Sean Hannity Show - Peeling The Onion - 2.26

Feb. 26, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:33:21

Peeling The Onion - 2.26

Sean has spent the better part of a year "peeling back the onion" to get to the truth of the Trump wiretaps. Sean and guests break down Congressman Schiff's memo and just how hard the Democrats are trying to run from this story. 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.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity radio show podcast.
	If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what?
	That's not fun.
	You know, I tried everything.
	I couldn't get a good night's sleep.
	And this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
	That's right.
	It is my pillow.
	Mike Lindell invented it, and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and it's changed my life.
	I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
	And the good news, you can too.
	Just go to my pillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
	You get 50% off to my pillow premium pillows, two go anywhere pillows.
	Now, my pillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money back guaranteed, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
	You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow, tossing in tourney that's not working for you.
	Just go to MyPillow.com right now.
	Use the promo code Sean and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
	You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two go anywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
	MyPillow.com.
	Promo code Sean.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
	It's 800 941 Sean.
	If you want to join us, a disastrous interview with the sheriff of Broward County, uh, Israel over the weekend.
	I I I'm shocked, stunned, appalled.
	Every single sign, evidence, clue, see something, say something, was all there.
	Thirty-nine times the police were in contact with this kid, Nicholas Cruz.
	This kid was kicked out of school.
	This kid was not allowed to bring a backpack to school.
	The FBI, now we have the one of the FBI calls out, and the FBI was told, in no uncertain terms, this guy is gonna blow and he's gonna probably shoot up a school.
	Then you had the other FBI report that he said, what do you want to be when you get older?
	Professional school shooter.
	And we did nothing to stop him.
	And now we're finding out that the police in Broward County, the sheriff's department that were assigned to the school never went in the school.
	Which explains why the neighboring Coral Gable police chief went out there with a memo saying, uh, we did our job.
	We went in.
	Now we know exactly what the guy's talking about, which we didn't know before.
	Uh but the biggest news today is, and this is really important.
	We have spent the better part of a year.
	It was March of last year, when John Solomon, Sarah Carter on the Hannity Show on TV, and right here on this radio show, broke the story that Trump Tower, that warrants were issued to Trump Tower, and that it was a Pfizer warrant that was issued as it relates to Trump Tower.
	That was last year.
	It's been a full year that we have been peeling back one layer of an onion after another.
	And after the shift memo, interesting, they released it on a Saturday.
	Why'd they release it on a Saturday?
	Because nobody was paying attention.
	Why is CNN not talking about it or conspiracy TV not talking about it?
	Because all it does is corroborate everything in the newness memo and everything in the Grassley Graham memo, and all it does is corroborate everything we have been telling you for the better part of a year, issue by issue, day by day.
	And we've been working on other things in the in the meantime.
	Hillary's, you know, Hillary corrupting and literally fixing and rigging the primary against Bernie and Hillary Clinton's email server and that scandal and how the fix was in for her, the bought and paid for dossier.
	This is all verified.
	And then the bought and paid for dossier with that was never verified that was paid for by Clinton and the DNC, was then used as the bulk of information to obtain a Pfizer warrant on Carter Page, Trump Associate, and in October of 2016.
	But you think, oh, that's not a big deal.
	No, they had access to every email.
	As soon as you get a FISA warrant, it goes back in perpetuity in terms of being able to spy on an opposition party candidate in an election year, and it's all true.
	And what's fascinating is how the Democrats, I was actually watching last night the Fox series that they have on Bill Clinton's impeachment.
	And last night they were showing the videos of Bill Clinton.
	Well, it all depends on the meaning of the word is.
	You know, where were you ever alone with Monica Linsky?
	Well, well, what do you mean by alone?
	We were alone, but I never really thought we were alone because, well, yeah, she was doing that little special thing in here, but I was looking out the window and I saw a hot chick on her bicycle, so we're not really alone, because as long as there's always somebody out there somewhere in the world, you're never going to actually be alone when you really think about it.
	Think deeply about it.
	Sliff Willie.
	Yeah.
	And I'm watching these word contortions, and I'm like, wow, what a pathological liar.
	And it's it's amazing.
	Now, the shift memo, remember, that was supposedly, purportedly out there, put out there to, you know, to take on the credibility of the newness memo.
	And remember, they they put in sources and methods.
	So it wasn't the Trump presidency, it wasn't the White House that did this, it was more of the FBI and the Department of Justice taking out sources of method methods.
	Anyway, so they come out with their memo, and it purports to challenge the credibility of the newness memo.
	But when you look at the key revelations, it does no such thing.
	In other words, the steel dossier was the key to the Pfizer Warrant application.
	Now they try to make the case that it wasn't, and that the Pfizer warrant application was based on compelling evidence and probable cause.
	That's not true at all.
	And remember, the Grassley Graham memo stated unequivocally the bulk of information that they used to get the Pfizer warrant.
	The bulk of it was the unverified Clinton DNC bought and paid for dossier.
	Now the Pfizer Warren application actually hid the dossier's connections to Clinton and the DNC.
	Well, there's only one way to interpret this if you're hiding it from the Pfizer court judge.
	The reason that they hit it, because no judge ever, ever would have allowed a Pfizer warrant application to be granted if in fact it was Hillary Clinton and the DNC that had actually bought and paid for it.
	And they even admit the Pfizer Warren application relied on Christopher Steele's credibility rather than on the DOJ.
	They do have investigative abilities, don't they?
	And the FBI has investigative abilities, but they preferred to rely on, quote, Steele's credibility rather than verifying and corroborating the credibility of the information that Steele was giving everybody.
	So they purposely withheld this from the judge in this particular case.
	It is it is nothing short of lying by omission to a Pfizer court judge.
	And, you know, it points out a lot of faults here.
	The memo ignores the fact that the DNC and the Hillary campaign actually paid for it.
	They purposefully avoid telling the judge that that was confirmed by the Graham Grassley referral.
	A significant portion of Carter Page's FISA application, the bulk of it was the dossier.
	What's amazing, too, is they never make any reference to the fact after the Nunes memo came out, they're making a big deal over the fact that Andrew McCabe had testified in December and McCabe had actually said, well, there would be no application for a warrant without the dossier, which they all knew was unverified and Clinton bought and paid for.
	They didn't even address it because they knew that that testimony eventually is going to get out and leak out.
	And it doesn't contain a single reference, not one reference to the DNC or the Clinton campaign.
	Not one.
	And then the Democratic memo confirmed, you know, this Michael Izakoff, Yahoo News, September 2016 piece was part of the FISA application.
	The problem with that is the memo of Schiff and others in the Democrats ignored the fact that the FBI failed to inform the court and the judge that Steele had provided the information to Yahoo News.
	And remember, that's one of the reasons why Steele was let go, because he was leaking to the press.
	Now, we subsequently have found out that Steele hated Donald Trump, and that Steele had an agenda, just like Struck and Page had an agenda.
	Just like Loretta Lynch had an agenda, just like everybody Comey had an agenda.
	Everybody involved in this has an agenda.
	And nobody seems to care about the truth of the honesty in all of this.
	Now, I thought one of the best pieces I've read by Andy McCarthy, who's been Doing an outstanding job on reviewing all of this.
	It's National Review.
	I'm not a big fan of National Review anymore because they're all full of a bunch of never Trumpers, but but at least Andy McCarthy's an honest guy and and a smart former prosecutor.
	I mean, he's a former top terrorism prosecutor, and he analyzes how this really grossly overhyped shift memo and and at the end concludes rather than bolstering the Democratic case for Russia Gate, it actually torpedoes some of their key claims in their own words.
	And he's right when he analyzes that the Democrats insist that what launched the FBI's counterterrorism investigation was not the steel dossier, but the intelligence from Australia about George Papadopoulos and his contact of so-called individuals linked to Russia.
	By the way, that was four-way hearsay.
	Never would be admitted by any court ever.
	Now we learn that Papadopoulos, when he pled guilty, it's anything but clear that these individuals linked to Russia had much in the way of any links to Putin or anybody of significance in Russia.
	And manifestly it shows how the FBI and the DOJ saw the matter, quote, they sought a FISA warrant on Carter Page, not Papadopoulos to get the spy warrant.
	They highlighted Steele's dossier and the sensational unverified allegations about Page and then feebly tried to corroborate those allegations with some of Papadopoulos' information, not the other way around like it should be done.
	This is all this is corruption at its highest level.
	I'll explain what it means in a minute.
	And another troubling question is when Steele brought the FBI is unverified allegations about Carter Page.
	Well, why didn't the FBI simply call Page for an interview?
	No, I'm going to interview Paige tonight on Hannity.
	Rather than subject him to a Pfizer surveillance, considering that Carter Page was already cooperating with the FBI, which is, by the way, what the Pfizer law actually requires.
	In other words, when the FBI and DOJ apply for a Pfizer warrant, they've got to convince the court that surveillance, which against American citizens, you know, that goes against our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
	It's by its very nature an intrusive tactic, and the government monitors, you know, all of an American citizen's electronic communications is only necessary when the foreign intelligence information the government seeks cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques.
	Well, maybe Carter Page would have been able to give him everything they want considering he was cooperating.
	And after a year of all this information being in the hands of the FBI and the special counsel, well, you've got to kind of take note of the fact that Carter Page has never been arrested.
	Normal investigative techniques include interviewing the subject.
	In fact, in prior years, Paige had a documented history of providing information to and for the FBI.
	Now it shows that the FBI they didn't care about Carter Page because they got Carter Page, they got all of the Trump server emails that they wanted so they can spy on an opposition party candidate.
	So here's where we are in this.
	Just to it gets complicated.
	Let me keep it simple.
	So you've got Hillary Clinton rigging a primary election.
	Nobody seems to care.
	Let's put that off to the side.
	You got Hillary Clinton mishandles classified top secret special access program information, puts it on a mom and pop shop server in a bathroom closet.
	An investigation text takes place.
	Remember, you're not allowed to mishandle classified information, nor are you allowed to destroy classified information, all of which James Comey in July, when he gave his infamous press conference after they interviewed Hillary two days later, earlier rather, you know, he had already been writing this since May.
	So he's exonerating before investigating.
	So he has this press conference.
	He even admits top secret classified special access program information on the server that never should have been there.
	That's a crime.
	Then long before you've got struck and page hate Trump, you know, you've got the one guy struck involved in everything.
	Then you've got James Comey, they're exonerating before investigating.
	Then Loretta Lynch is meeting on the tarmac.
	So now, not only do you have a primary rigged, then you have an investigation rigged, then she pays for A Russian dossier never verified, and that dossier is then used to spy on the opposition party candidate just in the weeks before the election, and then three subsequent renewals based on information that she bought and paid for, and they never tell the Pfizer court that she bought and paid for it.
	That all happened.
	Everything, in other words, we have been telling you is true.
	That is what the Shift memo corroborates.
	That's what's amazing about this.
	So it's so bad that they released this Shift memo on a Saturday, which is something that would rarely happen.
	Maybe Shift would explain.
	Well, we had to.
	No, they didn't have to, as far as I have heard.
	Uh, but here's the interesting part.
	The House of Representatives, permanent select committee on intelligence, actually decided that they were going to take this head on.
	And they actually took piece by piece in the Shift memo and actually ran with it and countered it with what is accurate and true.
	For example, the Democratic Shift memo says, well, Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI's decision, inform the FBI's decision to initiate counterintelligence investigation.
	And as the response says, well, as stated in the declassified GOP memo on FISA abuse, information about the Trump campaign advisor George Pepadopoulos triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by the FBI agent Peter Strzok.
	Once underway, the investigation was fueled by Christopher Steele's dossier, which the Department of Justice and FBI used to get the foreign intelligence surveillant act warrant on Carter Page.
	And the DOJ and FBI's reliance on the you know Clinton funded dossier in the court filings, not the overall investigation was the focus of the GOP memo.
	So they get debunked there.
	Or the Page FISA application made only narrow use of the information from Steele's sources about Page's specific activities in 2016.
	Now remember, it's the Grassley Graham memo that actually stated that the bulk of the application to the Pfizer court that led to the warrant was consisting of allegations that were disclosed to the FBI by Christopher Steele and outlined in the bought and paid for Steele dossier.
	And Steele's dossier was the FBI's only source for the allegations in the initial application that Paige met with particular Russians in July of 2016.
	So Schiff and the Democrats are just outright lying to you about pretty much everything because they can't answer these questions.
	All this is is an attempt to muddy the waters.
	All right, we do have uh Jim Jordan, Sarah Carter, Jay Secular will all weigh in on this breaking news coming up.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Um so we're gonna get into the sheriff issue in just a second and all that's going down in Parkland, Florida, which is pretty unbelievable to me.
	Um it is it is so underwhelming what the Shift memo is and frankly almost embarrassing.
	If if I'm a Democrat on this committee, and you can't dispute that, in fact, the Steel dossier that was paid for, unverified, and paid for, bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and by the DNC.
	And you cannot dispute that that was the bulk of the FISA application.
	They would have been better off saying nothing than putting out this piece of garbage that makes them all sound and look like Bill Clinton.
	All depends what is is.
	What was the name of the show?
	It depends upon what the meaning of the word is.
	Is it objectified or whatever the series is on Fox?
	No, not the objectified is uh what's his name show?
	Harvey Levin.
	Harvey Levin.
	No, the show the um they're doing a series.
	Scandalous, yeah.
	That's the sc I'm watching it last night, and it had Bill Clinton saying those words in a deposition.
	That also raised questions for me.
	It's like there's no earthly reason at this point for this special counsel to exist knowing all that we now know.
	None whatsoever.
	Why Robert Mueller and his team have not put out an interim report at least saying there is no evidence of Trump Russia collusion after a year, and they're basically holding the White House, you know, in a vice the entire time and moving on from topic to topic to topic,
	you know, nothing to do with Trump Russia collusion, nothing by anybody, you know, that the Pfizer warrant application, that the fact that they hid it from the Pfizer court judge, that ought to be the big takeaway of the shift memo.
	In other words, they they have an obligation.
	If you're gonna spy on an American citizen and you're using a document that was bought and paid for, this is weeks before an election by one presidential campaign that would allow the spying on another presidential campaign, you better be pretty darn certain that this thing is credible.
	And what they did was they denied and hid from the judge every single connection.
	They never mention the DNC.
	They never mention Hillary Clinton.
	They never mention where the money came from.
	They don't say any of this.
	And they nor do they talk about the credibility of steel.
	You know, the Pfizer warrant application.
	It didn't it didn't count or depend on verification of the Department of Justice and of the FBI.
	This was all, you know, well, he he gave us good information in the past.
	Why should we investigate it ourselves?
	Well, that's what the FBI is supposed to do.
	And again, everything is brought in-house.
	So what makes this thing unbelievable to me is you've got, you know, all of the omissions on the on the one hand, I mean, the Democratic memo ignores the contention about Andrew McCabe testifying in December that, hey, there wouldn't even have been an application, not even an application for the Pfizer warrant in any way without the dossier.
	Now, they made a big deal when the newness memo came out saying, oh, well, he didn't say exactly that.
	Okay, they had the opportunity to put in what he did say.
	So that tells me that, in fact, McCabe did say it.
	As a matter of fact, I have a source that's told me it's worse than what Nunes is implying.
	In other words, no dossier, no application.
	Now think about this.
	We're gonna shred the Constitution, we're gonna lie to a Pfizer court judge, we're gonna allow the spying on an opposition party campaign with emails going back all throughout the campaign.
	Then you've got somebody that put the fix in in the beginning that got this started.
	That's James Comey, Peter Struck, Lisa Page, and I think you can add Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe in all of this, you know, their plan B, but they put the fix in on Hillary Clinton.
	You don't write an exoneration in May when you don't interview the main target, Hillary Clinton or 17 other key witnesses till July, and then come out and admit that she violated and committed felonies and still not prosecute her, because they decided to put the fix in and let Hillary keep continuing here.
	And the fact that James Comey knew about all of this, and then remember the Pfizer warrant was in October, just before the election, 2016.
	He goes before Donald Trump in January at Trump Tower before Trump is sworn in, tells Trump about the dossier, but tells Trump, don't worry, it's not verified, but it's salacious.
	That's all that Comey said.
	That's the only information that Trump had about any of this.
	So why is he gonna worry about it?
	And the Democratic, how does the Democrats warrant in their memo, and how is it warranted in a court the fact that the DNC and Hillary Clinton paid for the unverified steel dossier?
	And again, Grassley Graham memo points out that was the bulk of the application.
	And that's what Andrew McCabe says, no dossier, not even an application for a Pfizer warrant.
	They all knew the truth.
	Comey being the biggest liar of all of them.
	Without Comey and Struck and the exoneration before investigation, Hillary Clinton does not continue as a candidate.
	She doesn't survive because she's brought up on charges.
	And that is mishandling classified information, destruction of classified top secret special access program.
	And just to make doubly sure, then you add the obstruction charge on top of it, because when she's decided to acid, well, first delete 33,000 subpoenaed emails.
	Delete deleting them is in and of itself that's obstruction.
	Then to make doubly sure you acid wash it with bleach bit, well, that's obstruction, and then pounding any devices that may have the information on it.
	That's obstruction too.
	But Comey gave her a pass, Strck gave her a pass, Page gave her a pass, and it's seemingly McCabe and Loretta Lynch who met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac that just decided, oh, I'll just go along with whatever they say.
	And that was her decision.
	The Democratic memo doesn't have a single reference to the DNC or the Clinton campaign.
	The Shift memo doesn't even acknowledge they funded the dossier.
	They never ever admit the information.
	They wouldn't, or they wouldn't admit the information was provided to the Pfizer court, but it was the bulk of the FISA application.
	So all of this is political.
	And then, of course, you know, you're lying to a Pfizer judge on a couple of levels here.
	One, the lie by omission by not telling them that Clinton bought for it, bought and paid for it.
	The DNC bought and paid for it.
	Then you're lying by omission.
	You say, well, look at Michael Izakoff's, you know, his September 2016 Yahoo News piece.
	Yeah, well, you ignore the fact that Michael Izakoff's source, which they knew was Christopher Steele.
	So basically they're repackaging the same information from the same source, and they're betraying it before the, you know, portraying it before the uh Pfizer court judges two independent corroborating sources.
	It's one.
	So they're misleading the judge in that particular case as well.
	I mean, and it's there's so many things wrong with this.
	You know, I'll give you another example.
	The overwhelming majority of committee members never received DOJ authorization to access the underlying classified information.
	They're whining about that in the shift memo.
	Well, excuse me, the reason that was the case, if you remember before the underlying materials were handed over to the House Committee on Intelligence, Special Select Committee on Intelligence.
	Remember Rod Rosenstein, they waited till the last minute, midnight that night was was their drop dead moment of handing over the information.
	Rod Rosenstein races over to Paul Ryan's office, begging don't release the information.
	Well, that became what was the newness memo.
	And of course, Grassley Graham.
	So that was part of their stonewalling of the committee from the very beginning.
	And the Department of Justice and the FBI, you know, they limited the access to the documents, the underlying documents, and you know, for whatever reason, to one member and two staff for both Republicans and Democrats.
	So Schiff whining about it is just lying to people that read the memo.
	You know, another thing in the Shift memo that the information about Papadopoulos was received against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive covert campaign to influence the elections, which the FBI was already monitoring.
	Well, Nunes responded to that by saying Russia's aggressive meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
	The GOP memo doesn't even dispute.
	Nobody's disputed it.
	Neither has Trump, in spite of the way the media's portrayed it.
	He just said, you know, I don't know, is it Russia?
	You know, when it comes to the DNC emails, he had no idea where they came from.
	I think the only person that has interviewed the person that released them, Julian Assange, is me.
	I don't know anybody else that went to the Ecuadorian embassy in this country that took the time to interview him.
	Now you don't have to believe Julian Assange.
	You don't have to like Julian Assange.
	But he does know where the DNC leak came from.
	Because he's the one that put it on his website.
	He's the one guy that we know for sure knows.
	So you would think if it's that important of knowing, why haven't they reached out to him and asked him that important question?
	But they haven't.
	I know for a fact that they haven't.
	And I think they should.
	Now he says it's not Russia, and he says it's not a state.
	Okay, I I can't go any further than that, except to say that in 11 years, WikiLeaks has never been proven wrong.
	That adds some credibility to what they do.
	You may not like what they do.
	I'm not asking you to like what they do.
	But there is somebody that knows the answer to that important question.
	And I do think if we cared about the truth, we'd like the answer.
	Where did those DNC emails come from?
	Was it Russia?
	Was it Trump and Russia colluding?
	Because Julian Assange said again and again it wasn't them.
	And it wasn't any state.
	Nobody's asked them as far as I know.
	Nobody from Mueller's special counsels asked them.
	Nobody from I don't think, except for Dana Rohrbacher, who took the time to meet with him and nobody wanted to talk to Dana but us.
	Interesting how people don't want information.
	I don't have all the answers, but I'm asking the right questions.
	You can't deny if you care where the DNC emails came from, Podesta emails came from, you might want to ask the guy that released them.
	Because he'd be the one guy that knows.
	Now he might not give you an answer, but maybe he will.
	Moving on.
	The DOJ's Pfizer Warren application was based on compelling evidence and probable cause of Page's pre-campaign activities.
	This goes to the July 2016 meeting um trip that Paige took to Russia, which has been gone over again and again.
	And there's no evidence that he met with the two people everybody says that he met with.
	And if he had met with them and told authorities that he didn't meet with them, he would have been arrested by now if any such evidence existed.
	And the Democratic memo, the Shift memo, fails to explain why if evidence of Page's past activities was so compelling, then why did the Steele dossier become the bulk of information for the FISA application, much less forming the bulk of the application?
	Now the Democratic memo also fails to explain why if the DOJ and FBI had probable cause that Paige was a Russian agent.
	Well, they waited until shortly after receiving the steel dossier to seek the warrant.
	And again, the bulk of the application was the dossier.
	You know, then you have the charge that the the, you know, FISA application refers to Steele's reporting on Page.
	Well, Grassley and Graham, if they'd ever read their side of what they have put out on the criminal referral of steel, the dossier was the significant portion.
	Everything they're saying is debunked.
	Everything they're saying is, you know, just you just it's like shadows that they're just throwing out there that have bizarre zero connections.
	The DOJ provided the court with more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele's research.
	That's my favorite line.
	Okay.
	None of the FISA application, none of it discloses in any way the role of the DNC or the Clinton campaign, or the party, or the campaign funding Steele's efforts.
	Instead, the Pfizer application relied on their convoluted statement buried in a footnote.
	Oh, they say, well, it may have political implications for the political they know who paid for it.
	And the footnote obscures rather than clarifies Steele's political motivation.
	Steele hated Trump.
	That's not brought up in this either.
	Everything we've told you is true.
	Everything the media's told you has not been true.
	There's a reason they're ignoring this today in the media.
	All right, the shift memo is embarrassing.
	Sarah Carter, Jim Jordan next, Jay Secular will join us.
	We'll have more on Hannity tonight at nine as well.
	We'll continue.
	Oh, I got another.
	Oh, you say that on the air.
	I thought I've read it wrong.
	I thought I said 56.
	What?
	What?
	Why are you?
	No, I just, you know, from time to time to time.
	Can you say that in the English?
	From time to time, we all have moments where we forget our break times because you have 1,800 pieces of paper in front of you.
	I have 18,000, to be honest.
	Excuse me, 18,000.
	18,000.
	And the you're listening to me on the shift memo.
	I'm right.
	Why do you guys take pleasure though when I thought I saw 56 and it's was 55?
	I only glanced at it when I was talking to all of you the entire break.
	You have you never put up the picture of the cat before and after either, like you were supposed to on the website.
	I think it's interesting how you're deflecting right now because the error is your friend.
	We've all fallen.
	I've I f I have fallen short many times in my life, but I'm asking even time wise.
	Even time wise.
	That's right.
	Where's the picture of your cat before and after?
	I texted it to you.
	No, you're supposed to put it up on Hannity.com.
	I'll put it up on Hannity.
	Jim Jordan, Sarah Carter, Jay Seculo.
	Next.
	Peter Strzok is selected to be on Mahler's team after all this history, put on Mueller's team, and then he's removed for some pro Clinton text messages.
	I mean, there are all kinds of people on Mueller's team who are pro-Clinton.
	There's been all kinds of stories.
	Politifact reported ninety-six percent of the top lawyers uh uh contributions went to Clinton or Obama.
	But Peter Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton investigation, interviewed Mills Aberdeen, interviewed Secretary Clinton, changed gross negligence and crime to the term extreme carelessness, who ran the Russian investigation, who interviewed Mike Flynn, gets put on Mueller's team, and then he gets kicked off for a text message that's anti-Trump.
	If he kicked everybody off Mueller's team who was anti-Trump, I don't think there'd be anybody left.
	So here he there's gotta be something more here.
	It can't just be some text messages that show a pro-Clinton anti-Trump bias.
	There's gotta be something more.
	And I'm trying to figure out what it is.
	But my hunch is it has something to do with the dossier.
	Director did Peter Strzok help produce and present the application to the FISA court to secure a warrant to spy on Americans associated with the Trump campaign.
	Uh Congressman, I'm not prepared to discuss anything about uh a Pfizer process in this.
	We're not talking about what happened in the court, we're talking about what the FBI took to the court, the application.
	Did Peter Strzok was he involved in taking that to the court?
	Uh I'm not going to discuss in this setting anything to do with the Pfizer Court applications.
	The Democrat National Committee in the Clinton campaign, which we now know we're one and the same, paid the law firm, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Christopher Steele, who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, national inquiry garbage.
	And it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court, and presented as a legitimate intelligence document that it became the basis for granting a warrant to spy on Americans.
	And I'm wondering y I'm I'm wondering if that actually took place.
	It sure looks like it did.
	And the easiest way to clear it up is for you guys to tell us what was in that application and who took it there.
	Congressman, uh our staffs have been having extensive interaction with both intelligence committees on our interaction with the Pfizer court, and I think that's the appropriate setting for those questions.
	Here's what I think, Director Ray.
	I think Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI.
	Peter Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton investigation, did all the interviews, Peter Strzok, the guy who was running the Russian investigation at the FBI.
	Peter Strzok, Mr. Superagent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application to the Pfizer court.
	And if that happened, I mean think if this happened, if you had the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats campaign, taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document and taking it to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign.
	If that happened, that is as wrong as it gets.
	And you know what?
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	You could clear it all up.
	You can clear it all up for all of us here, all the Congress who wants to know, and frankly, all of America wants to know.
	You can clear it all up by releasing we sent you a letter two days ago.
	Just release the application.
	Tell us what was in it.
	Tell us if I'm wrong.
	But I don't think I am.
	I think that's exactly what happened.
	And if it did, it is as wrong as it can be, and people who did that need to be held accountable.
	All right, hour two, Sean Hannity show, eight hundred nine four one Sean, our toll-free telephone number, you want to be a part of the program on this busy breaking news Monday.
	That was Jim Jordan back on December the seventh with the FBI director, Christopher Ray, Ray saying he can't answer a struck use the Steel Dossier to get a FISA application to spy on Trump and and then going over the whole struck uh con contribution, all of this an anti-Trump, you know, he the guy that's in the middle of all of this being so anti-Trump, but even the Shift memo gives us more details than I think Democrats ever ever had designed to admit.
	Among them is that the Steele dossier was key to the Pfizer Warrant application, as both the Nunes and the Grassley Graham memo had told us.
	And the Pfizer Warrant application did in fact hide the fact that the dossier was connected and bought and paid for by Clinton and by the DNC and and after hiring Perkins Couy uh to funnel the money to fusion GPS.
	And the Pfizer Warrant application relied on Steele's quote credibility rather than any verification or corroboration of the facts, which means they lied to a Pfizer court judge and purposely withheld information to all this.
	And it's only the tip of the iceberg.
	Here with reaction to all this, Freedom Caucus member, Ohio Democ uh Ohio Republican, sorry, former president of the Freedom Conf well that would that that would destroy your career in five minutes.
	And Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor.
	Uh thank you both for being with us.
	All right, let's see that John.
	I look at the Schiff reply as a disaster for the Democrats for some of the reasons I just mentioned.
	Your take, Congressman.
	No, you're you're exactly right.
	Schiff tried to say that uh look, it wasn't really the dossier, it was the FBI was looking at Carter Page ahead of time and they were investigating, they were looking into all this.
	Well, if that's the case, then why did you wait for the dossier before you went to the FISA court?
	If if if it was just based on everything else you were doing, why didn't you go to the FISA court before that?
	Why did you wait?
	Why did you lead with the dossier on the FISA application?
	And why didn't you tell the court who paid for the dossier?
	Who was paying Steele to produce this document?
	So I I agree with you.
	I thought this was uh we couldn't talk about it until it came out, but I thought this thing was a complete dud and only reinforces what you've been saying, Sean, what Sarah's been reporting and what we've been saying in the in the in the Nunes memo from a few weeks ago.
	And Sarah, you wrote a column now the Republicans refute point by point the Democratic memo on the dossier, and I thought they made a pretty powerful case.
	And again, we go back to the major revelation here is that you know, this was supposedly to challenge the credibility of the Nunes memo when just the opposite happened because it was the you know, the the Grassley Graham memo said the bulk of information was from the Steel dossier.
	That still remains true today, and it was key to the FISA warrant application.
	They didn't address the whole issue of Andrew McCabe and the fact that in his statement that no dossier, there would be no application for a Pfizer warrant, which they said they were gonna address in their memo, and in fact they did hide that connection that Clinton bought and paid for this thing.
	And it seems like they relied only on the credibility of Christopher Steele, not on any vr verified facts before they go to the FISA court.
	Absolutely.
	And if you if you look at it on its face, the the main point in and you know, Schiff's argument was was just completely utterly abolished because he was trying to say that they had warned the FISA court uh from the get-go, oh the FISA court knew what was going on here.
	They knew from the beginning, but if you look at it, it was this contorted way of explaining that they're made, they speculate.
	Remember that word speculate, that the FBI speculates there might be political motivation, and they put that in a footnote, uh, and they didn't even address the fact that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for this dossier.
	Had they told the FISA court this, I am certain that a judge at the FISA court would have thrown this out.
	I mean, and then further, they had already looked into Christopher Steele at this point.
	They had information that there was extraordinary bias in here.
	They went forward with it, and as you said, Sean, I mean, they didn't even address m McCabe's own statement.
	And remember, McCabe is knee deep in all of this, if not head deep, and everything that was going on here with this investigation, and now he is being investigated by the inspector general for his role uh actually in in the Clinton email server, and he's being investigated as well by others for potentially obstructing justice.
	So there is a lot here.
	Uh and unf for Schiff, unfortunately, this memo did nothing for them but just uh it in fact it boomeranged back on them.
	All right, so but let's go to the the actual memo of Schiff where he says that in fact the DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a Pfizer warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance on Carter Page,
	someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government, uh and the DOJ met the r met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary uh basis needed to meet Pfizer's cause requirement, but that's not true, is it Congressman?
	I don't think so at all, Sean, because again, why why did they wait for the until they had the dossier to go to the court?
	If it was all about Carter Page and evidence you collected on page, go to the court ahead of time if you want to surveil him.
	But no, they waited for this disproven, salacious, unverified dossier.
	They took it to the court and then they try to also have it both ways.
	They try to say, well it wasn't really the most important thing.
	But oh by the way, we did say it was political in nature.
	When you read how they describe the political nature of the dossier, it is truly the most convoluted language I have ever seen and anyone with any common sense reads that and say, what are they trying to say?
	And and why didn't they just say it?
	Why didn't you just say the Clinton campaign paid for this Clinton for America and the DNC paid for this.
	Why didn't you just say it?
	So the they're all over the map and I even heard Congressman Schiff on TV this Sunday Sean where he said well Steele didn't know who was financing the dossier who was behind paying him.
	Well first of all I find that hard to believe but even if that's accurate who cares the FBI knew and why didn't they make it plain to the judge who said it that FISA court this secret court and granted a warrant to spy on a fellow American citizen associated with the Trump campaign.
	So now we can conclude the following that the FBI and DOJ used political dirt bought and paid for by the Democratic Party, the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign to spy on an American citizen from the Republican Party to get access to an opposition party candidate's information and by the way that also allows them to look at everything prior to the warrant and we also learned that they lied to a Pfizer judge purposefully misled this judge
	and withheld the information about who bought and paid for it.
	Now but the but the DOJ and the FBI knew and that to me is critical Sarah Carter.
	Yeah.
	Oh, it is critical.
	And let's just go back to Carter Page for one moment.
	You know, Carter Page has asked, and I spoke with him this weekend.
	He's on TV with me tonight, by the way, as you are.
	But I mean, what did you ask him this weekend?
	He's saying, look, let it all out.
	This is a smear campaign.
	You know, get out all of my FISA, get all these FISA applications out in the public.
	Let's make this public.
	Let's settle this once and for all.
	He adamantly denies over and over again being any kind of tool for the Russian government.
	There still has not been proof of that.
	of that obviously because he has not been arrested we haven't seen any of that happen and look if it would have been Papadopoulos that started off this investigation, you know George Papadopoulos as they tried to assert later after all of this took place, uh they wouldn't have had to rely so heavily um on this dossier.
	And obviously Papadopoulos wasn't as big a of a concern to them because they would have gotten a FISA application from the courts I mean they would have been able to spy on Papadopoulos instead of Carter Page.
	So there's a lot of inconsistencies here with what the FBI and remember the FBI has been criticized before by the fifth courts and I think now this is going to open up a whole new realm of investigations because we have to really ask ourselves some serious questions here and about our Fourth Amendment protections because once we see this we're you know I say to myself well what else has been going on there?
	I mean we only know this because this story has been so explosive and it's unraveled.
	But have there been other applications that they've been less truthful on and that's something that I'm very interested in.
	All right we're going to go through this slowly because what Devin Nunes and the Republicans did is they literally refuted the SHIF memo point by point and I I just think they blew it out of the water and I think now we can say that the things that we've been telling our audience have been factual, accurate and true uh which means what's going to happen next and what should happen next.
	All right short segment here as we continue with Congressman Jim Jordan and Sarah Carter we're gonna carry them over into the next half hour.
	Uh but I think wait what the main thing we've got to look at now that Schiff has released the memo I think why did Schiff even want this release considering it backfires.
	I mean you know they for example they made such a big deal about Andrew McCabe Congressman testifying in December that the Pfizer war warrant wouldn't have been even sought without the dossier.
	They didn't.
	No, you're exactly right.
	And then they don't they don't even address that really in their memo.
	Uh they don't refute it.
	They just say, well, no, it really didn't happen.
	Well, then why didn't you cite something in this in this memo to refute that fundamental point?
	Because Andrew McCabe, deputy director of the FBI said, but for the dossier, we wouldn't have been able to secure the warrant, which confirms what I just said earlier, which is that's probably why the FBI waited till they had the dossier to go to the court.
	So it refutes Schiff's main point, which is, oh, they were investigating Steel.
	We we we we were looking at Steel long before the dossier was complete and before the FBI had access to it.
	Well, then why did you wait?
	How can they have an entire not a single reference in the Shift memo to the DNC or the Clinton campaign and who funded it?
	Not one reference at all, Sarah Carter.
	Well, yeah, because it it backfires on them, right?
	I mean, if they put that in there, it it unravels their entire weak argument on why uh, you know, uh uh against Nunet.
	So they can't put it in there.
	And I it was really interesting.
	Andrew McCarthy wrote a phenomenal piece on on this, and he brings that up, and you know, Schiff tries to explain that it would be like unmasking, you know, and it has one has nothing to do with the other.
	I mean, this is a Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid through Perkins CUI to have uh the this basically British ex spy work on a report, a dossier, an anti-Trump dossier focused on Russia.
	He's collecting uh salacious and unverified information, putting it into this dossier, they're shopping it around to the FBI, and then they're shopping it around to the media.
	And remember this, Sean, they also now we have information that verifies this.
	You have Christopher Steele in contact with very close allies of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
	And I think this is something that really needs to be investigated thoroughly because he's on the phone with people like Cody Shear, who worked for Bill Clinton, and you know, Sidney Blumenthal, who's a very close ally of Hillary Clinton, who was communicating with her back and forth while she was at State Department on issues like Libya and other issues, and they're passing information back and forth to each other.
	So it's very difficult for me to believe it could be, but that you know, City Blumenthal.
	Stay right there.
	Well, we'll pick we'll pick it up.
	And when we come back, what we're gonna do is we'll take this the Shift memo and the House Intelligence Committee literally goes line by line and rips it apart.
	Uh we'll have full coverage of all of this tonight on Hannity on the Fox News Channel.
	We'll take a quick break.
	And by the way, Carter Page will be on tonight.
	Devin Nunes will be on tonight.
	Uh Sarah Carter and others, nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel will continue.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Anyway, so the SHIFT memo comes out on on Saturday.
	We had been getting word Friday that it might come out late Friday.
	That never happened.
	It ignores completely the fact that the DNC, the Hillary campaign, bought and paid for that dossier, which, as the Grassley Graham memo pointed out, became the bulk of the FISA application.
	But of course, they never told the judge any of this.
	The Democratic memo doesn't have a single reference to the DNC or the Clinton campaign in in a significant portion of the Carter Page Pfizer application.
	And the Democratic memo doesn't contain a single reference to them paying for this at all.
	Which means that they lied or purposely misinformed the Pfizer court judge.
	And it also confirmed that the September 2016 Yahoo News Peace article by Michael Lizakoff was part of the Pfizer application, but they ignore the fact that that information came directly from Steele, so it was really still one source, not two.
	But they tried to deceive the Pfizer Court on in that way as well.
	So anyway, the House uh permanent select committee on intelligence put out a response memo to the Shift memo, and they go line by line refuting what Shift's memo says.
	And I want to go through this as we continue with Sarah Carter and Congressman Jim Jordan.
	The first charge is that Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate their counterintelligence investigation in late 2016.
	Congressman, uh you've seen the House Committee reaction to it.
	What's yours?
	Yeah, I mean, uh come on.
	Uh again, I I keep coming back to this point.
	If that's the case, then why even take the dossier to the court at all?
	If you're not relying on Christopher Steele and what he put in that document, then why'd you take that to the court?
	and frankly, as people who've actually seen the application have said, why did you lead with it?
	Normally when you're making an argument to a court, you lead with your best argument.
	They led with the dossier.
	So to say that it somehow this was not the key makes absolute no sense.
	And to the fundamental point, think about it.
	You go into a court of law and you don't tell, and you're using a document to secure a warrant to spy on a fellow citizen to go after their to to infringe on their Fourth Amendment liberties, and you don't tell the court that an opposition campaign finance that report, you don't disclose that fundamental piece of information, that key fact, that's what they did.
	And that is what is so wrong with this and why it has to be investigated, and frankly, why we need a second special counsel.
	And go on a point too, Sarah Carter.
	Now the the Grassley Graham memo that came out, they confirmed that the bulk of the FISA application consisted of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by who?
	Christopher Steele.
	And that dossier was not verified.
	And yet the Democrats, in their their response, say the Page FISA application made only narrow use of information from Steele sources.
	That's just factually not true.
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	And they they omit information that's critical about Steele.
	I I mean uh and they omit information that's critical about Carter Page.
	In in in the entire application, for example, in one instance, they actually have this tape statement um that was reproduced in 2015.
	It was a federal court filing where a Russian intelligence officer literally calls Page an idiot.
	I mean, and they they don't even explain that, they don't put that in there.
	I mean, they don't even address this.
	And I mean it's like there is no evidence suggesting that Carter Page, and uh that's what the Russians said.
	I'm not saying that about Mr. Page whatsoever, but they don't address anything that proves that Carter Page, and remember they have to have proof.
	You have to be able to deliver proof to the courts, Sean, that this person is a threat to national security because you are actively spying on a U.S. person.
	Well, what do we know about Carter Page?
	We know that he'd been investigated fully, cooperated with the FBI at every level, right?
	Absolutely.
	And and and that's all we know, and that he cooperated with the FBI, that uh, you know, he there is no evidence to suggest that he is an at all an active spy for the Russians in any way, shape, or form.
	And according to this particular FISA application on Page, which was renewed over and over again, there is no evidence to suggest that at all.
	They relied on a dossier with salacious argument.
	And they used it four times even by them.
	And not one of the four times the the initial application and the three subsequent renewals, they never told the court the truth.
	Absolutely.
	They never once told the courts the truth.
	They never mentioned Perkins CUI, they never explained who Perkins Cuey was.
	That's the law firm, they never explained that Hillary Clinton and the DNC were paying for this, were funded this.
	And remember, even more importantly, too, is that Glenn Simpson never even verified the information in the dossier himself.
	And they were putting this stuff together piece by piece, and nobody had verified any of it.
	Uh and and it was pretty evident since Comey himself was the one that came up with the fact the statement that it was uh an unverified and fallacious dossier, even when he briefed President Obama then, and then uh President elect Trump.
	Let's go to the other charge that's made in the Shift memo that the information about George Papadopoulos was received against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive covert campaign to influence our elections, with the which the FBI was already monitoring, and they responded by saying Russia's aggressive meddling in the 2016 election, which the GOP memo does not dispute is the key focus of the committee's ongoing Russia investigation.
	But the point is uh if if you're ever going before any here here's uh if you're ever trying to use hearsay in a courtroom, uh it's usually not admitted.
	This is four times hearsay as it relates to Papadopoulos, is it not, Congressman?
	Yeah, it sure seems that way.
	And remember, when the investigation was open uh with the Papadopoulos information, that was in late July of 2016, and guess who the agent was who opened the case?
	Peter Strzok.
	So the same Peter Strck who ran the Clinton investigation, the same Peter Strzok who interviewed Mills, Abdeen Clinton, who later interviewed General Flynn, that guy is the one who opens it, and Papadopoulos i and and if that was so important, why is that the only time we frankly really heard about Papadopis?
	They used that to open an investigation, and then everything after that turned to Christopher Steele and more importantly, the dossier, the work product that he produced that after being paid for um by the Clinton campaign.
	How can the Democrats claim as they do in this SHIF response that the DOJ's Pfizer warrant application was based on compelling evidence and probable cause of Page's pre-campaign activities when they failed to explain why if the evidence of Page's past activities were so compelling then the Steele dossier, why was that then used for the FISA application?
	Exactly.
	As the bulk of information.
	That doesn't make sense.
	No, it it it doesn't make sense to me that if it's so compelling, go get the warrant before you have the dossier.
	Don't take the dossier to the court.
	If it if it's so compelling and the dossier is not important, then why did you wait and use a dossier and only use a dossier to go?
	But isn't it a crime to purposely mislead a FISA court, especially considering how rid uh how rigid rigid the rules are to spy on an American citizen?
	It's a crime to mislead any court.
	And and the fact that they're doing this in the secret setting, I think is is something that should cause us all concern as Americans when we think about our liberties and specifically our Fourth Amendment rights.
	So that's something that I think needs to be looked at as we move forward in and in some reforms and changes to that uh that specific court.
	What about Congressman Jordan on that, Sean, because the there's no one there on the opposite end.
	Remember, this is being delivered to the courts.
	The courts are looking at these documents from the FBI.
	They're relying on the fact that the FBI agents that are bringing it to them are being truthful, being straightforward, that everything presented because it is such an extensive application is accurate and and and fair.
	But one thing that we have learned uh over the years investigating these type of matters, and especially with the FISC court, is that there's no real oversight once it gets in there.
	There's nobody to defend, for example, Carter Page.
	Had somebody come in and been able to say, uh, you know, Carter Page himself or or somebody representing the opposite side, said, Well, look, this is just not enough.
	This is hearsay.
	There's no actual evidence in here.
	We don't have any taped recordings of Carter Page preparing to do something with the Russians.
	We don't have any documentation that shows that.
	This is hearsay based on actually FSB agents and disinformation and a former ex-British spy.
	And uh there may have been a different outcome here.
	But because there's no one there to defend the person being monitored, there's no way of checks and balances.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So then when the d when they actually claim that the DOJ provided the court with more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele's research, that is just a blatant lie.
	Yeah, read the read the m read the uh the paragraph where they what they cite the Democrats site as referencing the fact that there was a political context to the dossier.
	When you read that, anyone will say, What the heck does that mean?
	Why didn't they just plainly state it?
	Why didn't why don't you just come out and be honest?
	The DNC paid for it.
	The Clinton campaign paid for it.
	Why not just tell us that?
	But they didn't.
	They used it again, this this convoluted circuitous route of saying source one, campaign one, you couldn't even follow it.
	And um again, that's that's not supposed to be how it works.
	I'm reading it right now, and it's still the most confusing paragraph uh you can imagine.
	I mean, it is true.
	They source one that a US based law firm hired the identified US person to conduct re I mean, it's so convoluted, and at the very end it says the FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely, and it just speculates, was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit candidate one's campaign, the end.
	And then you know, here we are.
	So is there anything that we've been reporting at all that I don't I think we have been proven right more than anything else with the SHIF memo, Sarah, in particular, because I mean you've been doing the research in all of this.
	The DOJ explained the FBI's reasonable basis for finding the steel credib uh steel credible, uh, just saying, well, we've worked with them in the past, they never told the court why they fired the guy, which you know he was leaking, and we now know too that Steele had a political agenda, not unlike Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
	Absolutely.
	And you you think that at some point in those four renewals, at some point somebody would say something, and they didn't.
	So what what happens from here, Congressman?
	That angers the Fisk Court as well.
	I mean, they did not at one at one point disclose the truth behind this.
	And you know, the FBI, of course, we read the past stories, um, you know, the Soccer Federation, how Steele helped, and had, you know, sources within the DOJ, Bruce Orr, for example, is one of them, and and he was considered reliable by the FBI at that point.
	But when you just look at Steele's on its face, political motivation, I mean, he was very frank, even with Bruce Orrin, Bruce Orr admitted it, that he didn't want President Trump in office.
	And so everything that he did in that dossier, everything that he wrote about that he did not verify, remind you, he did not verify, he even said that himself to the London courts, uh, was done with political intent.
	So we basically weaponized, and you know, this is according to a number of sources, our FIFA courts, our intelligence apparatus, our FBI to go after a U.S. president, a sitting president, and previous to that a candidate.
	That should be very frightening, because that really only happens in countries when we think of it like Turkey or Pakistan or other nations where the uh intelligence apparatus and law enforced apparatus has been kind of abducted by political figures, and that should not happen in the United States.
	Sean, you're and this all started because they didn't present the whole truth.
	You're supposed to have the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
	Why didn't they tell the court that they had discontinued their relationship?
	The FBI discontinued their relationship with Christopher Steele, because he broke cardinal rule number one.
	When you have a relationship with the FBI and you're an informant, you don't go talk to the press.
	So they discontinued that relationship.
	But in this three subsequent FISA approvals they got, they didn't tell the court that.
	Why didn't they tell the court the whole truth?
	Who paid for the dossier?
	Why didn't they tell the court the whole truth throughout all four of these times they went in front of it to get this warrant to spy on the parliament?
	That is the fundamental problem.
	And that is why a second special counsel is needed to look at this entire sordid affair, clear back to the Clinton investigation, all the way up to the Russia-Trump investigation.
	I got to take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	We'll wrap things up.
	Congressman Jim Jordan and Sarah Carter, I will tell you this is a level of deception against the American people.
	And frankly, the Democrats trying to cover all of this up, these nefarious activities.
	All right, as we continue wrapping things up with Sarah Carter and Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio.
	So I want to just go to these final, the DOJ claiming that they never paid for the Steele dossier.
	Do we not know for a fact that the FBI authorized payments to steal?
	And do we know how much?
	Yeah, the the here's what we know.
	Uh they had paid steel, they had authorized reimbursements, they discontinued those.
	My understanding is because of that fundamental, you know, truth or fundamental principle I should say that Christopher Steele violated, namely when he went and talked to the press about his relationship with the FBI.
	So he was on schedule to get reimbursed for this information, but that was discontinued once he broke that fundamental rule and was talking to the press.
	Sarah?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Uh, Congressman Jordan is right on the mark there.
	He was authorized payment by the FBI.
	He was paid in the beginning, uh covering his expenses and such.
	And then that was terminated as soon as he began leaking and giving uh interviews to Yahoo News Reuters and others.
	Yeah, well, I mean, that's the other point.
	I mean, at the end of the day, you know, the GOP memos reference to Bruce Orr is misleading.
	No, it's not.
	Uh because Bruce Orr, we know his wife Nellie was involved in being paid for by Fusion GPS to build the dossier, and more importantly, he met with Steele both before and after the election.
	And thirdly, he handed over the dossier that his wife gave him to the FBI.
	Isn't that all true?
	Yep.
	That's all true.
	And and that was never disclosed to the courts or in any of the FISA applications.
	And I think that would have also been essential had all of this information been disclosed to the FIS Court, any reasonable judge would have said, okay, get out of here.
	This is not gonna work.
	I'm turning down this uh FISA.
	You bring me some real hard evidence, and we'll go forward.
	But we're not gonna base it on this.
	Yeah, and I think he never did.
	And I think the most laughable part is that struck and page text messages are irrelevant with the FISA application.
	No, if they've got a political agenda, tell me, isn't that one of the first things as an FBI agent when you're when you're become a special agent, Congressman, that you've got a you've got to put all politics aside and and work for the good of the country and let the rule of law guide you?
	Yeah, personally you got a political position, but it can't influence your work.
	It'd be like you can't have the uh you know you know the referees for the Super Bowl getting off one of the team's buses when they show up at the stadium.
	You're not allowed to do that.
	You can't have that perception out there at all when you're when you're the FBI.
	So yeah, that's uh that's a big problem.
	And of course, we've seen from these text messages how how steep it wasn't a bias.
	It was an animus against President Trump and people who supported President Trump.
	All right, you guys have been amazing on this.
	We really appreciate your time.
	Uh 800 941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Our top story, we continue today.
	The SHIF memo comes out, and it has been totally beaten down, debunked and full of misinformation and lies.
	We'll point it all out tonight on Hannity, 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	Among the many questions they didn't ask, well, the Steel dossier, in fact, as the Grassley Graham memo said and stated, as well as the newness memo, that the bulk of information that was presented to the Pfizer court was in fact a steel unverified dossier.
	And the Pfizer Warrant application didn't hide the dossier's connections to the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
	They never told the Pfizer judge any of this.
	I mean, it's unprecedented the information they're holding back.
	No judge would have said yes knowing that.
	And the Pfizer Warrant application almost relied completely on Steele's credibility rather than doing their due diligence and verifying and corroborating the information that Steele was putting out.
	Now, he is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, also counsel to the president.
	Jay Sekulow was with us.
	I read what your organization has put out.
	A lot of what we've been saying here on this program.
	Let's get your general impression first.
	Well, I think uh first of all, the memo, which purportedly was done to challenge the credibility of the Nunez memo actually fails to do so, and in fact, it ends up supporting the three major, really four major contentions.
	The first, the Steele dossier was in fact the key to the Pfizer Warren application.
	Second, the Pfizer Warrant application did hide the dossier's connection to the Clintons and the DNC.
	Third, the Pfizer Warrant application relied on Steele's quote credibility rather than verifying and cooperating the credibility of his information or his informants.
	And fourth, remember those statements by Adam Schiff when he was so outraged that uh Devin Nunez made the statement that uh Andrew McCabe testified privately in the House Intel Committee that no surveillance warrant would have even been sought from the Pfizer court without the Steele dossier information, and he was going to refute that in this his memo.
	He doesn't even mention it, does not even mention it.
	Well, to me, uh isn't that almost by omission lying to a judge?
	I mean, it's such a critical I mean I can't imagine.
	Let me put it this way.
	Could you imagine any judge approving a bought and paid for dossier of an opposition party candidate against another and and approving that?
	Especially not in a Pfizer court where it's surveillance against an American citizen, no.
	And the way they eat in and shift his memo quotes this footnote that was in the Pfizer application that when you read the footnote, it is so outrageous.
	It talks about party one and candidate one, and this it instead of just telling the judge, hey, this is what we got, this is what it means, this is what we're dealing with, they didn't do that.
	So I don't know what the point of the Adam Schiff memo was.
	I notice it's not getting a lot of coverage on uh some of the other networks, let's say, and I think it's because it it delivered zero.
	You know, uh well, I think it delivered zero, and yeah, they're ignoring it because I think it actually works back in both the favor of the newness memo.
	What what what are the implications now in terms of what happens from here?
	Um I I I would imagine at some point one of these four Pfizer Pfizer judges is gonna be paying attention to it because it's now in the public domain, and I've got to imagine that some of them would be pretty pissed off.
	I know I would be.
	I mean, would you expect that?
	What about the fact that Carter Page was under uh a Pfizer warrant for almost a year and there were never never a charge or anything else brought?
	I mean, no one's talking about that.
	Well, Carter Page is on my TV show tonight.
	What would you ask him if you were me?
	I'd ask him, and I said, How do you feel as an American citizen that knowing you were surveilled by a foreign intelligence surveillant warrant, surveillance warrant, for a year, and you've been vindicated because nothing happened.
	No charges brought, nothing.
	I don't even think the guy has a lawyer, does he?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I'm not uh had contact with him uh in that context, so I don't know.
	But I do know this that if you look at the uh way in which the in the Shift memo, they try to de-escalate the obvious, and I say de-escalate the obvious.
	When it comes to the funding, you mentioned uh, you know, no disclosure to the Pfizer court judge as to what took place here.
	Let me just read a couple of sentences of this.
	Uh DOJ this is what they disclosed.
	Indicates source one that a U.S. based law firm had hired an identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding candidate number one's ties to Russia.
	Then it says the unidentified U.S. person and source one have a longstanding business relationship.
	You notice what's not in here?
	The identified U.S. person hired Source One to conduct this research.
	The identified U.S. person never advised Source One as to the motivation behind the research into the candidate number one's ties to Russia.
	In other words, it what didn't disclose that it was bought and paid for by the K uh Hillary Clinton campaign in the DNC.
	Doesn't disclose that it was opposition research, doesn't disclose that it was paid for by the DNC.
	So, you know, and then the and then the so-called credibility of of Christopher Steele, they conveniently ignore, I guess, in the later warrants that they fired him because he was leaking information to the press.
	And what's the secondary source on the basis upon which they cooperate the steel dossier?
	The Michael Sikov report, which is all that is, and Michael Litzkoff said this.
	He goes, all I did was do a report on the on the dossier.
	By the way, all yeah, exactly.
	All he did was prophecy.
	Well, they were trying to weren't they trying in that instance to present to the court as though these were two separate corroborations of the main point.
	Isn't that isn't that misleading in and of itself?
	Yes.
	Let me tell you what else is misleading here.
	Uh and and Ship mess memo stresses that at the uh the time the Pfizer surveillance of Carter Page began, he was no longer with the Trump campaign.
	What the memo doesn't say is that the surveillance enabled the FBI intercept not only his forward going communication, but as our but as our friend Andy McCarthy pointed out uh so well, but also any stored email in Texas that he might have had.
	So it was allows you to look forward and look back.
	What was Carter Page's role in the campaign anyway?
	It was just an informal advisor, wasn't he?
	Yeah, and you know, everybody's acting like they don't know how campaigns work where you have these committees that have people with various expertise and they serve on them as voluntary, they're unpaid, and they're informal advisors or they're part of a committee of advisors.
	That's I mean, every campaign has them.
	Yeah.
	Here's what I what I look at too.
	Now the Democrats made a big deal over oh, Andy McCabe in December didn't say um, in fact, that uh if there's no dossier, there's there's no attempt at a Pfizer warrant.
	They didn't even address it when they were acting so outraged over the newness memo.
	The other thing, and I think this is very key.
	How is it possible that the Democratic memo doesn't contain a single reference to the DNC or the Clinton campaign when they paid for this?
	They never acknowledge the funding of the dossier.
	Now, to me, that has been a good idea.
	We didn't want to get into this is laughable.
	We didn't want to get into unauthorized unmasking.
	I mean, that is seriously, Sean, what they said.
	That would require that's what some of the committee members said.
	That will require us to get into unauthorized unmasking.
	By the way, coming from the specialists in unmasking.
	But by the way, this is how is that unmasking?
	If they didn't have a problem talking about candidate one, they could have mentioned candidate two paid for it all.
	Right.
	Right.
	So I don't I don't believe that is now also the the memo, the Democrats memo ignores the fact that the DNC and the Hillary campaign paid for it.
	Not only did they not meant, but they paid for it, which changes, I think, the entire the entire narrative about this, because it seems to me that there was at least a conspiracy here to mislead a judge.
	Do you believe that that should be that those are charges that could be brought?
	I think it needs I think it needs to be looked at because I think these judges operate in good faith.
	You know, they remember they turned down they turn down the initial FISA warrants.
	They were turned down.
	It took the getting the steel dossier to bolster it up.
	Would it have been important to point out that Paige was cooperating with the FBI?
	I think that would have been certainly relevant to the inquiry of the judge.
	Okay.
	Now let's go back to the big picture issue here.
	Um so the warrants are granted.
	A lot of information are is withheld from the Pfizer court judges, both the initial application and the three renewals.
	Now, how does this impact the Trump Russia investigation?
	Because to date, we have no evidence of any collusion.
	The charges that have been brought up in this case have nothing to do with any Trump Russia collusion.
	I've seen no evidence ever in the media of Trump Russia collusion, although they keep saying there's smoke, but there's no fire.
	I have Democrat after Democrat, including Maxime Waters, including Diane Feinstein, including Joe Manchin and many others saying there is no evidence of any collusion.
	And it's been over a year.
	The country literally now it it has put handcuffs on an administration.
	When does it all end?
	Well, I hope it, you know, you look, I don't predict ending dates.
	Uh as I've said before, and I'll say it again as the as the president's lawyer, this has been the most transparent response to an inquiry in U.S. history.
	I mean, this president authorized the uh turning over of literally tens of thousands of documents where he could have asserted forms of executive privilege or attorney client privilege on other matters, and he did not.
	And then you have witnesses that were testified again, no executive privilege asserted.
	So it's been the most transparent, and that should bode well for the fact for the American people to know the president's been transparent, continues to be transparent on this.
	But as you just said, Sean, that the collusion aspect of this, and let's just be let's just be blunt.
	The indictments last week on the Russia companies and the thirteen Russian individuals showed one thing very clearly, and that was that the Trump campaign was not a winning participant in any of this, nor anybody associated with the campaign.
	So so far, there has been no evidence of collusion, and that's because there isn't any collusions.
	What about the what about the July 2016 trip to Moscow by Carter Page and your take on it?
	Although there's never been any evidence that the people that he've been accused of meeting with that he ever met with.
	Right, that's right.
	So based on what I know, that's exactly correct.
	So uh and that he had other business interests over there, as many uh businesses do, uh, and that's what he was engaged in.
	So again, I don't want to get in particulars on that.
	I can't, but I will say this that they've had a they've had a year and a half and almost two years to look at it.
	They had him under surveillance for a year and nothing.
	You don't see Carter Page in these in these uh indictments.
	So what should so what let's talk about what should happen here if a Pfizer warrant is obtained by purposely withholding very important information from a judge.
	What does it mean about all the information that they might have gotten from the FISA warrant?
	Does that render it all you know?
	It's called the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree, and that is if the underlying basis upon which you obtained the evidence is unlawful, the evidence then you obtained is not admissible.
	It's called the fruit of the poisonous tree.
	So you you run into those things here.
	Wouldn't that likely impact somebody like General Michael Flynn?
	Well, you know, that's an interesting question because what what is General Flynn pled guilty to?
	He's pled guilty to a one-count felony, lying to an FBI agent.
	So, you know, for what he was charged with, the what the allegations were were two different things.
	So again, please don't mean when you do a plea, it doesn't mean that they're I mean, that his lawyers negotiated a plea with with the with the Office of Special Counsel, so that's how they ended up with that.
	So that's part of what happens in pleas.
	And you saw that last week with the with the gate Rick Gates uh plea.
	Again, plea to what?
	One count felony and on one count felony of uh uh making a false statement, and then the other felony count that was more within the scheme of what they were doing.
	So again, that's where those have lied.
	Again, no and anybody that's been indicted or issued a plea, none of those individuals, what they pled to or what's been alleged that they did had anything to do with the Trump campaign or word of the president.
	Well, I mean, at that point, then you would think that this would all come to a a sudden halt here.
	The president was very clear that we still to this day don't know where the DNC email hack came from.
	I I think I'm one of the few people in America, uh Jay, that actually took the time to interview Julian Assange, and I went to the Ecuadorian embassy and interviewed him for TV, and I've met him and I asked him at every radio interview I've had in that T V interview that I had, he adamantly denies that this information came from Russia or from any state at all.
	Um to me, it doesn't that get to the heart of if if it didn't come from there, wouldn't it be smart of the special counsel and everybody else investigating this to have a conversation with the guy that would know?
	Well, I'm not gonna advise the uh Bob Mueller's office on who they should or should not interview because that would be inappropriate for me as a president's lawyer.
	But I I will say this.
	I think that again, when it comes to this whole idea of collusion or attempts at collusion, they just weren't they just didn't exist.
	And uh the evidence has shown that, and the police have shown that, and the documentation has shown that.
	What is uh uncontrovertible here is the fact that on this memo from Adam Shift trying to basically reboot or re reignite a debate on the initial memo from Nunez that just fell flat because they couldn't answer the critical question.
	He was on Jake Tapper uh the other day, and Tapper asked him directly, did would have they gotten the memo?
	Would have without the memo, would have they gotten the dossier without the dossier, would have they gotten the warrant.
	And he said, Well, I really can't say.
	Now, this was from a guy that was two weeks before that denying or three weeks before that denying that it was even said by uh Andrew McCabe.
	So I mean these things have a a way of I'll call them maturing over time, and I think you're starting to see the maturing over time.
	I don't think I've been wrong about any of this yet, and and we've been way ahead of the curve, and the media has as about as much egg on their face as I think you could ever have as they have gone out on a limb and again and again and said things that number one, we had no evidence to back up, and it's been all speculation and conspiracy theories.
	I just hope for the sake of this country this this goes away, but not only goes away, but those people that are involved in potential crimes surrounding the issue, uh, that we need if we're gonna have a surveillance court, a Pfizer law in this country, we better respect people's Fourth Amendment rights to unreason against unreasonable search and seizure.
	Um, because this is a constitutional issue now, and clearly, if you are able to use a paid for political dossier to get a Pfizer warrant and not tell the judge the truth, that is beyond problematic.
	You can't even have that law work ever under those circumstances because now we're criminalizing political differences.
	Well, that's right.
	And when you're utilizing a Pfizer court to do it, you're you're dealing with the most sensitive uh and it's American citizens involved.
	You've got to be very, very careful, and they weren't.
	All right, Jay Secular, we appreciate you being with us 800-941 Sean if you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, I know we've been hitting you with a lot of information today, but the best part of it is everything we've told you, everything we've said, everything we've reported has been accurate and more accurate even than we knew.
	And for the Democrats to put out this flimsy this this flimsy retort to the Republican memo, all it did was have the opposite effect of confirming every single thing that we've been telling you is true, everything Nunes has said is true, everything the Freedom Caucus members have said is true, everything the Grassley Graham memo put in that was true, and everything in between.
	All right, let's get to our phones.
	Bianca is in Florida.
	Bianca, hi, how are you?
	And welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Hi, Sean.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Uh Lisa, I just want to ask.
	Yeah, I have to say, where are the indictments for Hillary Clinton?
	Where and her campaign, and where are the indictments for the people involved in the National Democratic Committee that funded Steel's dossier, which, by the way, the Democratic rebuttal actually further confirms.
	And the American people, uh we the American people have been defrauded, basically, by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by the Democratic National Community.
	Listen, it's worse than that.
	Not uh that we've been defrauded.
	They they have they have empowered deep state, high-ranking operatives and the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Intel community to usually to to use the powerful weaponry of intelligence to spy on under false pretenses, an opposition party candidate.
	That's that I I don't know how else to say it.
	That's what they did.
	That's what they've been involved in, and that's what happened here.
	There are people that should, if there is equal justice under the law, that should be going to jail.
	You know, when the IG report comes out and we discover everything we told you about the email server, and that scandal is true too.
	Well, there are more people that need to be going to jail.
	More people that need to be arrested and tried.
	You know, I I know we always get to the one-yard line, and Republicans always, you know, p decide to punt if you can believe it, and not finish the job.
	This is about law and order.
	This is about our constitution.
	This is about Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
	This is about spying On an opposition candidate under false pretenses.
	This is about lying to a Pfizer court judge.
	Look, look at it, the big picture is really simple.
	Hillary rigged a primary election.
	Now Democrats are actually trying to make the argument, well, it's okay to rig a uh a a primary, that's fine.
	That's what they're arguing in court.
	And then you have Comey Struck, Paige, McCabe, and Loretta Lynch all seemingly getting on the same page to make sure that Hillary, who did commit crimes with her email server, doesn't get doesn't get the same treatment as the rest of us, and they literally exonerate her and they do it even before investigating her, and the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
	Then Hillary gets a bought and paid for, unverified, Russian dossier, full of lies and propaganda, and then not only to manipulate the American people in a campaign, but then it's used as the base of basis for a Pfizer warrant.
	The FISA judge isn't told any of this.
	The FISA judge and those that renewed the initial application, the three subsequent renewals, they never tell the judges the truth in this case.
	Now, that doesn't fly in America.
	And then the big lie that Trump Russia collusion occurred when there is collusion both on Uranium One and on the Clinton Bought and Paid For dossier that was designed paid for to manipulate the American people.
	Everything we've said is true.
	Everything we've reported is true.
	Everything the media ignores is just their reckless partisanship.
	And I could tell you that if Donald Trump did any of this, there would be a very different feel in the country right now about what should happen and about justice and the constitution and the rule of law and equal application of the law.
	Thank you, Bianca.
	Uh Brian is in Missouri.
	Brian High, how are you?
	We're glad you called.
	Hey, Sean, how are you doing, sir?
	Great fan of yours.
	You're my hero, buddy.
	Thank you, my friend.
	We're making progress.
	Every day now, we're getting closer and closer.
	I am doing uh I've done some research this afternoon, and I was just reading about this promise program that rolled out the last several years during the uh gosh through the federal government.
	And Sean, uh everything I'm reading about Broward County, uh, they were part of this program and they were incentivized to not make arrest.
	Yeah, I mean, look, everything that we see happening today, look, and if I had more time, I'd get into more detail.
	I'm watching, I I was stunned and shocked by the Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, you know, when he went on, I guess what, fake Jake Tapper's show, and he has four deputies, and now we understand why the neighboring Coral Gables police department was sent out that very stern statement last week saying,
	excuse us, we're not looking for credit, but we did our job here because apparently there were four, I mean four deputies that never went into the school, including the deputy that was actually on the school property.
	He never actually went in to help the students, which is pretty which is pretty unconscionable.
	Um, yeah, I mean, more than a a year into their reform of disciplinary policies, fewer kids are being hauled away in handcuffs for minor offenses.
	Then you've got two specific calls to the FBI.
	We got the release of one of them earlier today, and the FBI is being warned this guy's gonna shoot up a school, this guy's dangerous.
	He was expelled from the school, he couldn't bring a backpack to the school.
	Police have been to his house 39 times and nobody intervened.
	How does that happen?
	And then, you know, when I'm watching this this interview with the sheriff over the weekend, he's not taking responsibility for his own guys going, you know, sitting in a literally taking cover behind a car outside while kids are being shot on the inside.
	That's not, and by the way, that's not the average cop that I know.
	The average cop I know is racing right towards the trouble.
	And we've seen that happen time and time again.
	But then when he was asked, do I believe Scott Peterson meaning the the deputy went into that building?
	There was a chance he could never he could have neutralized.
	Yes, I believe that.
	I can only take responsibility for what I knew about, he said.
	I exercised my due diligence.
	I've given uh amazing leadership, he said.
	And then when he shot back amazing leadership, he said, Well, You don't measure a person's leadership by a deputy not going in.
	Here's what it's here's what happened.
	Are you really not taking any responsibility for the multiple red flags that were brought to the attention of the Broward Sheriff's Office about this shooter before the incident, whether it was people near him, close to him, calling the police?
	Jake, I could only take responsibility for what I knew about.
	I exercises my my due diligence.
	I've given amazing leadership to this agency.
	Amazing leadership.
	I've worked, yes, Jake.
	Uh this is this there's a lot of things we've done throughout this.
	Uh this is uh you you don't uh measure uh the a person's leadership by a deputy not going into a these deputies received the training they needed.
	Maybe you measure somebody's leadership by whether or not they protect the community.
	In this case, you've listed 23 incidents before the shooting involving the shooter, and still nothing was done to keep guns out of his hands to make sure that there were the school was protected to make sure you were keeping an eye on him.
	Your deputy actually got failed.
	I don't understand how you can sit there and claim amazing leadership.
	Jake, on 16 of those cases, how deputies did everything right, our deputies have done amazing things.
	Uh we've taken this uh in the five years I've been sheriff, we've taken the Broward Sheriff's Office to a new level.
	I work with some of the bravest people I've ever met.
	Uh one person at this point, one person didn't do what he should have done.
	Uh it it's horrific.
	The victims here, uh the the families.
	I pray for them every night.
	It it it makes me sick to my stomach that we had a deputy didn't go in.
	Because I know if I was there, if I was on that wall, I would have been the first in.
	I would have been the first in, but that doesn't, it's inexplicable.
	Why are you got why are you laughing at that?
	I don't think that's well.
	I'm just uh it's very funny to me because I think it's great that this is a democratic interview because if we interviewed someone and asked these questions, we would have been told we were attacking him, we didn't support him.
	But because fake Jake is doing it, it's totally fine.
	And for this guy to say that he's a good leader, a good leader takes responsibility for their team.
	You're in charge of your team.
	Whatever they do, you're responsible for it.
	You can say maybe they messed up, but ultimately you lay blame with the with the boss.
	I'm sorry.
	That's just the way it is.
	I believe he said amazing.
	He's amazing.
	No, he's not amazing in any way, shape, manner, or form.
	Neither was the FBI on this one, too.
	And I don't know how they missed it.
	I mean, that call that that they released today, I it's unconscionable.
	They said everything that you would want, you know, call see something, say something.
	Everybody saw everything and said everything.
	Right, but that previously made a very good point.
	We're doing a breaking news story on this tomorrow, is that they were getting money for having less calls for reporting less crime.
	Your students don't get arrested.
	It always happens.
	Well, we were told that Parkland was the one of the safest towns in Florida.
	Maybe that's one of the reasons why.
	Maybe they're not reporting the crimes.
	Look.
	It's very curious.
	Well, how many times did somebody call in on this guy and how many reports were built on it?
	And how many times were the kids doing things they weren't supposed to because they knew they weren't going to get caught?
	Come on, even in the best neighborhoods, the the best kids, they still get in trouble because they're all No, no, no.
	What I mean is is that they were doing things because they knew they weren't going to get in trouble because they knew the school was getting funding because they knew they could get away with felonies that weren't going to get reported because the cops wanted to get the money, and there was a partnership and an understanding between the police and other people that were enforcing the law and the school district of that of that area.
	Yeah.
	All right, let's get back to our phones here.
	800 941 Sean Tollfree telephone number, Rich in Chicago.
	What's up, Rich?
	How are you on the answer?
	Glad you called, sir.
	Um, thank you, Sean.
	I appreciate you taking my call.
	Thank you very much.
	Uh, you're very welcome.
	Okay, what's the a couple of things have been on my mind?
	I mean, of course, the shooting is definitely one of them.
	If you want to talk about that, I definitely have something that could help prevent things like this happening in the future, which do not focus on the false narrative of the gun is the problem.
	And the reason it you know, I'm a therapist.
	So there's a test called the MMPI, the uh Minnesota multi-phasic inventory.
	And I think that could also be part of the prerequisite for buying a gun.
	Not only being trained by law enforcement or an NRA person or ex-military certified person, but also being tested by a psychologist or therapist with the MMPI.
	There are multiple tests.
	And these tests were psychopathologies, depression, homicidal tendencies, uh suicidal tendencies, and that would screen out a great deal of uh people and raise a lot of red flags, and then they could be tested even further.
	You know, you you would weed out these kind of people.
	Not that you had to weed out the shooter.
	It was, as you have stated, dozens of red flags.
	I I don't think you can have any more red flags.
	And before we're going to talk about taking away people's second amendment rights, maybe we should get to the red flags first and make sure that things don't slip through the cracks.
	And how about the second thing is the security assessment that I've been talking about, threat assessment of every school.
	And then how about allowing retired concealed carry uh military police guys in the schools, the the number that you need, guys that you know are gonna respond if there's a shooting.
	Yes, sir.
	I agree, I do agree with that, except if this is what I because I grew up in Chicago, fortunately and and unfortunately.
	Um, some schools, though, there are students who would actually attack a teacher and could take their gun.
	So if if a teacher is going to hold a gun, I think that teacher needs to be ex-military, ex-law enforcement, you know, somebody who's trained in self-defense who can ward off, you know, a multiple acost uh potential accosters.
	And I'm talking, you know, teenagers can't do that.
	I want the guys.
	I want the guys in the school, um, are armed.
	They don't have to they don't have to be carrying big rifles or or machine guns.
	They can be concealed carry, but they're on every floor of every school around the country.
	That we have an entry system that where people have to have IDs, that in fact we also have metal detectors where necessary and where needed, and we secure the perimeter of the school so kids that or people that don't belong in the school can't gain access to the school without going through uh an army of armed guards against them.
	I don't think that's that hard.
	I don't even know why it's viewed as controversial by anybody.
	Freddie in Virginia Beach, we have about less than a minute, Freddie.
	It's all yours.
	Yes, sir.
	Um just thank you for taking my call.
	I just want to uh say something about um the attorney general.
	Why is he not making a special counsel to look into all the things that y'all have uncovered?
	It's uh I don't know what the I have no idea what the Department of Justice is doing.
	I know that there are investigations into a lot of these matters.
	I just don't know what the status of them are.
	Uh I know they wouldn't be able to comment on them, but yeah, I think investigating the investigators is now warranted and due.
	I really believe that.
	All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
	Hannity tonight, we have a great show for you.
	Devin Nunes responds to this pathetic shift memo.
	What a disaster that's turned out to be.
	Now, the shift memo mentions Carter Page a lot.
	He'll also join us.
	We'll get analysis from Greg Jarrett and Sarah Carter, and also we'll have the latest on the disaster that is known as the Broward County Sheriff, Sean Spicer, Joe Concha, and much more.
	Set your DVR in Portland Hannity tonight, news, information you won't get elsewhere on the Fox News channel.
	See you tonight at nine back here tomorrow.

▲