Democrats have been trying to smear President Trump for a year with the fake story of the Russian collusion surrounding the 2016 election. Sean breaks down the "Anatomy of a Lie" and what's next for this nonsense story. Plus, Congressman Meadows and Jordan check-in. The Sean Hannity is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
All right, a lot of news breaking today.
And we told you, we told you, we told you.
By the way, that I mentioned, we told you so.
Yeah, we kind of told you so.
No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
You should be angry about this because the level of this hoax and lie and propaganda and misinformation, you know, how deep this has run within the media, the willing accomplices of all things Democrat, is unbelievable.
I'm going to give you a full breakdown of everything and what this means and what this says and what should happen and what may not happen.
The president now is in California.
He's on his way.
He's going to be looking at varying prototypes of the types of wall that they will be building on the southern border.
And they actually have, they haven't literally lined up the different types of walls that they can build.
I don't know.
I don't see one that's gold leaf that says the words Trump on it yet, but I haven't seen them all, but it's always a possibility.
Anyway, and the wall is massive.
This is not going to be a wall that somebody can just, oh, let me get one of those ladders and climb up.
I actually tried to do that once.
You had one of those hook ladders.
I'm literally fighting to get it.
It wasn't easy to do.
But I, well, I went down to the border 12 times.
I've been there.
Everywhere from the Rio Grande to San Diego and everywhere in between.
And I've told you many times.
You've seen it on TV, horseback, all-terrain vehicles, helicopters, boats.
I've been sitting through security meetings for years, and we still have a problem at the border.
I got into this with Jorge Ramos the other night, big time.
And I'm like, okay, I sat there and I played him when I was with then-Governor Rick Perry at the time.
And we sat through a security briefing that Barack Obama had been invited to and didn't go to.
So I called the governor.
I said, can I come?
I'd like to sit through that briefing.
Anyway, as part of the briefing, well, they went over the crime statistics.
And in a seven-year period, 642,000 crimes were committed by illegal immigrants against Texans.
Yeah, and some included murder and rape and violent crimes and drugs and everything you can in between.
That's a lot of crimes against one state in seven years.
But of course, and I said to Rama, well, why don't we go meet those 642,000 people?
So he runs out leaking to the press.
Hannity wants to meet the Dreamers.
I said, that's not what I said on TV.
I said, let's meet the people, because he always says they are a very small percentage of those committing crimes.
That's not true either.
They're 3.5% of the population, illegal immigrants.
And it is, according to your federal government, who you must love and trust so much, those of you on the left, well, it's 13.5% of the crime in the country.
Well, that's a significant amount of crime being committed by people that never respected our laws and our sovereignty as a nation.
Anyway, that's why the president's down there today.
We'll follow that.
We've got Hillary Clinton.
She's back in the news.
You know, I pointed out there's something very, very odd and strange that is happening.
And that is in certain moments, Democrats, they reveal themselves.
Irredeemable Deplorables was an example.
Clinging to their God, their guns, their Bibles, their religion.
That would be another one.
You know, spread the wealth around.
That would be another one.
So Hillary Clinton is in India and starts to, you know, focus blame on why it is she lost.
I'd love to know how much she's getting paid for her speeches there.
You know, she's the one that referred to Trump supporters as irredeemable deplorables, adding that Trump and his backers are also racist and misogynist.
Now, she said these remarks while in India over the weekend, it sounds a lot like her deplorables commentary in September of 2016.
If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the middle where Trump won.
I win the coast.
I win, you know, Illinois and Minnesota, places like that.
And then she went on, but what that map doesn't show you is I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product.
I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic moving forward.
And then she turned to Trump voters and she goes, And his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backward.
You know, you didn't like black people getting rights.
You don't like women, you know, getting jobs.
And you don't want to, you know, see the Indian government succeeding more than you are.
We do not do well with white men, and we don't do well with married white women.
And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever believes you should.
Commonly said that countries deserve the governments they get.
Does America deserve Donald Trump?
What's gone wrong?
Well, I would have to say no, we did not deserve that.
His whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards.
You know, you didn't like black people getting rights.
You don't like women, you know, getting jobs.
You don't want to, you know, see that Indian American succeeding more than you are.
Whatever your problem is, I'm going to solve it.
You know, it's so outrageous, but it's so predictable.
I will tell you, there is a phenomenon, and I'm looking at 30 years of personal experience, something about presidential candidates when they lose, they lose it.
I mean, think back.
Think of Al Gore losing to George W. Bush.
He lost his mind, Al Gore.
Absolutely goes off the deep end because Al Gore never thought he should have lost to George W. Bush.
And then, you know, look at John McCain.
John McCain loses to Barack Obama.
Absolutely lost it.
Became an entirely different person.
Very angry, very bitter.
I mean, a lot of people lose primaries and they go this way.
And Hillary is lashed out pretty much against everybody because she lost the election.
And now she's blaming the American people for her losing.
All right, we're going to get to that.
We're still not at our top story of the day, which is, of course, the House Intel Committee.
I told you this was probably coming yesterday, and that is no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
I'll give you the details in a second.
Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State, and Mike Pompeo, who I happen to like a lot and think is extraordinarily bright, smart, and a really, really brilliant guy in a lot of ways.
I don't agree with everything, obviously, he says, but he's now going to be Secretary of State.
I didn't see that Rex Tillerson was on the same page as his boss.
And if you're going to be the Secretary of State, you've got to be on the same page as your boss.
It's really that simple.
Anyway, Rex said he's out as of March 31st, and he had a presser today, and here's part of what he said.
I received a call today from the President of the United States at a little afternoon time from Air Force One.
And I've also spoken to White House Chief of Staff Kelly to ensure we have clarity as to the days ahead.
What is most important is to ensure an orderly and smooth transition during a time that the country continues to face significant policy and national security challenges.
As such, effective, at the end of the day, I'm delegating all responsibilities of the Office of the Secretary to Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan.
My commission as Secretary of State will terminate at midnight, March the 31st.
Between now and then, I will address a few administrative matters related to my departure and work towards a smooth and orderly transition for Secretary of State designate Mike Pompeo.
So to my colleagues in the State Department and the interagency, much remains to be done to achieve our mission on behalf of the American people with allies and with partners.
I close by thanking all for the privilege of serving beside you for the last 14 months.
Importantly, to the 300-plus million Americans, thank you for your devotion to a free and open society, to acts of kindness towards one another, to honesty, and the quiet hard work that you do every day to support this government with your tax dollars.
All of us, we know, want to leave this place as a better place for the next generation.
I'll now return to private life as a private citizen, as a proud American, proud of the opportunity I've had to serve my country.
God bless all of you.
God bless the American people.
God bless America.
Now, all morning long, if you've been watching the corrupt media, lying media in this country, they've been running with the fake news that, well, Rex was totally blindsided by his firing and that Trump never spoke to him personally and that he had every intention of carrying on as Secretary of State right up until he got the acts this morning.
Now, that, of course, would make Trump look bad.
That's all part of the narrative, which I'm going to get into with this House intelligence report in a second.
You know, he didn't have the decency to give him a heads up, instead humiliated him publicly.
Except, according to the Hill and other sources, that's not how it went down at all.
And the White House, you know, reportedly fired an aide at the State Department who told the media that Rex Tillerson was blindsided by the firing.
The AP is first reporting that the firing of the Under Secretary of State Steve Goldstein and citing officials was prompted by a statement that he released responding to Tillerson's firing, in which he said that Tillerson did not speak to Trump before the firing and is unaware of the reason behind the dismissal.
Now, that statement strongly suggested that Rex Tillerson found out about his firing from Twitter, though it differs from published accounts of the decision that cited White House sources.
And Goldstein also said Tillerson had every intention of staying before he was fired, but the AP cited two White House officials reporting that Tillerson was told that he would be removed on Friday.
NBC News tweeted the White House chief of staff John Kelly delivered the news to him on Friday.
The AP reported that Kelly had told Tillerson that he might be, that there might be a presidential tweet that would concern him.
So there was no blindsiding, no attempts at public humiliation, and no pink slips.
And you serve at the pleasure of the president.
That's the way these jobs go.
Now on to our big top story.
I want to just lay this out for you.
We have now been sold a bill of goods, a hoax, a lie, a conspiracy theory that even continues in spite of the fact that there's no evidence of any Trump-Russia collusion.
Now, we do have evidence that there was Russia interference in the election.
Nobody disputes that.
We believe that now for a long time.
That we know that in 2014, Devin Nunes personally warned Barack Obama and said to Obama, the Russians are trying to influence our elections like they've been doing the European elections.
He wrote a great column in 2014 that was in the Washington Times.
But when you look at this report and what it says, the major finding is that the House Intel Committee have now ended their 14-month phase of this Russian investigation.
There's still a lot of other investigations to come.
It confirms everything we have been telling you, and it also confirms that the media and Democrats have been flat-out lying to every American for over a year with their breathless, hysterical reporting.
And they, out of pretty much whole cloth, created a Russian collusion conspiracy theory, all designed to smear and delegitimize Donald Trump.
And it's all been a lie.
And I'm going to explain the anatomy of a lie when we get back.
All right, glad you're with us, Sean Hannity Show News.
Information you're not going to get mainstream media.
So this House Intel Committee investigation has gone on 14 months.
14 months.
And they provided an overview and a document yesterday.
More information will follow.
And that is a 14-month bipartisan investigation into the Russia actively targeting the 2016 U.S. election.
You got to remember, Barack Obama was personally warned by Devin Nunes, who is the House Intel Committee chair.
Devin Nunes wrote a piece in the Washington Times in 2014 that Russia was going to do this and that Russia has been doing this.
Barack Obama, just days before the 2016 election, told Donald Trump to stop whining.
There is no serious person out there.
I suggest somehow that you could even rig America's election.
No serious person.
Because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.
There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.
And so I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.
No serious person would ever believe that this is possible.
He was specifically warned, and he said it right up to the election.
Now, Hillary loses, which people didn't think was going to happen.
And so they're grasping at straws.
They need some explanation.
Now, they did everything they can do to destroy Donald Trump in the lead up to the election.
So why would they stop then?
Why not just recognize that the American people have spoken?
And as the American people will decide.
No, that wasn't good enough for them.
So after 14 months, this is what they concluded.
We have found no evidence of collusion, of coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
How anti-Trump research made its way from Russian sources to the Clinton campaign.
They've discovered how that happened.
And the problematic contacts between members of the intelligence community, more specifically James Clapper and those officials, and the news media.
And James Clapper went about telling the world, oh, this is outrageous, these leaks, and on and on and on.
It turns out he was one of the main leakers.
I'm going to explain how profound this is and what it means and how it should impact all of us when we get back.
Later on, Sidney Powell and Sarah Carter will weigh in.
We have Congressman Mark Meadows, Congressman Jim Jordan are going to check in today.
And we have Pastor Scott and Reverend Charles Christian Adams battling over the democratic love of Furrakhan.
All right, 25 now till the top of the air.
All right, the president now has arrived at the border, and he's looking at different border prototypes.
He's meeting up with and talking to, it seems like a high-ranking person in the Border Patrol.
Let's pick this up from where it started just a minute ago.
1992.
So what was it like until you built the wall?
And the wall, by the way, is that wall up there, which is just sheet metal, but still at least it works a little bit.
How was this before you built the wall?
So there was effectively no border in San Diego.
It was a chaotic situation.
This fence behind me, it was made out of scrap metal that the military wasn't using that we set in place to really just delineate the border once.
We needed some.
And it changed our environment.
We went from, we decreased the illegal cross-border traffic by 95% with that fence and the roads and the lights and the technology.
So that's 95% with a scrap metal wall that they just put together with excess material.
And it worked 95%.
And that wall they can get over very easily.
These walls they can.
But, you know, for the people that say no wall, if you didn't have walls over here, you wouldn't even have a country.
You wouldn't even have a country.
And by the way, the state of California is begging us to build walls in certain areas.
They don't tell you that.
And we said, no, we won't do it until we build the whole wall.
But there are certain areas, as you know, where they're really wanting us to build a wall.
And because the people are complaining, people are pouring in.
So, you know, they don't talk about that.
Do you have a preference here, sir?
Well, I do have a preference.
The problem is you have to have see-through.
You have to know what's on the other side of the wall.
And, I mean, a preference is something like that.
The problem is you don't know what's on the other side of the wall.
And if you don't know what's on, I mean, you could be two feet away from a criminal cartel and you don't even know they're there.
Now, we have equipment to take care of that, x-ray equipment, etc.
But if you're on that side of the wall, that's the hardest wall to scale.
It's got a lot of assets.
The problem is, tell them, what do you think about the importance of see-through?
When I have a see-through wall, sir, I know what's approaching the border before it approaches.
We have great partners in Mexico with the law enforcement on that side.
I can call them for assistance.
I don't get the opportunity to get ahead of a threat if I can't see it approaching.
And what's the danger of not having the see-through?
When the steel metal fence behind us, we learned from that back in the 90s, we went in and actually cut inboards where we could see on the south side.
We found that smugglers were using the fence to hide behind.
And they were either rocking our agents or they were to acquire larger groups of people or narcotics, and then they would just rush across the border quickly.
Now, if you just have a pure fence, now that's a fence, a very sturdy fence.
But coming up, I noticed the first thing I noticed, look how many holes are in that fence.
Now, they fix the holes, but it doesn't look very good.
They just patch it with more fence.
But you take a look at the fence, and it's a very powerful fence not doing the trick because they cut holes in it, and then they're patching holes all the time.
I'm just looking, you have hundreds of holes cut in and patched.
So the fence is not strong enough.
It's not the right idea.
But for those people, if you don't have a wall system, you're going to have, we're not going to have a country.
There's a lot of problems in Mexico.
They have a lot of problems over there.
And they have the cartels.
And the cartels, we're fighting the cartels, and we're fighting them hard.
Nobody ever fought them like we fought them.
I mean, we fight them hard.
But the fact is, if you don't have a wall system, it would be Bedlam, I imagine.
It's very hard to control a just personnel, sir.
It's a combination of all people.
So we're looking at the walls where you have some really some see-through capability.
If you don't have some see-through, it's a problem.
So we'll take a look up here.
What they have, just to paint the picture for you a little bit, the president now on the border in San Diego, beating with Border Patrol.
A ton of press, obviously, following with the president.
And what he's being told, he's got different prototypes of different walls.
And one of the things the president is being told by Border Patrol is that they've got to have some capability of actually seeing through on the other side because it gives them an opportunity to, you know, apprehend.
At one point, just putting up the wall in that particular area in San Diego, the Border Patrol agent that was bringing the president around and showing him the different areas actually said to the president, well, it's 95%.
And that's just, you know, cheap fencing that they threw up there for the most part.
And that worked, you know, pretty well.
So the bottom line is, do you want to have a country that is governed by the rule of law or not?
And that's what it's all about.
We'll have full coverage of all this tonight on Hannity.
One interesting bit of news that I just got a hold of.
Apparently, Barack Obama's presidential campaign hired this same Fusion GPS in 2012 to dig up dirt on Mitt Romney.
And the Obama campaign hid their payments to Fusion GPS through the law firm Perkins-Cooey.
Does it all sound familiar?
And the arrangement is exactly the same one that the Clinton campaign and the DNC used to pay Fusion GPS for their investigation into then-candidate Donald Trump.
And the contract led to the creation of the infamous Steele dossier.
Pretty interesting.
What did Barack Obama know about this?
What did the Obama campaign?
Who told Hillary how to do it?
What you do is you funnel the money, Fusion GPS.
You go through this law firm, okay?
You pay the law firm Perkins Cooey, and Perkins Cooey then pays Fusion GPS.
Fusion GPS then hires Christopher Steele.
Christopher Steele has a lot of contacts in Russia, Russian contacts, even Russian government contacts.
And then he'll get fake lies, propaganda.
We won't verify it, but we'll act like it's true.
And then we'll feed it to the media, and we'll lie, manipulate, propagandize the American people.
It's going to be great.
Nobody will even know.
And Hillary would be elected, and nobody would ever find out.
It's going to be awesome.
Tell Vladimir, by the way, tell Vladimir that we're going to have more flexibility after the election.
That's my last election, please.
Yes, that's not my election.
I have more flexibility.
You know what's amazing about that?
The media, Democrats, they've been lying for over a year about all of this.
I mean, this is an incredible finding.
After 14 months, it was a lackluster pre-election response to Russian interference that they were warned about.
That was the Obama administration.
In other words, you got a pattern of Russian attacks on American and European allies.
You have the president then Obama warned in 2014.
There's no pre-election response.
You heard what he said just two weeks.
You have to be pretty stupid.
No serious person would ever believe any of this.
And then we find out what is important.
We have no evidence, found no evidence, a collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
How anti-Trump research made its way from Russian sources to the Clinton campaign and problematic contacts between senior intelligence community officials and the media.
This all sounds familiar because this is what we've been telling you.
It's a major development.
And I will tell you this.
This 14-month investigation, what else can you look into?
Why is this ongoing?
Except that it's a political witch hunt.
I mean, and this does not include anything involving FISA abuse, Uranium One, the unmasking scandal, and the Clinton Bought and Paid Ford dossier.
That's not part of what the House Intel Committee released yesterday.
And the key findings are there's no evidence showing any sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
So what does this mean for Robert Mueller, if anything?
You know, Robert Mueller, okay, if they didn't find it, what is he going to find?
He's not.
He's just moving into other areas with the support of Rod Rosenstein.
Rod Rosenstein is rushing to Mueller's defense because Rod Rosenstein is the one that appointed Robert Mueller, and they're all best friends.
And these guys have to now justify their existence.
You know, say, well, the special counsel is not an unguided missile.
Oh, that is a missile.
Is that how we're supposed to look at special counsels?
Wasn't there a mandate to look into Trump-Russia collusion and they haven't found any?
And all Rosenstein's trying to do is now cover himself because this information proves that Mueller is in and has been in a giant witch hunt.
And of course, you know, what does this say about your news media?
Hang on one second.
Trump is now talking again.
Let's listen.
He's at the border in San Diego.
Let's see what he says.
That's what it was in the 1990s.
It was an open wound, frankly.
It was really, really bad.
People just pouring across, drugs, everything else pouring across.
Now, of course, you have a much bigger worldwide drug problem.
If we ever had nothing here, we have a lousy wall over here now, but at least it stops 90, 95%.
When we put up the real wall, we're going to stop 99%, maybe more than that.
But this is what it is now with a not very good wall.
But here it is before, and the people just pouring across.
The president's holding up pictures from 1999.
Double fencing.
You have a border.
Actually, double fencing.
You have a wall here.
You have bollards.
Right.
And again, it's outdated materials, but it proved the concept.
But, sir, the economic driver of this outlet mall that was built after we reestablished law and order in San Diego sector.
And right behind that's over 500 brand new homes where people have felt so safe near the border.
They've moved back in.
But that's only because the U.S. Border Patrol reestablished law and order.
So they reestablished law and order in San Diego when they put up a wall.
And it's not a superior wall.
It's an inferior wall, but it's a wall.
And you actually use the term reestablished law and order.
Yes, sir.
Amazing.
You hear it, brother.
Say what you want.
This is life.
These are the facts of life.
That's incredible.
That's incredible.
And a part of San Diego needs a wall.
They want a wall very desperately.
They're willing to do anything to get it.
I said, nope, approve the whole wall, California.
Approve the whole wall.
We're not going to do your little pieces that you want.
Approve the whole wall.
We'll show you all of this tonight.
I mean, but it is pretty historic.
And the president looking at the varying prototypes, and he's looking now at pictures before the wall that he built that is not as good.
But I think it's a pretty important point that they were able to build, you know, numerous homes in San Diego because people felt safe because they had reestablished law and order and people couldn't come across at will, which is what those images show from the 1990s.
But let me get back to this.
You know, we've had a pattern.
Everyone talks about Putin a bad actor, you know, the hostile regime that is Russia.
Nobody's doubting any of that or ever has.
And, you know, okay, so we knew that they tried to sow political discord.
Another interesting development is Obama did nothing to stop it.
And the committee agrees with the intelligence community's overall assessment on Russia interference, but they find that Putin did not have a preference of Donald Trump as a candidate, which we now knew from the original Nunes memo.
In other words, they just wanted discord in America any way they could provoke it.
And Republicans also in this Intel report making very clear that the only part of the investigation that is closed is this.
There's so much more to come.
You know, there's a great piece out.
Sarah Carter will join us in the next hour.
And our sources are confirming this.
You know, here we have the Obama director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has apparently been identified as the leaker to fake news CNN of information that then President-elect Donald Trump and then President Barack Obama were briefed about as part of this pony dossier.
And it claims that the Russians have compromising information on President Trump.
This goes to the hookers urinating in the bed story.
And then we now know from Sarah Carter's piece that Clapper was in contact with CNN's Jake Tapper at roughly the exact same time that CNN published a report about President-elect Trump and President Obama being briefed about the dossier.
And if you remember, this created a massive firestorm and it helped lay the groundwork for the media's Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory that they have now been pushing ever since.
And Clapper, by the way, was either the original source or the confirming source for that report.
And you look at this House Intel report, it is pretty unbelievable what we have now heard throughout the years.
It's been over 14 months now.
We've been uncovering this scandal and telling you the truth and shocked every step of the way.
And the House Intel Committee is still going further in their work, and I think this is only the beginning.
But, you know, they proved that everything we've been telling you on this program and on TV is true.
Anybody with half a brain could see there was no collusion.
And the media should be apologizing to the American people, and they're not.
They were spreading outright lies, propaganda, misinformation, and conspiracy theories for a year.
And in some cases, 14, 16 months.
And Democrats, they're in the same position as the media.
You know, how pathetic has the media been in all this?
How pathetic has, you know, Adam Schiff been in all of this?
He's known the entire time there was no evidence.
And he finally got called out by Megan McCain about a week and a half ago.
And he had, oh, it's already out there, the evidence.
There is no evidence.
And then Obama, just like we've been telling you, you know, we're finding out he did nothing to stop the Russian election interference, even though he was warned as early as 2014.
The headline from Nunes' op-ed is, you know, the bear out there talking about Russia wanting to interfere in our elections.
Anyway, and I think what's worse is that while all this interference was happening, Obama was shaming candidate Trump.
Stop whining.
No serious person would ever believe this.
It's unbelievable that this is the biggest abuse of power scandal in the history of this country.
The biggest corruption scandal in the history of this country.
And your news media has been missing in action, soaking up the lies of the Democratic Party the entire time.
And the sad part is the witch hunt continues.
This is pretty interesting.
A new book by David Korn and Michael Izakoff, you know, who's the investigative reporter in the Monica Lewinsky case anyway.
Apparently, they have identified the Russian source for Trump's dossier's golden showers episode in Moscow.
And when contacted by the Daily Caller, that source now says the golden shower episode never happened.
Now, you think the FBI might have been able to find out?
Robert Mueller could have found that out during their investigation before they presented it before a FISA judge as the bulk of information to get a warrant to spy on an opposition party candidate?
Just say it.
Just think it.
So, Congressman, you are ending the interview phase here of the House Intelligence Committee investigation into Russia's meddling in the election.
You've got a draft report out tonight that you're going to give the Democrats tomorrow.
Give us the headline.
What did you find?
Well, the headlines are that we've reached that point where we've interviewed all the folks we need to.
We've looked at some 300,000 documents, 73 interviews that we've done across the course of the state, trying to answer the four questions that were originally set out for the committee to answer.
Yes, the Russians tried to interfere with our election process.
Yes, they had cyber attacks, active measures going on.
We could find no evidence of collusion between either campaign and the Russians.
And we also have some recommendations.
We'll have recommendations that speak to what we do with elections going forward, how important it is for Americans to be on guard on a process that's sacred to our democracy, our representative republic, quite frankly, and that is the electing of leadership across this country.
But on that, the big piece of the puzzle that everybody has been talking about, which is one of the reasons why your investigation was struck in the first place, no collusion that you found.
No evidence.
No evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Or the Clinton campaign.
Based upon the number of people that you've talked to, the number of documents that you've looked at, and the interim conclusion that you have come to based on the evidence at hand, do you think that the Mueller investigation could possibly find anything different than you did when it comes to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
So, John, I don't want to go there.
We're not having anything to do whatsoever, the Mueller investigation.
He's got separate tools, separate authorities, and everything else.
And you believe the IOP does a terrific job of whatever it is he's doing, but we didn't find any evidence of collusion, and I don't know that he will either.
How many different ways can you say at hour two Sean Hannity show?
Now, that was the news that was made last night: the House Intel Committee with a preliminary report, no evidence of collusion whatsoever.
And that was Mike Conway, Congressman Conway, of the House Intel Committee, saying that.
No evidence of collusion on anybody's part.
But it certainly seems that, in another way, there was a lot of collusion as it relates to Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
And then, of course, we've got the revelation that the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, leaked information as it relates to the dossier to CNN, which could be a violation of law in and of itself.
Anyway, here to help us sort through all of this from the Freedom Caucus.
It's chairman, Mark Meadows, North Carolina congressman, and from the great state of Ohio, Congressman Jim Jordan, is with us.
Welcome both of you back to the program.
Glad you're with us.
Great to be with you, Sean.
Thanks so much.
All right, let's start with this interim report.
This is one part of the many investigations that are ongoing.
What is your take, Congressman Meadows?
Well, I mean, we show what we've known for some time is that there's no collusion between the Trump campaign and literally the allegations that have been made.
And so it not only verifies that, but Sean, it's important to point out: we have spent more time investigating this Democrat paid-for dossier and the supposed collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
And yet there's nothing here to really support that.
So it's time that we get on to the people's business, and that's the real Trump agenda, and that's making sure that we put the government back in its rightful place.
And that's the owners should be the American people, and that's what we need to be focused on.
It should be what we've been putting.
This has been a 14-month investigation.
And now you can go back and you can listen to Adam Schiff, who I think wants to be a host on cable television, Congressman Jordan, because, I mean, the guy's been on only nearly 300 times.
And, you know, I'm trying to understand from my perspective here after 14 months, and they have nothing.
How is it people say, well, we need to investigate even further?
What are they talking about?
Well, there were two takeaways from yesterday, Sean.
The first was they told us what we already knew, which was there's no collusion between the Trump campaign, no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians to influence the election.
The second thing is they confirmed what we all suspected, namely that James Clapper was leaking information.
And not just any information.
It looks like he leaked information after that critical meeting on January 6th, where the intelligence community goes up and tells President-elect Trump about the dossier.
And I think they did that meeting so that they could give the dossier legitimacy.
And then Mr. Clapper supposedly leaks the CNN and then BuzzFeed prints the whole thing.
Remember, at that point, the dossier had already been used, had already been taken to the Prize of Court to secure the warrant.
So those, in my mind, were the two takeaways yesterday.
One, confirmed what we already knew, no collusion between Trump and Russians.
The second, what we all suspected, Clapper was leaking information.
But the language is phenomenal.
It says we found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
How the anti-Trump research literally made its way from Russian sources to the Clinton campaign, and it's problematic because we have people in the intelligence community leaking information to the news media here.
Now, this doesn't include the unmasking scandal.
This doesn't include Uranium One.
This doesn't include the dossier.
This is very specific towards the whole charge that we've heard since the election in 2016.
And that is that, oh, there's been Trump-Russia collusion.
There has not.
There's no evidence of it.
Has anybody ever on the Democratic side presented any evidence of it?
I have not seen it.
Well, there's no evidence of it, Sean.
I think Jim makes a good point.
One of the key components here is that James Clapper being a leaker to the media and being the source that authenticates a document that, quite frankly, was a Democrat campaign opposition research document, gave it authenticity where all of a sudden it took on a life of its own.
And so his particular role should be one to keep the America's secrets.
Instead, he was out there spilling the beans and trying to create a narrative that we now have spent 14 months trying to investigate.
Well, the bottom line is: where do we go from here?
And what about Robert Mueller?
Because Robert Mueller seems to have moved very far away from what his original mandate was supposed to be.
Now, I'm looking at Rod Rosenstein and what I think are ridiculous comments by him, and that is that this special counsel is not an unguided missile.
He's telling you, I don't believe there's any justification at this point for terminating the special counsel.
All I can tell the special counsel is doing is setting perjury traps for people and getting into people's finances that have nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia at all.
Yeah, the best thing Rod Rosenstein could do is him and Jeff Sessions appoint the second special counsel, make sure that individual is not from the swamp, make sure they're from somewhere across the heartland, the utmost character, and they do this investigation.
And while that's going on, we in Congress need to continue to do our investigation.
And it'd be nice if Rod Rosenstein would give us the information we asked him for.
That's what he can do best.
He can say what he wants about the Mueller investigation.
What we know is to date, not one bit of evidence showing any type of coordination between the Russians and President Trump's campaign.
So why don't Rod Rosenstein and Jeff Sesson just appoint that second special counsel and give us the information we need to do our investigation?
Well, that's Sean.
Let me jump in there real quickly because Jim makes a valid point.
You know, on oversight in Government Reform Committee, the Judiciary Committee, we've requested some 1.2 million documents, the same ones that the Inspector General is looking at, but we want those in unredacted form.
We've gotten less than 10,000 unique documents to date, and we continue to find this is Rod Rosenstein, our administration.
We continue to ask for it, and yet we get it in a fashion that, quite frankly, has very little value.
So it's important that we get the documents so that we can get to the bottom of the story.
And I think you'll see it points in a very different direction towards Hillary Clinton and the Democrat campaign to spin this narrative.
Okay, so the way do we go with Mueller at the end here?
You know, because I played last night on Hannity.
I played literally, you know, just a week and a half before the election, then President Obama telling Donald Trump to stop whining that no serious person would ever think it's possible that the Russians could ever, you know, have any impact on our electoral system or anybody else.
And it turns out that if you go back to May of 2014, Devin Nunes of the House Intel Committee was warning Obama about this very specific threat.
And that Obama did nothing.
And it seems this narrative only emerged because they never thought Hillary was going to lose, and she did lose.
Yeah, I think based on the fact that Mr. Clapper was leaking information, they were a little more concerned about undermining what the American people did when they made Donald Trump president than they may have been in actually dealing with the issue at hand, namely the fact Russia was trying to sow chaos in our electoral process.
I don't think they did, but never the fact that they were trying to do that.
So, yeah, we got to take that seriously, and let's hope that going forward we're doing the things that need to be done.
Well, I hope so.
What about the second special counsel?
It seems when the Attorney General mentioned to Shannon Bream last week that, in fact, he had had now for a couple of months somebody that once worked at the DOJ now investigating a lot of these issues, especially FISA abuse issues.
Where's that going to go?
I mean, is that a prelude to a special counsel?
Why has it taken so long to get a special counsel?
Well, it shouldn't take so long.
Jim and I have been asking for a second special counsel for almost seven months.
It does look like we're closer to that decision than we've ever been before.
But there's a reluctance, and the reluctance many times is to suggest, once you appoint that, that perhaps there was some type of bias within the Department of Justice and DOJ.
And we believe, Jim and I both believe, the vast majority of our FBI and DOJ officials are great public servants.
But there is enough suggestion that a few people acted inappropriately, specifically with regards to getting the FISA warrant and the way that it was done and using the dossier, that we believe only an independent third party could do that.
So the pressure will continue to ramp up until hopefully they make that appointment.
Sean, Sean, think about this.
James Comey has been fired.
Andrew McCabe has stepped down.
Jim Rabicki, former chief of staff, has left the FBI.
Jim Baker, former general counsel, has been reassigned and demoted.
Peter Strzok has been demoted and reassigned.
Lisa Page demoted and reassigned.
That's the top people at the FBI.
So we're supposed to think that they can investigate themselves.
Of course, we need a second special counsel, but let's make sure you don't pick someone from the swamp who's part of the deal.
Pick someone outside of there, and let's figure it out.
And then let's let Congress get the information that we need so we can get answers for the American people.
Well, I think that's the bottom line.
I also think the American people, you know, in spite of all of this, we've been able to get a lot of things done.
I was frankly stunned when the Heritage Foundation came out with their study that showed that the president has already accomplished 64 percent of his agenda, which was higher than Ronald Reagan's first year at 49 percent.
And usually in first years of presidencies, we get a lot done.
I think we could have gotten even a lot more of that done had we had more Freedom Caucus members in the House and the Senate.
What do you guys both expect that will be accomplished legislatively this year?
And does the President have the authority to get money for the wall from other places?
Well, we're going to be making that decision here shortly.
You know, we're obviously looking at the omnibus spending package coming up here in the coming days.
But the real thing is, and Jim and I think we both agree, when it comes to funding sanctuary cities and really these mayors who are willing to oppose the president's agenda and really oppose the rule of law, perhaps the monies, the federal monies that go to law enforcement officers in those areas should be held back until they're actually going to work and uphold the rule of law and make sure their communities are safer.
And so that's one aspect that we can get done.
But I can tell you, the president is really laser focused on making sure that not only we address the transportation needs, but we roll back regulations.
So it's actually working out pretty well.
Regulations and taxes are down.
The economy is up.
ISIS is backpedaling.
The embassy has gone to Jerusalem.
And Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court.
Pretty darn good first year by anyone standard.
You wouldn't know that if you listened to CNN, but if you listen to the right people and you talk to Americans across the country, they know it was a pretty darn good year for President Trump.
Well, I think at the end of the day, are either one of you worried about Congress and which way that's going to go in 2018?
Well, I think we're worried, but, you know, as Jim always says, it never hurts to do what you told the American people you would do.
That's what this president is doing.
He's weighing in campaign promise after another.
I don't think we can sit back and coast for the next seven months.
We need to be serious about moving forth the agenda.
If we are, then the results will take care of themselves in November.
And if not, then certainly we do have plenty to worry about in the midterms.
All right.
Thank you both for being with us.
Jim Jordan, Ohio Congressman, thank you.
And Congressman Mark Meadows from North Carolina.
Toll-free on telephone number is 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
All right, let's get to our busy phones here.
Then we have Sarah Carter and Sidney Powell going to join us now that the House Intel Committee has come out with their conclusion, which we've known all along there's no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Well, what has Mueller got to do here?
Rob in Dallas, Texas.
Rob on the answer.
Rob, how are you?
Well, glad you called.
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
Oh, thank you.
I'm well, Sean, and thank you for taking the call.
Well, thank you, sir.
Certainly, with that revelation from the House Intel Committee, after a year of investigation, we have zero, no shred, no hint of evidence at any collusion between the Trump administration and Russia.
None, nothing.
I did want to make a further point, Sean.
Last week and throughout various shows, you do a great job of vocalizing the litany of nefarious actions that we suspected took place before the election, but we didn't have any proof at that point.
But I wanted to real quickly highlight something we emphatically did know, Sean.
The DNC informed the FBI of an alleged hack into their server prior to the election.
You would think that our top policing agency would need to take a look at those servers, but no, no.
I'm sorry.
We're going to provide CrowdStrike, a Ukrainian firm who could not possibly have anything against Russia, to go ahead and do that forensic analysis.
And our top policing agency is just going to take that information from CrowdStrike at face value.
Listen, what you're saying, and the issues with CrowdStrike are 1,000% accurate.
Why the FBI didn't insist on seeing those computers is beyond any comprehension I have.
Why they were allowed to do that?
I don't know.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back.
And Sidney Powell, Sarah Carter, join us next.
Our top story.
Yes, no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
We'll continue.
Donald Trump now sits at the threshold of impeachment.
You told the Washington Post last week that, quote, there's a smell of treason in the air when it comes to this investigation.
A lot of people are afraid to use the T-word of treason, but in the end, that's what people are investigating.
If there's any data to be watching, Ari.
It is today.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
A lot going on.
Well, you know, it's been a long time.
As you said, it's been 15 months.
We interviewed something like 73 witnesses, looked at something like 310,000 documents.
But, you know, this can't surprise anyone.
I mean, it really just can't.
How long have you been saying that?
How long have I and others been saying that?
For heaven's sakes, Dianne Feinstein said this.
James Clapper said this.
And I challenge Mr. Schiff, who seems to think that there's some secret evidence that he can't reveal.
Two things on that.
One is, does anyone in the world believe that if there was evidence of collusion that it would not have been leaked under the circumstances that we've seen?
Of course it would.
You would already know about it.
And the second thing is, this is such an important point, Sean.
We've been accusing people of conspiracy and treason.
And at the end of the day, these people are innocent.
Aren't these others who oppose what the Republicans have said on this?
Aren't they willing to come forward and just say, you know what, maybe we got this wrong?
It's not fair to these individuals to keep this cloud over them when there just isn't evidence to support that.
What do you got hard?
Well, Chris, unfortunately, I can't go into the evidence that's being done.
Do you have something hard that you can't reveal?
I can't reveal that, Chris.
Of course, there's one thing to say there's evidence.
There's another thing to say we can prove a reasonable doubt or there's enough evidence to bring to a grand jury for purposes of criminal indictment.
I don't think we can say anything definitively at this point.
We are still at the very early stage of the investigation.
Last March, you said you had more than circumstantial evidence of treasonous collusion with Russia.
What specifically were you referring to?
And please be specific, because if it's true, I do believe Americans have the right to know a year later what that is.
Well, I've certainly said that there's ample evidence of collusion.
I've never used the word treason.
Only Steve Bannon has used that word.
But if you look at the facts that are already in the public domain, they're pretty damning.
All right, that was Adam Schiff and the great evolution of his opinions.
I thought Megan McCain was unbelievable in that interview.
Joining us now, where do we go from here?
We have Sidney Powell with us, author of the best-selling book, License to Kill, Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, and a federal appellate attorney and senior advisor for American First, and Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor.
Welcome, both of you.
Sidney, I mean, you know, he did say all of that a year ago.
And here we are a year later, you know, 14 months into this investigation.
They still cannot define what collusion is because it doesn't exist, but they still want to keep going.
Yes, I think it's going to take a second special counsel, Sean, certainly as long as Rod Rosenstein is in the Department of Justice because he's one of the people that signed the phony FIFA application.
And so did Dana Buente, who I think now may be general counsel at the FBI.
Well, so, I mean, at this point, does he just get to go on a fishing expedition off into any area he wants?
You know, financial dealings going back 20 years that have nothing to do with either the Trump campaign or anything to do with Russia?
Is it basically a fishing expedition?
Find anything you can, justify your existence, stay in existence as long as you can.
It is a fishing expedition, but I think even worse than that, it's a targeted hunting expedition.
I mean, I think they definitely targeted people in and around the president in the White House and other places, and they're going after it as hard as they can to find whatever they can to squeeze everybody they can to put increasing pressure on the president and destroy the administration.
Well, I think in large part, everything we knew, this was not the biggest surprise in the world, Sarah Carter, but I mean, it is pretty devastating after 14 months, you know, having the House Intel Committee, which I think they have investigated this harder than anybody to say they found zero evidence of any collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
And they did describe how anti-Trump research, you know, did make its way from Russian sources to the Clinton campaign.
And a lot of this, as you wrote in your article last night, we have Intel officials at the highest level.
And in one case, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, leaking CNN.
Yes, and that's going to be part of this report, okay, that's coming out.
As soon as we see the full report, the full scope of it, Sean, a lot more details will be coming out, particularly with leaks and how the Russians got their information to the Clinton campaign.
And I think that's vitally important because as, you know, as Sidney put it so well, I mean, this is the reason why a second special counsel is being advocated by members like Trey Gowdy and others who have come before Sean Hannity.
Sean Hannity, of course.
Yeah, if you look at not just Clapper, but today, former CIA director John Brennan puts out, you know, this tweet that says, leadership of House Intel Committee has traded that last vestige of integrity for politics with other investigative shoes yet to drop.
Well, I have something to say to former FBI, former CIA Director John Brennan, who I had the pleasure of interviewing before he left the CIA.
The other investigative shoes that are going to drop are going to be the FISA investigation that is ongoing, abuse of the Fifth Court, the unmasking, which he was asked about in a hearing, and the dossier.
Those are three major investigations, ongoing investigations, where the shoe is about to drop.
And it's not going to drop on the Trump campaign.
It's going to drop on the former Obama administration officials that appear to have colluded to taint an incoming president and actually stop him from being the president-elect.
So this is going to be a very intense investigation.
It's not going to stop with Russia.
We know there's no Russian collusion now.
It's going to go on.
And those are the investigations that the American public are waiting for.
At the end of the day, I started the year by saying this is the year of the boomerang.
All right.
So now we have learned an awful lot since your first report, March 8th of 2017, when you and John Solomon reported that there was a FISA warrant against the Trump campaign.
And even the president tweeted out something to the effect that, you know, he was being spied on, and everybody in the media mocked him.
Nobody picked up on what you had been saying.
I was excoriated in the press as being a conspiracy theorist because I fully had confidence in your reporting.
And it turned out everything that you wrote was 1,000% true and then some.
And in fact, now we find ourselves that, you know, the special counsel is appointed.
But think of all that we learned in the last year.
You know, we learned that Hillary rigged the primary in the last year.
We learned that from Donna Brazil's book.
We learned that Hillary Clinton, that the investigation into her email server, that was rigged, that the fix was in with James Comey and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe and likely Loretta Lynch.
And then we learned that, yeah, finally, after a year, we found out that it was Fusion GPS being paid by the Clinton campaign.
They didn't want to tell us that for a long time, and that it was bought and paid for by Hillary and the money she used from her campaign and the money she was controlling at the DNC.
And we discovered, oh, by the way, it became, according to the Grassley Graham memo, it became the bulk of information in the application for the first FISA warrant on Carter Page, a Trump associate, an opposition campaign in the lead up to a presidential election.
And then it was renewed four times based on unverified, salacious information that was put out there.
I mean, it's unbelievable to me.
And we learned from the FISA court decision itself that was unsealed that there was definitely abuse of the FISA process, including by the FBI, who gave private contractors unlimited access to raw FISA intel.
Yeah.
I mean, that's the raw NSA data.
Sarah, what are you going to say?
Oh, I was going to say, Sydney is absolutely right on that.
I mean, look, they're going to be looking at the extent of abuse by the FBI, by the Bureau, in the Fifth Court, not just Carter Page, but how far did this go?
And those were revealed in documents by the FISC.
I mean, the Fisk Court went after the Obama administration and reprimanded them for their behavior and what they did with the FISC and including the FBI and how they were sharing information with contractors that weren't even cleared to have this information and how they expanded under Obama these rules for sharing information and the unmasking of Americans.
I think we forget.
That is where this all started.
I mean, and this is where it might end.
We have to find out why people like Samantha Power were unmasking 300, over 300 people in the last year.
What did you determine?
It was a 350% increase in just one year, wasn't it?
That's absolutely true.
No, it was a 350% increase from when they first, from 2013 on when the laws were changed.
And in the last year, it increased exponentially, which is when we saw Samantha Powers, when that was revealed, that there were over 300 unmaskings done by her alone, one every day until she left office, which was so unusual because even if you talk to others who held her position, I'll give an example.
I spoke with Ambassador John Bolton about this, and he said, in my entire career at the UN, there were only five unmaskings.
Wow.
It's hard to imagine why a UN ambassador would be conducting unmaskings of Americans.
Well, but it's even worse than that.
She had said publicly that she wasn't the one doing it, but it was being done in her name.
How does that happen?
Exactly.
Why hasn't that been in the middle?
So what I'm hearing both of you say, and Sarah, what you're saying here is unmasking, that's separate and apart from what we're learning from the House Intel Committee.
The dossier is basically separate and apart.
Uranium One is separate and apart.
So really, none of this beyond what Mueller is doing, and God knows I think he has so overreached every step of the way, and it's been such a partisan team that he's put together.
Every step of the way, we keep getting more evidence, but it works in the opposite direction.
It's the opposite of what everybody thought.
Donald Trump didn't pay for a Russian dossier full of salacious lies about Hillary.
You know, it wasn't his dossier that was used to, that never became verified and was used to get a Pfizer warrant to spy on Hillary's campaign.
So everything is backwards.
When I heard your tape playing, someone was commenting about collusion between the White House and the president and everything that was going on.
I thought, yes, that was the Obama White House.
That's who was colluding with the Russians and the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to create this firestorm to destroy Donald Trump.
Well, and that was the thing.
I mean, look, the Clinton campaign, Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC, they pay fusion GPS to dig up dirt on the Russians.
Well, how are you going to dig up dirt on President Trump and Russia?
So where are you going to get that from?
Well, you've got to go to the Russians.
So they must have at that point known.
And Christopher Steele goes to former Russian FSB spies, current FSB spies, puts together this dossier.
And not only that, let's talk about it frankly.
He goes to the State Department officials, people who were friends with him, who, by the way, are very close to Hillary Clinton.
Sidney Blumenthal, Cody Scheer, they're feeding him information too, because how do we know that?
Because the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham, both look into this and finally disclose this criminal referral they have on Christopher Steele, who, by the way, lied to the FBI.
I mean, this is incredible.
And not only did they have information, they shared it with the American public.
Shouldn't we be able to get the original and subsequent renewal FISA warrants and take a look at them?
Doesn't the expense of the thing we need the actual documents.
The American people deserve to see the actual documents.
All right, we'll take a break.
We'll come back.
Sidney Powell and Sarah Carter are with us.
All right, as we continue with Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor, and Sidney Powell is back with us, author of License to Lie, Exposing Corruption at the Department of Justice.
You know, I'm just trying to figure out where is Robert Mueller going in all of this.
Sidney, you know the team that he has surrounded himself with.
I've talked about the partisan nature of that team that he's assembled, and they don't have any Republican or Trump donors.
They only have Obama, Clinton, and DNC donors.
And worse than that, they have Andrew Weissman, who destroyed Arthur Anderson in 85,000 jobs and made up crimes and sent innocent people to prison and hid evidence that showed they were innocent.
How many times did he withhold exculpatory evidence in cases that you know?
At least two in cases that I can think of.
Sarah documented one in an article that she did, and I've certainly documented a lot of evidence that was hidden in my book, License to Lie.
Weissman is the lead villain of License to Lie.
And then we have to ask ourselves, Sarah, why did Mueller, I know he's friends with Weissman.
He's been protecting Weissman for 20 years or more.
He brought him into the FBI to serve as general counsel and special assistant.
He knows him very well.
So did he not think in picking him even for the Enron task force?
Well, I also know Catherine Rumler, who wound up being Obama's White House counsel.
She's in License to Lie and she's now defending Susan Rice on the unmaskings and Susan's efforts in the Obama White House and her role in all this, including that note to self that she wrote to document a meeting 10 or 15 days earlier in which they purportedly didn't talk about the Steele dossier in that particular meeting.
It's unbelievable.
You guys have been doing phenomenal work.
I can't thank you enough.
Sarah Carter, Sidney Powell.
It's pretty unbelievable to me that the rest of the media has just decided to sit on what is the biggest abuse of power that has ever taken place in American history, and they seem unfazed by it.
And even though we now know no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, they just keep going.
And if they don't have that, they've got another 50 hours a day of storming anything to destroy and delegitimize President Trump.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
Mr. Trump said there's a lot of killers out there.
Do you think America is innocent?
Did I lie?
Did I?
Was that an alternative fact?
That's what they said, right?
And look at the way they jumped on Mr. Trump.
How could you compare America with Mr. Putin?
No, you're not as good as Mr. Putin or Russia because the judgment of God is not on Russia.
The judgment of God is on America.
You're the most rotten nation on the earth.
That is why God has come and you are number one on his list to be destroyed.
In this book, there's a law for retaliation.
A law for retaliation.
Yes, sir.
Like for like.
That's right.
The Bible says, an eye, a tooth, a life.
See, now, as long as they kill us and go to Wendy's and have a burger and go to sleep, they're going to keep killing us.
But when we die and they die, then soon we're going to sit at a table and talk about retired.
We want some of this earth, brother, because we'll tear this damn country up.
That's right.
Bashalami.
White folks are going down.
And Satan is going down.
And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that satanic Jew.
And I'm here to say, your time is up.
All right, there it is, the man himself, Louis Farrakhan.
And, you know, anybody that's ever followed Louis Farrakhan should know that he is incredibly racist, incredibly anti-Semitic.
And one of the problems now the Democratic Party has is that, well, a lot of Democrats are friends with this guy.
And I think the most incredible thing that came out is that, oh, in 2008, there was a picture of Louis Farrakhan with Barack Obama.
And that picture was hidden on purpose from public view because, well, that would have hurt his chances of being elected president.
Anyway, you've got now seven particular congressmen are saying that these congressmen that are friends with Farrakhan need to resign.
Here to be with us, we have Pastor Darrell Scott, Executive Director of the National Diversity Coalition for Trump and senior pastor of the New Spirit Revival Center.
The Reverend Charles Christian Adams is with us, presiding pastor of the Hartford Memorial Baptist Church.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Do you know Reverend Adams?
Do you know Louis Farrakhan?
I do not know him personally, but I have done work with the Nation of Islam and the city of Detroit and in other cities where I have lived and ministered.
Do you find him to be anti-Semitic, what you just heard, and racist?
I find a lot of his remarks to be anti-Semitic and offensive.
But I also find a lot of the work that they are doing in communities that have been marginalized to be effective and acceptable.
So you're saying that he's like a good racist and anti-Semite?
Am I interpreting what you're saying?
You say he was a good racist and Semite.
Oh, you're saying the racist and anti-Semite.
Well, you're saying the racist and anti-Semite does good works.
The Nation of Islam does excellent work in the African-American community.
Isn't he the leader of that group?
He's the leader of that group.
Yes, absolutely.
He has been for a long time.
And I do not agree with everything that Farrakhan has said about you, about homosexuals, and about the Christian church.
Although of late, he's kind of changed those views.
But I don't agree with him on a lot of levels.
But I do understand people's willingness to work with the Nation of Islam because I've done it myself.
They do good work in the community.
So an organization led by a virulent anti-Semite and racist does good work in the community and you work with them.
I will work with anybody of goodwill who is doing effective and positive work in the community.
Even Pastor Scott.
And you don't think this is divisive what he said?
You don't think his words are divisive?
I don't agree with everything he said.
You don't think his words are dividing the country and dividing groups and individuals when I would think, Pastor Scott, that a pastor's job is to bring people together.
First of all, I would go on record of stating that Louis Farrakhan is full of more crap than a Christmas turkey.
I need you to get that in your mind.
How much crap a turkey is stuffed with around Christmas time?
I don't know him personally, but I have a Jewish friend that knows him and a Jewish friend that paid him.
He did work for this Jewish friend of mine to the Jewish friend of mine to advance a cause that the Jewish friend had, and he used race baiting to advance the cause.
So I have a different conception of Louis Farrakhan because I know some things behind the scenes that he sells people out for the sake of a dollar.
I mean, if he's a virulent anti-Semite, he's a racist.
He hates white people.
And a lot of Christian pastors, black Christian pastors, actually suck up to this guy.
And I'm not amazed at the fact that all of these so-called black leaders are sucking up to him as well, those Democrats, because to be honest, in the black community, a rite of passage for them is to suck up to Louis Farrakhan because they think they need his affirmation or his validation to confirm their blackness or their standing in the black community.
Barack Obama was in Chicago all those years.
There's probably a lot of pictures of him with Farrakhan and a lot of these other blacks.
I had to speak at an event one time, and someone told me after I finished speaking, I was speaking on behalf of our president.
And they said, well, you need to meet with the minister.
I said, Minister, who?
Minister Farrakhan, no, I don't need to meet with that guy.
I wouldn't meet with him.
He's an anti-Christian.
He's a racist.
He's anti-Semite.
He's anti-white people.
And he's pro-Farrakhan.
And he's playing a lot of people.
Let me ask Reverend Adams this question.
The nation of Islam is not even genuine Islam.
It's a hybrid creation of Elijah Muhammad.
His movement, this guy, has become irrelevant.
And the only thing that gives him relevancy is if some black people get beat up or something, now he comes back crawling out from under his rock.
What if there was a group of white supremacists, Nazis, neo-Nazis, and in your view, they wanted to do some good work in a city or a town.
Would you partner with them too, Reverend Adams?
Well, I think if you have common interests, it's almost like President Trump saying that there's good people on both sides of the Charlottesville.
You're not answering my question.
If the Ku Klux Klan, if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to build a park, you know, in an area of town that needs a park and they asked you to help with it, they're, quote, doing a good work.
Would you partner with them?
I would partner with, I partnered with worse.
As a matter of fact, but the reality is, though, I wouldn't partner with them.
You have never seen the Kluk.
Wouldn't want anything.
I wouldn't want anything to do with it.
Are you kidding me?
They're murderers.
Wait a minute.
Henry Ford has been known for his anti-Semitic past, but yet we will partner with Ford Motor Company in positive programs.
We know that the history of the United States has been littered with racist organizations that have had racist past or racists.
Yeah, but that's not our question.
I'm asking you, Reverend Scott.
I'm asking you, Reverend Scott.
I'm asking you, Reverend Adams, why you would work with people that have these vicious views.
Listen, I wouldn't work with him simply because my participation with him in anything he does validates him.
I'm adding my signature to everything that he stands for.
They had a church in Cleveland, Ohio one time that had Louis Faircon come in and speak, and I got into some controversy on my radio station because I said they might as well offer a swine on the altar.
That's the abomination of desolation to have that virulent Antichrist to come in and speak in the Christian church.
So, no, I wouldn't share a platform with them.
I wouldn't share, I wouldn't do anything.
But now, if it was a dead person laying on the street that needs to be picked up and he was picking up with his arms and I'd get his leg, of course, but I'm doing it for that person.
But I wouldn't do anything that would validate or authenticate or act like I'm in agreement with anything that that man does because I'm opposed to everything that he does and everything that he stands for.
And the Nation of Islam, I don't know what good work you're saying they're doing so bad.
The Nation of Islam, quite frankly, is played out.
Well, I think that's a generalization and oversimplification.
They are doing work in the prison re-entry.
I'm not laughing because they are helping prisoners.
But the whole purpose of their prison re-entry is to convert.
They're not doing prison re-entry to make society better.
They're doing prison re-entry to convert those guys into Muslims.
It's religious.
It's not social.
They're doing it for us.
They're not doing it to make a guy business.
We cannot talk together, Pastor Walker.
But what I'm telling you is they are creating opportunities in the African-American community for people who cannot get employed in mainstream America.
They are in the prisons teaching positive, uplifting values of accountability and responsibility to people who have been abandoned by a justice system that incarcerates and does not rehabilitate.
As a matter of fact, they're habilitating those who cannot be rehabilitated.
Down the street, the justice system is not snatching black people off the street and putting them in jail for nothing.
Now, if you got busted selling some dope and committing a crime, and you think it don't do the crime if you can't do the time, but they're not trying to bring these guys out to make them better social, better socially.
They want to convert them to Islam.
That's the purpose.
That's why they engaged, to convert them to Islam.
Then, after they convert them to Islam, they want them to get a job so they can continue to support Islam.
Right.
And you know I'm telling the truth.
You flood somebody's community with illicit drugs.
You allow a double-digit unemployment rate to exist in a community.
All right, we're going to take a break.
We'll come back.
Cool things down a little bit.
Pastor Scott, Reverend Charles Christian Adams, 800-941-Sean.
We need to put the American flag down because we've got as much hell under that as the Confederate flag.
Who are we fighting today?
It's the people that carry the American flag.
What flag do the police have?
What flag flies over the non-justice department?
What flag flies over the White House where a black man lives that's called new every day?
What about that flag?
All right, there's Farrakhan talking about putting down the American flag.
You know, I mean, we're going to tear this GD country up.
I can't believe in any way, Reverend Adams, you'd ever want to do business with this guy.
It shocks my soul.
Or do business with, you know, neo-Nazi groups or, you know, any hate groups like this are people that, you know, live on this vitriol and animus and hatred and divisiveness.
Well, I don't know.
Why do you want to be around those people?
I want nothing to do with them.
I wouldn't even know where to look to not be around the center.
I'm not talking about sinning.
I'm talking about virulent hatred, racism, anti-Semitism.
Why would you work with people that are racist and anti-Semites?
Why would you work with them?
I wouldn't.
I would love to have a conversation with Sarah Khan about his beliefs.
But I know that we have immediate issues that need to be dealt with in the African-American community.
And the whole thing that has stirred this up has been the presence of the women's march leader at the Savior's Day event, in which you ought to give her a medal for sitting through a three or four hour speech of anybody.
But whatever the case may be, I wouldn't do it.
But I think a lot of the problem has been not her sitting there listening.
I'm talking about you.
I think anybody that sits through.
But I mean, just like the people that went to that million man march, I said, you can't separate the man from the march and say, well, he represents good things, Pastor Scott.
He doesn't represent good things.
He represents, if he's representing, any good thing he's trying to represent is his own bank account.
And he's using people.
He's playing black people like a fiddle and they're falling for it every time.
You don't need that guy's affirmation as a lot of these quote-unquote black leaders think they do.
And, Reverend Adams, we're not talking about you having to have some random contact with him.
We're talking about the Bible says what fellowship has light with the darkness.
There has to be a dividing line of I can't cross this line because of who this guy is and what this guy represents.
They're talking about Adolf Hitler.
This guy's worse than Hitler because if he had the power of Hitler, he'd kill more people than Hitler did.
He advocates murder.
He advocates violence.
How could you say that he does some good things when his bad outweighs his good?
I got to leave it there.
We're going to give you the last word, Pastor Scott, today.
We appreciate both of you being with us when we come back.
Wide open telephones, 800-941-Sean is a toll-free number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Quick break, right back.
We'll have a lot more on the breaky news.
No evidence of collusion.
Your reaction to that and the other news of the day, Rex Tillerson out, and much more.
Straight ahead.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
We're going to get to your calls here in just a minute.
You know, so the House comes out with this report, which is devastating.
After 14 months, we have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
And there are other initial findings, how anti-Trump research actually was taken from Russian sources and given to the Clinton campaign.
Well, we know how that happened.
They bought and paid for it.
You know, we've been playing for you, the montage of all of these people that have been telling us smoke, but there's no fire.
No evidence.
No evidence.
No, no, no, no, no.
And no evidence.
And yet the breathless hysteria that you've heard now for over a year, it is unbelievable.
It is the biggest hoax, conspiracy, lie that's ever been perpetrated on the American people.
Listen to this.
But Mr. Clafford then went on to say that to his knowledge, there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
We did not conclude any evidence in our report.
And when I say our report, that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office.
The Director of National Intelligence had anything, any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians.
There was no evidence of that in our report.
Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?
I think he's right about characterizing the report, which you all have read.
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
There was no evidence of that included in our report.
Have you seen anything, either intelligence briefings, through intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you've made?
They have the documentation that they did the hacking.
The hacking.
On the DNC.
Right.
And on some of us, you know, that have.
But the collusion, though.
No, we have not.
Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?
Not at this time.
Have you seen anything that suggests any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?
Well, there's an awful lot of smoke there.
Let's put it that way.
People that might have said they were involved, to what extent they were involved, to what extent the president might have known about these people or whatever.
There's nothing there from that standpoint that we have seen directly linking our president to any of that.
Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts?
I don't know whether or not such collusion, and that's your term, such collusion existed.
I don't know.
The big questions, of course, is, is there any evidence of collusion you have seen yet?
Is there?
There is a lot of smoke.
We hadn't smoking gun at this point, but there is a lot of smoke.
Dianne Feinstein has said there's no evidence of collusion.
So collusion between whom?
Can you tell us that?
I'm not prepared to say that there's proof you could take to a jury, but I can say that there is enough that we ought to be investigating.
At the time you separated from service in January of 2017, had you seen any evidence that Donald Trump or any member of his campaign colluded, conspired, or coordinated with the Russians or anyone else to infiltrate or impact our voter infrastructure?
Not beyond what has been out there open source and not beyond anything that I'm sure this committee has already seen and heard before directly from the intelligence community.
You know, for the life of me, that is what we are the only people, or very few of us, that have been pointing all of this out that there is no evidence.
And we've been telling you for a long time.
And the media keeps advancing the narrative even still.
That's how insane things are in this country as we speak.
All right, 800-941, Sean is on number.
You want to be a part of the program?
Dan is in Michigan.
Dan, the man, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Yeah, hey, Sean, great, great.
Okay, hey, Sean, let's cut to it with the House intelligence findings here.
You and your show have exposed the corruption and the fact that there's no evidence of collusion, that criminals are in the Justice Department.
The House committee just put the report out there, as you've been talking about, saying there's no evidence.
So here's the question, Sean.
Is Jeff Sessions going to finally say the Obama administration is no longer going to run the Justice Department as of today?
I am running it.
I am shutting down the Mueller thing.
We're not playing that criminal game anymore, and it's over with.
Is he going to have the guts to do it?
The problem is that, and this I think was the biggest mistake from the get-go.
If Jeff Sessions by thinking that campaigning against Hillary Clinton and for Donald Trump forced him into recusal, he never should have accepted that job.
And what he has done with that one bad decision created this entire mess because Rod Rosenstein is the one that will make that decision, not Jeff Sessions.
Now, in the course of this, we've discovered a lot of other things.
And, you know, again, we're unpeeling the onion every day throughout the year, and we've discovered a lot of other things, including, oh, the dossier was bought and paid for by Clinton.
Oh, the fix was in with the Clinton email investigation.
Oh, we discovered that, oh, that phony bought and paid dossier was the bulk of evidence used for FISA application and Pfizer renewals.
Oh, and they never told the FISA court judges ever that Hillary paid for it.
And they tried to create an impression that there was dual sourcing when there was only one source.
So we learned all of this in spite of what all these people that wanted to undermine Trump were trying to do here.
So, you know, I don't know if that's a good thing, a bad thing, but I don't think any of this is really good for the country.
I just don't.
I don't see this as a good thing in any way.
I think the country's been, you know, it's divided the country.
I mean, it's put the, we don't, the president's focus is not on the things it should be focused on.
You know, and where is this ever going to end?
Because there's nothing that I hear or read about Robert Mueller that has anything to do with Trump and Russia in collusion anymore.
Now it's about perjury traps and, well, it's that obstruction because you got mad and you stated publicly that Jeff Sessions was annoying.
He never should have recused himself.
And that's the problem and the dangers of special counsels.
Go ahead.
You go.
Did I say one more thing?
Yeah.
Yeah, okay.
Hey, okay, Sean, all right.
Okay.
So I heard exactly what you just said, right?
Okay.
But shouldn't, but shouldn't the, shouldn't the House Intelligence Committee report after 73 witnesses in 14 months and all the lies that have come out through your show, wouldn't you have been brilliant, by the way, shouldn't that give Sessions enough confidence and guts to stand up and say, Obama people the hell out of the Justice Department, I am taking over.
Listen, we've learned Jeff Sessions is doing a lot of things we didn't know about.
I first reported, my sources told me, it turned out to be true, that as part of his recusal, he never recused himself from Uranium One.
And then, what, two months ago, a month and a half ago, there was an indictment in the Uranium One case.
We learned last week that the Clinton Foundation is under an active FBI investigation.
So we know that's happening.
We expect the Inspector General's report any day, any week now.
And in that report, I would suspect that you're going to see that a lot of top people at the Justice Department, the FBI, and in the Intel community were doing a lot of things that were wrong and probably illegal.
So we're getting there.
I think we have more than triggered just on the issue of lying to a FISA court judge and manipulating a FISA court judge.
That should be enough in and of itself.
Writing an exoneration before an investigation, that should be a crime in and of itself.
You know, deleting subpoenaed emails and destroying the hard drive and breaking up devices.
That's obstruction of justice itself.
You know, there's a ton of crimes that have been committed here.
And it's only the question at the end of this is, are we going to be a nation of laws?
Or are we going to be going to have equal justice under the law?
Or are we going to have a two-tier justice system?
And I don't know the answer right now.
I really don't.
Anyway, I appreciate it.
Thank you for the call.
Veronica's in Pittsburgh, PA.
The 18th Rick Sarcone race is going on there today.
What's going on?
How does it look on the ground, Veronica?
You know what?
It's tough.
I've been trying to check it out.
You know, the eyes of Texas are upon you while the eyes of America are upon Southwestern TA.
The election's really critical to the midterm.
To me, it's like light up night and Black Friday to kick off the Christmas shopping.
But then the last-minute shoppers can make your fourth quarter.
So I don't think this is a mandate about Trump.
The congressional districts are changing.
I got up this morning and painfully tuned into my local CBS station, just trying to get some information on what the feel was out there.
I'm all fired up.
I was at the Trump rally on Saturday night, and there's a lot of plus for Trump.
But the thing that worries me in this election and any of them going forward is that now that Trump's won, supporters maybe just want to ride on his coattail.
Daddy Trump will take care of us.
You know, it's easy to say, yeah, I voted for Trump, but another thing to say, I'm out there working so his agenda is implemented.
Look, I've got to be honest here.
When we start really digging down into 2018 and these midterm elections, one of the main questions I think people are going to have to reconcile in their own minds, and I already know pretty much where I have to be because it just is, to me, there's too much at stake.
If Nancy Pelosi ever becomes the Speaker of the House, we are in deep trouble.
I mean, really deep trouble.
And I put nothing past her.
And on top of that, you know, look at where the Democrats led the country in the eight years of Obama.
It's been a disaster.
Nothing good came of it.
None of those promises were ever fulfilled.
You know, hope and change ended up being, you know, 13 million more Americans on food stamps, 8 million more in poverty, doubling our debt, and all the other statistics I throw out.
All true.
Thank you, Veronica.
Good luck there.
And the 18th we'll be watching tonight.
Sue in Pompano Beach in Florida.
What's up, Sue?
How are you?
Good.
How are you doing, Sean?
I'm good.
What's going on?
First, I want to thank you for all you do, and thank you at all for the movie, Let There Be Light.
You know, it's now on DVD, and it's also, you can get it on demand at home, which is pretty cool.
You can get it at Walmart, Amazon.com, Hannity.com.
I'm very happy that Bowie's done so well.
Thank you all.
I loved it.
The real depth of the call, obviously, I've tried to play for a long time, and George Stephanopoulos, he's about as irritating to me as Hillary.
But I always thought, you know, I can't stand him on GMA anymore.
And then, of course, now he's going to be doing the James Coney, you know, 2020 thing.
And my main thing is I just read the other day that Good Morning America is looking at maybe getting rid of him because they want to make the show a little more entertaining and more soft and not so political.
Plus, they're kind of saying he just doesn't fit in anymore.
So I'm really hoping because I really was wanting to.
Look, I'm not a fan of George Stephanopoulos.
He's always been a hardcore Clintonite.
I don't think he's ever changed, and I don't think he ever will change.
I think in his heart and soul, he's, you know, a liberal Democrat.
But with that said, I mean, they try and present him as if he's some objective news reporter, and he's not.
He never has been, and he never will be.
So anyway.
I agree.
I agree.
But you know what the issue is?
I don't trust any of these people in the media.
Look, when I go to these conventions and when I show up at these debates and they hate the fact, A, that Fox is successful, that I'm successful, and they have nothing but dripping contempt.
And I look at them as the biggest phony liars I've ever met in my life.
I think they, I'm honest about who I am.
They're not honest.
They try and pretend they're fair, objective, and they're not.
They all have political agendas and they pursue them daily.
I totally so much agree with you, I can't stand it.
I totally agree with you.
Well, I appreciate it.
And, you know, look, we're fighting for a lot of good things for the country, not the least of which is we want to leave this place better than we found it.
It's really not about us at this point.
I mean, it's really about future generations.
And from my perspective, the only way we're going to get there is if we pursue these conservative policies that actually work.
Every time we've tried conservatism, conservatism works.
Look at the job growth in just the last year because of one change in president.
It's amazing.
Look at all the burdensome regulations gone.
Look at America now pursuing energy independence.
The employer mandate gone.
All of these, you know, these are all profound things.
The Supreme Court would be so different today if Hillary Clinton had won.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
The president down by the border, looking at different prototypes, his conversations with Border Patrol agents.
It's actually all really fascinating.
We'll have full coverage of all of that.
The House Intel Committee in concluding their investigation into so-called Russia collusion, and to no one's surprise, except the liberal media, that keeps going with a non-story, zero evidence of any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.
Huge news.
And by the way, your media sources, how did they handle it?
