Sean is "live from the swamp" as he talks with Congressman Ron DeSantis about the ongoing FBI investigations. Plus, Sean remembers the Reverend Billy Graham, who passed away today at the age of 99. If you think he didn't have an impact on American culture and society, you're very wrong. 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.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
So, for a few years now, I have been working with Express employment professionals, and they've been helping you, my listeners, know where to turn in your job search.
Now, Express offers local connections to the good jobs where you live in a variety of industries.
So, if you're looking for a job, go online, find the nearest express office at expresspros.com, and let them help you.
Now, recently, one Express associate shared this: After applying everywhere for work, I called Express Pros.
After going into the office, I had a job that day.
Now, when you turn to Express Pros, you benefit from 35 years of experience in putting people to work.
They help more than a half a million people find jobs each and every year.
And job seekers at Express Pros never pay a fee whatsoever.
Just go to expresspros.com, find the location nearest you.
And another Express associate said, Express called me to come in for an interview right away and then sent me to interview with a company that same day.
So, don't go it alone any longer in your search for a job.
Find your local Express Employment Professional's office at expresspros.com.
All right, glad you're with us, Sean Hannity Show.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
Now, this is getting very, very interesting.
Every new development we have in Deep State Gate, ObamaGate, whatever you want to call it, we should probably name this whole thing, this whole extravaganza.
No, I'm not worried that George Clooney has visions to run in 2020.
My attitude is: run, George, run.
Well, they said that about Trump, you know.
Fine, if George Clooney wants to run, I'm all for it.
Let him run.
Are you kidding?
Let him run.
You're joking, right?
You want to have Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney run for the future?
I think Oprah Winfrey would be infinitely better as a candidate than George Clooney.
Yes.
I think George Clooney's positions, once they finally come out, would be so asinine, it would be hilarious.
He doesn't have any positions.
He reads lines of other people.
He's not running anyway.
This is all, you know, PR stuff, I think.
But it's been on the front cover of Drudge all day.
I guess he's going to the rally down in Florida and he's given $500,000.
Is the rally in Florida or is it in Washington?
Anyway, we'll get to that a little later.
All right.
A lot of these are small, but they're fascinating developments as it relates to Deep State Gate.
All right.
So the Washington Times, SarahACarter.com, both reporting at the same time, because up until now, we've been told the Trump dossier was a product of research that was commissioned, directed, and bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton.
Now, they're going to tell you, well, wait a minute, Hannity.
Remember, there was a fusion GPS was first hired by the Washington Free Beacon.
That's long before the guy Christopher Steele ever got into this.
And in terms of the nefarious activities that then there followed.
So that is a big distinction that the Destroy Trump media will never make to you.
All right.
So let's go to the Washington Times.
Hillary may have had a Trump dossier co-conspirator.
That's how I'm interpreting Devin Nunes's comments and his letter that he sent out today to varying members, senior Obama administration officials.
Now we're getting to where I think this is eventually going to go anyway.
We got the first signs of this when Susan Rice with her note to self.
She's writing a note on January 20th at 12:15 in the afternoon.
Donald Trump has just been sworn in.
She's leaving the White House now for the last time.
And on her last day, her last minute, her final thought is: uh-oh, I'm a little worried about that January 5th meeting that we had 15 days ago that Barack Obama and James Comey and I was in and others were in.
And uh-oh, I need a CYA fast on this, and I better hide, I better do it for the president, meaning then Obama at the time.
And I'm going to say, he said to do it by the book.
In the meeting, Barack Obama said, make sure we do everything by the book.
Barack Obama said he is not initiating or trying to encourage any law enforcement activity of any kind.
He said, do it by the book.
That's called a cover your ass, CYA.
Any way you interpret that.
So we have, and rightly so, I want to know what everybody knew, when they knew it.
What did they know about the dossier?
And I think if we get when we get to the end of all of this, depending on how many emails, let's see, were deleted.
Oh, that was another thing nobody ever pointed out in the indictment on Friday.
Oh, Mueller excoriating the fact that emails were deleted and destroyed and missing.
I'm like, okay, pot, kettle, hello, Hillary.
We got more deletions.
We've got more use of, nobody knew what bleach bit was until Hillary Clinton used it to acid wash your hard drives.
And then, of course, busting those devices with hammers.
By the way, Ethan, can you go get a hammer and bust up these phones for me right now?
I want to get rid of them right now.
Just kidding.
I'm kidding.
I'm kidding.
You don't have to leave.
All right.
So up until now, we thought the Trump dossier was a product of the research commission directed and bought and paid for by Hillary.
And of course, she was spending, according to Donna Brazil, all the money at the DNC.
Now, Washington Times, SarahA. Carter.com both reporting Hillary may have had these Trump dossier conspirators, people inside the Obama White House that knew.
Now, Devin Nunes, who's the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, he's trying to determine the breadth and reach of these unverified Russia-Trump dossier inside the U.S. government, especially among senior leaders in the Barack Obama administration during the 2016 election.
Now this is getting interesting.
And the chairman of the House Intel Committee, so he released a letter earlier today that is now being sent to as many as two dozen senior leaders in the Trump and Obama administrations.
And he's asking 10 very specific questions to gauge who received the dossier information and what they did with it.
Now the letter's recipients are redacted as of right now, but it's got to be assumed.
I want to know what Brennan knew about this.
I want to know what Clapper knew about this.
I want to know what Susan Rice knew about this.
And considering she was so busy unmasking people, I want to know if Samantha Powers was involved.
Where's Ben Rhodes in all of this?
Hasn't been a whole lot of reporting on Ben Rhodes.
Love to know what he's up to in all of these issues as it relates to all of these issues.
And of course, what did Obama know?
And when did Obama know it?
And as I pointed out yesterday, everyone's so upset about Russian involvement in the election.
No kidding.
These are the same people that had people that we knew in the country involved in felony after felony after felony after felony, committing all these crimes.
And they did nothing except give Vladimir an unsavory character.
They gave him 20% of America's uranium, the hostile nation, Russia, and a bad actor, Vladimir Putin, the dumbest thing I've ever think I've heard of.
Anyway, so Nunes doesn't disclose which people he's asking these questions of, but he encloses in his letter these specific questions.
There are 10 of them.
And he writes, in close, find a series of questions regarding the information contained in the Steele dossier, which was funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign and used for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application targeting Carter Page.
Provide complete written responses as soon as possible, no later than March 2nd, Friday, March 2nd, 2018, to the attention of the committee's chief clerk.
And if you do not provide timely answers on a voluntary basis, the committee will initiate compulsory process, the compulsory process.
Thank you for your prompt attention.
Now, here's interesting questions.
Now, think of the names that I just threw out there.
When did you first become aware of any information contained in the Steele dossier?
Question one.
In what form was the information in the Steele dossier presented to you and by whom?
Please describe each instance.
Who did you share this information with?
When?
And in what form?
Please describe every instance.
What official actions did you take as a result of receiving the information contained in the Steele dossier?
Did you convene any meetings with the intelligence community and or law enforcement communities as a result of the information contained in the steele dossier?
When did you first learn or come to believe that the steele dossier was funded by a Democratic-aligned entity, a Democrat-aligned entity?
And when did you first learn or come to believe the Steele dossier was funded by the DNC and Hillary's campaign?
When did you first become aware that the Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA order against Carter Page?
Was President Obama briefed on any information contained in the dossier prior to January 5th, 2017?
Did you discuss the information contained in the Steele dossier with any reporters or other representatives of the media?
If so, who and when?
And here's the most stunning thing that nobody pays attention to.
Remember, it was in January before Donald Trump was ever sworn in.
Remember the big meeting where James Comey thought it was so important that he had to see the president-elect on his own.
And he informed the president-elect that this dossier existed.
He informed the president-elect that it was not verified.
And he informed the president-elect about the whole thing.
And he said, not verified and salacious.
That's what he said.
Okay, but back in October when they're filing that warrant, and as the Senate and the Grassley Graham memo points out, the bulk of the FISA application, the bulk of it, in other words, as McCabe had said, no dossier, no FISA warrant.
That's what they're saying.
And the bulk of information that they used to get the FISA warrant that was rejected at least once before, maybe twice, when they got that in October against Carter Page, well, they got it using the dossier.
So now there's a probe into this anti-Trump dossier, which is full of unverified lies.
And then, of course, we've got to find out at some point, you know, who knew what, when, and where it relates to the dossier.
Did everybody know that it wasn't verified by Fusion GPS?
Did anybody know?
I mean, this was a great point in that law article that I read yesterday.
If everybody's upset about 13 Russians trying to influence the election, excuse me, but Christopher Steele is not an American citizen either.
And Christopher Steele, I don't think, registered under FARC.
And Christopher Steele, I don't believe either registered with the FEC, Federal Election Commission.
So in other words, the very same charges that they're bringing against these 13 Russians, well, maybe that goes against Christopher Steele.
Maybe that goes against Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson.
Well, maybe that even goes against Hillary Clinton, who paid for all of this.
Here's going to be the interesting thing.
Are they going to use the same tactics that they use against other people that are being investigated?
Well, we can spend five years in jail, or you can tell us what Hillary knew and when she knew it.
Or you can tell us what Obama knew and when he knew it.
Are they going to be going that far down that road?
I just, does Mueller's indictment mean the Clinton campaign can be indicted in terms of for Christopher Steele?
What is the difference if it's a foreign national from Russia or a foreign national that's paying the Russian government, Christopher Steele, you know, if they're trying to influence the American elections?
Now, Robert Barnes wrote this piece.
It is amazing.
It's on lawandcrime.com.
And we'll put it up on Hannity.com because it's a great piece.
All right.
So Robert Mueller's indictment of foreign citizens trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens didn't register as foreign agents nor record their financial expenditures with the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission.
Now, if that's the case, when is Mueller going to indict Christopher Steele?
And then if he's going to indict Christopher Steele, that would mean Fusion GPS.
That would mean Perkins-Cooey.
That would mean the DNC, the Clinton campaign.
They paid for all of this.
He got an indictment against 13 Russian trolls.
And then we have a new indictment today, by the way, against this Russian oligarch, Alec Vanderswan.
He was charged with lying to the special counsel and the FBI over the course of this investigation.
He's the son of a Russian oligarch.
But just stay with the logic here.
If Mueller's theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal, as Robert Barnes points out.
First, he's a foreign citizen.
Second, he tried to influence the election when he received payments to do so, including the FBI, perhaps themselves.
And third, he didn't register as a foreign agent, nor did he list his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.
And according to the FBI, along the way, Steele lied a lot while the dossier was disseminating false information.
We know that he had a political bias against Donald Trump.
And if the theory is correct, that would also apply to Fusion GPS.
And if the theory of Mueller is correct, that would also apply to Perkins-Cooey.
And if the theory is correct, then three things that make the DNC a potential target and the Clinton campaign a potential target.
Now, why wouldn't we expect the same application of law to these entities if, in fact, it's the truth that we're looking for here?
I just think this is a stroke of genius.
You've got to think about this.
If Robert Mueller is indicting foreign citizens, 13 Russians, for trying to influence the American public about an election, because those citizens, and they didn't register, these foreign agents, they didn't register as foreign agents.
They didn't record their financial expenditures to the FEC.
And if that's the case, will Robert Mueller indict Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, Perkins-Cooey, the law firm that they funneled the money through from the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
They used that firm to funnel the money to Fusion GPS, went to Christopher Steele.
Does Mueller then indict them?
Now it's a question of equal justice under the law once again, because we have a dual justice system.
I mean, it was hilarious to read the indictment last Friday about Mueller talking about, oh, well, they destroyed emails.
They deleted them and they got rid of them.
I'm like, hello, hello, hello, Hillary.
Did you wipe this room?
What, like with a cloth or something?
You mean like with a cloth or something?
I mean, that's probably the best answer we've ever gotten.
You mean like, should I have wiped it with like a cloth ad?
You know, do I put like Windex on it or fantastic?
I'm just chilling in Cedar Rapids.
Right.
You were supposed to destroy these, not destroy them, archive them, and not have them available at your will.
Like a national traitor.
So what happens is you get bored back there in the middle of the show and you just decide to just start playing it just purposely to piss me off and annoy me because you think I do a better show when I'm pissed off.
That's what you've said.
You do.
I do a better show angry.
Yeah.
So I should just come in and be pissed off every day.
I thought that was like half of my job just to get you angry so you have a good show.
Well, staring at you sometimes just makes me angry.
And what makes me even angrier is the degree to which you suck up to Linda every day.
It is unbelievable what goes on in there.
The only one that's not sucking up to you is Jason.
You got Sunshine, you know, the sisterhood that has now been formed.
This is not okay.
It's not okay.
All right, we'll get into all of this.
We got a lot of other news now.
We do have some developments in the General Flynn case that is telling me, hold on to your hats.
General Flynn's indictment may go by the wayside.
There's guilty plea.
You got CNN and MSNBC and Michael Moore all caught, apparently, hanging out at this Russian troll anti-Trump rally in New York City on November 12th, on or about November 12th.
We'll explain that and more straight ahead.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
Poor Sarah Sanders sitting there.
I mean, I don't even know.
Why do they waste their time doing this dog and pony show every day with the media that hates Trump and lies every day?
I don't even know why they do it.
I mean, she seems to be of good cheer and she handles it well.
I couldn't.
She's a rock star.
I literally do not understand why they still have these pressers.
They are rude.
They are sanctimonious.
They are agenda-driven.
I can't even imagine if the roles reversed and she was a Democrat and she was a woman working under Hillary, they would say this would be like anti-female.
All the feminists would be out screaming her praises.
What I don't understand with the White House in this sense, and I know they haven't done a presser in a couple of days or one of these stupid press conferences where the media is so hostile.
I don't understand why they don't get up and do a Bill Bella check of the Patriots.
All right, start asking me questions.
Go ahead.
Jason, ask, and Ethan, start firing questions at me.
Yeah.
So how come you haven't placed sanctions on Russia?
No, I'll be getting around to it.
Next.
Do you think there's any proof of meddling in the election?
Said it before.
Is there any truth to these rumors with you and your wife?
No.
Thank you.
How do you feel about tattoos?
Are they good or bad ones?
What?
How do you feel about tattoos?
Personal choice.
Next question.
You guys can't.
How's your golf game?
Sucks.
It's terrible.
Is there anyone you're looking to replace on your team?
You.
Oh.
Next.
Keep going.
I mean, why don't they just answer it like that?
Why do they give her these long-term care?
Because she's polite and she won't stoop to their level of being rude.
She respects the office of the president and what she's been hired to do.
They're so abusively biased.
I just don't get it.
Anyway, speaking of your media, let's listen to CNN and the sh-hole fake news network and the conspiracy theorist network over at MSNBC.
Now, this is interesting.
It was put out by newsbusters, a check of their November 12th coverage.
Remember, if you go back to Friday in Mueller's indictment of the 13 Russians, well, they talked about on or about November 12th, the coverage that took place at an anti-Trump rally in New York City.
Listen to the breathless hysteria that supposedly is news from these two networks as they report this.
And MC's Morgan Radford is at Union Square in New York City.
That is where the anti-Trump protest is just about to kick off.
And Morgan with a good day to you, what's happening there right now?
It's about to kick off.
It's already started.
In fact, you can see hundreds of people behind me here in Union Square.
Thousands of people, as you know, Alex, are feeling marginalized.
I've got to go to the next step.
Stop right there.
Stop right there.
Listen to what she said.
You can see hundreds of people.
But then she goes, but thousands have been marginalized.
Go back and play that again.
Yeah, started from the beginning.
It's fine.
She's Morgan Radford who's at Union Square.
That is where the anti-Trump protest is just about to kick.
Party time.
Morgan with a good day to you.
What's happening there right now?
Well, Alex, it's already started.
In fact, you can see hundreds of people behind me here in Union Square.
Thousands of people, as you know, Alex, are feeling marginalized for president-elect.
But they're not there.
And they said this is a love rally.
It's after they pointed in that direction.
They yelled, We're not going to be tolerating any sexism or homophobia or racism.
And that is really the message.
All of sort of these protesters coming together, frustrated, angry, and all directed at the president-elect.
Hey, Morgan, can you tell who has organized this rally?
It has been suggested that so many of the protests across this country have been impromptu rallies.
I mean, it's been supported by a very diverse array of constituents.
Is there someone in charge here?
Anyone in the world?
Right now, this is a large group of people who has come together with no necessarily official leader.
And that's been some of the criticism.
People have said, well, what's the point?
Do you have all these disparate groups coming together?
But what they're saying is the point is they know they can't change the results of the election because that is in the can.
But what they say is they want to come together and show America that love really does win.
Alex, I have to say I've covered quite a few protests from the Black Lives Matter protest.
And this is something different.
It's something unique.
Bigger.
The energy here is electric.
I think this woman, when she's saying she's concerned that black people will be shot in the street, did she back from that at all, or is that a legitimate concern for her?
Because that's scary.
Alex, it's not only a legitimate concern for her, it's a legitimate concern for a lot of people who I've spoken to.
There are thousands of people.
Donald Trump's elected, and that's what they're saying.
Taking over Fifth Avenue with several messages, all though aimed at our president-elect.
We have people talking about being against racism, sexism.
You hear Black Lives Matter being yelled.
And we, again, are shutting down Fifth Avenue right now, headed straight to Trump Tower.
It is the most organized protest that I've seen happen here in New York City.
And that's going to be a lot of fun.
I can't take it.
I mean, just listen to what these people report.
That is supposed to be news.
That is beyond advocacy.
I guess you could really say in a lot of ways that these reporters, if you go back to the Mueller indictment on Friday, they were unwittingly sucked into the Russian troll protest against Donald Trump.
And Michael Moore was also one of them.
Apparently, Michael Moore was there.
I wonder how Michael Moore feels about that.
You know, I don't, how do people make proclamations like Donald Trump is elected, so people of one race are going to be slaughtered in the streets?
Now, then you hear right behind her Black Lives Matter.
I still remember the chanting, pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon, and what do we want dead cops?
And when do we want them now?
I didn't hear them talking about that in any way, shape, matter, or form.
You know, look, I get that there's this divide in the country.
I understand it.
But you cannot say that these are news networks anymore.
They're not.
They are advocacy networks.
And they're advocating the removal of a president, a duly elected president.
And they're led by hateful people like Bake Jake and Brian Stelter.
Oh, Humpty Dumpty and Humpty Dumpty Sad on a wall.
That's my little boy's favorite song.
This is CNN.
My interest is much greater in Jeff Zucker.
Yeah, who hired those morons?
Soon to be scandal-plagued further.
Jeff Zucker, Matt Lauer's buddy, BFF.
We'll talk.
TikTok.
Brand new, we've got the, you know, and the president, they're upset that the president fights back.
They're upset that the president uses Twitter.
They're upset that the president actually defends himself.
Well, what's he is?
I guess I never understood this about George W. Bush.
Never understood all those years.
I always felt that George W. Bush would have benefited himself greatly if he had the desire and the willingness and the ability to go on either television or communicate to the American people because he just, for all those years, I remember watching him take it and not respond.
I don't understand that mindset.
And Donald Trump is not wired that way.
You hit him, he's going to hit back, and he's going to correct the record, and he's going to stand up for himself.
And that's not something that the media is used to.
I mean, personality-wise, look, I interviewed George W. Bush after he left office.
Every time I did, I gave him an opportunity.
I opened the door.
I'm like, okay, here's what Obama's saying about you.
Do you want to respond?
No.
He seems more hostile to Donald Trump than he did Barack Obama.
And that shocks me.
Maybe it's personal in the sense that everything that went on with Trump and Jeb Bush, but I also remember a time when George W. Bush was running in the primary and it was down to him and McCain in South Carolina.
And that primary meant everything.
And it was gloves off.
It was a bare knuckles political brawl.
And that, frankly, is the sad part of politics.
If you want to win, you fight.
Everybody says, oh, if you ask any focus group, they hate negative ads.
They don't hate negative ads.
Negative ads keep getting played because negative ads work.
It all works.
Now, the Russians spent, we found out from Byron York, just a little more than three grand on Facebook ads in key swing states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
And by the way, Hillary didn't even bother to campaign in those states.
You know, the election meddling shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, as I've been pointing out again and again to anybody that would even listen to any of this stuff.
You know, we're at a point where facts just don't matter, where truth does not matter anymore.
You know, the media in this country, they have convinced themselves that they live in this bubble and they regurgitate each other's talking points in their little echo chamber.
And in some way, shape, manner, or form, they have all convinced themselves.
Here we are, what, 18 months in, that Russian collusion with the Trump campaign actually happened.
Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.
There's no evidence to back it up.
If they come up with evidence, Donald Trump, maybe he sent a message through Medvedev.
Hey, Medvedev, tell Vladimir.
My last election.
A lot more flexibility.
I tell Vladimir, I tell him.
Sounds to me like he was colluding with Medvedev.
Look, there is collusion here, and I won't repeat everything that I've told you, but Uranium won.
How do you allow operatives of Vladimir Putin?
You have a hostile nation, Russia, a bad actor in Putin.
They've got Russian operatives on the ground in the United States involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, money laundering.
We have an FBI informant inside of the operation of these operatives.
He's reporting back to Robert Mueller, then the FBI director, all that's going on.
And 18 months later, the reason he had the operatives on the ground was because they wanted to get a foothold in America's uranium industry, and they successfully achieve it.
Now, for those that might be upset that Putin and Russia successfully, in some capacity, you know, tried to influence our elections.
Well, when do we blame ourselves here?
Because we allowed the Uranium One deal to go down, and we had full knowledge of everything that was happening.
It's unbelievable.
This is coming to a head.
This is not going away.
That story is not done.
And at some point, the same thing with the Russian dossier.
Imagine if Donald Trump paid for the dossier, full of lies about Hillary in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow with hookers urinating on a bed.
And that is not verified, but it can be used as the bulk of an application for a Pfizer warrant.
It's insanity.
Now, you just keep hearing, and if you go to Rod Rosenstein, no Americans were wittingly involved in the Russian effort.
Okay, I guess that means the media unwittingly was supporting the Russian troll effort because they were showing up and praising the protests that were going on.
You know, the key points of information has been missed here.
No collusion in this indictment about Donald Trump colluding with Russians.
No indictment about members of the Trump campaign colluding with Russians.
Nothing about Donald Trump Jr. colluding with Russians.
Nothing about the president obstructing justice.
I can't wait for this IG report to come out.
I hope they do their job.
I hope Horowitz does his job.
You know, and the president tweeted out, I never said Russia didn't meddle in our elections.
Sarah Sanders just said, well, excuse me, but I can give you the dates and the times that Trump said, yeah, there was Russian interference.
And he said it twice, I guess, in Poland on that trip.
Anyway, it may be Russia, I said.
It may be China.
It may be another group.
It may be a 400-pound genius sitting in a bed and playing with his computer.
Those are the people that stalk us here on this program and other conservative talk shows.
You know, you got people in their basement naked, and they're paid to just, well, I'm assuming, they have no lives.
Let's put it that way.
If you're paid to monitor the Sean Hannity show three hours a day and one hour at night, you need a life in the hope that I say something wrong so we can boycott his advertisers.
Anyway, it's a lot of key points in all of this.
You know, Devin Nunes warned the Obama administration back in 2014, they didn't care.
We've been reporting everything that was happening with Putin's operatives inside the United States.
And just one side note, I did mention it yesterday.
Has everybody forgotten that Obama tried to influence the Israeli elections and undermine our closest ally in the Middle East, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and they actually used taxpayer dollars to do it?
You know, we've also been involved in influencing elections.
Let's even Italy and Iran and Guatemala and Chile and Nicaragua.
And seriously, James Woolsey even said as much.
I don't know.
Either the Obama administration wasn't prepared.
And then Obama, as I played yesterday, he's literally lecturing Donald Trump.
Hey, hey, you know what?
Stop whining.
Well, he was warned back in 2014 it was going to happen.
So much to get to, so little time.
Sarah Carter has a great piece out today that we'll get into.
Even the L.A. Times, this was pretty interesting today because we have been highlighting through Sidney Powell and Greg Jarrett and Sarah Carter, Mueller's pit bull, Andrew Weissman, and even the L.A. Times has a big article out today.
They're finally picking up on the story that we've been reporting on now for some time.
So we'll get to that and what the underlying charges are.
I want to get back to this Barnes article a little later, too.
And we'll also be checking in.
Luke Roziak has some breaking news about Bruce Orr.
Why does he even still have a job this guy?
And John McLaughlin, Doug Schoen, we'll look at some of the polls.
I know it's early, but 2018 is not that far away.
All coming up.
Glad you're with us.
Sean Hannity show.
In your memo, you went through great detail to say that in the FISA application and subsequent renewals four times, they never informed the FISA court that in fact, this money really came from the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
In other words, that's right.
And more so, they never informed the court that Christopher Steele was meeting with journalists.
I think the court would have known that.
One of the things that we're going to do this week is we're going to send a letter to the court.
We don't know if we'll be successful or not, but we're going to try to ask the court whether or not they will provide the transcripts of the four proceedings.
It would be very interesting if we could get those transcripts to know exactly what was presented verbally to the court and to see if that was transcribed.
Chairman Nunes, I believe you've done a great service.
I believe it's the right thing to do.
The American people need to know about all of this because fundamentally, we had an effort to undermine our election and then undermine an incoming president.
Is that a fair statement?
Last question.
Yeah, I mean, look, I think there's clear evidence of collusion that the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign colluded with the Russians.
Okay, you don't get to hire lawyers and pretend like that didn't happen.
It goes to what they accuse you of is what they actually were doing.
He said that you coordinated all of this with the White House.
What's your reaction?
Yeah, well, Mr. Schiff knows that he's spreading false narrative there, but that's not new for him.
He spread false narrative the entire time.
So the Democrats were well aware that I did not leak information.
However, for a year, they stayed quiet.
They continued, they advocated for my removal from the committee.
And why is that?
It's because we've been successful at getting to the bottom of a lot of real problems with the institutions in our government.
And so, look, there's no question they want me gone.
But whatever they accuse you of doing is what they're doing.
So we know that there has been almost 100 leaks that we believe have come from the Democrats and the House Intelligence Committee.
And as of right now, remember, a year ago, they were claiming that they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion of Trump colluding with Russians.
But they keep coming up with goose eggs.
They have nothing.
All right, there was part of my interview with the House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.
We have breaking news today, actually a lot of it, and a big part of it is Nunes is now demanding answers as it relates to senior Obama officials.
And I think this is getting very interesting as we now move along.
And anyway, in close, please find a series of questions he writes regarding the information contained in the Steele dossier, which was funded by the DNC and Hillary for America, Hillary's campaign, and used in a foreign intelligence surveillance act.
Remember, with the bulk of information for that Pfizer warrant was the Steele unverified dossier that was paid for by Clinton.
And of course, the judge wasn't told any of this in this case.
Please provide complete written responses as soon as possible, no later than March 2nd.
And some of the questions: when and how did you first become aware of any information contained in the steel dossier?
In what form was the information in the steel dossier presented to you and by whom?
And also describe each instance.
Who did you share the information with?
When and in what form?
Please describe each instance.
What official actions did you take as a result of receiving the information contained in the steel dossier?
Did you convene any meetings with the intelligence community and/or law enforcement communities as a result of the information contained in the steel dossier?
When did you first learn or come to believe that the steel dossier was funded by a Democrat-aligned entity?
When did you first learn or come to believe that the Steele dossier was funded by the DNC and Hillary for America, the Clinton campaign?
And when did you first become aware that the steel dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant order on Carter Page?
Was President Obama briefed on any information contained in the dossier prior to January 5th, 2017?
Did you discuss the information contained in the Steele dossier with any reporters or other representatives of the media?
If so, who and when?
Anyway, there's a new article out highlighting all of these developments.
We have Sarah Carter with us.
You can go to sarahacarter.com if you want to get a hold of it.
We have a link on Hannity.com.
All right, so these letters were sent to former senior Obama administration officials.
Do we know exactly who?
Well, they're not releasing the names right now, Sean, so that's very important.
They have sent it to quite a few senior Obama administration officials.
I think we can guess who some of them are.
I would suggest, you know, Victoria Newland is probably one of them over at State Department.
Jonathan Weiner over at State Department, people within the White House close to President Obama, possibly even President Obama himself maybe got one of these letters.
Definitely Susan Rice, others that were very well aware of what was going on here, and possibly people within the intelligence community.
I've heard rumors that maybe even John Brennan is on this list, other senior officials.
I think that the questions are so pertinent, Sean, because one of the most important questions in the whole list of questions is: did President Obama and we know we've seen all the information and text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page going back and forth where they talk about briefing Obama.
Some people believe it was on Russia.
And did he know about this?
Was he aware of the dossier before January 5th?
Was he aware before he was briefed by his intelligence community on this?
And how much did he know?
I think that's going to be a very significant question that needs to be answered.
And, you know, when you talk about leaks, the number of leaks that have come out in the last year, and some which are just factually wrong, others which are national security related, particularly with regard to then National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and his conversation with Ambassador Kiesliak.
These are that some of these leaks are criminals, and they're investigating them right now at the DOJ.
And I think that putting these questions out there, giving them till March 2nd, I believe if they don't answer it, the next step would be to subpoena them.
All right.
So, what connection do you think that this is related in any way to what we learned about Susan Rice and her memo to self on January 20th, Inauguration Day, just before she was leaving the White House for the last time?
And she writes, Oh, night, note to self.
Barack Obama said, Do it by the book.
He said, Do it by the book.
He said, Do it by the book.
When she wrote that note to self, which was interesting to me, is this in relation to what might have come up at that January 5th meeting?
Because they were also talking about not telling the Trump administration, the incoming administration, anything or a lot of things about this.
Absolutely.
I think you brought up a really great point there.
And it is, according to the sources I've spoken with, related to that as well.
And that's something that they want to look into.
And think about this, Sean.
And this is a question that keeps coming up.
When that strange email to herself that Susan Rice sent, and when she talks about doing it by the book, why did they do other things not by the book beforehand that they have to, you know, that she has to overly emphasize do it by the book in this particular instance?
You know, was it the CYA as people are stating, you know, based on the strangeness of this email that she's sending it to herself?
So these are questions that they need answered, and they need to know who inside the administration was aware of this.
Because as we know now, as the evidence has come forth, as this onion is being pilled back, as we used to say, we see more and more that the direct collusion here was the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, a foreign agent, ex-foreign agent, British spy, Christopher Steele, the FSB in Russia, other Russian entities that were involved.
So directly, we can see with these American entities, which are the Hillary Clinton campaign, and now we're looking at the State Department.
And when you look at the State Department, a lot of people tend to forget that because there's so much news out there.
You have senior officials in the State Department that are being fed information from Christopher Steele, and then they're feeding that information from the State Department to Christopher Steele, Christopher Steele back to the State Department.
You have people like Sidney Blumenthal involved, close friends of Hillary Clinton, a second dossier, and Cody Scheer, who was also very close to the Clintons and worked with Bill Clinton during his presidency.
So this is something that I think is vitally important to look at.
And this is the reason why Chairman Nunez and others like Senator Grassley, who wrote a memo himself and who's charged a criminal referral against Christopher Steele to the DOJ, are so intent on finding answers.
All right, let me go to what is happening with General Flynn, the sentencing phase of that case when he pled guilty to lying to the FBI, which we all believe was a bogus charge.
And we think he was set up in a perjury trap, at least I do, because I'm pretty confident, and it's been talked about at length how there was surveillance of him.
There was no minimization of him, and there was unmasking.
And of course, the raw intelligence was leaked.
And when he was interviewed by the FBI, the FBI obviously knew every word he said.
And if he misremembered or said one thing that wasn't consistent, they absolutely, quote, had him for perjury.
Well, now the sentencing was put off until May.
But the judge in this case is the same judge that was involved with Senator Ted Stevens.
And in that case, we thought we had a senator involved in corruption.
And it turned out in that case that exculpatory evidence was withheld purposefully.
We know the track record because you wrote a great column on Friday about Andrew Weissman.
Twice he's withheld exculpatory evidence.
And we know that he's been overturned by the Supreme Court 9-0 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
And my question is this: is this case a General Flynn with this judge?
It sounds to me like the judge suspects his guilty plea was defective and that there may be exculpatory evidence regarding him.
And he's demanding that the special counsel send all that information over.
And he has every right to because he does believe this.
And he wouldn't go this far if he did it.
I mean, this is something that's very unusual.
And the reason it is, and Andrew McCarthy actually wrote a really phenomenal piece on this, and Byron York actually referenced it.
Did as well in my column on Weissman is because, you know, for all accounts, Flynn already pled guilty.
So, why would he be asking for all of this evidence?
He believes that exculpatory evidence was withheld.
I can tell you this, Sean.
I just spoke today to somebody very close to General Flynn, a personal friend of Lieutenant General Flynn, who said that he felt compelled to plead guilty because the FBI and DOJ had indicated that they were going to begin investigating his son and his family.
And so, despite there being no predication to do so, that he was already in the hole so big.
I mean, you've got to imagine the amount of money that General Flynn had already spent.
It was close to 1.5 million in the hole on this investigation.
He was up against the government.
So, who knows what his attorney is going to do now and how his attorney is going to handle this?
Stay right there.
This is going to get interesting.
With the judge's request, and by the way, he said he will determine what is exculpatory.
He wants everything in the General Flynn case sent over to him, which I found fascinating.
All right, as we continue with Sarah Carter, investigative reporter with the Fox News Channel.
Now, other developments that we have today about Robert Mueller, what do you know about this Alex Vander Zwan that was charged today with lying to the special counsel and the FBI over the course of this investigation?
I guess a son of a Russian oligarch, and he's apparently known as a known quantity.
Anyway, what do we know about this guy?
Well, what we know is that now he's been indicted for apparently lying to the FBI.
And what's interesting here is that we see all these connections, you know, the Paul Manafort indictment.
We've seen the George Papadopoulos indictment and, you know, Flynn's indictment.
Now, that's interesting because when you think about Flynn and when you think about Papadopoulos, you also see it was a one count of lying to the FBI.
Now we have this new guy who pops up, Alex Vanderslan, and he's also apparently being charged with the same one count of lying.
What we don't see here still is any indictments proving any kind of collusion.
We're seeing that, you know, the special counsel reach and, of course, look into Ukrainian elections and Paul Manafort's past dealings with Ukraine and with other nation states and how his financial dealings, but we're not seeing what the original edict of the actual special counsel was.
And I think because we know now, obviously, from Rod Rosenstein coming forward and speaking to the public, that and making it very clear that in the indictment against the Russians, and this was the indictment we just saw a couple of days ago against the 13 Russians and three entities, that even though they charged those foreign people and those foreign corporations, that there was no actual witty American involved in any of these schemes.
And I think the answer is pretty clear.
I think that what we're seeing here is special counsel Mueller kind of wrapping it up.
I know some people are expecting more indictments down the line, but I don't think we're going to see indictments to the extent of what was once proposed over the whole last year of any kind of connection between the Trump administration or Trump campaign in collusion with Russians.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I think this is more of a deep dive into the Paul Manafort case, and we'll see a couple of deep dives into other areas, but I don't think we're going to see anything actually on the mainframe of the edict of what was supposed to be collusion between the United States and Russia.
All right, Sarah Carter, we'll see you tonight on Hannity, Nine Eastern on the Fox News channel as we continue this investigation.
Every day, there's bigger and bigger and bigger developments.
And yeah, it's like unpeeling layers of an onion, but we're getting there.
Got to take a quick break.
Luke Roziak with the Daily Caller has an investigative report about Bruce Orr.
Why is Bruce Orr still working for the Department of Justice?
I know he was demoted, but anyway, we'll get to that.
And news Roundup Information Overload, the other news of the day, and George Clooney wants to run for president.
Like, go right ahead, George.
Good luck with that.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
All right, glad you're with us, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
Our friend Luke Roziak with the Daily Caller has a new piece out today, and it's called Exclusive DOJ Official Bruce Orr hid his wife's Fusion GPS payments from ethics officials.
That shouldn't surprise anybody.
And Luke joins us now.
How are you, sir?
I'm good, John.
Good to be with you.
All right.
So, Bruce Orr is working, what, four doors down from Rod Rosenstein, correct?
Right.
All right, he's recently demoted, right?
We learned that Bruce Orr had met with Fusion GPS on numerous occasions, right?
Both before the election and after the election.
That's right.
And, you know, meanwhile, the whole time, it turns out that Fusion GPS was paying his wife, Nellie Orr, making cash payments to her in order to work on the very dossier that he wound up taking to the FBI and encouraging them to pursue as a case.
And he's meeting with Christopher Steele both before and after the election, right?
Right.
Okay, and then he's supposed to disclose the fact that where his wife's money comes from.
Meanwhile, his wife, Nellie, is involved in building the dossier for Fusion GPS.
There's no way he didn't know, but he purposely did not disclose that information.
Isn't that a crime?
It is.
He could face between one to five years in prison for this.
This is something for which the Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States could go to prison for, for his efforts to conceal the financial relationship between the DNC and his family via these fusion GPS payments to his wife.
This is an attorney.
He's a smart guy, and the form says provide the name of your spouse's employer.
It's not that hard, and he would have known as part of his job that you've got to discuss these conflicts with your boss.
If something comes up and it's going to overlap with your duties, you've got to talk about it.
You've got to accuse yourself.
This wasn't a clerical error.
It's not like his wife was, you know, selling timeshares on the side or walking dogs or something, and he just forgot to write it down on this form.
This was a material conflict of interest that he withheld despite repeated opportunities for this to be disclosed.
And it was one that had a material impact, a massive impact on really the nation's politics.
Because when you think about that warrant application that they got against Carter Page, they omitted two things from that application, right?
That the DNC had paid for it, and then that the company the DNC hired in turn paid the wife of this DOJ official.
Well, it wasn't just the DNC, it was Hillary Clinton's campaign.
And the other thing that they never told the judge, and they actually were trying to be deceptive, you know, the little footnote that said, well, it may be political in nature, does not begin to describe what it really was: a bought and paid-for opposition party dossier.
And the next most important part is it was never verified by anybody.
Fusion GPS never verified it.
The FBI never verified it.
They still handed this to a FISA court judge.
And then they went the added step of citing basically the similar source, which is, you know, this article that appears by Michael Isakoff on Yahoo that cites Christopher Steele as his source.
So it was the same information just being recycled to look as though it's independent.
Right.
And so when out of all those things, one of them is, you know, they didn't say that Fusion GPS was paying the COJ official.
And it turns out that may be because the DOJ didn't know, because Steve Orr didn't tell them.
That explains why he got demoted.
You mean Bruce Orr, not Steve Orr.
Yeah, sorry, Bruce Orr got demoted right after it came out that he was meeting with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS was paying his wife.
It seems that the DOJ officials didn't know about this because Bruce Orr had concealed it from them.
So that explains why he's been demoted.
Why shouldn't he have been fired and maybe charged?
That's right.
The law actually says anyone who deliberately falsifies these forms shall face a fine, a prison, or both.
So if he isn't charged for this, I think the DOJ needs to explain not only why he hasn't been fired, but what legal judgment or what legal criteria they looked at to decide that this guy shouldn't be charged because they had these conflict of interest forms for a reason.
I mean, it's to provide good government.
And, you know, this is really seemingly a failure.
And there's really no way, considering he was meeting with Christopher Steele and his wife worked for Fusion GPS and his wife was putting together the dossier, and then he got the full dossier for the FBI, according to either the Senate or the House Intelligence Committee memos.
So he knew everything, and he knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew exactly what he was hiding.
The question is: if it's punishable by a fine and or time in prison, one then has to ask, well, what is he even doing working at the FBI at this point?
Why wasn't he fired?
Yeah, exactly.
And, you know, you really have to believe in an almost unbelievable amount of coincidences in order to believe that this case was anything but manufactured by the DMC at this point.
And that's why I think it's funny when liberals talk about conspiracy theorists at some point, sometimes, because this is, you ought to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that Fusion GPS would have hired this lady Nelly Orr if she weren't married to this guy.
I mean, they could have hired any old researcher and they chose her of all people.
And then you have to believe that Bruce would have brought this information to the FBI even without those payments.
You have to believe that he forgot to list it on this form, then forgot to bring it up with his boss when it came up as an issue.
And then this is actually part of from the beginning.
They've tried to withhold this financial relationship between Bruce Nellie Orr and Fusion GPS.
Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS, when he was being interviewed by the House Intel Committee, they said, well, did you ever meet with anyone from the DOJ?
And he said, oh, I think there was this one guy, Bruce.
They said, well, how do you know him?
They said, oh, well, he reached out to me.
I think I knew him from a conference.
To any rational person, when you're saying, how do you know this guy?
What you would say is, oh, he's married to my employee.
There's really no way to admit, to omit that from, you know, how do you know this guy?
It was like such a dancing around this elephant in the room.
And there's a number of other examples like that.
And ultimately, what Glenn Simpson said is the only way you could have found out that we were paying Nelly Orr is through subpoenaing our bank records, which it turns out is how they found out about it.
So that also suggests that Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS may have known that Bruce Orr didn't tell the Department of Justice about it.
It seems that there's a lot of people now, and the list gets longer and longer, the highest-ranking people within the Department of Justice and others that are in the FBI seem to be in the most legal jeopardy throughout all of this, but that's not the media narrative here.
Why are your fellow so-called journalists, why are they incapable of discovering these simple truths?
What lazy reporters do is they just report on when someone's been indicted.
They just look at court documents and they transcribe them.
So if the failure is within the Department of Justice itself, then the system for doing this form of lazy journalism breaks down.
And in this case, you've got high-level departments.
But isn't it worse than lazy journalism in this sense that they now have become full-on advocacy journalists?
Look, I would argue I'm an advocacy journalist.
I'm an opinion journalist.
We do do straight reporting.
You know, sometimes you've been on this program, and all I do is I ask you questions about this and that.
Yeah, no, I think it's true.
I mean, this is a conflict of interest.
This is a basic journalism fair.
When you're an investigative reporter, you love that kind of thing.
I pull those forms for Democrats.
I pull them for Republicans.
This is a basic staple of investigative journalism: did someone have a conflict of interest?
Did they act against it?
And did they fail to disclose it, or were they up front?
And this is basic journalism 101.
It should be an interesting story for any journalist.
They can pull those forms.
I got them through the Freedom of Information Act.
They can do them themselves.
And they can see that Bruce Ord didn't get a waiver.
Not only did he not disclose this relationship, he also didn't get a waiver.
It's possible to sometimes say, okay, look, I was upfront with my boss about this conflict and he said it was okay.
That did not happen here, which isn't surprising because I don't think they ever would have granted such a waiver.
The conflict was so blatant.
But the other thing is, usually when you have these conflicts of interest, right, the issue is, did you recuse?
And so it's like if you were assigned by your boss and you knew that it was a conflict, you would say, sorry, boss, I can't do that.
This is so much worse than that because there is no indication that Bruce was told by anyone to get involved with this fusion GPS case.
It seems like he decided on his own to bring this to the FBI.
So it was like actively choosing to involve himself in what he knew was a concealed conflict of interest.
I just can't believe we're at this.
What do you make of now the fact that this is getting closer and closer to Obama, the entire scandal?
And, you know, for example, Susan Rice's note to self and Devin Nunes' comments.
He's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
And his letter that he put out today sent to two dozen senior leaders in the Trump and Obama administrations.
And he's asking 10 specific questions to gauge who received the dossier information and what they did with it.
I mean, I've got to believe Brennan and Clapper and others and Susan Rice and maybe Barack Obama himself knew all about this.
Yeah, I mean, that is one of the interesting things here, but it also seems like some of these high-level people, they just are regarded as untouchable.
And that's what we're going to have to see: we need specific names.
And, you know, I think they need to justify why they don't bring charges if the legal argument is clearly there.
And sometimes they're so afraid of the perception that it's going to appear political targeting that they go in the opposite direction.
And they wind up allowing people to do things that an ordinary citizen would never be allowed to do.
Yeah.
All right.
Any update on the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz case, which I know you've been working on?
Yeah, you know, we should talk again in about a week.
I'm going to have a huge case on that.
Again, the Inspector General of the House of Representatives found that these guys were taking all this data off the network.
And I've got a huge update for you about what it seems like they were doing with that data.
Well, when are we getting this Inspector General report?
I heard it was early March.
Well, you know, this is the Inspector General thing talking about Imran Wan taking all the House data.
And that actually came out before the election was issued in September of 2016.
And what they did is they withheld it from the House.
So members are playing dumb, acting like, oh, we never heard about that.
It must not be anything.
And so they actually need to release that report because it's a cover-up.
And that's why you don't hear about this major hack on the House of Representatives is because the evidence has been withheld.
So that's really on the House of Representatives at this point.
All right.
Luke Roziak, thanks for being with us.
800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of this program.
All right, let's get to our busy phones here.
Fred is in Punta Gorda in Florida next on the Sean Hannity Show.
How are you, sir?
Hey, Sean.
How are you doing, sir?
I'm good.
What's going on?
Listen, I want to thank you so much for taking my call.
It sure is nice to be able to speak with somebody that you appreciate who they are and what they represent.
But basically, my concern is if the deep state and the Dems and GLP swamp people, and I'll be nice and say people, knew all along that this Russian collusion thing was fake, then what else could they do other than just try to generate something such as this special counsel to go almost indefinitely to try to look back and try to find something on Donald Trump?
He even had to go back 70 years to try to discredit him and his administration.
Listen, everything that the media is doing now, everything that I have never, ever trusted this special counsel.
I don't trust the special counsel now.
That's why we've spent so much time examining who these people are, what their political affiliations are, where they've donated money to in the past, etc.
And, you know, the fact is we do have a few people that are actually digging for the truth.
And, you know, that's why Nunes is now zeroing in on, all right, who knew what about this Trump dossier?
Who knew about it?
I want to know if Obama knew about it.
I want to know if Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes and Clapper and Brennan.
I want to know if they all knew about it.
You know, the idea that we get this report that shows that, yeah, the Russians were trying to sow discord in the country.
It's not a surprise to those of us that know what happened in 2009 and 10.
And it's not a surprise to anybody that knows about the dossier.
And then the media feigning outrage.
Wow, how did the Russians ever do this?
It's almost a comical joke.
Their selective memories and their selective, or their story selection even, is so abusively biased also.
And I think the biggest and funniest thing about all this, it looks like CNN and MSNBC were swept up in this Russia gate dragnet because when they talk about this on or about November 12th rally, 2016, the anti-Trump rally in New York City, organized by these trolls from Russia working for Putin.
And despite that, the rally got extremely favorable coverage by who?
CNN and MSNBC.
And apparently Michael Moore showed up at one of these apparently, you know, so he's now, is he colluding with the Russians?
I will tell you, it is, there's no shock here for those of us that have been following this.
Thank you, Fred.
Ginger is in Grand Rapids, Wood Radio.
Ginger, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
What's up?
Hi.
Hi.
How are you?
Well, you know what?
I am tired of the Russian thing.
I'm tired of gun control.
What I am tired of is politicians, state, federal, and local lying to the people.
It should be illegal for them to lie to us.
Well, I mean.
If I lie to the FBI, I'd get arrested.
If you lie to the FBI, you're going to be like Michael Flynn.
Although, very interestingly, I'm watching this Michael Flynn case very, very carefully.
And I think the judge in this case, the same judge that was in the Senator Ted Stevens case, I think this judge suspects that this guilty plea was defective and that information was likely withheld.
And that would be no surprise considering the people that Robert Mueller has put around him at the special counsel.
I can't believe we've gotten this far.
How can the people make a quality decision on who to vote for when we are constantly lied to about policies it is?
Because the reason they lie is because they can get away with it.
That's the problem.
Why wouldn't Vladimir Putin, after he got 20% of America's uranium in 2009 and 10, why wouldn't he try to influence our elections considering everybody knew we had an FBI informant in the entire Uranium One deal?
He's thinking he's empowered.
He thinks he can get away with anything.
And we've allowed them to get to this point.
All right, I got to take a quick break.
800-941 Sean, toll-free.
Telephone number, you want to be a part of the program.
We'll get to your calls, news, roundup, information, overload on the other side straight ahead.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
And she's Morgan Radford who's at Union Square in New York City.
That is where the anti-Trump protest is just about to kick off.
And Morgan, with a good day to you.
What's happening there right now?
Well, Alex, it's already started.
In fact, you can see hundreds of people behind me here in Union Square.
Thousands of people, as you know, Alex, are feeling marginalized by President-elect Donald Trump's comments.
And they said this is a love rally.
After they pointed in that direction, they yelled, We're not going to be tolerating any sexism or homophobia or racism.
And that is really the message.
All of sort of these protesters coming together, frustrated, angry, and all directed at the president-elect.
Hey, Morgan, can you tell who has organized this rally?
It has been suggested that so many of the protests across this country have been impromptu rallies.
I mean, it's been supported by a very diverse array of constituents.
Is there someone in charge here?
Right now, this is lots of different groups of people who have come together with no necessarily official leader.
And that's been some of the criticism.
People have said, Well, what's the point?
Do you have all these disparate groups coming together?
But what they're saying is the point is they know they can't change the results of the election because that is in the can.
But what they say is they want to come together and show America that love really does win.
Alex, I have to say I've covered quite a few protests from the Black Lives Matter protest, and this is something different.
It's something unique.
The energy here is electric.
That woman, when she's saying she's concerned that black people will be shot in the street, did she back from that at all, or is that a legitimate concern for her?
Because that's scary.
Alex, it's not only a legitimate concern for her, it's a legitimate concern for a lot of people who I've spoken to.
There are thousands of people right now taking over Fifth Avenue with several messages, all though aimed at our president-elect.
We have people talking about being against racism, sexism.
You hear Black Lives Matter being yelled.
And we again are shutting down Fifth Avenue right now, headed straight to Trump Tower.
It is the most organized protest that I've seen happen here in New York City, and that's good news.
They do just want their message heard, and they want everyone, even across the country, to know that they are against what Trump ran on.
And that is really what their message is collectively.
So there really isn't a specific thing that they're calling for, Poppy.
It is really a number of messages all wrapped into one, aiming at the president-elect Donald Trump.
People out here, they're chanting, they're banging the drums, and they're explaining that they do not want Donald Trump to be their next president.
Really delivering a message to Donald Trump, and that is that they will not tolerate a campaign that he ran on, a campaign they say fueled by hate.
All right, there it is.
That's the coverage that took place.
Well, looks like CNN and MSNBC were swept up in Robert Mueller's Russia Gate Dragnet because, according to Mueller's indictment last Friday, that November 12th, on or around November 12th, 2016, anti-Trump rally, New York City was organized by agents for Putin, for Russia.
And despite that, the rally received extremely favorable coverage, which we just played for you by both the whole fake news network, CNN, and the conspiracy network, conspiracy theorist network, MSNBC.
And since Mueller has yet to grill network executive, it's not clear how much they knew about Putin's involvement.
I wonder if they knew that Vladimir was doing this.
I wonder if they knew that there were pawns in Vladimir's game.
Somebody writes me, Hannity, one of the trolls retweeted you, retweeted a column of yours.
I'm like, oh, okay, I'm supposed to have control over who retweets something that I put out there on Twitter or on my website, Hennity.com.
Unbelievable.
Anyway, newsbusters pointed out that a check of those November 12th coverage of both CNN and MSNBC gave enthusiastic coverage to the Russian-organized anti-Trump rally that day.
Live reports every hour.
Correspondents celebrating the idea that it was a love rally and repeating the marches or anti-Trump and the anti-Trump mantras like we reject the president-elect.
Ho, ho.
Whatever.
I mean, all these protesters are all the same.
Anyway, the two liberal anti-Trump networks offered heavy coverage of this anti-Trump rally throughout the day.
And if you take a check of the coverage between noon and 5 Eastern, it found that the Fox News channel offered only a short recap, 66 seconds, at the start of their 4 p.m. Eastern hour.
But meanwhile, CNN and MSNBC reveled in all the inflammatory messages of the march.
Anyway, one correspondent, Morgan Radford, cheerfully played along.
Oh, it's only the legitimate concern of this.
Well, we now know it was the goal.
But by the way, why would anybody be surprised at all?
Especially after 2009 and beyond.
Anyway, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Also, we've got apparently Michael Moore was at one of these rallies, participating in one of these rallies that was organized apparently by the Russians.
Anyway, prosecutors saying the Russians indicted for meddling and sowing discord in the country in the presidential campaign were also behind this particular anti-Trump rally.
And Trump is not my president rally in New York.
And Michael Moore tweeted at today's Trump Tower protest, he wouldn't come down.
Oh, you know what?
That was his first priority to go down and see Michael Moore and talk to Michael Moore.
There's nothing better to do.
Anyway, joining us now to discuss, debate, and talk about all these new developments.
We have John McLaughlin.
He's the founder of the McLaughlin Polling Group and Associates.
And Doug Schoen is with us, pollster, author, political analyst at the Fox News channel.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Well, it looks like everybody was unwitting in this entire Russia issue, Doug Shoan.
Yeah, and look, to me, what Donald Trump said over the weekend is what I believe and what I think is the real message, which is Putin has divided us, he's weakened us, he's polarized the country.
And my sense is that what isn't fake news is that the Russians have been systematic in their efforts and remain systematic, as we've seen from what they've done about the Florida shooting.
So I have written books, as you've been kind enough to publicize on your show, talking about Putin's master plan.
And this is an elaboration of that plan.
And that to me is not fake news.
It's something that threatens our.
Well, didn't we know this, Doug, back in 2009?
Didn't we?
Wasn't the whole Uranium One deal, isn't that an example of Russian influence?
You know, Russian operatives on the ground.
We had an FBI informant.
He was chronicling all of it.
And then being stupid at times as a country, we actually allowed Putin's operatives involved in felonies, bribery, extortion, kickbacks, money laundering, that they still got the deal through and he got a hold of 20% of our uranium.
Isn't that the same thing as Hillary paying for the Russian dossier?
It seems like, you know, if we're going to talk about the dangers of this hostile regime, Russia, and the bad actor that is Vladimir Putin, I got to believe that it's important to go back to 2009 and 10 and Uranium One and go back to the dossier.
But it seems the media only wants to talk about one side of this.
Well, what did Donald Trump have to do with Russia?
And as he said today, nothing.
He's never talked to anybody in Russia, knew nothing about any of this.
Well, my concern, and Sean, Ivan, your program, repeatedly called for a special prosecutor on Uranium One.
So I am a lonely voice among Democrats there, that's for sure.
But to me, I don't want to politicize it.
I want to figure out what to stop it.
Not as Democrats and Republicans, to stop Russian investigation.
Listen, I have a good idea.
Why don't we give them the money back with interest on the Uranium One deal and take our uranium back because it wasn't supposed to leave the country, but we know it went to Canada.
We know it went to Europe, and we suspect it went to Asia.
How about we take that back?
I'd start there.
Yeah, I think the chance that we get that back is about as good as if Hillary Clinton apologizes for spending $13.5 million on the dossier.
That's a good point.
John McLaughlin.
Well, you know, the whole thing, it's amazing.
Back in 2016, in November 2016, for our client, secureamericanow.org, we asked the American public, we asked the voters, do you think the election was conducted fairly?
And the majority of Americans said yes back then, 61-26.
And we also asked, you know, should President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the media accept the results of this election in 68 to 21.
The voters said yes.
They thought this was an honest election.
That was back then.
So the voters get it.
It's just these elites are out of touch.
And when you think about what's going on right now, and we asked in our January survey of this year, we asked, do you believe everything that's in the media or not believe everything that's reported in the mainstream national media?
And only 14% said they believe.
77% said they don't believe.
And 56% of the majority voters think that the media is biased against the president.
Only one-third think that they're not.
So the Russians have really gotten a lot of what they expected to do in terms of kind of destroying credibility and dissension.
Devin.
And they're successful.
No, no, you go.
And they're successful.
But by the way, John, you were on this program.
Obama was trying to influence the Israeli elections.
So let's cut out the phony sanctimony.
And Israel's our closest ally in the Middle East, and he's trying to undermine a prime minister.
Well, that was scary, and it was all being done because basically he had his political operation over there, and they were being funded.
They outspent all 11 political parties, way underreported over here.
They used our tax dollars, and they were trying to knock out B.B. Netanyahu because he was speaking out against the Iran deal, which was a terrible deal that the majority of Americans, when they know the details, they disapprove of it.
But I'll tell you the thing, certainly with Russia now, we may have had Radio-Free Europe under Ronald Reagan that Steve Forbes ran.
We now need an Internet-free Europe that basically gets the truth out.
And the scary part for me is you talk about the Israeli election, being involved in Donald Trump's campaign and being involved from the primaries through Election Day, dealing with sensitive political information and knowing that there was no collusion with the Russians.
There was nothing going on with that.
The name of the game was beating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
And now it's clear from that House Intelligence Committee's letter that they spied on our campaign.
They used phony campaign research that they paid over $12 million with to get a court order to have the Justice Department and the FBI, our own Justice Department, our own FBI, spy on the Trump campaign.
It's unbelievable.
Well, stay right there.
We've got to pick it up there.
John McLaughlin, Doug Schoener with us, 800-941 Sean.
We'll also get to your calls final half hour of the program today.
As we continue, John McLaughlin, the pollster, Doug Schoen, the pollster, as let me ask you both, where are we in terms of the president's polling?
It seems now there was a poll out earlier today, a New York Times poll finding a dramatic surge in the support of the Trump tax cuts.
I've got to believe that's going to ⁇ we've also seen it with Rasmussen.
He's been as high as 49% lately.
I've always believed, Doug, Schoen, that Donald Trump polls lower than where he's actually really at.
Your thoughts.
Well, I think it's clear.
I think John McLaughlin will agree with me.
Donald Trump has gone up steadily in virtually every poll to either the low 40s or the mid-40s in terms of approval.
It's clear in every poll I've seen, the tax cuts are getting more and more popular.
And indeed, I think the shutdown that the Democrats did on immigration, as well as their position on immigration, has been a loser.
So to my way of thinking, the Trump position, the Republican position is improving.
The generic vote is down to, I think, single digits now, probably mid to low single digits.
So everything's moving in Trump's direction.
And if he can stay focused, Sean, and he can stay on message and on issues, he can continue to improve.
If he gets distracted or sidetracked, it will only hurt him and the Republicans.
Is it a mistake the Democrats are making, John McLaughlin, that, you know, here the president is offering them DACA in exchange for funding the wall and for getting rid of the visa lottery and chain migration?
Democrats didn't even want to consider it.
It's absolutely a mistake because you've got reasonable Democrats out there like Doug Schoen that should be heading Democrats for Trump.
But we've got our latest.
Not so fast.
We've got our latest national survey from February 9th.
We took his national survey.
40% of Americans say the country's heading in the right direction.
It's moving up.
The president had a 46% job approval.
It's moving up.
And his negatives were down to 52%.
He gets over 50% with the Republican Congress.
He can move up.
The generic ballot we had February 9th behind 3 Politico last week had the Republicans up one, 39.38.
So the reputable polls that are doing likely voter models that are based on at least 30% Republicans still have Democrat edge, four or five points or whatever.
We're seeing this move up, but it's the substance of Donald Trump because they said in that poll, the economy's getting better, 56.32.
A majority had always supported when we polled during last full during the battle.
A majority had always supported President Trump's plan to cut taxes.
We're the only ones in the country that asked that question.
The only time the media polls used tax cuts was when they would say it was tax cuts for the rich or they were trying to run it down.
So the president on security and on the economy is moving the country forward and it's moving the generic Republican ballot up for Congress.
And so that we're still a long way off.
But we have the ability to, if we stay close, we can keep our majority in the House and the Senate.
All right.
Thank you both for being with us.
John McLaughlin and Doug Schoen, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to join us?
All right, we've got so much breaking news, by the way, we're going to get to tonight on Hannity.
I mean, one is you got this new guilty plea, this oligarch that we've been telling you about today.
Von der Swan is his name, Dutch citizen, London-based attorney.
His firm assisted in efforts on behalf of the former Ukrainian president and worked as an associate on this project, that project.
Anyway, we'll have all of that.
And then you got the mainstream media loving the fact that they showed up at an anti-Trump rally.
The only problem is that anti-Trump rally was formed by the Russian trolls.
And apparently, even Michael Moore got caught up in all the fun and action.
Yes, comrades, comrades, let's join in our rally against Donald Trump, your new president.
I have no idea if that's a Russian accent.
That's the worst one ever.
But I think you get my point.
Scandal and the NSA atrocities convince you?
You need a watchdog on Washington with insider sources.
You need Hannity every day.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
I want to get back into this tape that I played yesterday because I think it's so critical that we now begin to pay attention, especially with news and information.
We have this new information that Devin Nunes is now seeking answers about who knew what, when, and where in the Obama administration as it relates to the Steele dossier and the letter that he sent out to such people, because this probe into the anti-Trump dossier now is just, it's pivotal in so many different ways.
Who knew what and when.
And I think that point, when we start getting answers to that, we might begin to understand if they knew early and they knew it was used as a FISA warrant and they knew who paid for it and they knew it wasn't verified and they knew it was lies.
Anyway, then we have the whole point of the Obama administration.
They were warned in 2014.
They were warned that Putin would want to impact the 2016 elections and they didn't lift a finger.
And even two weeks before the election, well, here's Barack Obama laughing at, mocking Donald Trump and lecturing him to stop whining as it relates to the possibility that somebody might influence our elections.
Well, he was the guy that was warned about it.
And, you know, of course, he could have called up his buddy Medvedev.
Hey, when you see Vladimir, when you see him, just tell him I'll have a lot more flexibility after the election, okay?
Tell Vladimir that, okay?
Well, this is my last election.
All right, so we'll be able to have more flexibility.
We'll be able to do whatever you want then.
This is my last election, I believe.
Yeah, and that's in my election.
Of course, we know what happened in 09 with Uranium-1.
Here's him lecturing the president.
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.
He started 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 the Capitol in which there would be a peaceful transfer of power.
That's what Americans do.
That's why America's 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.
I mean, he's just sitting there mocking, just mocking Donald Trump.
Now, why?
Because he thinks that this is it.
He thinks that Hillary's going to win.
Nobody thought, this is the media's problem.
Nobody thought Trump could win.
They laughed when he first got in the race.
They mocked him.
And then they thought he gets slaughtered by Hillary Clinton.
That's why all these shenanigans were going on.
Anyway, let's get to our phones here as we say hi to Donna is in Staten Island in New York, the all-new AM710 WOR.
How are you?
I'm good, my friend.
How are you?
I'm good.
What's Len Berman's problem with Sean Hannity?
Oh, he's a nice guy.
I don't agree with everything that he says.
I think we'll have to invite Len Berman on the bottom.
I know what the problem is.
What's the problem?
You get to sleep in and he doesn't.
He's very upset about the morning.
He's cranky in the morning.
Is that very, very cranky?
Now, we love Mark Simone.
Mark Simone's our part.
I love the voice of New York.
Yeah.
Well, we got Rush and then me.
I mean, we got a great lineup here in New York.
It's fun.
Everyone else had their coffee but him.
Yeah, what's up with Len the Liberal in the morning on WOR?
I know he's pretty liberal, Donna, don't you think?
I think that's part of his problem.
He's just another angry liberal.
It just kind of goes together.
No, I like the guy, but I mean, you know, I listen to him and he's like, well, Hannity's okay.
I'm like, oh, okay.
Thanks a lot, Len.
He's jealous.
He's jealous.
You know why?
As my dad used to say, he's got a perfect taste for radio and you don't.
Oh, well, he was on TV for years.
That's me.
He was a sportscaster in New York.
Anyway, what's on your mind, Donna?
How are you?
I'm good.
How are you?
I'm good.
What's happening?
I wanted to say, like, you know, Obama talked about, you know, like three weeks before the election, and he said that Donald Trump should stop whining.
Well, that was, you know, then, and now it's a year and a half later.
When are he and his cronies going to stop whining that they lost the election?
Go away already.
You lost.
Suck it up.
You lost.
Listen, they can't handle the fact that they lost.
They never expected to lose.
Yeah, and Donna, you got to, you know, look at all the insanity of the news media.
Zero, zero evidence, and they always try to tie it to Trump.
That's just the way they roll.
And it shouldn't surprise you.
Just listen to this.
Really, the goal here was simple.
Damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump.
And these Russians allegedly went to great lengths.
He's found this incredible network of meddling, and now he has kind of a stronger basis on which to go and look at collusion, the emails.
This didn't deal with the hacking of the emails and the issue of obstruction of justice.
What's going on here is establishing an underlying crime.
And then anything henceforth is going to be conspiracy to obstruct or to collude.
There may well be information.
There may well be lots of evidence that there was not only unwitting but witting assistance from the Trump campaign.
I think that the president has continued to advocate responsibility here about leading the country in response to an attack on the most core fundamental part of our democracy, our free and fair elections.
It's now obvious that the Russians were trying to interfere in our election.
Well, it appears the stress might be getting to this is getting closer and closer and closer to the Trump inner circle.
Are the White House staff getting more and more worried about that, or is this just Donald Trump freaking out about it alone?
It may just be Donald Trump freaking out about it alone, but his staff has to be freaking out about his freak out, right?
The big stuff is probably yet to come.
And indeed, it does seem as though Mueller is just beginning to lay the groundwork, but stay tuned for more.
What concerns me is that Donald Trump seems to be more upset about the Mueller investment, the Mueller investigation and what came out from that this Saturday morning than these kids who are shot.
I think Trump's got some problems.
I don't think Mueller would have taken the case if he didn't see a serious problem here.
If Robert Mueller asks you to come and speak with his committee personally, are you committed still to doing that?
Do you believe that?
Just so you understand, just so you understand.
There's been no collusion.
There's been no crime.
And in theory, everybody tells me I'm not under investigation.
Maybe Hillary is, I don't know, but I'm not.
But there's been no collusion.
There's been no crime.
There was no collusion between us and Russia.
In fact, the opposite.
Russia spent a lot of money on fighting me.
But I also want the Senate and the House to come out with their findings.
Now, judging from the people leaving the meetings, leaks, but they leave the meetings all the time and they say, no, we haven't found any collusion.
There is no collusion.
You know why?
Because I don't speak to Russians.
Well, again, John, there has been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, or Trump and Russians.
No collusion.
When I watch you interviewing all the people leaving their committees, I mean, the Democrats are all running for office and they're trying to say this, that.
But bottom line, they all say there's no collusion.
And there is no collusion.
I have nothing to do.
This was set up by the Democrats.
There is no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians.
Well, I respect the move, but the entire thing has been a witch hunt.
And there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself and the Russians.
Zero.
There is no collusion, but we'll continue to look.
They're spending millions and millions of dollars.
There is absolutely no collusion.
I didn't make a phone call to Russia.
I have nothing to do with Russia.
Everybody knows it.
That was a Democrat hoax.
It was an excuse for losing the election.
Unbelievable, everything we've been telling you, isn't it?
All right, let's get back to our busy phones.
JR is in Greenville in South Carolina.
What's up, JR?
How are you?
Glad you called.
Thank you, Sean.
Thank you for being the eyes and ears to the American people.
And like many, many others, I've heard and digested the news in relation to the FBI.
Now, Sean, this is one of the more stabled agencies in American history, and it has such a precipitous fall and decline.
I asked myself, number one, how with all the oversight does this happen?
Two, what can be done to be sure this never happens again?
And three, and most importantly, Sean, most importantly, and I do not say this to be inflammatory, is this agency even salvageable at this point, or do we really need to wipe the slate and start all over again with an entirely new agency?
I would say absolutely salvageable because the overwhelming number of agents are good people.
You know, you got to, they live in your community.
They live in my community.
And these are guys that literally put their lives on the line for us.
You know, if we, everything that we are talking about here has to do with, let's see, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Paige, you know, Weissman, well, that's Mueller and his special counsel.
You know, remember, we did have J. Edgar Hoover once in charge, and that was problematic.
Remember, they had the church committee was the U.S. Select Committee to study government operations in respect to intelligence activities.
And, you know, there's a lot I wrote about this years ago.
We've got to have intelligence on the ground.
This is a very ugly, dangerous world.
Here's what I don't want you to get caught up in, JR.
Just because Comey and maybe Mueller and the people that he's appointing and Strzok and Paige and McCabe and all these other Loretta Lynch and others, they don't represent rank and file.
For example, if you've one cop that does one wrong thing, this is what the left does.
They try to sweep with a broad brush and create a false image that these cops wake up every morning and they want to go out and kill somebody, which is just the opposite of what is true.
They want to protect and serve, 99%.
You're always going to have 1% that are horrible.
And it's the same with the FBI.
And look, this is actually a good thing if we can get to the bottom of it.
But, you know, I am just worried about this never-ending scope of investigation of Mueller.
I'm just pretty convinced he wants to find something to justify his existence well beyond what he has found so far.
And I think his big prize is Donald Trump.
And anyway, so I just, you know, the answer is no.
Look, if you see a cop on the street, don't you think that cop is likely a good guy?
You know, even if he's giving you a speeding ticket, doesn't make him a bad guy.
He's doing his job.
I mean, that's kind of how I look at all the guys in the FBI.
They're all good people.
And unfortunately, we had some people that thought that they could use their power, their influence in ways that it was never designed to be used.
And I just think as long as we get to the bottom of it, we'll be okay.
That's what we're fighting for every day.
But this is just a tiny percentage of the FBI.
I have great respect for FBI guys, great respect for law enforcement, great respect for the intelligence community.
Even, you know, the CIA in this dangerous, evil world, those things are necessary.
The powerful tools of intelligence are necessary in an evil, dangerous world with ISIS and Al-Qaeda and Iran and North Korea.
And that's just the start.
So I hope that answers your question.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
We have a busy night tonight.
Sarah Carter's new article out.
Greg Jarrett joins us tonight.
David Schoen is back.
Also, Tom Fitton, Sebastian Gorka.
Yes, Jesse Waters versus Jessica Tarlov, Geraldo and Larry Elder.
That's Nine Eastern.
We hope you set your DVR for the Fox News Channel, and we'll see you tonight at 9 and back here tomorrow.
