace Mueller and Weissman and Comey back 20 to 30 years in overlapping conduct and supporting each other.
Mueller has been protecting Weissman in particular for at least 20 years.
He helped put him on the Enron task force to begin with, where he destroyed Arthur Anderson and 85,000 jobs, only to be reversed nine-to-nothing by the Supreme Court three years later and sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that didn't state an offense while they yellow highlighted and hid the evidence that showed they were innocent.
I mean, he's just one outrage after the other.
Let me get into this.
And this is where your column, I think, from last Friday becomes so pertinent.
We'll get into that with Sarah Carter.
And we also continue with David Schoen and Sidney Powell with us, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we're going to keep them for the hour.
There's just too much information we've got to get to here, including when we come back later.
We're going to play Barack Obama's comments.
Oh, I've never seen a politician try to discredit the election process like Trump has.
Voter fraud claims based on no facts.
Stop whining.
And Obama saying, no serious person thinks you can rig the election.
There's no evidence it has happened.
And Trump should stop whining.
Make America less great by alleging voter fraud.
This was just before the election.
Unbelievable.
Hey, and remember, he was warned in 2014 about the Russians wanting to influence this election.
And as we continue with Sidney Powell and Sarah Carter and also joining us now, David Schoen is with us.
He has experience with Andrew Weissman.
So how many times, Sarah, if we go to the tens of thousands of jobs lost at Anderson Accounting and a 9-0 overturned by the Supreme Court, four Merrill executives a year in jail, and that's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
How many times has Andrew Weissman, the New York Times calls him Mueller's pit bull, how many times has he been excoriated by judges for withholding exculpatory information that would help a defendant?
Well, it appears it's one time too many.
I mean, it appears that Weissman has had this run-in with both people of his colleagues in the profession as well as judges.
And if you just look at the column that I wrote and the case that David Schoen was involved in and what happened back in the Eastern District of New York, I mean, you couldn't have been more reprimanded by a judge if you had to be.
I mean, they wanted to report Weissman then to the bar.
And then, of course, his close allies get him, you know, his name removed from Judge Sifton's memorandum and order.
His name's then removed from that.
I'm grateful that we have the original document to show that he was reprimanded.
In fact, reprehensible was reprehensible was the word used by Judge Sifton.
But, you know, Sean, this is the reason why.
So many people are infuriated.
Even FBI agents within their own bureau have been screaming mad about this.
This is how these people protect each other.
This is a bureaucracy that has, and it's not just the FBI.
We've seen it in other agencies.
We've seen it at the CIA.
We've seen it in different various intelligence agencies where people protect each other.
They pat each other's backs.
They keep people that need to be promoted from being promoted.
They promote each other and they keep each other safely guarded.
And then we see this very political bias that showed up in the 2016 presidential election.
And now we're seeing it in the special counsel where we see all the same players that have been involved in the same cases in the past, protecting each other and covering for each other.
And remember, even Rod Rosenstein, if we look at him, we look at his kid, he was involved in Uranium One.
We see Andrew McCabe, Uranium One.
We see these guys involved with Moeller, the rest of them involved with Enron, involved in Pat's cases.
He is torated for what they've done.
But because they're so powerful in the bureaucracy, they've grown together.
They've given each other, they've fed off each other and given each other that power.
They've basically been the untouchables.
That's what I think of calling them.
These are the untouchables.
But now the truth is coming out.
I think what we should be so grateful for, out of all of this mess that has happened in the 2016 presidential election, even the investigation in Hillary.
Stay right there.
We've got to take a break again.
We'll come back.
Our long segment on the other side of this.
Sidney Powell, David Schoen is with us.
Sarah Carter, 800-941, Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
We'll play Obama's comments and much more.
That's next.
Straight ahead.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
Let me play for you Barack Obama.
This is October 18th, 2016, just before the election, less than a month later.
And this is what he said at a press conference about voter fraud.
Now, remember, he was warned, we now learned back in 2014, about the Russians and their desire to influence the elections.
Now, he was pretty confident at this particular point in the campaign that Hillary Clinton was going to be the next president.
Nobody thought Donald Trump had a chance to win.
This is what he said.
If Mr. Trump loses Florida, it's because of those people that you have to watch out for.
That is both irresponsible, and by the way, doesn't really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you'd want out of a president.
If you start whining before the game's even over, if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else, then you don't have what it takes to be in this job.
Because there are a lot of times when things don't go our way or my way.
That's okay.
You fight through it.
You work through it.
You try to accomplish your goals.
But the larger point that I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.
There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.
And so I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.
And if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government.
And it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he said about me or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to this Capitol in which there would be a peaceful transfer of power.
That's what Americans do.
That's why America is already great.
One way of weakening America and making it less great is if you start betraying those basic American traditions that have been bipartisan and have helped to hold together this democracy now for well over two centuries.
All right, there you have the president.
Stop whining.
Oh, if Hillary becomes president, so confident.
But he was warned back in 2014 that the Russians were doing this, that they wanted to do this, that they'd organized to do this.
All right, we continue with Sarah Carter, Fox News reporter, investigative journalist, Sidney Powell, federal appellate attorney, former federal prosecutor, author of the bestseller, License to Lie, Exposing Corruption at the Department of Justice.
David Schoen, civil rights criminal defense attorney.
Thank you all for being with us and hanging through the break.
David Schoen, what's your reaction to what you just heard the president say, especially knowing that he was warned in 2014 this is going to happen?
I mean, I'm sorry to say it on such a serious subject, but my reaction was to laugh, quite frankly.
Look, there are so many elements to this whole puzzle, and it's certainly gotten blown up to be a bigger puzzle than maybe it is.
But in any event, you know, I was mentioning to Sarah, who I have to say, you know, is just absolutely magnificent in all of her work, brilliant and hard-hitting and aggressive, et cetera.
Yeah, I know I'm chopped liver around here when Sarah's on.
I get it.
I understand.
I totally get it.
I'm nobody here, Siddhi.
It's nothing.
I know you also.
I have to say, though, that there is some irony here, you know, in all of this discussion.
It hasn't really been addressed.
I mentioned this to Sarah yesterday.
It doesn't take great memory to recall the previous administration's direct interference with the elections in Israel and all of the efforts to unseat Prime Minister Netanyahu.
With taxpayer money.
Yeah, the millions with money with personnel.
Anyway, that's sort of beside the point, not directly relevant to what you asked me.
But it is something that I think ought to be noted.
Look, our government has been interfering in elections overseas from time immemorial.
That's part of our foreign policy, frankly.
But those are broader questions, I think, that one has to ask about the basis for this investigation in the first place and the degree to which it's been blown up.
But if we're really talking again about credibility, I want to tell you one thing just to back up to our earlier discussion.
This is why I say no matter what comes out of this commission now, if Mr. Clapper's right and there's going to be more to the indictment, more people brought in, I just can't believe it.
I won't be able to believe whatever happens.
And that's not the situation we ever want to be in in this country.
All three branches of government are important to our system.
And because someone doesn't like the person holding the office, attacking the office and weakening the office isn't in anybody's interest.
You have a man like Weissman or Mueller.
Consider what Weissman did specifically in the Eastern District of New York.
In the case of Vicaraina, for example, we now know, and we wouldn't know otherwise, and that's the danger of withholding exculpatory evidence.
We now know because an informant has written us a letter that someone else confessed to the murder.
And they know all of the facts about the murder that this fellow, Vicaraina, was charged with, and it wasn't Vic Arena.
But we still haven't ever heard that from Mr. Weissman or anyone from the government.
We only know it because the informant gave them that information.
In the case of Mr. Sessa, Weissman and his colleague stood before the court when the defense lawyer asked for the investigative file, the New York Police Department investigative file in the case.
And Stemboletis, Mr. Weissman's partner, told the court they've seen that file.
Mr. Gleason said it.
They all supported it.
They've seen that file, and there's nothing in it exculpatory of Mr. Sessa.
That wasn't true because we were able to get the file through a source later on.
It showed 10 to 12 other suspects, one of whom was the FBI informant Scarpa.
It shows the dead person alive hours after Mr. Sessa was convicted of killing him.
And they vouched for the FBI agent, who we now know was probably the most corrupt FBI agent in the history of the FBI, who was being handled by Weissman and his crowd.
So how can you have credibility if that's the background?
Sydney, I hear you want to jump in.
Go ahead.
Yeah, they put it Tom and Tom and Tom again.
I mean, I have multiple pages of their lies to the courts and the Enron-related prosecutions, just time and time and time again, and altered 302s.
That's nothing new.
Weissman is a master of deception.
He has been and should have been excoriated by any number of courts, but they tend to want to give them a pass.
We actually filed a grievance against Weissman with the New York Bar.
You can find the complaint, the lengthy complaint on my website, licensed law.com, under sources for the book.
And the New York Bar was considering it then while Department of Justice was defending Mr. Weissman because he was under Mueller's wing at the FBI as general counsel then.
And lo and behold, the New York Bar sent it to Department of Justice to decide the grievance while they were defending him on it.
So that went away rather quickly.
Sarah?
Mr. Hennedy, I hope the listeners appreciate the irony of this because you're someone who speaks out on behalf of hard-nosed prosecutors.
You're a law and order person.
It's not that anyone here is suggesting we should have anything other than a hard-nosed prosecutor.
But if you want to have an investigation of the President of the United States, then have people doing it who are above reproach.
And Sarah got anyone.
I mean, everyone is entitled to a fair prosecution.
We can have no credibility with our Justice Department at all as long as people who are in it are breaking the law.
And this is where I go back.
This is where I go back, Sean, to this idea of the untouchables.
This has been a problem inside our bureaucracy for a long time.
This is almost like kind of like a pull-up bureau.
Everybody's protecting their friends.
And that happens naturally sometimes, but this is to the point of extreme where we know, where we know for a fact these people have been reprimanded.
They've been reprimanded by their colleagues.
They've been reprimanded by judges.
They've been reprimanded by people within the FBI or people within the DOJ, but they get protected and they have this protection and this layer of protection that keeps them moving up and moving up until we see them in the seventh floor of the FBI or up at the top of the DOJ or in the special counsel in probably one of the most important cases in American history when you think about this.
I mean, yes, for the first year of President Trump's administration, America has been held hostage, has been held hostage, not just by the Russians, but from people within that are basically in control, trying to find a crime inside a special counsel.
Everybody has been laying out the facts out there, and there's nobody to check those people.
It's like the fox guarding the hen house, you know, and they're eating up all the hens.
And we keep putting the fox in charge.
And just like Sidney said, and just like David said, if you look at this straight on its face, Sydney tried to report this.
Where does it go?
It goes to the Justice Department.
Well, at that point, you know, you have Weissman in the Justice Department.
Nobody's going to go after him.
He's just going to push it over to the side, move that paper to the side.
Nothing to see here.
Let him continue.
And this is why Mueller brought him on board, because Mueller knew exactly who Weissman was and knows exactly how Weissman operates.
And they're looking at the same thing.
That's exactly right.
Mr. Hannity, you know, to support Sarah's point, do you understand that before Sarah brought forward this letter, the order from Judge Sifton, and the letter from Zachary Carter, the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, it had never seen the light of day.
It's unprecedented.
The chief judge of the Eastern District of New York found, as you reported earlier, Weissman's conduct to be, I have a myopic view of his obligations as a prosecutor to see that justice is done.
Reprehensible conduct should be reported to the bar.
And a letter from the U.S. Attorney asking the chief judge to withdraw it because it could hurt Mr. Weissman's career.
And then Chief Judge Sifton, who himself was a law and order guy, withdrew the order and substituted another one that left out Weissman's name.
That's why I say it gave license.
Way back then, 1997, it gave license to this kind of conduct.
And there was a unit there that operated above the law.
And then they, again, reunited.
This is Valerie Caproni, who's now sitting as a federal judge.
She was the chief counsel for the FBI.
Weissman replaced her with Mueller as the FBI director.
It's really unprecedented.
Sidney, I just called them a corrupt cabal.
Yeah, well, I've never seen a team put together like this.
I mean, this is the listen, I am a law and order guy.
I'm also an FBI guy.
I'm a law enforcement guy.
But I'm also, but I'm also.
Exactly.
You have been a full-time prosecutor, but I also believe that we should not be abusing the powers that we give people and that they shouldn't abuse these powers.
And if they do, they shouldn't continue in that line of work.
You can't withhold exculpatory evidence.
And frankly, there's even questions about FBI Director Mueller himself, which you referred to in the last half hour, David Schoen.
Yeah, well, I mean, that's true.
And again, there are traces even to the Eastern District of New York case with Weissman.
By the way, you know, people justify this conduct as well.
It's organized crime.
And so therefore, we all should understand the end justifies the means.
That's simply not true because if these same principles are applied to other people, Ted Stevens, for example, first time people woke up in a long time and said, look how terrible this is.
Look what the dangers are of the withholding of exculpatory evidence.
But, you know, Mr. Mueller is tied even to that case because when the corrupt FBI agent put in his bid to get his very high legal fees paid, this is an FBI agent who was charged with several counts of murder in state court in New York.
Mr. Mueller approved it, even though a federal judge had found that DeVecchio, the FBI agent, wasn't acting as a government agent in his corrupt relationship.
So, you know, we can't just justify it by saying, well, after all, they were mafia figures.
Everyone comes before the court with a presumption of innocence.
And it doesn't make sense and it's not fair to just convict someone of a crime they didn't do because we think, well, they must have done some crimes because we have them associated with organized crime.
It's just not appropriate.
Got to take a quick break.
We'll come back.
David Schoen, Sidney Powell, Sarah Carter.
We have full coverage of all of this tonight.
News and information.
I promise you're not going to get anywhere else.
That's Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
All right, as we continue wrapping up here with Sarah Carter, Sidney Powell, and David Schoen, as we discuss Robert Mueller and his team, President Obama doing nothing as it relates, even though he was warned years earlier.
How does this all wrap up, Sarah?
When do we get some finality here from the special counsel, or does he just keep digging and digging and digging and we keep getting back information constantly as it relates from the special counsel?
We just don't know, Sean, because we don't have insight into what direction Mueller's taking.
We can guess.
We can guess based on the cases, based on the charges, but we really don't know how he's going to play this out.
But there's a really important point here.
And David Schoen and you and Sidney brought it up.
It was the fact that the ends doesn't justify the means.
And all you have to do is go back to what just recently happened in this election, the evidence that's been coming out on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and how they discussed how much they hated President Trump and they wanted an insurance policy.
And, you know, the actions of Sally Yates and the actions of all these people that were involved, Andrew McCain, James Baker, all the people that have been removed or been demoted, Bruce Orr.
You know, they believe that their ends justify the means.
And we could see that in those text messages, especially.
Can see that by the fact that Bruce Orr at the DOJ withheld information on his wife and hard work from Asian GPS.
So the ends don't justify the need.
Just because you don't like somebody doesn't give you the right, especially if you have power, to try to go after them by any means necessary.
All right, I'm going to have to let you all go an amazing hour.
Thank you all for your time here today.
David Schoen, Sarah Carter, and Sidney Powell.
Thank you all.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
Are you, sir, investigating the fact that the FBI used the dossier to get a wiretap against Trump associates and they did not tell the FISA court that the Democrats and Hillary Clinton paid for that dossier?
Let me tell you, every FISA warrant based on facts submitted to that court have to be accurate.
That will be investigated and looked at.
And we are not going to participate as a Department of Justice in providing anything less than the proper disclosure to the court before they issue a FISA warrant.
Other than that, I'm not going to talk about the details of it, but I tell you, we're not going to allow that to happen.
Do we need another special counsel in place to look at what the FBI and the Department of Justice abused its power, how they abused their power?
Well, the Inspector General has been working very hard on that.
He's been relentless and tough.
I've seen, I've heard some of his work that's been produced already.
Much of what we know about this has been produced by his work and the Department of Justice.
The text messages that have all been made public were disclosed by the Department of Justice.
We've made Congress, we've given Congress records and documents beyond anything ever been produced, really, probably in history.
And we're going to continue to be open with them and be responsive.
We have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of this process.
I'm going to use my authority as the Attorney General to ensure that.
But the management of this case from which I'm recused is in the hands of Mr. Mueller and supervised by the acting attorney general for this investigation, Rod Rosenstein, a proven professional and Deputy Attorney General.
All right, that was the Attorney General of the United States, and that was Jeff Sessions commenting with Maria Barr Toromo on Fox Business Network as he goes into some detail.
Now, here's where we are.
I mean, it still comes down to this.
Number one, we know Hillary rigged a primary.
Number two, we know that she wanted outside influence.
She paid a former NI6 spy, a British national, to go get information from Russia so she could lie to the American people in an election, because we now know that information, all of which, much of which has been proven false.
And then, of course, that becomes the bulk of information for a FISA warrant against an opposition party candidate in an election year.
And the only reason she got to even stay is because, well, we know people like Comey and Peter Strzok and others, well, they exonerated Hillary.
It was never a real investigation into an email server scandal.
When we get a hold of this IG report next month, it's going to be very revealing.
Anyway, Patrick J. Buchanan has been around the block a few times.
He was in the Nixon administration.
Do you ever see anything this crazy unfolding in this country like this?
In the Nixon administration?
Anywhere.
Anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
Well, no, this is remarkable.
I mean, when you get right down to it, the Watergate thing was about a third-rate burglary, which was lied about to cover it up for the election.
But what you've got here is remarkable.
People are talking about this troll farm or troll factory of these kids over in Russia who are fooling around in the American election or in various issues and taking sides against Hillary, for Trump, Jill Stein.
But what do we have what you just mentioned, Sean?
You've got British intelligence, top-ranked guy at MI6, talking to Russian intelligence agents past or present.
And their information comes to D.C.
It's financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and they send it all over to the FBI, and it's dirt on Trump, alleged dirt on Trump, and it's used to get an F FISA warrant to wiretap and survey the Trump campaign.
Now, this is very serious foreign penetration by foreign intelligence units, past or present, in order to alter the outcome of a presidential campaign by destroying and damaging, damaging and destroying one of the candidates.
Now, is that more serious than this troll farm, which Russian reporters were writing about last year twice?
Well, if you read Byron York's piece in the Washington Examiner, I thought it was great this weekend.
The Russian massive attack on U.S. election spent less than $3,200 in key battleground states, which I guess I could only assume is why Rod Rosenstein said it had no impact on the election.
Now, if you look at the sum, when you round out the money in the race with Clinton and Trump, their campaign spent a total combined $2.4 billion.
So if we're looking at $3,200 in key battleground states, which are the states that matter, doesn't sound all that influential to me when you're dealing with 90 particular people in spite of their budget, which, by the way, was worldwide.
It wasn't just for the United States, of about $1.2 million a month.
And they had started this in 2014 before Trump ever announced.
You know, this is what gets me is that you're exactly right in terms of the relative size and what they were doing.
As a matter of fact, if these guys, they're Russian citizens taking American identities.
If they were American citizens, everything, there's not a thing they've been said to have done, including that float with a cage on it and a woman in it in an orange jumpsuit in a cage saying with locker up written on it.
I mean, if that's all they're up to, it would have been normal politics in an American election.
Now, they shouldn't be doing it, but I agree with you on the relative size of this thing and the relative gravity of what the Hillary Clinton did, the campaign did in colluding with the Russians and the Brits and the FBI.
Now, this is big stuff.
And I wonder, is Mueller dealing with this?
Because there is clearly evidence of Russian collusion in the campaign to destroy one of the candidates.
How can you trust that?
That's what Mueller is supposed to be looking at.
He is.
There's two aspects of it.
One, if the Russians did try to influence, we got that report.
But I think I look at Mueller's appointments, people like we were just discussing in the last hour with Sarah Carter, her blockbuster piece on Andrew Weissman.
I mean, here's a guy, Pat, that literally put tens of thousands of people out of work needlessly because he was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court 9-0, and tens of thousands of Anderson accounting employees lost their jobs, four Merrill executives.
They went to jail for a year.
He withheld exculpatory evidence in two cases.
And in that case, with the Merrill executives, that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
You got all these Obama-Hillary DNC donors, but you don't have any Trump donors.
I think when Trump says a witch hunt, you know, what, of the 20 some-odd people that he appoints to the special counsel, he can't find one conservative.
Not one conservative.
This is a Trump hunt.
This is a Trump hunt.
And from the beginning, the whole thing is this whole machine is designed to bring down Trump.
Now, let's talk about the troll farm of the troll factory.
Nadler, the Democratic congressman from New York, who I believe would be chairman of any impeachment committee, he compares it to Pearl Harbor, the attack on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Oh, good girl.
That shows you the quasi-hysteria in this town.
And one of the reasons there is increasing hysteria is the fear that the country is starting to turn and look at the investigators and look at the Hillary campaign and looking at all the rest of this stuff, which appears to me to have far more gravity than anything coming out of the Miller thing after 18 months.
They've got some young Russian trolls making a few bucks, you know, writing emails and things like that and tweets in the American campaign.
Well, wait a minute.
And this is something I think you have complained, rightly so about in many instances, about U.S. interventionism in other countries.
I mean, we can sit here all sanctimoniously and act like America doesn't do this, but we know during the 2015 elections, John Kerry, the Obama administration, they funneled even taxpayer money to a group in Israel to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu.
We know when Hosne Bobarik was literally hanging on a ledge there.
We know that there was intervention by the U.S. and Mohamed Morsi was elected president.
Remember, Obama's State Department gave political training to Morsi's guys.
Morsi, you know, once he appeared to win in what was a rigged election, Obama poured $1.5 billion in foreign aid into one of the former leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
So I'm sorry.
Sean, then he was overthrown.
Yes.
And the 50,000 Muslim Brotherhood guys, he was a democratically elected president, but 50,000 Muslim Brotherhood guys, I think, have been locked up.
But take the Ukraine, my good friend John McCain, Victoria Newland of the State Department.
They're over there in Maidan Square.
Now, the guy in Kiev was pro-Russian, but he was democratically elected.
He was overthrown in a coup we supported.
And Miss Victoria Newland was over there discussing the new government before the president had fled.
Well, what was Hillary Clinton doing in 2011 with Muammar Gaddafi in Libya?
Weren't we interfering politically?
Weren't we interfering militarily as well?
Orchestrating.
Listen, Sean, I go back in 53, we dumped over the government in Iran.
In 54, it was in Guatemala.
I think our guys might have been fooling around in the Congo when Patrice Lumumba met his fate.
Macedonia.
We didn't do it.
We didn't do it in Chile.
But when General Pinochet overthrew that regime down there of the friend of Fidel Castro, I mean, we applauded and cheered it.
And look, you know, look, Americans, I mean, we're in the real world here.
Americans intervene in the internal affairs of foreign countries.
The National Endowment for Democracy is designed to promote democracy over other forms of government.
They were cheering themselves when the color-coded revolutions, working in Serbia, working in Ukraine, working in Georgia.
I mean, the idea that everybody's on a high horse, they're interfering in our election.
I mean, this is turnabout.
Well, look, we'd be naive, and this goes back to the Cold War.
This goes back even further than that.
And I think you're right.
So what is the natural point here?
Because I agree with you about Mueller.
I want to stay focused on him for a minute here.
Because I look at the team that he has assembled.
I look at the biases that they have.
How do you appoint as your New York Times described Andrew Weissman as Mueller's pit bull?
How do you appoint a guy that lost nine overturned in the Supreme Court nine zip?
Tens of thousands lose their job.
Four innocent people spend a year in jail.
That's overturned Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On two separate occasions, he's excoriated by judges for withholding exculpatory evidence.
Why is he even on the special counsel?
How does Mueller justify that?
Well, the point is, just what you've described, is why he's on the special counsel's operation.
He is a pitfall.
He's going to come after Trump, and they're not going to stop, in my judgment, given the bias and given the edge they have and the resolution resolve they have to take down Trump.
I mean, this is what Mr. Mueller and Tickenhim, who's a well-known individual, knows what he's getting and knows who this guy is and knows what his talents are and knows what his drawbacks are, and he hires him.
I think that tells you where Mr. Mueller is headed if he can get there.
But here we've got 18 months, and Mr. Trump is supposed to have colluded with Putin to hack the DNC and hack John Podesta.
And where is the evidence?
There is no evidence.
There's only one person that knows the truth about that.
I've interviewed him five times, radio and TV, Pat, and that's the guy that put it out.
And that's Julian Assange, and they won't talk to him.
Right.
Well, I mean, look, they've had 18 months.
I mean, if you can't find the smoking gun in 18 months between Putin and Trump, maybe there isn't one.
But another, you know, when this stuff started, a lot of the 19 late or the late 40s, you know who was the bag man for the CIA taking all those monies over to the Democrats, socialists, and others to stop the communists in France and Italy?
Tom Braden of Buchanan and Braden.
Wow.
That brings back history.
He's in the CIA.
He was doing the Lord's work.
Oh, my gosh.
All right.
Stay right there.
Pat Buchanan, 800-941-Sean toll free telephone number.
And as we continue, Patrick J. Buchanan is with us.
You know, you look at the 13 Russian nationals mentioned in this indictment.
They're never going to be indicted, number one.
But what do we learn?
It had nothing to do with Trump or the Trump campaign or any allegations of collusion.
No Americans had any knowledge of what the Russians were doing.
Russians masquerading as Americans, deceiving everyone with whom they had contact.
And a president now, this has gone on for over a year.
He's getting frustrated.
And frankly, I think the country at this point should get frustrated, Pat Buchanan, because after a year, there's never been any evidence of collusion presented to anybody.
You know, this really is an injustice being done.
You know, justice delayed is justice denied.
And for 18 months, Trump has been under this cloud, and I can understand his rage and exasperation.
They had nothing to do with the hacking of those emails, taking the material and giving it to Julian Assange and getting it published.
And this justice-denied thing, this cloud has hung over Mr. Trump.
And I really think that the Justice Department, it's too bad Jeff Sessions recused himself, because I think an attorney general would say, look, you've got to tell the country whether you found anything about Trump's campaign colluding and what your original assignment is, finding out who did the hacking and the rest of it.
And if he didn't do it, stand up and say we have no evidence he did it.
What about all these guys in the deep state that we have discovered that literally exonerated Hillary before they investigated Hillary?
What about what we know about James?
The IG report's going to come out on that, isn't it, Sean?
Look, I'm astounded what they've found out already.
And I think those fellas are really in some kind of trouble.
And the IG's report, isn't that the thing that's supposed to deal with this whole problem?
Yep, that's what we're expecting it any week now.
All right, Pat Buchanan, thank you, sir.
800-941-Sean, our toll free telephone number.
When we get back, we'll get right to the phones.
And Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on Fox.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
All right, glad you're with us.
25 now till the top of the hour.
Let's hit our busy phones here.
I know a lot of you are being really, really patient.
Let's go to Albany, New York, WGY, pretty cold up there at this time of year.
Frank is standing by.
Frank, how are you?
Glad you called.
Good, Sean.
Thank you for taking my call.
What's going on, sir?
Listen, I just wanted to give you a call and talk about the mainstream media.
I know we reference it a lot in conservative talk radio.
It's on Fox News a lot.
We reference the mainstream media, but I must say, ratings I know for Fox are way up.
And a lot more people are listening to you.
A lot more people are paying attention to the truth.
And I finally just wanted to talk to you and let you know, keep doing a great job.
Keep digging.
Keep digging your heels.
It's wonderful.
Listen, I appreciate your vote of confidence.
I can tell you this, and this goes for everybody on this radio team, everybody on my TV team.
We're digging in deep.
We are doing a lot of our own investigation.
We're making a lot of our own phone calls.
We're doing a lot of the work that I thought journalism, you know, so-called journalists would be doing.
We'll never get credit for it, Frank.
I'm just telling you right now, they live in an alternative universe where they still believe and hope and pray that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians before the election.
That narrative, they don't even discuss it anymore.
What's fascinating to me, I'll just point one thing out to you, and I really do appreciate you noticing because, yeah, people are appreciating it.
Then you got a whole other group of people that listen to nothing but lies minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day.
And they can't accept that they were wrong, number one, and number two, that there's something much bigger out there, except it doesn't suit their political narrative.
And that's where we are.
You know, when I said journalism is dead in 2007, I believed I was right, but I didn't know how right I was.
I see evidence of it every night when I turn on the TV at 6:30 p.m. to watch an unnamed show that always has something negative to say about President Trump as the very first thing every single night.
Well, look, I will tell you: if you really, really pay attention, you know, and you really dig deep, and I've counted, I think, this beyond my staff on radio and TV, and they're all hands on deck, and beyond Sarah Carter, John Solomon, and Greg Jarrett, Victoria Tunsing, Joe DeGenova, Tom Finton, Jay Seculo, you know, and if Monica Crowley had a great, there's a few of us that are really digging deep every day.
And I don't want to forget people that deserve the credit.
You know, there's some radio people, TV people, I guess, that are doing it.
I don't know the TV people because I don't watch any TV because I don't have time.
I'm too busy working on the show, but I do appreciate it.
And, Frank, we're not stopping.
We are, as somebody, look, some of my sources, I always ask them this question: if they're not going to give me the information I want that I'm trying to get from them, I say, well, am I over the target?
Am I in the right area?
Am I close?
And the answer is always, you're dead over the target, and you have been for a while.
So we're going to stay on it, and we're going to get conclusion here.
At some point, you know, look at all that we've learned this week.
I mean, now it's gone, you know, from the FBI, DOJ, and now we're looking at Susan Rice, and now we're looking at Obama.
We're looking deeper into Comey.
Now we're looking at Clapper and Brennan.
You know, we had talked about them in the beginning as it related to the surveillance issues.
All right, Billy is in Missouri next on the Sean Hannity show.
What's up, Billy?
How are you?
Glad you called.
Sean, thanks so much for all the effort you're putting forth and bringing this to light.
You're so passionate about it, too.
You make it so interesting talking about it.
But what I wanted to mention was that Obama's role in funding the dossier, the fusion GPS dossier, the PP dossier.
Now, supposedly, he spent $972,000 through Perkins Cole, which was classified as legal fees, which is the same thing that Hillary called it when they spent that money, too.
But he's paid that money about the same time that they were paying for it for the dossier also.
I have the numbers because the FEC numbers are out.
And since April of 2016, Obama for America has paid over $972,000 to Perkins.
I think proper pronunciation is KUI.
I said Koi.
KUI.
But whatever.
And the Washington Post reported that the law firm was directed by both the DNC and Hillary's campaign to retain Fusion GPS.
They're the ones that, remember, the Hillary campaign funneled through that law firm, as did the money she funneled.
If you believe Donna Brazil, she was in charge of it, funneling that money all through the same law firm that all goes to Fusion GPS that pays Christopher Steele that ends up with Russian government lies to manipulate the American people in an election year.
Now, here's the thing: Obama, supposedly a Harvard law professor, theoretically, should know that he was breaking the law then.
So why were they breaking the law to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president?
What were they trying to hide?
Look, I don't think they ever thought that Donald Trump was going to win, but I think they wanted to make sure and take every insurance policy out that they could.
Does that make sense?
Well, they, you know, it's never mentioned that he tipped in on the dossier too, and he didn't want him to become a president because I believe they all had something to hide.
But what was that that they didn't want him to become?
Why were they willing to break the law to prevent him from becoming president?
And I know what you're doing, the work you're doing now, you should deserve, you deserve a Pulitzer Prize.
No, I would give that to Sarah.
I don't want, you know what I want?
I don't want a prize.
I want to save the country.
I want people, the forgotten men and women, to get what they deserve in this life and to get the opportunity that I've had in my life.
That's all I really want.
And then I can retire and I don't know what I'm going to do in retirement, talk to myself.
In retirement, you could find out what they were doing to break the law to prevent Trump from becoming president.
Well, the reason is they thought they knew better.
You know, there's a level of arrogance.
You've got to understand here.
These comments, oh, bitter people clinging to their guns, God, Bibles, and religion, and irredeemable deplorables.
There is a certain honesty in those comments that come out.
I do believe the left has contempt and just think we're stupid.
And they think they know better.
And the people in power thought they knew better.
And they protected Hillary, allowed her to continue her run when others would have been arrested and indicted and charged.
And then they've helped in every way imaginable, both before, and then they tried to undermine an incoming president.
You know, you wouldn't think it could happen here, but it did and much more.
And there's still a lot coming.
I mean, a lot coming.
Back to our phones.
Kathleen is in Montana.
Hey, Kathleen, how are you?
And I assume it's beautiful, clear, sunny, and lots of animals running around in your vast wilderness of a backyard.
The vast wilderness of a backyard, we do have lots of animals.
It's clear, a little bit cloudy, but it's not ate below like it was yesterday.
Like when you look out the window every day, what kind of animals do you see in your backyard?
Elk.
Elk.
Whole herd of elk.
We see them every day.
Every day.
Keeping going.
We just love to.
They're majestic.
We just love to watch them come and go.
And they come down every evening about between 3 and 4.30 from the mountain where they've been hiding all day.
And then they bed down in our pastures and go back up right before sunup.
That's pretty cool.
I got to tell you, that sounds like.
All right, so what else was on your mind?
I'm sure you didn't call about the elk, but I just think it's an amazing life that you live that I don't live that I'd like to live.
I'd like to disappear.
It's a lot of work, but we're retired.
It's more work than we expected, but it's wonderful.
Good for you.
We feel like we're off the grid, but we're 25 miles from town.
It's not terrible.
Wow.
Good for you.
Yeah.
Okay, so we're retired.
We're listening to you daily.
Radio, TV.
In light of all the recent, you know, information, right?
Millions of taxpayer crumbs has he spent on our crumbs has Mueller spent on this.
About a month ago, I heard it was up to $7 million.
Can't we, maybe perhaps we can get a rundown, a taxpayer for all the hillbillies out here that need, you know, want to know how much of our taxpayers' tax crumbs are being spent.
Listen, I think we're up to like nearly $10 million, and I think they have budgeted for years out on this whole thing.
If this goes on forever, think of all the distraction.
Imagine we end this whole thing and there's no Trump-Russia collusion at all, none whatsoever.
And maybe he comes out with an interim report or a final report.
Well, there's smoke, but there's no fire, which is all we heard.
And think of all of the difficulty the country has gone through for purely political purposes.
I mean, it's unbelievable.
Yeah, it is.
All right, so I have another question about your life.
So do you have, so you look in your back.
How many acres do you have?
40.
Wow.
Yeah, you're up there.
You're up against a big ranch.
There's a ranch pasture behind us, and then it's mountains, and it's all BLM land to, I don't know how far.
And you love, and where did you work in your working years?
I worked for an airline and you retired after 24 and a half years.
Wow.
Almost made 25, but I had to retire because of outsourcing.
Oh, great.
Now, and did you think this was a difficult adjustment?
You said it was more work than you anticipated.
I'm just curious.
Well, I moved from Utah from a very small ranch, and it's the same amount of work.
It's just double the wind and much, much colder.
Yeah.
We're at 6,000 feet.
Well, that's amazing.
And you're happy with your decision, though?
You like it?
Very, very, very, very happy.
Yeah.
I can send you some pictures.
It's pretty amazing.
People can't believe that I'm sending pictures of where I live.
All right, stay on the line.
I want to see a picture.
Linda, I want a picture of the elk in the backyard.
Good for you.
You should be very proud, Kathleen.
You achieved your dream, and that's awesome.
That's what this country is about.
Joe and Ella J. What's up, my friend Joe?
How are you?
Sean, you're great.
I love your program.
We're in the Ella J is the Encouragement of Capital of the World, and we want you to come to LAJ to Pooh's famous barbecue.
We want to present you a pig on the hill, and it's a famous place.
They have thousands of them, but we want to give you a special one.
And I also want to say that I think Crumus Pelosi is going to lead the Republicans to huge majority wins.
Look, I wouldn't be so confident with that yet, but I will tell you this.
Listen, I accept your award, your generous award.
You know what I recently have become addicted to?
Pork rinds.
What's that, Sean?
Pork.
I love pork rinds.
Pork rinds are delicious.
Pork rinds.
Disgusting.
Oh, it's pig skin.
It's the most amazing process.
Go online and hit YouTube and watch how you make skin.
Yeah, let's watch how we use dead pig skin and then we fry it in oil.
Delicious.
What's the matter with you?
There's no calories in it either.
Oh, right.
Okay.
Keep telling yourself that.
What are you saying, Joe?
Lauren is a great screener.
She really is a fine person, and I really appreciate her.
Can I get the pig on the hill award too?
She wants the pig on the hill award or whatever that is.
Well, we'll give her one, too.
All right.
Tell her to go.
I'll come.
Can we do a parade?
A parade?
Yeah, let's do a pig pork.
Can we do the military parade, please?
First barbecue and LAJ.
A pig party with Lauren.
Sean, you'll lead it.
Will you wear pig ears?
No.
Notice how this has become Lauren's party, not even your party.
So first it's Linda's party.
Now it's Lauren's party.
All right, thank you, Joe.
You do have to go.
Thank you, Sean.
You're the best.
Bye-bye.
Thank you, Joe.
You have to go online and you have to look at how to make what do you call them?
Pork rinds.
Pork rinds.
It is the most amazing process.
Way do you see how it's done and how it pops up.
It's incredible.
It's disgusting.
No, it's not disgusting.
They have no calories, too, and they're delicious.
If you put the right amount of salt and seasoning on it, it's so good.
You know what else has no calories?
And they're really hot and delicious.
Air.
I would rather just have air.
All right, you have air.
All right, Velma, speaking of air out in Vegas, how are you?
What's going on?
Hey, Sean, how are you doing?
Velma, we love you.
Now, you had a good time when we gave you the all-day spa at the Wynn Hotel, right?
Oh, Lord, I loved it.
You loved it.
All right, well, they treated me like a queen.
But they all knew who you were from the show, right?
They knew who I was.
They knew you.
Yeah.
And one woman, oh, my God, she just, she went on and on about you.
She said, I just, and she says, I love you too.
And it was just wonderful.
Sean, they treated me so nice.
Thank you so much.
All right, thank you.
I'm so happy.
No, you did thank me.
I'm just, I couldn't believe how happy you were to have some stranger.
I cannot thank you enough.
You're welcome.
When's your birthday?
When's your birthday?
John.
When's your birthday?
Oh, Denny, you're going to be trying to ask me how old.
No, I won't ask how old you are.
When's your birthday?
August 25th.
August 25th.
Wow.
That's amazing.
Oh, you're a Leo Velma, huh?
I'm a Virgo.
Oh, you're right on the cusp?
Well, my daughter and wife are the 27th and 29th.
I was born on the 25th.
Wow, 25, 27, and 29.
That's pretty amazing.
All right, so maybe for your birthday, we'll send you back for another one and you can have strangers touching you again.
I don't like massages at all.
Sean, I had a man do my, I requested a man, and I got a man, too, to do my massage.
Now, was the husband okay with the guy doing all that?
You don't get naked on the table, do you?
Yeah, you do, too.
You do?
Yeah, but they so, you know what?
They do it so expertly.
And the room is kind of dim, and the candles are burning.
I'm telling you, it's the best.
It was a bomb.
Ryan in my robe all day, and it was wonderful.
Wait a minute.
So you really, you just lay down on a table naked and then some stranger starts.
Sean, you have never had a massage.
I stood up and walked out.
They only have the areas where they do an uncovered.
I don't like massages.
I don't want them.
I don't like them.
I don't like strangers touching me.
John, you need to have it because it was so relaxing.
Listen, I know people love them, but I'm not one of them.
But it relaxes you.
I don't want to be.
If I go on vacation for two weeks like I do over Christmas, I come back.
I can't even put two sentences together because my brain is relaxed.
I don't like being in that position.
Okay, but I love it.
I tell you, I enjoy it.
Well, that's why, you know, we're all different.
We're all unique people.
We all have our own fingerprint, and that makes us special.
That's true.
Yeah.
All right.
My best to my nephews.
Tell them I love them.
Thank you.
They love you too.
All right, Velma, 800-941-Sean.
All right, Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
Michelle Malkin, Byron York tonight, Sebastian Gorka, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, who joined us earlier on radio, Dan Bongino, and Daryl Parks.
It's all happening on the Monday edition of Hannity tonight at 9.
Hope you'll join us.
Thanks, as always, for being with us.
We'll see you back here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection