All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show
01:40:57
Our Swedish Friends - 3.6

President Trump was joined by Sweden's Prime Minister Ledyard King to discuss the challenges of North Korea and the economic strength of the United States. Sean carries the remarks by President Trump live and reacts to the Presidential visit. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
Let not your heart be troubled.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
So, for a few years now, I have been working with Express employment professionals, and they've been helping you, my listeners, know where to turn in your job search.
Now, Express offers local connections to the good jobs where you live in a variety of industries.
So, if you're looking for a job, go online, find the nearest express office at expresspros.com and let them help you.
Now, recently, one Express associate shared this: After applying everywhere for work, I called Express Pros after going into the office.
I had a job that day.
Now, when you turn to Express Pros, you benefit from 35 years of experience in putting people to work.
They help more than a half a million people find jobs each and every year.
And job seekers at Express Pros never pay a fee whatsoever.
Just go to expresspros.com, find the location nearest you.
And another Express associate said, Express called me to come in for an interview right away and then sent me to interview with a company that same day.
So, don't go it alone any longer in your search for a job.
Find your local Express Employment Professional's office at expresspros.com.
All right, why does the president always talk in our hour?
Should I be thankful?
Should I be grateful?
Or apparently, he's going to take some questions at the bottom of this half hour.
We'll bring at least part of it to you live.
Glad you're on board.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
You know, you're destroy Trump, hate Trump at any costs.
News media in this country, it is so obviously and abusively biased in what it is, the narrative that they push.
We've got more evidence of real collusion, real crimes that were really committed.
But if it's not Donald Trump, they don't have any interest.
What happened yesterday with this guy, Sam Nunberg, you know, you would think somebody that spent as much time on the road in 2015, 2016 as yours truly, that went to Trump Tower more times than I can remember, interviewed President Trump probably more than anybody else in the media, interviewed the candidates more than anybody else in the media.
We wanted to give you the best coverage available.
We think we did a good job doing that in the last presidential election cycle.
You know, you begin to know the people that are important around a presidential candidate.
George Papadopoulos, I don't recall ever hearing his name.
Wouldn't know him if I ran into the guy.
And the same Sam Nunberg.
Now, Sam Nunberg is literally in the midst of some event in his life yesterday.
And the media is literally going all in to exploit Nunberg losing it.
Now, even getting to the point, well, I smell alcohol on your breath.
Are you drinking?
No, no, I didn't.
No, no, no, no, no, I'm not drinking.
If you smelled alcohol on the breath of the guy and you're interviewing the guy, let's be honest, you're exploiting this guy's meltdown, crack up, whatever you want to call it.
Look, I don't know if he says he doesn't do drugs.
Apparently, he's on antidepressants.
Those are his words.
He said he didn't drink.
Aaron Burnett said, Well, I smell alcohol on your breath, but that didn't stop her from doing the interview.
Now, I can give you a list of people that were scheduled to be on my show that showed up in a state of intoxication that I would say, you're not getting on the show.
I had a one particular case.
It was a pretty big blow-up because the individual was not exactly happy with me saying, I'm not going to put you on TV.
If I do it, you're going to regret it tomorrow.
I said, I'm sticking up as a friend.
Now get out of here.
Security walks him out the building.
I just think that's the right thing to do, the humane thing to do.
People are struggling.
They're having problems.
Maybe they just had too much that night.
Maybe it's an ongoing problem.
In this particular person's case, it was an ongoing problem.
And as a result, the person got clean, you know, about two weeks later, checked themselves into a facility and ended up getting clean.
But I'm not in the.
If somebody is obviously troubled or intoxicated, are we going to put that person on the air?
No, and I've done that in the past.
You have many times.
And you know the names of the people that I'm talking about.
One case was out of control, and the reaction was out of control.
And this individual had a big posse with him, and they were all pissed.
And you could have gotten a lot of ratings, but you took the high road.
Listen, it would have gone viral.
It absolutely wouldn't have been, you know, entertainment TV, but I'm just not into hurting people and hurting their lives.
And what was happening with Sam Numberg, I don't know exactly what it was.
I assume Erin Burnett wouldn't ask him on national television and say to him that she smells alcohol if she didn't smell it.
But this is what now has become TV.
It's just like CNN had a big report.
Oh, they went to, what, Thailand?
First, they're interviewing some Russian sex coach that may have something to tell Robert Mueller.
And then they send a reporter to Thailand to interview a prostitute who says she might have information that's going to blow the Trump-Russia collusion case wide open.
And I'm thinking, isn't this the same company that's never taken the time to go into, go to Great Britain?
Not a hard flight out of New York.
You fly straight across the pond, and there you are in London.
You could just walk and find where's the Ecuadorian embassy.
Somebody will direct you and maybe knock on the door.
The one guy that would have information about where the DNC emails came from and the Bodesta emails came from would be Julian Assange, which should have been call number one, considering he's the only one we know for sure knows where it came from.
And he says that he has the evidence, irrefutable, incontrovertible evidence that would prove, okay, this is where I got this information from.
Now, as part of my job as a talk show host, which is a multifaceted job, at times I am an investigative reporter, and at times I'm a straight journalist, and times I'm a partisan.
At times, I give opinion.
At times, I moderate debates.
It's a different role than just your average journalist.
We do a lot more, and we do it a lot better, apparently, especially investigative reporting.
You know, you would think somebody in the media would go and say, Mr. Assange, can you tell me, answer this question?
I know in previous interviews with Sean Hannity of Fox and Sean Hannity's radio show.
In previous interviews, you said the source was not Russia, and the source was no government entity, no state entity.
Can you give us some insight as to where those emails came from, considering the big investigation that's going on in the United States of America?
I think that would be a smart question, and Mueller and his team can go over there.
And, you know, they make deals all the time.
I'm sure they made a deal with Michael Flynn about, okay, if you plead guilty to lying to the FBI, we'll drop everything else.
These prosecutors make deals all the time.
They made a deal with Rick Gates.
Why?
Because they wanted to get more information on Manafort.
And they think that if they, all right, we'll give you 30 years in jail or we'll give you a sweetheart deal.
You plead guilty to this.
You cooperate with us.
You say what we want to hear.
And then we'll put the other guy in jail and you get to go free.
That's how these prosecutors act all the time.
You know, so go make a deal with Julian Assange.
Let's see if he can give you the information about where he got the DNC emails and the Clinton emails and everything else.
It's unbelievable.
So now we are reduced to interviewing, what is she, a sex teacher, a sex ed?
What is she?
The one from Russia is a sex coach and the other one from Russia.
What is a sex coach?
What does the coach sit there and say, you know, dribble a little more to your left?
You keep going right.
It's at 3 o'clock.
You know, when you hit your slapshot, when you hit your slap shot, you got to, you know, if you want to get it up in the air, this is how you do it.
How do they do that?
When you play checkers, which is the term we'll use for it at this 3 o'clock hour.
Okay.
When you play checkers, you want to excel to chess.
When you play checkers, you want to play chess.
You're trying to become a chess player.
So you're in checkers and you want to become A plus chess players.
Hang on.
So like the queen is dating the king.
Let's start there.
And he's looking for checkmates.
And where's the rook and the bishop in all of this?
And where are the pawns?
The whole team is in on it.
The whole team is.
So that's what a sex coach is.
Do people really go to sex coaching?
Don't people need to know that if you get all of the right players involved and you're using all of your players the way that you should, that chess can be a very enjoyable game.
So in other words, you should be using the rook, the horse, the king, the queen, the pawn, and the bishop.
You should use all your pieces.
You can keep it simple and play checkers.
And not paid for the sex coach.
All right, so CNN wants to interview that person.
Then they're interviewing.
They literally sent a reporter to Thailand in that case.
But listen to what they did.
They're so exploitive.
Now, after you hear Nunberg, you're going to understand that Nunberg, I don't care what Mueller's asking from him, nothing Nunberg says here, because he contradicts himself a million ways and sideways.
He's obviously having some type of event going on yesterday.
And nobody in the news media said, maybe this isn't a good day to talk.
Maybe you need to get your act together and come back when you don't smell like alcohol.
You know, I was a campaign advisor from 2011 to 2015 when everybody was laughing at Donald Trump.
He was a campaign advisor from 2011.
So he was that long.
It was that expensive.
Yeah, I said for Sarah Huckabee to start criticizing me, I would say, and I know what, and I know you may not like it the way I say it, she should shut her fat mouth.
Imagine your lawyers telling you not to rip up a subpoena.
Yeah, he's probably not.
So why are you doing it?
Because I'm not going to produce them every email I had with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone from November 1 of 2015.
Why do I have to produce them all my communications?
Are you ready to go to jail?
I'm not going to go to jail.
How do you know you're not going to go to jail if you're called in contempt of court?
Do you think that they have something on the president?
I think they may.
I think that he may have done something during the election, but I don't know about that.
Yes, Mueller thinks that Trump isn't ensuring him.
He thinks he's, I'm sorry.
He thinks he's what?
He thinks Trump is the Manchurian candidate.
And I will tell you I disagree with that.
I'm going to be the first one in history to flat out say, I'm not going.
You're not going.
I'm not going to the grand jury.
I'm not going to spend 30 hours going over my emails.
I'm not doing it.
I'm not cooperating arresting.
You're not cooperating arrest you.
Yeah.
I'm not cooperating.
You're more than happy.
You want to arrest me?
Arrest me.
You know what?
You know what?
If Sarah Huckabee wants the ones to start debasing me, she's a joke.
Okay, fine.
Yeah, she's unattractive.
She's a fat slob.
Fine.
But that's not relevant.
The person she works for has a 30% approval rating.
And by the way, you're going to be fine when it comes out what he did.
But people like Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Janine Piero, They're going to be very embarrassed.
So, Sam, I have to ask you one other thing.
Yes, ma'am.
And it's an awkward question to ask, but you know, I've heard before you're sitting very close to me.
Yes.
We talked earlier about what people in the White House were saying about you.
Yeah.
Talking about whether you were drinking or on drugs or whatever had happened today.
Talking to you.
I have smelled alcohol on your breath.
Well, I have not had a drink.
You haven't had a drink, so that's not.
No.
So I've got to talk about it.
It's mouthwashed, mom.
I said, again, I know it's awkward.
Let me just give you the question.
You can categorize it.
No, you haven't.
My answer is no.
I have not.
Anything else?
No.
Besides my meds.
Besides just the meds, I'm thinking.
No.
No.
You're not smelling alcohol.
I just used some mouthwash.
It has a little alcohol in it.
That's what you're smelling.
Okay, but they get through the whole interview.
And you know what's outrageous?
You know, then they ignore Hillary Clinton deleting 33,000 subpoenaed emails.
They ignore it.
They ignore acid-washing the hard drive.
They ignore beating up her devices with hammers.
They ignore everything that the fix was in with Comey and Strzzok.
We have new news out today.
Peter Strzok.
Remember, everything that they changed on her.
This one guy that he literally did not support any damage assessment, knowing that, in fact, foreign entities had gotten into Hillary's email.
That's part of Catherine Herridge's report today.
They ignored that 20% of our uranium was in the hands of Vladimir Putin and they knew ahead of time that he had operatives involved in crimes and they still approved it.
They ignore her phony dossier she paid for.
They ignored that they lied to a FISA court to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate.
They ignored that they purposely lied to those judges.
All these crimes we know were committed.
The media is dead and corrupt and abusively biased in what they report and what they don't report.
Just like the FBI, their omissions, well, not reporting is an omission and a bias also with the media.
It's unbelievable.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show, you know, why pay attention to what is new news today that Trump-hating FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was the head of the FBI counter-espionage division, went into full-blown cover-up mode when he found out that the Russians had actually used Hillary's illegal secret server to hack into her classified State Department email.
Whoopsie, Daisy, you mean American lives are at risk?
Oh, let me continue.
During the final months of the Clinton email investigation, the FBI agent Peter Strzzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton's server that suggested a possible breach, but Strzok did nothing to support a formal damage assessment.
And then, worse still, as a member of the FBI, the director James Comey and in his inner circle, Strzzok edited Comey's July 2016 public statement exonerating Hillary to cover up the fact that the Russians had actually gained access to her classified State Department email.
In the initial May 2016 draft, two months before Clinton and more than a dozen key witnesses were interviewed, Comey said it was reasonably likely a hostile actor had gained access to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email account.
Then Strzok changed the language to say the Russian hack was merely possible.
Oh, so the top, the FBI's top counter espionage guy at the FBI discovers the Russians penetrated Hillary's illegal secret server, gaining access to America's most sensitive national security secrets.
And instead of following up, which, by the way, is a crime, he covers it up for her.
Yeah, again, the fix is in for Hillary.
Hillary gets away with everything.
And then he changes Comey's exoneration letter to make sure Hillary gets off the hook.
And not only has this guy not been prosecuted, he's actually still getting a paycheck from the FBI, courtesy of we the suckers, the taxpayers of America.
But don't worry, that's not news.
You got Sam Numnuts and his meltdown on national TV.
You got really important reporting going on in Thailand about a hooker who says she might have been able to break through on everything and everything included in the Trump-Russia investigation.
Or is it the Trump UAE investigation?
Or is it the real witch hunt of all times?
You see how bad the deep state is?
Pretty bad.
We'll give you the news you can't get elsewhere.
Exposing left-wing media bias.
No stone left unturned.
The Sean Hannity Show is back on the air.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
The president's supposed to have a press conference coming up.
We'll dip in and out, depending on what he's going to be talking about.
All right, so if you live in the East Coast, there's a massive, massive storm coming.
And that means we have to check in with Joe Bistarti, Weatherbell.com.
Author, tell everybody about your new book.
How's the new book doing?
It's doing very, very well.
And thank you for bringing it up the other day.
And now it's called The Climate Chronicles.
Inconvenient Revelations You Won't Hear from Al Gore and others.
And you could check it out on Amazon.
Just one quick question.
They do lie to us repeatedly about global warming, and then it's global cooling, and then it's global.
The ice age is coming, Time magazine had.
Then the Earth is going to blow up and burn up.
And now they just call it global whatever climate change because this way it's generic.
And if it's hot or too hot, they can say it's climate change.
If it's cold or too cold, they can say it's climate change.
But it didn't work out when they said global cooling or global warming.
So they had to fix it.
Yeah, well, it's like as if you were in a match, Sean, and every time you scored a point, the other guy got one.
That's how it works.
Any answer is the right answer.
Anything can happen and probably will.
And it's really, you'll find also if you get the book, folks, I have some humor in it because you have to have to smile at it.
And there are a lot more important things on the plate of this country than, you know, whether the temperature's going up 0.2, 0.3C, or whatever.
But look, this is a big storm.
I mean, this is, and it's funny because, ironic, we are returning to the 50s and 60s.
You saw this type of stuff happen in March all the time in the 50s and 60s.
I could rattle off a bunch of them.
I won't hear.
But here's what we've got going: We've got a storm system that is weakening over the Midwest, and a new one is going to take over on the South Carolina coast late tonight and tomorrow morning.
And that's going to come north-northeastward.
The track of that storm is crucial.
If it passes just to the east of Del Marva Peninsula, just to the east of Atlantic City, the area from Philadelphia to New York is in the foot of snow.
I believe it's going to come inland a little bit, and that track right up over Atlantic City tomorrow around noon means that the rain or the snow in the big cities will have to fight with rain back and forth, and that will limit the accumulations.
As it is, tomorrow morning's rush hour from Philly to New York is going to be a royal mess, especially northwest of the cities.
It's going to be snowing and at the height of the storm, and this complicates the forecast problem, it's going to be snowing two to three inches an hour right near that rain snow changeover line.
So right now we have three to six in Philadelphia, three to six in New York City proper.
But once you go 20, 30 miles west of New York or Philadelphia, it's up to six to 12, locally 18.
There's going to be a lot of wind developing with it.
And because the snow will be wet, trees and power lines will come down.
By the time we get to the evening rush hour, the core of the storm is from New York City up to Boston.
So we moved from Philly to New York and then New York to Boston.
So you can see it coming up the coast.
And it's the same problem, Boston, Providence, New London, New Haven.
They're right on the borderline to the north and west.
It's an out heavy wet snowstorm, major March snow in those big cities is a fight.
And again, a track 2030.
Joe, I hate to interrupt you, but the President, Joe Bastardi, Weatherbell.com, as the President is now taking to the stage with the Swedish Prime Minister, let's listen in.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I'm honored to be joined by Prime Minister Lufin of Sweden at our first meeting in the White House.
Sweden is one of our oldest and closest partners and was among the first European nations to offer the United States an unsolicited treaty of friendship, a treaty signed, believe it or not, in 1783.
That's a long time ago.
My daughter Ivanka had a wonderful time watching American and Swedish athletes compete in the recent men's curling final at the Olympics.
That was something.
I was a little upset, but that wasn't expected, but that's okay.
We'll take it, right?
All of the athletes should be immensely proud of the great job they did.
The Prime Minister and I have just concluded a series of very productive meetings.
The relationship between the United States and Sweden is one based on shared values, including respect for individual rights, the rule of law, and human dignity.
These common principles are the foundation of our partnership, and we have had a great partnership for many years.
We look forward to exploring further opportunities to increase our security and our cooperation in every other way, and we encourage nations around the world to share responsibility for our common defense.
We appreciate Sweden's leadership on the United Nations Security Council and look very much forward to working together in the coming months.
The United States is also grateful to Sweden for advocating for Americans detained in North Korea.
I particularly want to thank the Swedish government for its assistance in securing the release of American college student Otto Warmbier last year.
Terrible, tragic event.
We continue to pray for Otto's parents, Fred and Cindy, two terrific people, over the tragic death of their son, and we remain determined to achieve a denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
And there's been a lot of news on that today.
Hopefully it's positive.
Hopefully it will lead to a very positive result.
In economic matters, we are striving for a relationship grounded in fairness and reciprocity.
The United States is one of the largest investors in Sweden, and the Swedish investments in the United States support over 200,000 American jobs.
Earlier this afternoon, I heard from several Swedish business executives, some of the greatest in the world.
Where are you folks?
Please.
Some of the great executives in the world, people I've known for a long time and certainly know of, and they're investing tremendous amounts of money in the United States and supporting also vocational training for American workers.
We're grateful for those investments and we are committed to working with Sweden to pursue even greater economic cooperation.
We're also continuing to pursue bilateral agreements to advance mutual prosperity.
I'm pleased that Sweden intends to procure the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System, finest in the world, in a deal worth over $3 billion.
This system will increase stability and security in the Baltic Sea region.
A strong and balanced economic relationship strengthens security and prosperity in both of our countries.
And this is just the beginning.
We have a lot of things that we're working on, and we're working on them really, very hard.
Mr. Prime Minister, I want to thank you again for joining us.
And I want to thank your great staff who we've met with and your great business leaders.
It was a very interesting and productive meeting.
The long-standing friendship between our people, anchored in our shared beliefs and values, has greatly enriched both of our countries.
And this is just the beginning.
Our relationship has never been better.
An honor to have you here.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. President, for a warm and generous welcome.
It is a true pleasure to be here at the White House.
This year, Sweden and the United States celebrate 200 years of diplomatic relations, and this meeting reaffirms the strength of our relations.
The history has shown that our two nations share fundamental values and interests, such as democracy and human rights.
We also share a strong partnership that continues to evolve.
Today, we have discussed how to further strengthen our country's prosperity and security.
As for prosperity, Sweden is one of the largest per capita investors in the United States, and my country may not be big, but we support directly and indirectly almost one million jobs in the United States.
And some key executives of the companies that provide these jobs are also here with me at this visit.
At the same time, the United States is our most important foreign employer, and many U.S. companies play a vital role in providing investment and creating jobs in Sweden.
President Trump and I have discussed how our nations can support jobs and growth.
It's a crucial issue for Sweden.
That means embracing new sustainable technologies which permit our economy to grow, at the same time reducing emissions, and also how we can secure good jobs in a labor market constantly changing due to automation and digitalization.
Sweden and the United States are two of the most innovative economies in the world, and we see great opportunities ahead.
Swedish prosperity is built on cooperation, competitiveness, and free trade.
And I'm convinced that increased tariffs will hurt us all in the long run.
And as a Swede, I, of course, support the efforts of the European Union to achieve trade with fewer obstacles and as few as possible.
Turning to security, the President and I have discussed some key regional and global security challenges, such as the situation on the Korean Peninsula, but also the developments in Sweden's neighborhood.
We have also addressed the constructive cooperation between Sweden and the United States in the United Nations Security Council.
I would like to underline that the transatlantic link is strong, and it remains crucial to responding to global security challenges.
Sweden is a military non-aligned country, but we build security in partnership with others, and we greatly value our broad security and defense cooperation with the United States.
One important example of that is our joint efforts to fight and combat terrorism.
Sweden and the United States stand shoulder to shoulder in the global coalition against ISIS and also in the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.
And these vital military efforts must go hand in hand with strong political, diplomatic, and also civilian support to create sustainable results.
So in conclusion, as we celebrate 200 years of diplomatic relations, we are also planning for shared prosperity and security for many, many years to come.
And once again, I thank you, Mr. President, for a constructive and successful meeting and for the very warm welcome that both my delegation and I received.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
John?
Thank you, Mr. President.
You spoke about North Korea in the Oval Office, so I'd like to turn to trade, if I could.
My understanding is that the Prime Minister came to you with a message from the European Union Commission President saying, if you put tariffs on steel and aluminum, we'll slap you back with punitive tariffs on bourbon and jeans and the motorcycles that you talk about from Wisconsin.
Are you still planning on going ahead with these tariffs?
There are some people in your party who have suggested it's not a good idea.
And Prime Minister Levine, what's your perspective on tariffs and what message did you convey to the President from Sweden and from the European Union?
Thank you.
Well, the United States has been taken advantage of by other countries, both friendly and not so friendly, for many, many decades.
And we have a trade deficit of $800 billion a year.
And that's not going to happen with me.
We have been mistreated by many, sometimes fairly, but there are really very few instances where that's taken place.
And I don't blame the countries.
I blame our leadership for allowing it to happen.
When I was with President Xi in China, as an example, we lose $500 billion a year on trade.
We have a deficit of approximately $500 billion a year with China.
And we're doing things with China, which are very strong, but they understand it.
But I was with him and I said to him in public, I said, look, I'm not blaming you.
I blame our people for not doing a better job for allowing this to happen.
But it's like that with many countries other than smaller.
The European Union has been particularly tough on the United States.
They make it almost impossible for us to do business with them, and yet they send their cars and everything else back into the United States.
And they can do whatever they'd like, but if they do that, then we put a big tax of 25% on their cars.
And believe me, they won't be doing it very long.
The European Union has not treated us well.
And it has been a very, very unfair trade situation.
I'm here to protect, and one of the reasons I was elected is I'm protecting our workers, I'm protecting our- The President joined pressure with the Prime Minister of Sweden, and we're going to stay with this for our affiliates along the Sean Hannity Show Network.
If you want to go to our normal break at this time, you can.
And we'll continue this on the other side as well after the top of the hour.
You won't miss a minute.
And we'll also be taking your calls, 800-941-Sean.
The country is doing well.
The massive tax cuts and all of the deregulation has really kicked us into gear.
But I have to work on trade deals.
We're working on NAFTA right now.
And if we're able to make a deal with Canada and Mexico in NAFTA, then there will be no reason to do the tariffs with Canada and Mexico.
But again, other countries, we won't have that choice unless they can do something for us.
As an example, if the European Union takes off some of the horrible barriers that make it impossible for our product to go into there, then we can start talking.
Otherwise, we're going to leave it the way it is.
So the fact is, we've been mistreated as a country for many years, and it's just not going to happen any longer.
How do you avoid this escalating into a trade war?
Well, we'll have to see.
You know, when we are behind on every single country, trade wars aren't so bad.
Do you understand what I mean by that?
When we are down by 30 billion, 40 billion, 60 billion, 100 billion, the trade war hurts them, doesn't hurt us.
So we'll see what happens.
You know, you can also take it.
In some cases, we lose on trade, plus we give them military where we are subsidizing them tremendously.
So not only do we lose on trade, we lose on military.
And hence, we have these massive deficit numbers in our country.
We are going to straighten it out.
And we will do it in a very loving way.
It will be a loving, loving way.
They will like us better, and they will respect us much more.
Because even they say right now, they say, we can't believe we've gotten away.
I mean, two countries have said, we cannot believe, to be honest with you, we've gotten away with this so long.
Now, one of them made that statement before I got elected.
He said, I can't believe I made that statement before I got elected.
But it's one of those things.
We have to straighten it out.
We really have no choice.
And, Mr. Prime Minister, how forceful was your message to the President on what the consequences will be if he goes ahead with tariffs?
First, trade is a European Union mandate.
So we are a member of the European Union.
It is a European mandate to handle trade issues.
But as a member of the European Union, I think it is important for us to try to find a way to cooperate between the European Union and the United States.
I fully understand and respect the President's view that we have to look after his own country, the country that you are leading.
I understand that fully.
That's my primary task as well.
But for me, leading a small country, depending on open trade, the best way for us is to do that with others, because our export equals to 50 percent of our GDP.
So for us, it is crucially important that we have this open and free trade.
Today, also, I believe that the supply chains are very, very complicated to see.
I know that, for example, when we sell our fighter aircraft, which is a very good aircraft, the content is perhaps 50 percent American.
So we want this to be resolved in cooperation.
And when it comes to steel, yes, we have an overcapacity in the world.
That's obvious.
But at the same time, it is China that is producing about 50 percent of the steel in the world.
And European Union, perhaps 10 percent, and less than that.
So to summarize, I think it was a pity.
Again, it's a European Union mandate, but it was a pity also that the TTIP negotiations ended, because perhaps with negotiations and talks, we can come into a situation where the European Union and the United States can cooperate.
I think that would be a very good solution.
Just to add maybe a little bit further, if you talk China, I've watched where the reporters have been writing 2 percent of our steel comes from China.
Well, that's not right.
They trans-ship all through other countries.
And you'll see that a country that doesn't even have a steel mill is sending us 3 percent steel for our country.
And many countries are doing it, but it comes from China.
So China doesn't send us 2 percent.
They send us a much, much higher level than that.
But it's called trans-shipping.
So it doesn't look good when it all comes out of China, so they send it through other countries and it comes to us.
And it's putting our steel mills out of business.
Our aluminum mills are going out of business.
And we need steel and we need aluminum.
And you know, there's a theory that if a country doesn't have steel, it doesn't have a country.
And it's true.
So this is more than just pure economics.
This is about defense.
This is about the country itself.
But again, remember this.
We lose $800 billion a year in trade.
And I think I was elected at least partially on this issue.
And I've been saying it for 25 years.
Our country has been taken advantage of by everybody, by everybody, almost everybody.
And we cannot let that happen any longer.
Not for our companies and not, most importantly, for our workers.
So we're not going to let it happen.
Please.
Okay.
All right, the President, a joint pressure with the Prime Minister of Sweden.
We're going to come back to this in full, and you won't miss a minute of it.
Since it's my first time before you, I thought you might indulge me with two questions.
First, sir, do you believe that North Korea's recent willingness to talk is sincere, or is it an effort to buy time for their nuclear program, and to what do you owe this recent openness to talk?
Me.
No.
I think that nobody got that.
I think that they are sincere, but I think they're sincere also because the sanctions and what we're doing with respect to North Korea, including the great help that we've been given from China, and they can do more, but I think they've done more than certainly they've ever done for our country before.
So China has been a big help.
I think that's been a factor.
But the sanctions have been very, very strong and very biting.
And we don't want that to happen.
So I really believe they are sincere.
I hope they are sincere.
We are going to soon find out.
You tweeted today that you would like to see some change in the people around you.
Does that include your Attorney General Jeff Sessions or either of your Cabinet Secretaries?
No, I don't really talk about that.
I just said that the White House has tremendous energy.
It has tremendous spirit.
It is a great place to be working.
Many, many people want every single job.
You know, I read where, oh, gee, maybe people don't want to work for Trump.
And believe me, everybody wants to work in the White House.
They all want a piece of that Oval Office.
They want a piece of the West Wing.
And not only in terms of it looks great on their resume, it's just a great place to work.
It's got tremendous energy.
It's tough.
I like conflict.
I like having two people with different points of view, and I certainly have that.
And then I make a decision.
But I like watching it.
I like seeing it.
And I think it's the best way to go.
I like different points of view.
But the White House has a tremendous energy, and we have tremendous talent.
Yeah, there'll be people.
I'm not going to be specific, but there'll be people that change.
They always change.
Sometimes they want to go out and do something else.
But they all want to be in the White House.
So many people want to come in.
I have a choice of anybody.
I could take any position in the White House, and I'll have a choice of the 10 top people having to do with that position.
Everybody wants to be there.
And they love this White House because we have energy like rarely before.
Okay?
Thank you very much.
Mr. Prime Minister, last year you criticized the President for drawing a link between immigrant crime and the recent arrivals of refugees.
This week, one of our own flagship papers, the New York Times, actually profiled a link between hand grenade violence and immigrant gangs in your country.
Do you stand by your criticism of the president?
First, Sweden, we have our share of domestic challenges, no doubt about that.
And we inherited a legislation that was not sustainable, legislation on migration, which meant that in 2015 we received 163,000 refugees seeking refuge.
Bear in mind, we're a country of 10 million inhabitants.
So that was a lot.
70% of them came from September to December, which meant it was a dramatic increase.
We changed the legislation.
So now we have decreased the number of refugees entering Sweden, and we're also putting pressure on the other European Union countries to take their share of the responsibility.
This is not a responsibility for one, two, three, or four countries.
It is a shared responsibility.
We are working with that now within the European Union.
So we, of course, we also have problems with crime, organized crime in Sweden, shootings.
But it's not like you have these no-go zones.
We have dealt with it.
I'm dealing with it every day, allocating more resources to the police, more policemen trained, more resources to the security police, a tougher law on crime, tougher law on terrorism, supporting terrorism.
So we do a lot to combat that.
And we can also see some results now in our three major cities, decrease shootings, because we're attacking the organized crime very tough.
And we'll keep on doing that because there is no space in Sweden for organized crime because they decrease freedom for ordinary people.
At the same time, Sweden has a high growth.
Unemployment is going down.
Employment is going up.
We have high investment rates.
We are allocating resources to the welfare.
We have a strong, strong economy with a surplus, a huge surplus that we are now using to develop our society with, for example, the welfare that we want.
So the picture of Sweden needs to be it's two pictures.
Yes, we have our share of domestic problems and challenges, no doubt about that.
But we're dealing with them.
And we also have a good foundation for dealing with them, not least with the strong economy and the shrinking unemployment.
Okay, so it's Kaisa Swedish Radio.
Thank you.
This is an election year for both of our countries.
And I want to ask you, Mr. Trump, what do you think Sweden should learn from how the Russian influence campaign affected the presidential election in the U.S.?
Well, the Russians had no impact on our votes whatsoever.
But certainly there was meddling, and probably there was meddling from other countries and maybe other individuals.
And I think you have to be really watching very closely.
You don't want your system of votes to be compromised in any way.
And we won't allow that to happen.
We're doing a very, very deep study, and we're coming out with some, I think, very strong suggestions on the 18 election.
I think we're going to do very well in the 18 election, although historically, those in the White House have a little bit of a dip, but I think we're going to do well because the economy is so good and because we're protecting our job, like our jobs are being protected finally, like with what we're doing with the tariffs.
But the big thing would be the tax cut and the regulations cuts.
Also, the judges.
I mean, we have outstanding judges, Judge Gorsuch in the Supreme Court, and many, many judges going onto the bench all over the country.
So I think we're going to do very well.
And I think it'll be a tremendous surprise to people how well it's the economy is so good.
Jobs are so good.
Black unemployment, Hispanic unemployment at all-time lows.
I mean, we're really doing well.
So based on that, I guess we should do pretty well, and I hope so.
But you have to be very vigilant.
And one of the things we're learning is it's always good.
It's old-fashioned, but it's always good to have a paper-backup system of voting.
It's called paper.
Not highly complex computers, paper.
And a lot of states are doing that.
They're going to a paper backup.
And I think that's a great idea.
But we're studying it very closely.
Various agencies, including Homeland Security, are studying it very carefully.
But are you worried about Russia trying to meddle in the midterm election?
No, because we'll counteract whatever they do.
We'll counteract it very strongly.
And we are having strong backup systems.
And we've been working actually, we haven't been given credit for this, but we've actually been working very hard on the 18 election and the 20 election coming up.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Devian, are you guys on the same page when it comes to evaluating the threat from Russia when it comes to meddling in elections, you think?
Well, we both agree upon that the election in a country should the result of the election in a country should be decided by nobody else but the voters in that country.
And that is also our clear stance.
And that is why our intelligence agencies now also increasing their own capacity to detect and counter whether it's hacker attacks or financing or producing or spreading propaganda, whatever it is.
We are increasing our capacity to handle that.
We are cooperating with other European Union countries.
Some of our agencies are also cooperating with American counterparts.
And this we will continue to do.
And so any foreign power that believes that it can interfere with our election, we will find out.
And we will call them out very clearly and loud.
The first time that you two meet, just the two of you, where did you find most common ground and where you differ most on political issues?
Maybe almost everything.
First, we both come from outside politics, into politics.
I've spent perhaps 30 years in industry as a welder, but also as a trade unionist, trade union leader, spending 75, 80 percent of my time cooperating with the company leaders, with the employers' organization in an effort to strengthen our industry.
So that's perhaps a similar background, not similar because it's different, but we come from outside politics.
But of course, also France differ from time to time.
The Paris Agreement, the importance of Paris Agreement, we stand by that.
We think it's very important that we implement and fulfill the Paris Agreement because of the climate issue.
And on that, we might differ, tariffs as well.
But having said that, still, we know that the relationship is a good, yes, so we can take it that we differ as well because the values are there and we cooperate very, very good on economic issues, making sure that we create jobs and growth, and also on security issues, both when it comes to combating terrorism, but also when it comes to defend ourselves.
Just finally follow-up for Mr. Trump.
Do you think that trade is where Sweden and the U.S. differ most right now?
Oh, I think we have very good relationships on trade.
We have had, and we are constantly in touch.
We have on the military great cooperation, including design of various components of aircraft, etc.
And we were discussing that we have some of the great makers of these components in the room with us today.
Now, we have a very good relationship on trade, and we always will have.
Sweden's a great country.
It's small, but it's very sharp.
I will tell you.
They are very sharp.
Thank you very much, everybody.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, the President wrapping up his press conference with the Prime Minister of Sweden at the White House.
And the President touches on issues of trade.
Obviously, a Russia question comes up and interference.
The President said we're doing everything possible and how it will impact the 2018.
Whatever changes they're going to make are going to go there.
Have time for a call.
Out of this, by the way, an investigative report by John Solomon saying hi to Ben in Georgia.
What's up, Ben?
How are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
Thanks for having me on the show.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
You're very welcome.
What's up, sir?
Yeah, I just wanted to say been paying a lot of attention to President Trump and his dealings and Russia recently, and I've noticed a couple things.
I've noticed that he, you know, I like Trump, but he's sort of like a peacock.
When another peacock comes around, he likes to fluff his feathers a little bit.
But here's the difference between, I think, President Trump and President Putin, and especially Kim Jong-un.
When President Trump flushes his feathers, we know he can back it up.
Yeah, yeah, you know, because we're America.
So, but what I do think listen, I think the President's negotiating, especially on trade.
I think as it relates to everything Russia, we know the media is corrupt.
You can see everything that's happening.
Peter Strzok literally absolutely knew that Hillary's computers were compromised, and he did nothing.
He needs to be handcuffed, and he needs to be put in jail.
You know, when you see the depth of collusion and the depth of fixing for Hillary and the media does nothing, you know what?
There was collusion, and it was Hillary Clinton's collusion.
It was Hartbought and paid for dossier.
It was Mueller and Herr and Polder.
They allowed Putin to get a foothold in our uranium industry.
You know, all of this talk, it's nothing short of corruption and a media that has a biased, abusively biased political position.
All right, back to our phones.
Then John Solomon has an investigative report.
You know, that Australian diplomat that was responsible for giving the tip, the former Australian foreign minister, he's the one that spread the information about George Papadopoulos at the London bar that became the official reason the FBI opened the Russian intelligence counterintelligence probe.
Oh, yeah, this former foreign minister gave $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Jim in Alabama, what's up, Jim?
How are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Sean.
Yes, sir.
Thanks for having me.
I had a question to ask you that nobody has asked anything.
The Trump-Russian collusion.
Why would the Russians collude with Trump to steal the election from Hillary when the Russians have $145 million invested in Hillary already?
Right.
Listen, my take is that the Russians, all they wanted to do is what we heard in the last report.
They wanted to sow discord and chaos in America.
Do I think they picked a particular side?
Nope.
I mean, if you have simultaneous disruptions going on or simultaneous demonstrations on the same day, and one is pro-Trump and one is anti-Trump, I think that pretty much describes that they want to sow discord.
Now, you have to ask this question: why didn't Obama do anything about it when he was warned by Devin Nunes and others in 2014?
Why was he lecturing Donald Trump to stop whining about interference in 2016, just weeks before the election?
And why did it take a couple of months afterwards for him to say this is a disaster and then try to push the blame on Donald Trump?
Excuse me, they were hoping they didn't care about Russian intrusion into our electoral process.
If they did, they had ample warning to stop whatever happened.
But with all of that said, everybody has now said that it didn't impact the election in any way, shape, matter, or form.
So the idea is you want to put in place the process where they can't do it in the future.
That would be pretty good.
That would be a good start.
And maybe we can start by not having compromised computers like Hillary Clinton had that the Russians got into.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
800-941, Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
All right, let's take a trip down memory lane.
Hillary Clinton, you mean, did you wipe the server clean?
You mean like with a cloth, Ed?
And other lies about not sending or receiving classified information.
Did you wipe the server?
What, like with a cloth or something?
No.
And I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
It was a mistake to have a personal account.
I would certainly not do it again.
I make no excuses for it.
It was something that should not have been done.
But the real question is the handling of classified material, which is, I think, what the implication of your question was.
And for all the viewers watching you tonight, I have a lot of experience dealing with classified material starting when I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee going into the four years as Secretary of State.
Classified material has a header which says top secret, secret, confidential.
Nothing, and I will repeat this, and this is verified in the report by the Department of Justice.
None of the emails sent or received by me had such a header.
I will reiterate because it's a fact.
Nothing I sent or received was marked classified.
Now, what happens when you ask or when you are asked to make information public is that it's reviewed and different agencies come in with their opinions.
As you know, just recently, Colin Powell's emails were retroactively classified from more than 10 years ago.
As he said, that was an absurdity.
I could not agree more.
I always took classified material seriously.
There was never any material marked classified that was sent or received by me.
And I look forward to this being wrapped up.
What about people who think, well, she might be president?
What does she learn from this whole process?
Well, that was a mistake.
And I have said that, and I will say it again as often as I need to.
It seemed like a convenient idea at the time that certainly wasn't.
And so I always take classified material seriously.
There's no argument about that that I'm aware of.
And I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.
Did you wipe this or what, like with a cloth or something?
No.
Now, add that to the story that came out today.
Catherine Herridge, Fox News, FBI, well, investigator Peter Strzzok, and of course we know about his mistress girlfriend, the attorney for, well, former deputy FBI Director McCabe.
Anyway, as a member of James Comey's inner circle, we now have learned that, in fact, during the final months of the Clinton email investigation, the FBI agent Strzok,
who hates Donald Trump and was responsible for writing the exoneration before the investigation, as it relates to Hillary's email, well, we now know that he was advised of irregularities as it relates to the metadata of Hillary Clinton's server that suggested a possible breach by a foreign entity, and Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment.
And then, worse still, as a member of Comey's inner circle, well, Strzok edited the July 2016 public statement exonerating Hillary Clinton.
He did the interview of Hillary Clinton, but was writing her exoneration months before.
And then on the weekend of the 4th of July, 2016, right after they had their, quote, maybe that tea and crumpets, I'm not sure what they did.
He didn't do his job.
Then it was just two days later that James Comey exonerated Hillary, even though he admitted that she had committed multiple felonies.
So where does it all go from here, having all started with the Clintons?
Joining us now, John Solomon is with us with The Hill.
Now, his piece out yesterday is absolutely devastating as it relates to, oh, yeah, that Australian diplomat donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, but that wasn't known.
And that goes to the whole Papadopoulos story, four-way hearsay.
Oh, yeah, we're the ones that started the investigation.
That's not true either.
Anyway, John Solomon is with us.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing well.
All right, let's start with your piece from yesterday.
It was a pretty big bombshell because the Australian diplomat whose supposed tip prompted the FBI's Russia probe has a major tie to the Clintons.
And that tells me that the Russian probe wasn't started the way we're being told.
Yeah, well, it was definitely started with Downer's tip, but there's a big twist to Downer, which is he's been portrayed for most of the last several months, particularly as the criticism of the Steele memo and its connections to the Clinton campaign and the DNC have risen, and those concerns have risen with it.
The FBI has kind of hung its last hat on this idea that the original tip came in from a diplomat through normal intelligence channels.
Has nothing to do with the Clintons.
And he heard this conversation about Papadopoul claiming that he knew that the Russians were going to one day release damaging emails on Hillary Clinton.
And that's how this whole thing really started.
Forget Steele, forget Sidney Blumenthal.
This is really how it started.
Well, the one thing that the FBI forgot to tell Congress and the American public is that Alexander Downer, that guy who made that first report, was a $25 million donor to the Clinton Foundation.
He's one of the four largest foreign government donors in the history of the Clinton Health Initiative of the foundation.
$25 million is a lot of money, and it was given from the Australian government to help fight AIDS.
But this is another piece of the puzzle where all four of the people who originally came forward and gave FBI information, they're all people who supported the Clinton, either in the past or in the present.
Explain who the four are in each instance, because I think withholding the information about the $25 million donation to the Clinton Foundation and it being four-way hearsay to begin with does taint anything that might have been said because obviously it sounds like they're Clinton sycophants.
Yeah, there's certainly Downer was effusive in his praise of the Clintons when he gave the $25 million.
So here are the four people.
We know Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, and we know he was funded in full by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
And we know from Chairman Nunez and Chairman Grassley's letters that he also was a person that personally, Steele personally despised Trump and wanted to defeat Trump.
So he was paid by the Clintons and an animus for Trump.
That's number one.
Number two, we have Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Scherer, two longtime Clinton friends, Clinton supporters, Clinton PIs, roaming the world, doing Libya stuff when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
They funnel information through the John Kerry State Department that gets to Steele that gets to the FBI.
So that's the second Clinton connection.
The third Clinton connection is Michael Issakoff.
He's a reporter at Yahoo News, and he has admitted that his story in September, which was used by the FBI as independent cooperation to support a FISA warrant, came from Steele.
So really it's the fruit of the poison tree.
Christopher Steele gives it to the reporter, reporter reports, and the FBI treats the reporter like it was a separate chain of information.
And now we have the fourth one, Alexander Downer, a well-respected diplomat who in an earlier life was a $25 million supporter of the Clinton Foundation.
So four-fourths of the information that predicated and started the FBI investigation, mind you, in the middle of an election, a presidential election, can be traced to people who supported Donald Trump's Democratic opponent.
So you have the foreign Australian, the former Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer.
He has a key role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation.
And Downer, who's now Australia's ambassador to London, he provides the account of a conversation with Trump campaign advisor Papadopoulos at a London bar that becomes the official reason because then he takes that information and he brings it to authorities sometime later.
And that becomes the reason that the FBI opens, or at least one of them, the Russian counterintelligence probe.
Now, lawmakers are pretty pissed off about this, according to your piece, because the FBI didn't tell Congress about Downer's prior connection.
So we didn't know that he was related in any way or supportive of the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.
And Republicans, again, are concerned because the new information means nearly all of the early evidence that the FBI used to justify their election year probe of Trump came from sources that were supportive of the Clinton, including the steel dossier that we now know was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, no, you're exactly right.
One of the people we talked to is Jim Jordan.
He's a chairman of a subcommittee that's playing an increasing role in the Russian investigation.
He says, you know, Downer was the one guy we thought had no Clinton connection.
We were excited to learn about him and understand his role.
And now we find out they knew of a Clinton connection about him, and they didn't tell us.
So in a way.
But here we are, omissions again, because when they made the initial application to the FISA court, there was the glaring omission about who paid for the dossier.
And a footnote that says it may be political in nature.
That doesn't equate to Hillary Clinton buying and paying for the dossier that's full of Russian lies.
Yeah, no, I think, you know, you mentioned Catherine Herridge's report just a little bit ago in your show, and there's an interesting thing I want to point out because there's a similar pattern in the Trump world, right?
There's a lot of things about Hillary Clinton that seem to get modified, omitted, craftily edited into a footnote that really isn't forthcoming.
And you ask yourself, why is the FBI not being more open with the courts, with the Congress?
There's no reason.
If there's nothing to be ashamed about, there's no reason not to disclose this stuff and say, sure, that's what happened, and we don't have any problem with it.
Let's go to the famous memo.
The story today about stroke that Catherine Herridge broke is so important for another reason.
All right, he didn't follow up, according to Catherine's report, on the possibility that there was a foreign breach.
Now I'm going to remind you about something I reported just a couple of months ago.
When Comey's original exoneration statement was drafted, he wrote, it was reasonably likely, that's a very strong word, it was likely that Hillary Clinton's non-secure private sector.
That was edited out.
And it was.
And you know who made that edit?
That being Peter Strzok.
Peter Strzok.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, again, you have an FBI that, for reasons that we don't understand yet, appears to be editing and changing things from original conclusions and ignoring or omitting facts.
And you have to ask yourself, one or two times, it's a coincidence.
Four, five, six, seven, eight times.
That's why the members of Congress, at least on the Republican side, are becoming more concerned that there was politicalization, not just from the text messages where, you know, people are expressing political opinions during the middle of an election, but by their actions.
And there's a lot of actions now that make the FBI look like they were acting in a partisan way.
Whether they were or not, we'll find out.
Stay right there.
We'll continue.
John Solomon of the Hill, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Hey, like many of you, I don't sleep well, suffer from insomnia, but I'm sleeping better than ever.
And it's just a pillow that has made a dramatic difference in my life.
It's my pillow, and its inventor Mike Lindello is a friend of mine.
And the great news is it just works.
I can't tell you the scientific reasons why, but it works for me, and it'll work for you, and it works for many others.
Now I fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer, and you can too.
Just go to mypillow.com or call their toll-free number.
It's 800-919-6090.
Use the promo code Hannity.
Mike Lindell, one of his best offers ever, his special four-pack.
You get over 50% off, and you get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two Go Anywhere pillows.
Now, MyPillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
Or you can spend more sleepless nights with a pillow that's not working for you staring at the ceiling.
Now, go to MikeLindell's mypillow.com.
You get his special four-pack, two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows, over 50% off.
They arrive.
You start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, comfortable, deep healing, and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Hannity, and we'll have more with John Solomon as we continue.
Then we have our Freedom Caucus members responding.
How is Congress going to deal with all of this?
That's next.
And as we continue, John Solomon writes for The Hill.
He has a brand new piece out that is pretty devastating.
Pretty much everybody that was involved in initiating this investigation that we keep talking about about Trump, Russia, collusion, et cetera, had ties to the Clintons.
And now the latest development is this former Australian foreign minister that gave $25 million through his country to the Clinton Foundation, which is a pretty big reveal.
I want to go back to Catherine Herridge's report, though.
James Comey is writing with Peter Strzzok the exoneration of Hillary.
All of it goes back to her.
We know she committed multiple felonies as it relates to having an off-site email server in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom.
We know it had secret, top-secret, classified, and special access programming information on it.
Then, when she was subpoenaed, she deleted 33,000 of the emails.
That would be obstruction to anybody else.
She acid washes the hard drive with bleach bit, and then she's smashing devices with hammers.
Now, if anybody in Donald Trump's campaign ever did anything similar to something that was subpoenaed by Congress, what would the reaction and result be?
Yeah, it's a great question, isn't it?
I think the answer would be.
I think the answer would be they'd be arrested.
That's what I think.
They would.
I think so.
And I'll give you another example that came up at the end of the Clinton investigation that a lot of reporters haven't focused on, but I think is so important when you compare to what's happened now with people like Mike Flynn and Papadopoulos being indicted or charged or pleading out to single instances of lying to the FBI, right?
We have several people on the Trump team that have been pled out or charged with single instances of lying.
But there was a technician that worked for the Clinton campaign or for the Clinton office, and he lied outright about the effort to cleanse the server during the period when this subpoena had been issued.
He lied.
What did the Justice Department do in that case?
They didn't charge him.
They didn't give him a 1,001 count.
They immunized him so that he could tell the FBI the real truth of what he did.
So they immunized him instead of charging him like the Trump people.
But then here's a real twist.
He decided not to answer one of the questions.
They asked him, Well, you did this right around the time you were talking to Hillary Clinton's email lawyers.
Is it possible they instructed you to destroy this information?
And he invoked attorney client privilege.
Now, that's really funny because Hillary Clinton's lawyers are not this man's lawyers.
But the FBI accepted that and they just moved on.
So when people look, are we getting equal treatment in the system?
They see this very aggressive treatment, probably rightly so.
People who lied to the FBI, you should be charged if you lied.
But we see an instance on the Clinton side, again, where someone admitted they lied and he walks away with no consequence and he even gets to refuse to answer some of the questions.
I have no idea, but at some point, if maybe it's the Inspector General's report, if some people don't go to jail here, then we don't have equal justice under the law.
That's the bottom line.
All right, John, we look forward.
When's your next report?
We'll see.
We're working on a bunch of things and hope to get some more facts out to the public soon.
All right, thanks for sharing.
We appreciate it.
800-941-Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
We'll get reaction from Freedom Caucus members Matt Gates and Jim Jordan and Louis Gomert.
That's coming up next.
Our news roundup information overload hour.
And your calls are straight ahead.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
I've addressed this previously.
I think now we've had subsequently members of Congress on the intelligence committees on both sides of the aisle take a look at the information that apparently was the basis for Chairman Nunes' concern and say publicly that they didn't see anything that was unusual or untoward.
I did my job, which was to protect the American people, and I did it faithfully and to the best of my ability.
And never did I do anything that was untoward with respect to the intelligence I received.
So what we did is a couple weeks ago, we sent out to about a dozen people.
We have another dozen people that are on the list.
So we'll probably end up being about two dozen folks that are going to get this questionnaire.
The questionnaire really asks some simple questions.
When did you know the Democrats paid for the dossier, and who did you tell?
There's 10 questions in all, but that's the bottom line.
Thankfully, we have received, most of the people have responded, getting the information back to us promptly and on time.
There are a few people who have asked for an additional week, which we have went ahead and granted that time.
There are a few people, though, that are not responding.
They seem to have gone dark.
However, if they do not respond here shortly, they will be getting subpoenaed to appear before Congress to be treated with a deposition.
And did John Brennan and James Clapper respond to your questions?
Yes, they did.
And what were their responses about when they knew and what they knew?
Well, one of the things is as we continue to do this, Martha, I hope you understand is that we have to compile all of this.
We have to check it with their past testimony.
We have to talk about it amongst our committee members.
So I'm not dodging the question, but I just don't think it would be appropriate to say anything other than the fact that they did cooperate.
They did answer all the questions.
All right, news roundup information overload hour here on the Sean Hannity Show 800-941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
All right, so with all this breaking news today, Sarah Carter now looking into the possibility.
The House Intel Committee is now investigating, well, what did John Kerry know, his possible role in the unverified dossier paid for by Hillary and the DNC?
And so that's now a big question.
How are we going to get to the fact that Americans have been abused on a high level in terms of the weapons of intelligence now turned against them?
And then, of course, lying to a FISA court in order to get a FISA warrant against an individual who's part of the Trump campaign and not telling the FISA court where the information came from and nor verifying the contents therein, which turn out to be lies.
Anyway, joining us, Freedom Caucus members, we have Louis Gomer from Texas, Matt Gates from Florida, and Jim Jordan from the great state of Ohio.
Louis, we'll start with you.
Why do I imagine that if Sean Hannity presented evidence to a court in order to get an indictment or get, if it's not an indictment, just to get any type of surveillance against them and I withheld ke information, I don't think even you could get me out of jail.
Well, it is really outrageous.
And, you know, having been a former felony judge, I just can't believe that these federal FISA judges don't have enough self-respect, even if not for themselves, at least for the court, that if somebody comes in there and doesn't give you, they're not honest with you, they don't give you all the information they misrepresent, how do you not put somebody in jail for committing a fraud upon the court?
It's what tells me, and we're working on it in my office, to have a bill that just eliminates the FISA court when we can't trust federal judges to be honest.
And if they're not going to be honest, at least make sure the people that come before you are being honest.
It just blows my mind that how they nobody has been held to account for the misrepresentations to the court.
But you're right.
I mean, you probably would have gone to jail for not giving the facts the way these people apparently didn't.
And then the fact that we are apparently, I want to get it confirmed, but my understanding is the FISA courts don't want to release the information they got.
Well, as my old constitutional law professor Baylor used to say, there's only one court in the country that owes its existence to the Constitution.
That's the Supreme Court.
Every other federal court in the country owes its existence and its jurisdiction to the U.S. Congress.
Some people said, you know, we brought them into the world.
We can take them out.
And if they don't think that, then they got another thing coming.
But when you think about it, Louie, everything the Clintons do wrong, they seem to get away with.
I wouldn't get away with deleting subpoenaed emails to come from Congress.
I wouldn't get away with destroying them.
I wouldn't get away with acid washing them and breaking devices with hammers.
If the FBI was investigating me, I wouldn't get away with some of the things that Hillary's gotten away with.
I don't think I'd get an exoneration before an investigation.
I don't think I would have the words taken out, as we know were taken out in the Clinton case.
You know, it's reasonably likely that foreign entities broke into the server that I never should have had.
We know, in fact, that five foreign entities did that.
I don't think I'd get away with that.
But don't forget, the Clintons would not even allow, the Democrats wouldn't allow the FBI to even look at their servers.
How does the FBI give them?
How does the FBI raised this on TV last night?
How do they get away with letting the Clintons do all of this?
And then all we hear about is Trump-Russia collusion, and we still have no evidence.
How is that possible?
That's the scenario we're living under, Jim Jordan.
Well, let's just put it this way.
They've got some mighty strong friends in the Department of Justice.
Jim?
And I'm going to talk about just us.
Yeah.
Yeah, I would say, son, this is why you have to have the second special counsel.
No one likes special counsels.
I don't like them.
You don't like them.
But you tell me how you're going to get answers to these fundamental questions.
Think about this fact.
The dossier, we first thought only the FBI had the dossier.
Then we subsequently learned, no, no, no.
It wasn't just the FBI who had access to the dossier and knew about it.
It was also the Justice Department, namely through Bruce Orr.
And then we learned just a few months ago, it wasn't just the FBI and the Justice Department.
It was also the State Department, which sort of raises the obvious question.
If it was the FBI, Justice Department, and State Department, did the Obama White House know as well?
And that's why what Devin Nunes did last week, when he sent those questions to 24 people in the Obama administration asking those 10 key questions about the dossier and started to get responses back on Friday, that's why that's so important.
So, yeah, we've got to have a second special counsel looking at all this because there are so many questions that have been raised that are unanswered.
The thing is, is that, and he's also followed up, and by the end of this week, he wants answers as it relates to protocol and whether or not it was followed in terms of the FBI, because as you bring information to a FISA court, it has to, according to their standards, have been verified.
Now, we know it wasn't verified, and we know James Comey, we're talking about October 16.
They present it to a FISA court.
They don't inform the court that Hillary bought and paid for it.
They try and create two independent sources before the court, but we know that Isakoff got the information directly from Steele.
So there was only one source, not verified, and that was presented to the court.
They hide the fact that Hillary paid for it.
And now we've got to ask, how many times can one person be covered up for in all of this?
And when are people going to start getting indicted?
And if everybody's talking about Robert Mueller and Robert Mueller and the special counsel, well, when do we ever start investigating these crimes?
Yeah, two things I think are critical here.
When you go to a court, Matt and Louie will tell you this.
Everyone knows this.
You're supposed to present the whole truth.
It sure looks like the FBI did not do that.
They didn't tell them who financed it.
You know what else they didn't tell the court?
They didn't tell him that their relationship with Christopher Steele had been terminated.
And why did the FBI terminate that relationship with the author of the dossier?
Because he broke a cardinal rule.
He told the press that he was working with the FBI, and yet they use his work product at the FISA court four times and don't tell the court that they no longer have that relationship with Christopher Steele.
That is, again, why you have to have a second special counsel.
And Jim, remember, not only that, but they also knew that Steele was the source for like the Yahoo story that they used to corroborate his story.
They used him to corroborate his own story.
And they never disclosed that.
Just, Son, last night on your show, Sean, you made a great point last night on your show working with John Solomon and Sarah Carter.
Where the other thing that I think is important to understand now is, so the left and Schiff have made a big deal out about Papadopoulos was the catalyst for the Russia Trump investigation.
Peter Strzok took the Papadopoulos stuff, and that's what he launched the Russian Trump investigation with.
But now we find out that there's a link to Clinton there as well.
That was the one thing where John did a great job on this, where we thought this was not linked to Clinton because it wasn't linked to the dossier.
And it turns out Downer, the ambassador to London from Australia, did have a link to the Clintons, namely this $25 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation.
And he was the guy who initiated the meeting with Papadopoulos that was the catalyst for this whole thing.
So the circumstances just get stranger and the questions just become more and more, again, underscoring why a second counsel special counsel.
Then it raises the question, where's Jeff Sessions?
Yeah.
Look, we've been on him for a long time.
We called for this initially, Sean, seven months ago.
We met with him personally in September.
Congressman Gates was tremendous in that meeting, highlighting why we needed this, and we still get no response from Mr. Sessions regarding the counsel.
How does he get not responding to Congress?
Isn't he supposed to be responsive to Congress?
Well, the DOJ and the FBI never reveal when they're investigating.
They always have the pad answer.
I can neither confirm nor deny.
But I do know that the DOJ is looking into the uranium one matter.
They are doing some investigating.
I just am not sure how deep the investigation goes.
Now, they're supposed to be waiting for the Inspector General, but I'm telling you, there are people that have a lot more faith in the Inspector General than I do.
It's like the Inspector General has no prosecutorial powers.
So then it goes back to the DOJ, then they investigate, and then maybe we get the special counsel when, in fact, we know certain crimes were already committed.
What are we waiting for?
Well, and I've been saying since June, we need a second counsel.
And one of the things that the second counsel has got to investigate is Mueller and Rosenstein.
They were originally involved in the uranium investigation.
And miraculously, they go quiet and shut things down.
And they get their plant in the whole operation to sign a nondisclosure agreement.
Never heard of that.
You're talking about the informant.
No, I agree.
All right.
Well, take a break.
Yeah, it's insane.
We'll take a break.
More with Jim Jordan and more with Louie Gomert, 800-941 Sean.
And as we continue with Congressman Louie Gomert and Congressman Jim Jordan, both of the Freedom Caucus, so we have this report out by Catherine Heritage today that, you know, it gets worse as it relates to the lovebirds, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
But it turns out that as a member of FBI directors Comey's inner circle, the guy that edited what was the exoneration long before the investigation of Hillary Clinton and the email server, what we find out is that Strzok realized in an initial draft two months before Hillary Clinton even got interviewed and dozens of witnesses had been interviewed.
It was reasonably likely that hostile actors had gained access to Hillary Clinton's private email account in that mom-and-pop shop bathroom.
Now, that was in their initial draft.
They took that out to protect Hillary.
Why is this guy still have a job at the FBI, Jim Jordan?
No, great question, and all kinds of folks are asking it.
Look, we suspected the fix was in on the Clinton email investigation.
But once we saw the struck page text messages, we all knew the fix was in.
And it shouldn't surprise us that, oh, the guy who changed the exoneration letter from gross negligence, a criminal standard, to extreme carelessness, is also the guy who now changed this, the wording in the letter saying they really didn't think that their computer was compromised and classified information was gained access to by hostile actors.
So it shouldn't surprise us.
This is Peter Strzok.
This is the guy who ran deputy head of counterintelligence.
This is the guy who viewed himself as the James Bond of the FBI.
He was the guy who ran the entire Clinton investigation, and he's the guy who launched the Trump-Russia investigation.
I'm not surprised by it, but it's just one more reason, and I keep coming back to this: one more reason why we have to have a second special counsel get to the bottom of all this.
Louis, I agree with Jim Jordan, and I hate special counsels.
Well, and I do too, but it's the only way that we're going to be able to get to the bottom of the problems in the FBI and the problems in the DOJ.
And let me just say, with all of the things that we know Mueller was involved in, he was supervising improprieties, going back to the Ted Stevens case.
There are just so many.
Any Republican who says, Well, I'm sure Mueller will give us a fair and impartial outcome.
They either one, they want Trump out of office no matter what, or two, they are completely ignorant, or three, they're trying to set themselves up to sound good when they go before Democrats in the Senate for a confirmation hearing.
So that's it.
There will not be a fair, impartial, unbiased decision by Mueller.
People, if they didn't know that from his history, they should have known the minute he started hiring people who were known for being just absolutely ardent Democrats and also being ruthless and putting people in jail that were not supposed to go.
I got to leave it right there.
Thank you both.
We will have progress on this in the days and weeks to come.
Any idea, Jim Jordan, when we get the IG report, real quick?
I think it's going to be the first of April, so I'm hoping in less than four weeks.
So we'll know.
Why is it taking so long?
I don't know, Jeepers.
I mean, it's typical with, and I'm not like Mr. Horowitz, but it's, you know, 14 months is Jeepers.
Let's go.
Yeah, I think it'll be early April.
Quick break.
We'll come back.
Thank you both.
800-941-Sean.
Toll free telephone number will continue.
Hi, 25 now till the top of the hour.
Toll free telephone numbers, 800-941.
Sean, you want to join us?
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
Jody is in Jacksonville in Florida near Panavedra, beautiful Panavedra, listening on WOKV.
How are you?
I'm doing well, Sean.
How are you?
I'm good.
What's happening?
Well, my opinion is that Mueller is in too deep to admit failure.
I fear that, well, he fears that that would place him, that failure would place him perhaps in the crosshairs of, let's say, the public and D.C. as a whole in regards to his failure.
So, what is your opinion on that?
Listen, I think it's really simple.
I think that Mueller's gotten in too deep.
I think these special counsels, investigative creep, exceeding their mandate, is pretty much standard operating procedure.
And I think that, you know, as I was pointing out yesterday, now they're thinking and talking about the UAE, and they're looking into this lunatic, Sam Nundberg, and anybody that's ever had email contact with him.
I mean, who knows where this ever ends?
I didn't know this was an investigation into the Emirates now, because that's not what he said.
That was not in his original mandate.
And Rosenstein, who appointed him his best friend, should have stepped up a long time ago and said, keep the focus on where it should be.
Don't expand the mandate, which, by the way, most special counsels do.
Look, listen to this guy, Nunberg.
Now he wants all the emails, text messages with this lunatic.
You know, I was a campaign advisor from 2011 to 2015 when everybody was laughing at Donald Trump.
So for Sarah.
He was a hundred paid advisor from 2011.
So he was teaching the story of the world.
Yeah, so for Sarah that long, it was that expensive.
Yeah, so for Sarah Huckabee to start criticizing me, I would say, and I know what, and I know you may not like it the way I say it, she should shut her fat mouth.
Imagine your lawyers telling you not to rip up a subpoena.
Yeah, he's probably not.
So why are you doing it?
Because I'm not going to produce them every email I had with Steve Bannon and Roger Stone from November 1 of 2015.
Why do I have to produce them all my communications?
Are you ready to go to jail?
I'm not going to go to jail.
How do you know you're not going to go to jail?
You're called in contempt.
Do you think that they have something on the president?
I think they may.
I think that he may have done something during the election, but I don't know about it.
Yes, Mueller thinks that Trump is a Manchurian candidate.
He thinks he's, I'm sorry, he thinks he's what?
He thinks Trump is the Manchurian candidate.
And I will tell you I disagree with that.
I'm going to be the first one in history to flat out say, I'm not going.
You're not going to.
I'm not going to the grand jury.
I'm not going to spend 30 hours going over my emails.
I'm not doing it.
I'm not cooperating arrest.
You're not cooperating arrest you.
Yeah, I'm not cooperating.
You're more than happy.
You're going to arrest me, arrest me.
You know what?
You know what?
If Sarah Huckabee wants the ones to start debasing me, she's a joke.
Okay, fine.
Yeah, she's unattractive.
She's a fat slob.
Fine.
But that's irrelevant.
The person she works for has a 30% approval rating.
And by the way, you're going to be fine when it comes out what he did.
But people like Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Janine Pirro, they're going to be very embarrassed.
So, Sam, I have to ask you one other thing.
Yes, ma'am.
And it's an awkward question to ask, but I've been here before.
You're sitting very close to me.
We talked earlier about what people in the White House were saying about you.
Yeah.
Talking about whether you were drinking or on drugs or whatever had happened today.
Talking to you, I have smelled alcohol on your breath.
Well, I have not had a drink.
You haven't had a drink, so that's not.
No.
So I just, because it is the talk out there, again, I know it's awkward.
Let me just give you the questions you can categorize.
No, you haven't had a drink.
My answer is no.
I have not.
Anything else?
No.
No.
Besides my meds.
Oh, my gosh.
We got interrupted.
So I'm watching those last night shows over.
And I get a text from our buddy Jonathan Gillam.
And he's like, oh, my God, you got to turn on MSNBC.
You got to see this, right?
And I'm like, what's going on?
Well, that one was on CNN.
It's funny.
No, but part of it's on MSNBC.
It's like, come in the studio.
We just finished.
I'm back in my office.
I run back in here.
And I'm standing here.
It's just me and Jason.
We're looking up at the screen.
We're watching this interview.
It's like watching a car accident.
He's sweating.
He's red.
He's going, I don't care.
I don't let him come after me.
I mean, to his credit, I mean, that's what Hillary Clinton did, right?
She tossed everything to the wing, got rid of her emails, and said, I'll let him figure it out.
But it's hysterical.
He's on set and he's not leaving.
So the host goes, well, I guess you could stay here if you want, Sam, for the next segment.
He's like, all right, yeah, sure.
I'll hang out.
Yeah, it's great.
It is hysterical.
It's unbelievable.
But, you know, I don't know what's worse, you know, using a guy that's obviously having some type of breakdown, whether it's drug, alcohol-induced, or maybe he's completely sober, which would probably be a worst case scenario.
I smell booze on your breath, but you don't bring it up until the end of the interview.
I don't know if that's worse or the fact that fake news CNN literally sent a camera crew and reporter to where?
Thailand.
Thailand.
To interview a sex coach in a hooker who says she might have all the answers to all of this just because she says.
Well, there's a sex coach in Russia.
That's it.
The sex coach CNN.
But there's another woman in Thailand who may have information on Trump and sexual escapades.
The hooker.
There's a hooker.
Was Trump ever in Thailand?
Is that now the new mandate of the Mueller investigation?
I guess there's another dossier that the DNC paid for.
The media is so exploitive.
And look, I can give you, you know who I'm talking about.
There have been people that have shown up to do this show that are in no condition to do this show.
And when I find out, usually it's me because I don't send my staff to do it.
I'll go out and say, I'm not putting you on in this condition.
For your sake and for the sake of the audience.
Even if I don't like you, I'll do that.
And I remember one, very high-profile individual had a fit.
I mean, started throwing stuff, breaking stuff up.
I mean, it was out of control.
But I guess maybe three days later, I got a call and thank you so much for throwing me out.
I appreciate it.
I just don't think it's fair.
You're exploiting somebody that's obviously in a very bad state of mind, and you're doing it for what?
I mean, obviously, there's nothing that this guy says that's going to be relevant or could be used in any way because he's contradicted himself a thousand different ways.
And I just don't, but this is what they're using now as news.
That's fake news CNN.
Let's talk to the sex coach in Russia, and then we're going to talk to the hooker in Thailand.
If you remember early on, the Trump administration had already said that he was not a part of their staff.
They had gotten rid of him.
They pressed charges against him.
I've known Trump longer than 2011.
Trump was not thinking about running.
He was flirting with it.
It was more of a, let me throw my name out there, have some fun with this.
And that's what he was doing.
He might have done a couple of polls, but he didn't have a full-time anybody.
If Nunberg worked for him, it wasn't in any other capacity, then what do you think about maybe a possibility?
And I spoke to Trump at the time.
He really didn't have any intention of getting in.
So I think anything that they say here, it's just not going to matter.
Now, all of that has to be seen in the context.
Every single thing Hillary does and says, she gets away with.
Nobody would get away with the things she gets away with.
And I'm just thinking at times you got a special counsel that just keeps breathing down everybody's neck over insignificant things.
They have left their original mandate like, you know, countries ago, and now they move from Russia.
Now they're in Thailand.
Now they're where else.
And the United Arab Emirates, they're just, they're on a fishing expedition, and so it really is a witch hunt.
And meanwhile, if they want to look at collusion, they ignore Hillary Clinton paying for the phony dossier.
They ignore the Uranium One deal because Bob Mueller had an FBI agent, an informant inside of Putin's network here in America, and he did nothing to stop Vladimir Putin from getting 20% of our uranium.
Those are all real things that ought to be investigated.
We need a special investigation into Bob Moeller's time in Massachusetts.
And I think if we start to look back into Moeller's past and what he didn't do when he was an attorney general there, a U.S. Attorney there, excuse me, then we'll find out what's in his past.
And maybe he doesn't want people digging around in there during his time with the Whitey Bulger and the mafia.
Well, I don't think he does.
And I don't think I don't think anybody in the special counsel's office is particularly fond of me.
And I just think the idea I cannot imagine why I have no dollar citizen.
I am a stellar citizen.
I agree.
And I pay my taxes and I obey the laws.
More than your fair share.
I am a good citizen.
And I have no idea why I'm hated.
There are people in life that have hate lists that are very long.
I know.
So many attractive people, you know, so little time.
Yeah, you have hate lists, and you've brought your hate list back.
How many people are on it right now?
No, I, first of all.
All right, did you say earlier today that the hate list is here to stay or not?
I didn't.
No, I absolutely did not say it's here to stay.
You said it's back to the history.
I said it's staying.
It's back with a vengeance.
Okay, back with a vengeance.
And so you're up.
So you admit you just lied because you said I said here to stay.
And I didn't say that.
Well, excuse me, you lied when you said.
I think you lied.
You lied when you said that I'll never have a hate list.
You lied when you said I'm done with hate lists.
I'll never have a hate list again.
No, I never said that.
Yes, you're lying.
No, I said I was converting to a list of contempt, and I wanted to toss some tables.
Contempt and hate are the same thing.
Contempt is not cutting it.
Back to our phones as we say hi to Paul in Wyoming.
Paul, how are you?
Hey, Sean.
Thanks for taking my call.
First time caller.
Just to put a wrench into the Mahler investigation, I believe that Mahler would have been appointed whether Comey was fired or not.
And two, a question to you and your viewers.
How do you know that the FISA judges are not as corrupt as the former administration, the Obama administration?
Well, I mean, we know from everything that we're reporting who's more corrupt and who's been corrupt from the start.
You know, look, when you have deep state actors and people at the highest levels of the Intel community, the Justice Department and the FBI running interference to prevent Hillary from receiving the justice that the rest of us would have,
when you have those actors, you know, basically running interference for her and on the inside, and then you have these same people that run interference when it relates to her relationship with Russia, but you're going to investigate Donald Trump and you've, you know, use her bought and paid for information and you don't tell a judge about it.
I mean, we've got some big problems in this country as it relates to real justice and equal justice and the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
I never thought this would happen in my lifetime, but it's happening right before your very eyes.
And the media is seemingly so ignorant that they think their big interview of the day is a guy that's losing his mind.
It's unreal.
In a complete meltdown.
Exactly.
Now, my question is, do you think that there's a possibility that the FISA judges were in cahoots or in the corruption as well, possibly?
Well, if the judges don't mind being lied to, manipulated, and don't mind gross omissions like they've had in this particular case, then I guess they would be in on it.
But I don't know any judge that likes to be lied to.
One thing you've got to understand about judges, in that courtroom, they are all powerful.
In that courtroom, if you say, yeah, you know, you don't say yes, Your Honor, good luck to you.
In that courtroom, when they say, please rise, blah, blah, blah, blah, the honorable so-and-so presiding, and you don't rise, good luck to you.
Because that judge has all the power and authority to take you down.
And a contempt ruling can be with a snap of a finger and jail overnight and jail for the next 30 nights, whatever they decide.
So why these guys felt they could abuse, you know, a sitting judge and lie to them and purposely omit, you know, pertinent information.
I don't know.
I wouldn't do it.
If I did it, I'd be handcuffed, perp walked, mug-shotted, and sent to the pokey.
I'd be sharing a bed with some guy named Bubba.
Who says the pokey?
The jail.
The jail.
Well, I went to jail, if you remember, to speak to prisoners at Rikers Island that day.
Did they call it the pokey?
I'm just saying, jail, pokey.
Call it jail.
Who calls it the pokey?
I wouldn't want to live in Rikers.
Rikers is not a pleasant place.
Anyway, I said to the guys, I go, do you guys miss McDonald's?
Do you guys miss having a girlfriend?
You guys miss maybe going for a walk in the park?
You guys miss not being around other violent people?
I said, because you're going to have choices.
Some of you are going to do your time and never come back here.
And some of you are going to be stupid, and you're going to make the same dumb mistakes over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and you're going to live here the rest of your life.
And I said, if that's your life you want, know that you have the choice.
And then I said to them, if you have dopey friends and dopey family in your life that are corrupting you and you can't say no to, then go home, pack your bag, and find a place to live elsewhere away from those bad influences in your life.
And then don't replace the bad influences with new bad influences.
Stay out of trouble.
Go wash dishes.
Go flip hamburgers.
Do what you have to do to survive.
And then work your way back into school.
That was my advice to them.
Hey, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Let not your heart be troubled.
Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Now, Roger Stone was mentioned in this list of people that Robert Mueller, let's see, he wants his emails, his text messages, his phone history.
Okay, let's see what Roger Stone's response is going to be.
Jesse Waters, Jessica Tarlove, Sean Spicer, Joe Concha, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Dambongino.
9 Eastern tonight.
News you won't get anywhere else.
All right, as always, thank you for being with us.
We'll see you back here tomorrow, tonight at 9, and we always appreciate you being with us.
▲
Export Selection