Things We Didn't Think Could Happen in America - 3.22
Sean is joined by Kris “Tanto” Paronto, one of the Benghazi heroes who saved so many lives on September, 11, 2012, and former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino to discuss just how powerful the Deep State is. Plus, things that we never thought could happen in America. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
So, for a few years now, I have been working with Express employment professionals, and they've been helping you, my listeners, know where to turn in your job search.
Now, Express offers local connections to the good jobs where you live in a variety of industries.
So, if you're looking for a job, go online, find the nearest express office at expresspros.com, and let them help you.
Now, recently, one Express associate shared this: After applying everywhere for work, I called Express Pros.
After going into the office, I had a job that day.
Now, when you turn to Express Pros, you benefit from 35 years of experience in putting people to work.
They help more than a half a million people find jobs each and every year.
And job seekers at Express Pros never pay a fee whatsoever.
Just go to expresspros.com, find the location nearest you.
And another Express associate said, Express called me to come in for an interview right away and then sent me to interview with a company that same day.
So, don't go it alone any longer in your search for a job.
Find your local Express Employment Professional's office at expresspros.com.
All right, glad you're with us.
Loaded up today.
Write down our 12-free telephone number.
We'd love to have you be a part of the program.
It's 800-941, Sean.
If you want to join us, all right.
So much ground to cover today, not the least of which is this glaring media hypocrisy.
John Brennan, known liar, whatever he says is now the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, according to all things liberal, especially if you work on conspiracy TV, MSNBC, or fake news, CNN.
Either way, we take a break in our Stormy Daniels coverage to carry this big news.
Now, this is news they're not going to report.
You know, it's amazing.
I've done a pretty deep dive here, and I'm going to deal with this tonight on Hannity.
You know, when we had the issue of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, this is just think about this.
You know, she's 21 years old, and yeah, that happened in the Oval Office.
But more importantly, okay, she's still an adult by definition.
He's the president.
I thought we were concerned about abuse of power in these relationships.
All right, put that aside for a second, although it's not a small deal to me.
But the whole issue of the lawsuit and perjury and subordination of perjury and a judgment that ultimately Paula Jones won $800 and what $50,000 and Bill Clinton losing his law license and Bill Clinton being impeached and all of that happened.
But here's the thing: when you go back and look at these fake news networks, how many interviews did conspiracy TV MSNBC do with Paula Jones?
In the case of Paula Jones, she talked about then Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton exposing himself.
In other words, he pulled down his pants and I believe said to it.
And or the case of Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office, you know, begging for a job.
She's in trouble.
She'd worked for the Clintons.
She had enough clout to get in the Oval Office.
And then against her will, he's fondling and touching and groping and grabbing and kissing against her will.
An assault.
And then Juanita Broderick, outright rape.
So what I'll tell you tonight, I'm not going to do it now because we have other business we got to get to today.
Is, and we'll go through this.
Well, how much time did the networks at that time spend on the Bill Clinton and the accusations by Clinton women?
Now, I'm not saying wrong makes right, But there's not a moral equivalency between a consensual, alleged consensual relationship and what Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick have described here.
And yet you got wall-to-wall stormy, wall-to-wall, and wall-to-wall other women that may have had consensual or may or may not have had consensual relationships with Donald Trump going back decades.
Nobody's claiming in the case of Stormy that this was anything but a consensual relationship.
But yet you would think this is the biggest news.
Well, I'll tell you what they're not going to cover tonight, and I mark my words.
You know, remember last week, the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, leaked to the media that his investigation now examining President Trump's business dealings with Russia, including evidence of collusion.
And that's been now going on for a year.
And the House Intel Committee did it 14 consecutive months.
And the Democratic media, thrilled with Mueller's leak, doesn't matter that there's no evidence to date of any Trump-Russia collusion of any kind.
And I don't think there ever will be any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion because President Trump had previously said that any examination of his business activities before the presidential campaign would cross the red line.
Anyway, the House Intel Committee today, they won't report it, but today announced that they've completed their own investigation of President Trump's pre-campaign Russia dealings.
Now, look, the Trump organization is a worldwide, massive organization, and they are involved in branding, and they're involved in building, and they're involved in all sorts of business dealings with people all around the world.
Anyway, the House Intel Committee announced that they've completed this investigation into the pre-campaign Russian dealings.
The New York Times pointed out that this has now gone on, that there's been some relationship with all of these countries going back 30 years with the Trump organization.
And the House Intel Committee voted today to approve their final report into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which now ended the panel's probe 14 months later, giving a final endorsement to their conclusion that there was no coordination between Trump and the presidential campaign and Russia.
And the Committee of Republicans released a summary, 44 findings, that includes that there were Russian cyber attacks on U.S. political institutions and that Russians leverage social media in this country to sow discord.
Well, we've known that now for some time.
As a matter of fact, Obama was warned about it specifically in 2014 and did absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening.
And he'd gotten direct, specific warnings that Russia would do this.
He did nothing and then lectured Trump two weeks before the election that, oh, you're whining.
Stop whining.
No serious person could ever believe this.
No serious person thinks that our system, our electoral system, could be influenced in any way.
Well, little did anybody know, and apparently maybe Obama did know by then that Hillary had already paid Russians and Russian government sources through a foreign national by the name of Christopher Steele to say all sorts of unproven and now disproven things about President Trump to manipulate the American people.
Anyway, back to the House Intel Committee for a second in terms of collusion with Trump's Republican campaign.
The summary says that none of the interviewed witnesses provided any evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
The findings said the committee found no evidence.
This is new, that Trump's pre-campaign business dealings formed any basis for collusion with Russia during the campaign or that meetings between the Russian ambassador and Trump associates represented coordination in any way.
You're not going to hear about this tonight on any cable news network, but now this report exonerates Trump not only of any collusion charges.
This is a 14-month investigation.
You've had 14 months of lies, 14 months of hysteria, 14 months of breathless coverage, and now they don't talk about Trump-Russia collusion.
They have been talking about, well, what about the financial dealings?
Now we've debunked that.
So now the only thing left on the plate for cable news in this country, apparently, is Stormy Daniels.
And the very same people that ignored Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones.
And one big difference is what they were alleging wasn't consensual.
In the day and age of Me Too, the hypocrisy is stunning.
If you just look at it, it takes my breath away.
You know, it's almost like a storm cloud beginning to, you know, build over the country.
It's stormy, it's stormy, it's stormy.
It's 24-7 stormy.
I saved my best lines for off the air on this.
We'll save that for another day.
Now, I want to just, I'm not going to spend a lot of time because it frankly is a fait accompli, and it's a done deal, and it should upset anybody that's a conservative.
You know, when these elections come around in November, the American people are going to have a really tough choice because you've got weak Republicans make promises they don't mean and that they won't fulfill.
They don't have the vision.
You know, that whole health care debate proved everything I've been saying.
You know, for how many, two decades I've been talking on air about, well, healthcare savings accounts as an antidote to the disaster that is our health care system.
Then, of course, we got Obamacare and every Republican, well, we're going to repeal and replace it.
And Obama's president, we get 60 votes plus to repeal and replace it.
But those were show votes because Obama was never going to sign away signature legislation.
And we have senators voting just for a full-on repeal in 2015.
And then all of a sudden it's 2017 and Donald Trump's the president.
And then we realize that there's a whole bunch of those Republicans in the House that didn't mean a darn thing they said when they said repeal and replace because they voted against it.
And then they had to water it down.
And just like in the Senate, then you had all these senators who two years earlier had voted for a full repeal of Obamacare.
Well, seven of them changed their vote when it actually meant something.
So both Republicans in the House and Senate are guilty of showboats, show votes.
But now, not showboating.
Now we've got a monstrosity of an omnibus bill.
It's 2,232 pages.
It sounds just, this could have come out of the Obama administration.
You know, $1.3 trillion spent, and it's given to members of Congress.
They're only given 48 hours to read this thing and debate this thing.
And then you've got a few leaders in Congress.
They only meet behind closed doors, and they withhold this from the rank and file, and especially the Freedom Caucus and the few conservatives that are in the Senate, like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.
And I know Mike Lee is against this.
He sent me a note last night about this.
And it's a disaster.
And it goes against every conservative principle that these Republicans are supposed to stand for.
And it is beyond, as Mike Lee wrote on his Facebook page, it's dysfunctional in terms of the legislative process.
It contains the expansion of a bunch of programs that we don't like as conservatives and don't believe in, and it takes away additional due process protections and so on and so forth and Second Amendment rights.
And they don't have any opportunity to even improve the bill with any amendment.
And that's why he and others in the conservative Freedom Caucus are all voting against it, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and the rest of them, and I stand with them.
And they're all trying to sell this as a great bill.
Now, I do approve of the increase in military spending, but military spending increases shouldn't come at the expense of expanding the welfare state and expanding government programs that have proven to be a disaster and a failure.
And you should never have a bill at the end of the process that the Democrats claim a victory, especially when you control both houses of Senate.
And they do what they always do.
I call it power panic politics.
They wait till the last second, at the last minute, on the last days.
They get everybody hyped up that there might be a shutdown, which, by the way, is never a bad thing.
Shutdowns are not horrible things.
Most people, number one, remain working, and those others get a free vacation that they get paid for in the end anyway.
You know, essential services continue.
The military continues.
Security continues.
You know, people get their social security checks and they get all the health care that they need.
So nothing really shuts down.
And then, you know, then we end up doing what this is a bill that the Democratic Party should be proud of.
They should be happy.
It's a big government boondoggle bill that is not conservative.
And I know the president wants the $700 billion increase in military spending, but we should have also gotten full funding for the wall, although I'm told the president, and I have it on good authority, that that money has been found and that money will be used and that wall is being built.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity's show, toll-free.
Telephone numbers, 800-941-Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
You know, I want to counter some of the narrative that is, I guess, posing as so-called news out there.
You know, when you have these very deep state actors, the ones that were there when there's a 350% increase in surveillance and unmasking of American citizens for no good reason but there is a presidential election year going on.
And you have people that are all aware of what that the dossier is paid for.
They know what's in it.
They don't corroborate it.
They don't verify it.
They don't do any investigative work on their own except for coordinating with members of their compliant news media to get out these lies.
You know, I really don't have a lot of patience within me as it relates to what John Brennan and James Clapper have to say.
You know, we've had a lot of leaks as it relates to the deep state in just the last year alone.
Remember, we went through that period, first year, Trump presidency, 125 deep state leaks in 126 days.
That should not be happening in the country.
You know, when the president, quote, congratulates Vladimir Putin on his victory, and within an hour or two, everything that took place in that conversation is now made public because there's somebody inside the White House that wanted him to read these childish talking points that they had put together for him that he didn't read, and somehow they must feel slighted.
So, why not just leak it to the Washington Post?
It gets a little frustrating when complete conversations with the Australian, well, the Canadian prime minister, the Australian president, are released.
And that's never happened in history before.
You should get concerned when the likes of John Brennan become like anything he says, that becomes gospel truth.
And you know, the man is a liar, a proven liar.
That ought to be problematic for everybody as well.
You know, a guy that I think Trump is afraid, he passes out this conspiracy theory of his.
I think Trump's afraid of Putin.
And I think they could have things that they could expose.
I think Russia could have something on Trump.
Well, I think you can basically look at the actions that Trump has taken against Russia versus Obama and realize: no, the guy that was sucking up to Putin was the guy that said, Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election.
I 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, hang on, I got to send a so Jeff Zucker is the head of CNN Fake News.
This is CNN taking a shot at Fox News is a propaganda machine.
So I just decided I'd have a little fun on Twitter.
If you guys want to check out my Twitter account, it's at Sean Hannity.
Only because it's just too fun and it's too easy to be really blunt with you all.
So I took the article, it was up on Media.com, and I wrote, well, we interrupt our 24-7 Stormy Daniels hate Trump coverage, CNN fake news.
And I wrote, Jeff, there's a reason the crowds chant CNN sucks.
You have tens of thousands of people chanting CNN sucks.
I mean, and it happens a lot.
It's not just an anomaly.
It's not just once.
Now, Fox News is number one.
MSNBC is number two.
And CNN is way, way, way, way distant, distant, distant, number three.
Right where headline news is.
America has lost one-third of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA.
We've lost 70,000 factories.
Think of it, 70,000.
It's like, doesn't even sound like it's possible.
And I know it's right because I've said it for the last month and a half, and they never corrected me.
So it has to be.
Because that didn't happen because Donald Trump led the chant that CNN sucks.
No, that happened organically.
That happened on its own.
That happened independent of anybody saying, all right, on queue, say CNN sucks.
Now, I don't know.
Maybe, you know, I've got a pretty thick skin and I get the crap beat out of me a lot of times, you know, but everyone attacks me day in and day out.
And I don't know, maybe I'm missing a chip because I don't care.
I think most people would care.
I think most people would bother them.
And I can even admit early in my career when it first happened, oh, look, they're attacking me.
Now it's like, why aren't they attacking me?
I'm doing something wrong.
I need to be attacked.
It makes me feel better about myself.
You can tell a lot about a person by who the enemies are.
But I just, I'm watching.
If there was a chanting that, you know, my network sucks at just about every rally.
And I'm looking, you know, I have three television sets before me, and I have one, two, three, four, five.
I have five computers.
This is like a spaceship that I'm living in here when I do the radio program.
And the only reason I've never put it online is because, I mean, I'm just throwing my hands and I don't want to be self-conscious and have to look at the camera and say, I just, I like to focus, look down, throw things, wave my hands, research, text, tweet, and do all these other things while I'm actually doing the show.
I have an incredible ability.
I think I have mastered the art of being ADHD because I can do a thousand things at once.
Anyway, so I'm reading this and I'm thinking, there's such sanctimony.
It reminds me a lot of the sanctimony that comes out of James Comey or the sanctimony that comes out of, you know, this guy, John Brennan.
How does a guy become a CIA director after voting for a communist for president in the middle of the Cold War?
It's not like the Cold War was over and communism had killed how many millions of people under the Soviet Union.
Pretty amazing.
Anyway, John Brennan is a liar.
And that's just incontrovertible truth at this point.
You know, by the way, he's not a garden variety.
Great piece by David Harseny, who's at the Federalist, and he writes that he's not just your average garden variety dissembler that we see in D.C. every day.
And he points out that Brennan's the kind of guy that feels comfortable brazenly misleading the American people about an attack on our democracy and then shamelessly lecturing them about civic decency.
That's who Brennan is.
And you may recall when he was the CIA director, Mr. Brennan oversaw the operation of illegal spying on a staffer of the legislative branch of the United States government.
And at least five agency officials under his watch broke into Senate computer files and they were looking at drafts of a report on enhanced interrogation.
And then they went further by reconstructing emails of at least one staffer.
That's John Brennan.
You know, John Brennan, who would attempt to cover up the agency's actions by doubling down and then in typical spy mode, blame the Senate and push to fire at least one staffer charged with investigating his agency.
It wasn't until the CIA's own inspector general, like we're awaiting the Department of Justice Inspector General Horowitz and his report, which I think is going to be absolutely shocking to the American people.
And everything that we've been unpeeling and telling you is now slowly but surely being proven every single day.
And anyway, when the CIA Inspector General confirmed the wrongdoing, Brennan began negotiating with senators about how to own up to the spying, which he knew damn well was happening, which, by the way, nobody understood at the time.
And he was lying about it to the public.
And when asked about the CIA hacking into Senate computers, as David's article points out, you know, at an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, well, Brennan said and responded, quote, nothing could be further from the truth.
I mean, we wouldn't do that.
I mean, that's just beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.
And then he went on to say, let me assure you, the CIA was in no way spying on the committee or the Senate.
And then senators began negotiating with Brennan, holding people at the CIA accountable and publicly apologizing.
In the end, there's no public apology, only a private one to a single senator.
No explanation.
And I guess, you know, you've got James Clapper.
He lied to Congress under oath without any repercussions.
But if your name's General Michael Flynn, then, you know, lying to the FBI means you get charged.
And we have a two-tier justice system.
And then you've got the same deep state actors.
This all comes down to you've got a bunch of upper echelon, deep state operatives.
And I want to know what Brennan knew and when he knew it.
I want to know what Clapper knew and when he knew it.
I want to know what Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes, what they knew, when they knew it.
I want to know, and to take it further, you know, we do know this.
We do know that the investigation into Hillary's email server, where we know she mishandled classified top secret special access program information, destroyed such information, deleted subpoenaed emails, acid washes her hard drive, busting up her devices, that all of those crimes and they're all crimes were covered up in a scheme with McCabe and Comey and Paige and Strzok and Loretta Lynch meeting Bill on the tarmac.
And they did it because they wanted Hillary to be the candidate to run against and beat Donald Trump.
And they protected her and they rigged the election.
And then in the process of everything else that we're learning about what happened in the lead up to the 2016 elections, we're learning, oh, we had unmasking, surveillance, unmasking, and raw intelligence leaking at a level we've never had before, a 350% increase.
Nobody can give a rational explanation how a UN ambassador by the name of Samantha Powers is unmasking basically a person a day only in the lead up to this 2016 election over the entire year of 2016.
And she's saying, well, I didn't ask for the unmasking.
Well, you don't unmask American citizens.
That is abusing the powerful tools of intelligence that we need in a very dangerous and evil world.
I have nothing but great admiration for intelligence officials.
They risked their lives.
I have nothing but admiration for CIA operatives in an evil world where al-Qaeda and ISIS and evil and North Korea and Iran exist.
We need these things, but you can't turn those tools on the American people.
And that's why when we get even deeper into this whole thing and we find out that this group of upper echelon, deep state actors, well, they're unmasking and leaking raw intelligence, and then they're putting the fix in for Hillary Clinton.
And Hillary Clinton put the fix in for herself.
And as it relates to the DNC and Bernie Sanders, never had a shot.
Bernie Sanders were betrayed.
Nobody cares about it.
I'm like the only guy standing up for Bernie because what they did to Bernie was wrong.
And fixing elections shouldn't happen in America, but it did happen.
And then, of course, then the investigation into Hillary.
Well, that investigation, too.
That's wrong as well.
And the people involved need to be held accountable.
And then after that, then, well, Hillary, I guess it works the first time.
Why not just hire Fusion GPS?
They can hire Christopher Steele, a foreign agent operative, and he can go get his news as Russian sources.
Nobody's going to check them.
Fusion GPS never checked it.
They never verified the information.
The Clinton campaign surely didn't.
The DNC surely didn't.
Fusion then coordinates with the Russian lies and Russian government lies with members of the compliant news media like Fake News CNN.
And by the way, Jeff Zucker is lashing out because he can't stand that the brand fake news is stuck.
He's so livid about it.
He hates that because they are fake news.
Did you see my tweet yet, did you?
Take a look at the tweet.
I've been told that there's a tweet I need to look at right now, so I'm going to do it right now.
Well, why do you walk out of the room during the middle of my monologue while I was tweeting out?
Like, what did you have to comb your hair or something?
I did.
I had to get my nails done.
I need a little lip gloss, you know, and I didn't want to.
I didn't want to do lip gloss in front of you.
You were right in the middle talking about Brennan and Samantha Powell, and I want you to be focused.
All right, I'm going to tell you the difference between your accent.
All right, come on, young lady.
I don't know if you want me to give your name out.
Get up to the microphone.
So maybe you should preface the audience with the fact that we have a guest in the studio who happens to be from Alabama.
Alabama, yeah.
And so her accent might be slightly different than mine.
Come over.
Okay, I don't know if you want to, does she want to be identified?
That's fine.
We're going to call her Lisa.
All right, Lisa, go ahead, talk, Lisa.
Hi.
No, no, no.
So tell us a little something about yourself.
What do you like to do in life?
What's your life like?
What do you like to do?
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Yeah, actually talking.
Now she's going to, she can hear you.
All right, tell me something.
Like, what's your favorite food in the world?
Describe it.
I like pizza, probably.
Yeah.
And what else?
Italian food's the best.
And what's your, where do you go?
Do you drink tea or coffee?
Oh, I love like hot tea.
It's the best.
And say the word coffee.
Coffee?
Linda, you say coffee.
You know how I say coffee.
Coffee.
Okay.
And say talk.
Talk.
Talk.
Linda, you say talk.
You know how I say talk.
Talk, okay.
She has an accent, not me.
Say New York.
New York.
Okay.
Say New York.
New York.
New York, talk, coffee.
I love New York.
There are people in Alabama that say, hey, how y'all doing?
Good to see you.
What's going on?
I hope y'all come back and see us.
Is that true?
Yes, there are a lot of country people.
I don't think I'm that country, though.
No, you definitely don't sound that country.
But you can just tell by our voice that she's nice.
Oh, absolutely.
What can we tell by your voice, son?
But I'm not nice.
You're nice.
That's right.
That's a lie.
All right.
You're nice.
That's nice.
I am not mean.
You're talking about me.
First of all.
First of all.
All right.
So anyway, so you got all these people.
Clapper lies under oath.
Anyway, we got all of these things that have happened in the United States of America.
And then the Pfizer warrant.
Everybody knew.
Everybody knew Hillary paid for it.
Everybody knew nobody checked it.
Fusion GPS never checked it.
We know that the Clinton campaign never checked it.
They paid for it, though.
They funneled the money through Perkins Cooey, just like the DNC funneled money that Hillary was controlling through Perkins Cooey.
So it didn't look like they were hiring op researchers to dig up dirt on Donald Trump.
They made it look like a legal fee.
That kind of sinks in my head like money laundering type of stuff.
And then on top of that, what happens?
Oh, then it's used to get a FISA warrant.
And do they tell the FISA judge and the original application?
No, they don't tell the FISA judge in the original application.
These are troubled times.
And whatever CIA Director Brennan says, oh, I think the Russians have something on Trump.
Trump has been a thousand times harder on Russia than Obama ever was.
And then whatever Brennan says, known liar, Clapper says known liar.
You can turn on any of these cable TV networks.
Oh, wow.
Trump is being blackmailed by Russia.
That's what CNN and conspiracy TV, MSNBC, the newsbusters, MSNBC repeatedly allege Trump is being blackmailed by Russia.
Brzezinski, this is of the Liberal Joe Show.
The Twitter typos of Trump show his state of mind.
He's unhinged.
Unbelievable.
We live in amazing times.
Hey, Linda, you got to put your mic back on.
So my old boss in Atlanta, he hired me down at, well, I have ex-wives everywhere in terms of radio station X-Wives.
Sluggo.
How did you know it's Slugo?
I know everything.
Continue.
So Slugo writes me, wow, Linda, and he wrote it with an eye, and I'm like, no, it's what I'm saying.
Linda with a Y. With a Y.
And he goes, is it real?
Is it really that thick?
And I'm like, yeah.
Like molasses.
Like Molasses.
Do you even know you have an accent?
Of course I don't.
Of course you don't.
When you talk to people, they always say, you know, you have an accident.
When I talk to people, they say, I love your conversation.
I'm like, you're welcome.
You know, you do have a little bit of Joy Behar on you.
Okay, seriously?
That's not okay.
Take it back.
I'm sorry.
Take it back.
You're breaking up.
Oh, I'm breaking up.
I'm going to break up on you.
I'm breaking up on me.
You're breaking up.
You're lucky this is an FCC-controlled station.
We'd hear a lot of interesting accents.
You're not like Joy Beho.
It is not okay.
It's not okay.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, write down our toll-free number.
It's 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
We continue to do our deep dive into who is the special counsel that everybody in the Destroy Trump media and in the world of the swamp and sewer, which is Washington, D.C., says is beyond reproach.
No one could question Robert Mueller's impeccable credentials.
And we have been doing a deep dive all week on, well, who is Robert Mueller and why did he appoint this team of Democratic donors, an abusively biased team that has donated only to Hillary, only to Obama and the DNC.
Then we have been digging deep into, well, why did he appoint Andrew Weissman, who we've talked a lot about, who destroyed Arthur, I'm sorry, Anderson Accounting and tens of thousands of jobs lost, lost to the Supreme Court 9-0.
Those jobs should not have ever been lost.
Puts four Merrill executives away for a year.
Oh, and then we find out, yeah, they're innocent too, based on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and their ruling against Andrew Weissman.
Then we find two judges excoriating him for withholding exculpatory evidence.
And then we go to the years that Robert Mueller spent in Boston when, in fact, the FBI got into bed with a criminal, a murderer, gangster by the name of Whitey Bulger.
And as part of that deal, well, they end up putting four innocent people in jail.
Exculpatory evidence once again is withheld.
And as a result, after the four innocent people are sent to jail, two of them die in jail.
The other two are then found and they're all exonerated.
And over $100 million in a judgment had to be paid out because of what happened in that particular case.
And while the FBI informant that was working under Mueller was working with Whitey Bulger, the criminal.
Let me play here for all of you, if you don't mind.
So Alan Dershowitz was on last night.
Let me throw to him.
He was saying Trump was right.
We never should have had a special counsel, and he's right.
And then Christopher Wray going against the media narrative defending the process of firing Andrew McCabe.
Well, first of all, President's 100% right.
There never should have been the appointment of a special counsel here.
There was no probable cause at that point to believe that crimes had been committed.
I've seen no evidence to suggest that crimes have been committed by the president.
As I said from day one, there should have been a special investigative commission, nonpartisan, appointed by Congress with subpoena power to look into the role of Russia in trying to influence American elections and to try to do something about preventing it in the future.
Instead of starting out with finger pointing and trying to criminalize political differences behind the closed doors of a grand jury, that's gotten us nowhere.
President's absolutely right.
This investigation never should have begun.
And the question is now, how does he deal with it?
And I think what he's doing is he's playing good cop, bad cop.
He has some of his lawyers cooperating with Mueller and some of his lawyers attacking Mueller because he wants to be ready to attack in the event there are any recommendations that are negative to the president.
He talks about the process and he suggests that he believes the process that was used in firing McCabe was a proper one.
Here's his answer.
I'm committed to doing things objectively and independently and by the book.
I think that has to extend not just to our investigations, our intelligence analysis, but it also has to extend to personnel decisions and disciplinary decisions.
Some people have commented, though, on the fact that it happened, what, 26 hours before he was to retire.
Well, again, I want to be careful about what I can say about the process, but I will tell you that my commitment to making sure that our process is followed, that it relies on objective input, and that most importantly, it is not based on political or partisan influence is something I am utterly unyielding on.
All right, joining us now, Sarah Carter, Fox News contributor, investigative reporter, David Schoen, civil rights and criminal defense attorney.
Guys, welcome both of you to the program.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, John.
All right, Sarah, let's start with, okay, we're doing a deep dive.
Who is Robert Mueller?
Apparently, he is not above reproach.
His background tells us a lot about him and the team of partisans that he has surrounded himself with.
Well, it also tells us where he's going, right?
Because if we look back at the past and we see over and over again cases or his involvement in cases where exculpatory evidence was withheld, both him and Weissman, both Mueller and Weissman, and we see that this is a pattern of behavior, then we have to assume that this is the same kind of pattern that we're going to see in the future.
And so then that leads me to question how he's going to handle this special counsel investigation into the alleged collusion with President Trump with Russia, which, by the way, the House Intelligence Committee findings, they don't find any evidence of this whatsoever.
So where is he going?
And when you look at the past, and specifically the case in Boston, which is so early on, you're looking at the 1980s, and you see what happened there, how four men were wrongly convicted, even though the FBI, then supervised by Mueller, had evidence that these four men were not guilty of murder.
Three of them were sitting on death row.
The other one was serving life.
Two of them ended up dying in prison before it was overturned in 2007.
And then $101 million awarded by the government because of this.
But, you know, so much time passed, and there wasn't a lot of people paying attention because what?
It happened in the 1980s.
These guys were in prison for so long.
The media cycle, of course, goes on.
There's new news.
And then you figure out, then you look at Weissman, and you have the same thing, if not more egregiously, in New York, where he specifically withheld exculpatory evidence.
And people went to prison, and then he was reprimanded by a judge.
But then, of course, he has a friend get him off and write a letter to the judge asking him to remove his name from this reprimand that the judge issued.
And then he goes on to become the guy that takes on Arthur Anderson, the guy that goes into the Justice Department, and now the second-hand right-hand man to Mueller, who he worked with closely at the FBI as well.
So it's very incestuous.
All these people know each other.
They protect each other.
But if you go into their past, they're not as shiny as the media and other people make them seem out to be.
I couldn't agree more, David.
Yeah, I'd like to jump in.
Look, Sarah Carter once again has hit every point.
Her article today is out of this world.
She hit it out of the park about this very issue.
But I want to take a step back and put things in perspective what you're doing here, Mr. Hannity.
Why is it important who Mueller is and who the special counsel is and that it's Mueller and the team he's put together for very specific reasons, all of the reasons Sarah has said and that you've pointed out every day, but for very specific reasons as well.
I want to make this point because I don't think this has been discussed enough.
Let's just say hypothetically, you pick a person to be special counsel who has an agenda, who has this kind of background, who puts together a team of people who hate this president in pure unadulterated hatred and who hate the election results and want to do something about it outside of the ballot box.
Let's say you put together that kind of team and he's appointed special counsel, puts together that kind of team, and he decides he's got a mission on what he's to investigate.
But specifically under the regulations, the federal regulations, 600.4, his jurisdiction is expanded so that he has now the unilateral authority to investigate and prosecute anyone who gets in his way.
He has specific authority to prosecute for what he unilaterally determines to be a structure.
But that's not what the law says, is it, as it relates to a special counsel.
Doesn't it have to be specific laws that they believe were broken?
And didn't Rod Rosenstein, who I would argue is conflicted himself because he signed off on one of the Pfizer renewals and then he appointed Robert Mueller.
I mean, so that's a big problem.
I mean, isn't he conflicted?
Oh, I think so, definitely, because in addition to other things, the relationships that go on.
Look, I think there's an inherent conflict in the regulations that give life to this special counsel mission.
These are regulations developed under the Clinton administration.
But these, remember again, what Professor Dershowitz sort of hit on it last night.
There never should have been a special counsel because the first step is, is there sufficient evidence to believe a crime has been committed?
You don't get past that stage.
But let's say you do.
Then you appoint the special counsel because the Justice Department is conflicted, has a conflict.
Well, how is it that so many members of this special counsel's team come directly from this Justice Department?
Andrew Weissman, head of the criminal fraud division, and on and on and on.
Now, the regulations allow it, but with this kind of investigation where the Justice Department actors themselves, their conduct is at issue.
Why would you appoint so many members of the staff from this Department of Justice when you had an Attorney General who recused himself?
There's an inherent conflict.
That's a great point.
It's an extraordinary point because it's logical.
It makes sense on its face.
I mean, if you think about this, Sean, what David is saying is like they brought in people from the same department that they initially said they had to recuse themselves from because of the conflict of interest.
But then they bring people in from that same department.
And this is what's so concerning, is that every time the president or his team defends themselves against the special counsel, and remember, Rod Rosenstein gave a lot of latitude here.
He gave a lot of latitude for this investigation.
That was something that he did right off the top.
So they went far beyond what the mandate was.
But every time somebody tries to defend themselves in the administration from this special counsel investigation, which President Trump has called a witch hunt, then they're saying, well, oh, well, because you're defending yourself, why don't you just let this thing play out?
Yet, you know, you're not acting like an innocent person.
No, an innocent person would defend themselves and have the right to defend themselves.
Let me go to your article today, Sarah Carter.
And, you know, I think this is really you outline in great detail here about all of these leaks as it relates to national security.
We were stunned this week.
The president no sooner gets off the phone with Vladimir Putin than the entire conversation is leaked.
We had 125 leaks in the beginning of his administration, deep state leaks in 126 days.
And the leaking hasn't stopped pretty much since.
And you outline where the intelligence community, you know, where this is illegal to leak this information.
It is illegal.
And based on the classification of the documents that the president had, which appeared to be directly leaked.
Now, what I'm saying is, with this last conversation with President Putin, the specific lines that were given to the Washington Post, according to my sources, were pulled directly from those documents because they use the same grammatical usage, the same exclamation points, the same boldness.
So either the person showed the reporter from the Washington Post these documents or they read it to them on the phone, which definitely is breaking the law.
But look, here you have one year where it's been kind of quiet, almost a year, where there haven't been a lot of these major leaks coming out of the White House from the NSC.
Now, a lot of my sources believe the leaks did come from the NSC.
We don't know who, of course.
And we don't even know if the White House counsel has made a referral to the DOJ to investigate this.
I have been told there will be an investigation that the president was very upset about this because not only does it undermine the White House, it undermines the allies.
Because as soon as Allies start or other state actors like Russia start believing that their conversations with the head of state, with the President of the United States, are going to be leaked to the media.
They're going to be very tentative about what they're going to say to them on the phone.
Let me take a break.
Sarah Carter is with us.
David Schoen is with us as we continue our deep dive, our investigation into, well, who are the investigators?
Is Robert Mueller beyond reproach, as everybody else has said?
We'll take a break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue.
Also, at the bottom of the hour or later on today at the bottom of the hour, we'll check in with Dan Bongino.
And then later, Jonathan Gillum and Danielle McLaughlin, all coming up, 800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
Quick break, right back, and we will continue.
All right, as we continue with investigative reporter Sarah Carter and also David Schoen, who is a civil rights criminal defense attorney, David, I want to give you an opportunity to respond about Sarah's respond to Sarah's column today about how all of these deep state leaks, and we saw a huge leak this week, a conversation the president had with the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, how lives are endangered in all of this and how it damages national security.
It does all of that.
And I have to say on a personal level, it's a sick mentality.
It's a sick mentality when people are undermining the legitimate interests of our country.
And it's a sick mentality when people take glee in the travails that are going on all over the place, I have to say.
But if you don't mind, Mr. Ann, I just want to get back to one other point.
You know, this issue has come up now, I know, with Mr. Dowd resigning, et cetera, about different philosophies.
Let me say this.
I want to make this point very clearly because you've talked a lot about Mr. Mueller and what their agenda appears to be.
I'm going to say this unequivocally.
Any person, any lawyer who would counsel Mr. Trump to sit down and meet with Mr. Mueller would have to be absolutely insane and has never really practiced criminal defense work as a criminal defense lawyer should.
There can only be two goals.
Either it's going to be informational, you're going to convince Mr. Mueller and his team nothing was wrong, or you're going to appease him.
Neither one works.
You know, Winston Churchill said in 1940, each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, it will eat him last.
I don't think Mr. Trump's agenda can afford to be or ever would be one of appeasement.
That's not in his playbook, and it shouldn't be.
Convincing Mr. Mueller is out of the question.
He has an agenda.
The team has an agenda.
They're all working together on it, clearly.
No doubt.
I don't think any of us disagree with one thing you said here.
And yeah, I do believe that it is outrageous.
We appreciate it.
David Schoen, Sarah Carter, amazing work.
We'll continue this deep dive into the question is, is Robert Mueller above reproach?
Not exactly.
And where's the media been in all of this?
Our investigation continues.
Also, when we come back, Dan Bongino will join us.
And Chris Tonto Peranto, one of the Benghazi heroes, will check in with them, and we'll get into the issue of, you know, all these men and women serve the country and protect the country.
How does this guy, Brennan, and all these other deep state actors get to do what they are doing in terms of trying to undermine a duly elected president?
Straight ahead.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, there's such duplicity and such a double standard with all things Donald Trump.
And I'll give you one example.
Fake news media is, you know, they're going nuts.
Donald Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin.
And within seconds, the deep state, I don't know who, I'd like to know, illegally leaking what the conversation was about.
Oh, and they gave him notes that he didn't listen to.
Oh, okay.
Well, Donald Trump's his own man.
That should be a plus in anybody's column.
And then finally, we did a dive.
And what did we find?
It was, oh, Barack Obama praised Putin on his victory in 2012, but nobody in the media seemed to care then.
And then you got John Brennan lecturing everybody.
He sounds a lot like the arrogant and pompous James Comey, you know, that he should be the focus of a, that Donald Trump is all things horrible.
I think Trump is afraid Putin may have things that they could expose.
But John Brennan has a history.
John Brennan's a liar, not the garden variety dissembler, by the way.
This was in the Federalist, a great piece written by David Hersani, I think is his name.
And anyway, you may recall that he oversaw the operation of illegal spying on a staffer of the legislative branch of the U.S. government in the Senate.
At least five agency officials under Brennan's watch broke into Senate computer files viewing draft reports on torture and reconstructing emails of at least one staffer.
And then Brennan would attempt to cover it up by doubling down, blaming the Senate, pushing to fire at least one staffer charged with investigating his agency.
And it wasn't until the inspector general of the CIA confirmed the wrongdoing of Brennan.
And then Brennan lied to the Senate.
And then Brennan lied to senators.
And he lied under oath.
And yet he's treated like, you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John whenever he says anything that's anti-Trump.
It's pretty unbelievable.
Joining us now is Chris Tonto Peranto.
Remember, he was one of the Benghazi heroes.
He saved so many people on September 11, 2012.
We were lied to after that event as well.
And author of the book, The Ranger Way, and Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent.
He's an NRA TV contributor, host of the Dan Bongino show, which, by the way, we saw the logo for your show in your t-shirt and you're showing off your muscles and all this.
It really is, it's just pathetic.
How old are you doing this?
Deadlifting, Sean.
Deadlifts are the key, right, Tonto?
You got to get there.
Go pick up heavy stuff all the time.
I pick up heavy stuff all the time, but I'm just saying I'm not sitting there showing off my muscles to the whole world.
I'm a Queens guy, okay?
Yeah, all right, here you go.
With t-shirt sizes, is I wear Italian larges, which are a real world small.
So that's the way it works in Queens.
Italian large shirts, real world small.
You got to know that.
Let me be honest.
I look at the picture and I'm like, you could paint it on.
It's that tight on you.
I'm like, I think I need to interrupt and give a woman's perspective.
Oh, here we go.
Here comes Linda.
All of the ladies in the audience, if you'd like to look online at Tanto and Dan Bongino, I think that we would all give 100% approval of their apparel.
And gentlemen, I fully encourage your attire.
Keep wearing them tight.
We like it.
Oh, wow.
Thank you, Linda.
You know, if you were in any other environment.
Yeah, if you were in any other environment, you'd be suing her right now.
I mean, that's the way it works in the world today.
Watch out.
CNN's going to get us for sexual something.
Oh, yeah.
No, it's.
Listen, they basically play us on a loop anyway.
What's the point?
Exactly.
I'm reading your tweets, Mr. Perranto, and I love the line, I'm your Huckleberry.
And one of the greatest lines of all time.
And you go right at Eric Holder, and you go right at the former CIA director, Brennan, and you go right out at these deep state actors.
And I say, good for you.
What do you make?
Brennan is a known liar, but it's treated like gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
What upsets me is how we were treated.
And then you see him, I'm the same way.
You see him, this pompous guy on this throne being holier than thou.
And I'm like, wait a second, we came back, saved your guys' lives, and you treated us like dirt.
And now you're saying that you are better, that you have no faults.
And that's how I read it.
You have no faults, that Trump is the demagogue and this and that.
Like, wait a second, that's how you portrayed yourself.
And then on top of it, you didn't believe what we had to say.
You gave the chief who hid all night in our team leader.
You gave them awards.
And then also, and then also, you fired us.
You pulled our clearances for doing the right thing.
How does that not make you a worse person than what you're calling Trump?
It disgusts me because he's being a complete, complete, utter hypocrite, if not worse.
They're all hypocrites.
They're all phony.
And the fact that, you know, if you're a liberal, and this guy once voted for a communist presidential candidate in the 70s, I'm like, oh, how did he ever become the CIA director?
But it's the same in just about every case.
Conservatives get in trouble.
They're going to get handcuffed.
They're going to get perp walked and their mug shot taken.
And they're going to get 20 years in prison if they spit on the sidewalk.
But if you're a liberal, forget it.
You just can get away with perjury, lying under oath, and everything in between.
And that's the truth of it.
So that's why I just call it.
And if they would keep their mouth shut, I wouldn't say a thing.
I'd say, okay, I'll leave you alone.
But you come out and you want to be arrogant.
Well, I'm going to hit you right back because I know what happened to me.
And I'm not reading it from newspaper.
I know what you did to me and the team.
And so I'm going to put that out there.
And they bring the politics.
They actually show their true sides of when he was in.
Obviously, he was pushing the left because that's what he's doing now.
And he brought that into the CIA, which it shouldn't be in there.
It's so typical, though.
I mean, look, is there really a deep state?
Let's go through your situation in Benghazi.
You're given a stand down order.
I've interviewed you many times.
And you and a bunch of brave Americans, you know, basically say, all right, there's our career.
We're not standing down.
We know Americans are being killed and shot at, and we're going to do our job.
And you leave the CIA annex, and then you go to help these guys out in Benghazi.
You literally saved, God knows at the end of the day, how many lives.
You got people out safely.
And then you ended up, I think, in Europe, and you turn on the television and you see your government lying about you.
Explain that experience.
That had to be somewhat surreal.
It was completely disheartening.
You know, because I had been deploying at that point for over 10 years.
I'd been in the military and the agency as a contractor or with the State Department as a contractor for 18.
And I always thought the deep state stuff I did, I was conspiracy theory.
Hey, no, I'm just not.
There's no way.
It's not happening.
I'm going and doing serving my country.
My government has my back.
After that, it was, oh, my gosh.
Have I been this last two years?
So let's go to the first time.
You know what happened in Benghazi September 11, 2012.
Yeah.
All right.
When did you first turn on a television after that?
No, the following day.
So actually it would have been 9.
When I got to Germany, it would have been 9.13.
So it took us a day.
So 9-12, we got to Tripoli.
We fought all night at 9-12.
Got to Tripoli on 9-12.
Then we flew to Germany and got there on 9-13.
So it would have been 9-13 in Germany.
All right.
Turn on the TV, and what are you hearing?
I turn on and I see Susan Rice talking about a video and a protest.
And the first thing I did, I turned the TV off, and I was like, oh, my, this part for the course.
Holy crap, this is Obama for you right here.
And then I also thought about like, wait a second, did somebody on the team, what's going on?
So I called Jack Silva in his room and I said, hey, turn the TV on and tell me what you're seeing.
And he told me, I'm like, what kind of crap is this?
And then we, honestly, we just turned the TV off.
I was like, screw it.
You know, this is it.
This is par for the course for the Obama administration because I still wanted to work.
I didn't want to listen to that crap, and I knew it was a lie.
I knew they were lying.
But I'm like, you know what?
Somebody eventually will tell the truth.
Somebody within the government will tell the truth.
And it got worse and worse.
And that's when I saw the deep state continue.
Yes, there is a deep state, definite deep state.
And I saw it continually over the next eight months as I redeployed to Yemen and kept seeing the lies continue to grow and the truth being misconstrued and us being called liars and us being treated poorly when we went back into Langley.
And I'm like, you know what?
Finally, after eight months of the crap of me to redeploying again, we all as a team, as a team, we said, we're done.
We're done with this.
And the media.
And the media, the vast majority of the media ignored your story.
And by the way, Dan, I mean, look, you were in the Secret Service.
I mean, did you see deep state lying on a regular basis when you were there?
You know, Sean, it's more a function of bureaucrats who have power over process.
You know, Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch has a great line.
He always says, you know, process to the left is punishment.
He's really talking about the judicial system, but that works for the bureaucracy as well.
Quick explanation for you here.
Lawmakers get into Congress and our government is so big and so convoluted and so complex and spends so much money that they don't have a lot of time.
They don't have a lot of time to understand how they're supposed to actually act as legislators.
So what happens, Sean?
That empowers bureaucrats, people who aren't voted into office, people who are sitting there for their entire careers, 10, 15, 20 years in the State Department and elsewhere.
And that, yes, the answer is yes.
A deep state does exist.
They're like ticks.
They embed into the government.
They never get out.
They understand how the machinery works.
And it's their use of that understanding about how the complicated government works that they use as a lever of power over people who are even elected.
So yes, it's a very real thing.
Yeah, I think it's a real thing, too.
You know, the problem is, is that they never seem to get caught.
When you're looking at what, 300 and some odd 350% increase in the individuals that are amassed in the last year of the Obama administration, then you look at the whole cover-up as it relates to Hillary Clinton, and then you look at James Comey and Strzok and Paige and McCabe and Loretta Lynch and their conduct and their behavior.
And then you look at a FISA court judge lied to when people know that it was Hillary's information.
Dan Bongino, I look at all of that and I say, how does this happen in our country?
And even worse yet, how does a media not even care a little bit about it?
You know who gets caught, Sean?
If you're a Republican, then you get an amusing but dreaded air quote quote.
You're caught.
Look at this story yesterday that broke in ABC News about Andy McCabe recommending a perjury investigation for Jeff Sessions.
Are you kidding me?
Because he spoke about contacts with the Russians that had, he thought the question was about the campaign.
Sessions, Jeff Sessions, the guy, love him or hate him, was a reputation on the hill for honesty and integrity above nearly all others.
But, Sean, when Jim Clapper goes up on the hill and is asked a question about metadata and compiling metadata on Americans by Senator Ron Wyden, and he lies about it.
No question about it.
What happens to Jim Clapper?
Jack Squad happens to Jim Clapper because he's a big-time Democrat in the Obama administration.
You only get caught when you're a Republican and they want to catch you.
It's total crap and total garbage.
Brennan knew he'll get away with everything.
He'd be spying on the Senate with the Iran deal.
Yeah.
All right, stay right there.
We'll take a break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue.
Chris Tanto Peranto, one of the Benghazi heroes of September 11th, 2012.
He wrote the book, The Ranger Way.
Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent, 800-941 Sean.
All right, as we continue, Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent, and Chris Tanto Peranto.
And, you know, I guess one of the things we're talking about, we're talking about deep state lying, and we're talking about things that we never thought could happen in America, Chris.
That is, you know, people that would use Russian-bought and paid-for propaganda of Hillary to get a FISA warrant or top FBI actors, Department of Justice officials working to exonerate Hillary and not investigate her, even though everybody knows she committed crimes.
Then you got this deep state witch hunt against Donald Trump to undermine a duly elected president.
And you're sitting here thinking, this doesn't surprise me because I watched it all happen in my own experience.
It doesn't.
You're actually going through that.
And being at the level that we were at, and being that night, even where we actually were willing to lay down our lives for people like that, and they still turn on you.
It never is a shock.
It never is a shock.
And when they still try to hide it, when the FBI tries to hide it, and I did put that out there where tweeted that, hey, the FBI are trying to get us for excessive force.
They're questioning.
When I walked out of that, I felt like I had been interrogated when I talked to the FBI.
It was always, hey, where'd you shoot?
How come you shot so much?
Where'd you shoot at?
Were there civilians there?
And you're sharing.
So they're interrogating you, and you went to save American lives when a compound was literally invaded by radical Islamists.
It was disgusting.
Myself and my buddy Boone, Benton, when he was interviewed, we'll say interviewed, I felt interrogated.
I had to actually bring up to them, hey, you know, we were told not to go.
Why were we not told to stand out?
They didn't care anything about that.
It was about us shooting, us shooting and what happened.
And then the question, what got me the most too was, why did you call for combat airsport?
Why did you call for Spectre?
How did you know how to use Spectre?
And I looked at him, I'm like, you do realize my background, right?
You know what I used to do.
I wasn't a Walmart security guard.
I worked with the Rangers and I was with the Global Response Staff for six years.
It was complete.
It was ridiculous.
And it made me again realize that what am I working for tomorrow?
What government is this?
Am I been doing the wrong thing for the last 10 years?
It really.
No, you were not doing the wrong thing.
And this is what I keep saying about the FBI, Dan Bongino, and the intelligence community and the 99.9%.
I'm only talking about the top echelon that abused their power the way they did.
Sean, there are a couple of things they have to explain away.
The exoneration of Hillary Clinton via a number of draft writings of Comey's speech has got to be explained away.
America can't move on until we have an explanation to how you exonerate someone involved in a criminal investigation, or as they prefer to call it, a matter, before you interview them.
They also have to acknowledge how all of the safeguards for information presented to the FISA court to verify its authenticity.
We got to break it.
Right.
It's unbelievable.
Times we never thought we'd see in America.
All right, Chris, Tanto Peronto, thank you.
Dan Bongino, thank you.
Take a quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue.
I think he's afraid of the president of Russia.
Why?
Well, I think one can speculate as to why, that the Russians may have something on him personally that they could always roll out and make his life more difficult.
Clearly, I think it's important for us to be able to improve relations with Russia.
But the fact that he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin has not said anything negative about him, I think, continues to say to me that he does have something to fear and something very serious to fear.
Do you believe Russia has something on him?
I believe that the Russians would not opt for things to do if they believe that it was in their interest.
And the Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things that they could expose.
Something personal, perhaps?
Perhaps.
Let's speculate.
Let's go out there.
Let's just guess.
Well, let's see.
Donald Trump has been pretty darn hard on all things involving Russia.
I didn't see that Vladimir Putin in any way was afraid of anything that Barack Obama did.
Nothing at all.
Donald Trump, the guy who's led us to energy independence, well, that directly undermines everything that Vladimir Putin wants to do in terms of what's good for him, what he needs for his economy.
Oh, but Donald Trump did it.
You know, so you got Brennan out there.
Brennan is, you know, the guy that voted for a communist for president of the United States.
How in God's name he ever became the CIA director is beyond any understanding I have at all.
So he's a deep state leftist operative.
And when all is said and done, I'm dying to know how culpable Brennan is in terms of the things that he might have been involved in as it relates to deep state activities involving Donald Trump and unmasking and all these other scandals that are out there.
Anyway, he's out there, so he goes out and suggests, I think Trump is afraid of Putin.
They may have things that they can expose.
You know, they could have something on Donald Trump.
And then what do you expect happens?
Well, it becomes the talking point all over conspiracy TV, MSNBC, and fake news, CNN.
You got Mika on the Liberal Joe show drooling over the former CIA director's attacks on Trump.
You know, Jake Tapper, you know, same thing with him.
And Brzezinski saying, oh, if there's a Twitter typo by Donald Trump, that shows his state of mind and that he's unhinged.
Joining us now, Danielle McLaughlin, constitutional attorney.
I don't know how.
Oh, Lord Blow at a start.
I have no idea how that happened.
I'm not going to be mean, but I often wonder that.
I mean, I really do wonder that.
It's a very long story.
Jonathan Gillum, who wrote the best-selling book, Sheep No More, former Navy SEAL.
You did everything.
You're a former everything.
Not a constitutional attorney, though.
The yin and the yang, my friend.
Well, I'm glad you're both in studio.
I like it better when you're on the phone and you guys can actually hate each other and say what you really mean.
So the former CIA director, how wrong is it?
What evidence is there that Putin has something on Donald Trump when Trump imposed new sanctions on Russian organizations?
Trump joined our allies as it relates to the poisoning issues that they've been dealing with in Europe in condemning Vladimir Putin.
Last year, the president signed legislation imposing punitive sanctions on Russia for their belligerent activities as it relates to human rights abuses and the evasion of existing sanctions.
And he's basically ripping the lifeblood of Putin's economy out from underneath him because now Anwar is open.
The pipelines are being built.
Natural gas production is continuing and coal now exists because of Donald Trump, which means we're on a path to energy independence.
He's not helping Vladimir Putin.
I think he's not done enough.
So sure, the sanctions, he put the sanctions on, but it took months and months and months of pressure.
He has not once spoken out against Putin, either personally, privately, or publicly.
And there have been a lot of terrible things that Putin has done.
The difference, I think, here also between what Trump is doing as president and what Obama did as president is that I will agree that Obama watched while Ukraine was taken and didn't really do enough.
But we know that Russia interfered with our democracy.
We know that Russia interfered with our democratic processes.
And I think people want to see him do more.
I'll be honest with you.
I think that's what it is.
What do you think, Jonathan?
Okay, so I'm skirting a line.
I can't talk about some of this stuff having been the FBI and read into certain programs.
But I'll tell you, this is the reality that most people don't know, is that Russia, although a threat, is not our greatest threat.
They do the same things, and this is what's not being told by criminals like Brennan, is that there are several other countries that do the same thing.
They interact with our elections.
They spy on us.
They spy on our industrial companies.
And they try to change policy and affect industry to their benefit.
And so Russia, while being a problem, is no different than any other problem.
It's just the fact that, and I think we have enough evidence to say this, that it's the fact that for the Democrats, it's their Hail Mary pass, and they are not going to let go of this and try to make it a bigger and bigger deal.
And that's why I believe, and I say this with all due respect, you're being fooled with the rest of the American people into thinking that Russia is a bigger deal than it really is.
Well, there's one other thing we got to say about Brennan.
If we look at the role that Brennan and other Obama intelligence officials played in promoting that phony dossier that Hillary paid for, remember his testimony before the Intel panel, Brennan emphatically denied the dossier factored into the intelligence community's publicly released conclusion last year that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump's chances of victory.
Now, he also swore he didn't know about who commissioned the dossier, even though senior national security counterintelligence officials at the Justice Department, FBI, they knew the previous year.
So he's lied under oath.
And if we're going to do that to Michael Flynn, well, I think Brennan himself needs to be charged with perjury.
Well, if there's an investigation he's found to have lied under oath, I'm totally with you.
I think that the law is good for all of us.
So if one person lies under oath, that's absolutely fine.
I want to go to the dossier.
I know there's a lot of talk around the dossier, but certainly the Pfizer warrants.
It was very clear that it was funded by someone who was a political opponent.
By the time the FBI had it, there were only two people in the game.
So it was very clearly, at least by inference, these people were, it was clearly by inference going to be Hillary Clinton.
I want to go back to something that Jonathan said.
And your point is well taken.
But here's a question to you.
What about China?
So we are now today announcing these huge rounds of tariffs, $50 or $60 billion against China.
Clearly a problem, but we need China for more.
How you bring up the topics that you like when I'm talking about something entirely differently.
Hey, you got me to say that if John Brennan lied to he should.
The CIA Inspector General's report contradicted what Brennan said publicly because Brennan was forced to privately apologize to the Intel committee chairs after a tense meeting that they had had back a couple of years ago.
And it's even worse than that.
Even Ron Wynn, a Democrat, said the CIA broke into the Senate computer files, then tried to have the Senate staff prosecuted.
Those are crimes, are they not?
You're the lawyer.
Is that a crime?
Yeah, that's a crime.
So then who is Brennan to lecture anybody about what Putin may or may not have when all he's really doing is playing politics?
You know what?
John Brennan has seen far more intelligence than anyone in this room and probably anybody listening.
So I do have to take him at his word that he has seen some truly problematic things, setting aside what he might have done or not have done in terms of wrongdoing.
But when we look at the way John Brennan presents the information, I don't discount that he's seen way more than I have.
But having served the amount that I have and been privy to the information that I have been, I know that when he tells the story of Russia and when he talks about Trump in the light that he talks about him, it is completely one-sided.
And that's the thing about intelligence.
If I have more information than you do, I can then feed you what I need to feed you in order to make you think whatever I want you to think.
And, you know, if we just look at the way this has unfolded and we look at the response that these people had and the people that had the response after McCabe was fired, we look at Susan Power, who was backing up Brennan and clapping her.
Samantha Power.
Samantha, excuse me, Samantha Power.
All these people who just coincidentally were also somewhat involved with the unmasking of individuals of crafting the FISA warrant information, or at least backing that information and saying it was real.
There's just, it's completely fabricated.
And I think if you want a good example of a way all this stuff works, if you look at when the Obama administration used analytics and data mined Facebook, they did that as well.
And then you didn't use stolen Facebook data.
They used Data Linux, but they didn't use stolen Facebook data.
And I think that's a big difference here.
I'm not sure exactly what the difference was because whether they quote unquote stole it or they were allowed to mine it, regardless of the fact, basically the same thing was done, the same information was gotten.
When we look at Trump, the fact that Facebook is involved in this now, you kind of have taken out one of their legs.
So these other people are going to step up the rhetoric.
But you see already when one of the legs is taken out, what you get is less of a picture of that one-sided viewpoint.
So you can also look at the other way around when they have all their legs.
The whole story is completely one-sided.
And that's just the way criminals work.
I understand.
So there's two things.
Number one is that we know that there were Russian bots and there was a troll farm totally echoing the messages of the Trump campaign.
No, stop.
No, no, no.
That's not what was determined.
That they wanted to sow discord and chaos.
And simultaneously, the same bots were ginning up a protest for Trump and against Trump.
I think that's probably, honestly, plausible deniability.
I'd be shocked if it wasn't because overwhelming a lot of this stuff was an anti-crime.
How do you know what the bots were doing?
How do you know what Russian trolls were doing?
They were doing stuff to me, too.
No, no, I'm not making this stuff up.
Not at all.
I mean, here's the other thing about Trump.
Oh, wait a minute.
But you're acting as though, well, it's probably they were doing this to, you know, so they'd have plausible deniability.
I'm like, you don't know.
You're saying that.
No, I'm making an inference.
I'm absolutely making an inference that's absolutely.
Okay, well, we like to deal in truth.
I understand that.
I understand that.
So here's the other thing.
They were doing pro-Trump and anti-Trump rallies at the same time.
So why was Donald Trump lying about the fact that he was looking for investments in Russia?
There was a letter of intent signed 2015.
It would have had to be funded by a sanctioned Russian bank.
There were a lot of things that were in the world.
How many years has Donald Trump done business around the globe?
Oh, look, decades.
Why did he lie about it?
How many years did he do, did he try to do a deal in Russia?
By my math, it goes back 30 years that the Trump organization was trying to do this.
So why did he tell the American public that that wasn't happening when it was a fighter?
Well, because he never did a deal in Russia.
Sure, he had a letter of intent, though, and he had intended to be a business.
But he never did a deal in Russia.
That's the point.
Yeah, I mean, I get your point, but you have to understand that this is how some people...
No, that was his point, and I agree with him.
So why was his son talking to a golf reporter and told them that they got a lot of money through their golf forces from Russians?
Like, he went out to the American people and said, I have no ties to Russia.
Well, why does Donald Trump tell everybody that he's a billionaire?
Because he can.
Well, it doesn't make it true.
I mean, it doesn't make it true.
Yeah, I believe he's on the Forbes list.
What about, you know, we now have this new book out by Peter Schweitzer.
It shows, oh, Joe Biden, vice president, brings his son on a trip that he's going on with China.
He's sucking up to the Chinese, unlike what the president did today.
He's taking on the Chinese like he's taking on Russia.
And 10 days later, you've got a billion five in a business deal that that son made with rich Chinese investors.
Is that the same cocaine-sniffing son that got kicked out of the Navy?
I don't know which one it is.
I don't like to talk about people's children.
Yeah, well, this guy's in his 40s.
I mean, it's.
Well, I'm talking about the one that did the deal 10 days after he and his father in his professional capacity.
You know, imagine if this was one of the Trump kids.
I mean, the world would be going nuts.
You know, here's the reality of all this.
And I know there's so many liberals that I've talked to that are literally shaking their head because they cannot, they don't see an end to this Russian thing.
They see how these people have all gotten together, whether you call it the deep state or people just hate Trump.
I think it's way deeper than that.
But you see people like McCabe who've lied under oath and thrown other people under the bus.
And people are just taking a step back going, what does this have to do with managing the country?
If the president's managing the country, why can't we just let him manage it?
Because none of this stuff that they're talking about ever amounts to any relevance.
And it's just defeating a purpose.
We'll take a break.
More with Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillum.
All right, as we continue, Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillum, our news roundup information overload hour here on the Sean Hannity show.
So tonight on the TV show, John Solomon has spent some time with the FBI informant that was in Putin's organization and network inside of America.
And they were bribing, extorting, and there was money laundering and kickbacks going on.
And the FBI director, his boss at the time, the informant's boss, did nothing, and he was Robert Mueller.
Is that a problem?
Well, of course, we need to look into this.
You know, if Bob Mueller has done some things that are untowards and are problematic, which should be looked into.
But this guy is an American patriot.
He was in the services.
He was appointed under Republican and Democratic presidents.
I understand that people who don't like what he's doing are going to find ways to attack him.
And that's just part of his job.
I mean, it happened with Ken Starr back in the 90s with Clinton.
It's just the way it worked.
Actually, I would say that the Clintons and the way that they attack Ken Starr is kind of a model for what's happening now.
I don't even think.
Honestly.
I think Robert Mueller's gotten a pass, if you ask me, up until this week when we've been doing our deep dive into who Robert Mueller is.
You know, having done honorable things or having an honorable pass does not mean that from that point to this to now, that the person is still honorable.
Well, listen, he got the Bronze Star, I believe.
He served in the military.
I praise his service, but I don't praise what he did in Boston with Whitey Bulger.
And I don't praise that four innocent people went to jail only to be found innocent and exculpatory evidence withheld, we find out, and a hundred-plus million-dollar judgment in that case.
Two of the guys that went to jail died in jail.
Right.
And then you also have people like McCabe, who, when I trace back his, and I've talked to a lot of people that served with McCabe when he was a regular agent all the way up to the point where he was a deputy director.
Every single person that I talked to said the same thing.
He was the biggest jerk.
He was demeaning to people and he was climbing a ladder.
And that's what he was concerned with.
And that is typical of the people that are at the top of these places.
So you can even.
No, you work there.
Well, yeah, and you can serve in an honorable place and not be honorable.
I mean, that happens.
Thank you both.
When we get back.
All right.
Zuckerberg now is out there trying to defend Facebook.
He's not doing a good job, and we'll get to your calls next.
What's right with America.
You're listening to the Sean Hannity Show.
I-25 now till the top of the hour.
We'll get to your calls here in just a second, 800-941, Sean.
Mark Zuckerberg, now coming under heavy fire as it relates to Facebook.
You know, I've always said this.
If Julian Assange, which he did, is able to hack into NASA and the DOD when he's 16, okay, shame on him.
All right?
You don't want people.
But if he's in his 40s and you still have, if it's not him, whoever, well, we shouldn't have people like Hillary making top secret classified special access program information available.
But at some point, it becomes shame on us for not protecting, in other words, our government computers, that we don't have cyber security.
At some point, you got to take responsibility that we don't assess the threat properly and do everything possible to stop it.
We have to know in a dangerous world, evil actors, evil states like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are going to want to and do try to hack our systems every single day.
And at some point, you got to say, shame on us.
That is what is key.
Now, we know that in the Obama elections, that they were somehow able to come up with these apps and configurations and systems to get all these algorithms, if you will, from Facebook and use it as a mechanism to get more people to vote for them.
Well, now all of a sudden, well, Donald Trump had a company that might have been involved in some of the same analytical analysis or processes, which isn't true, number one, and didn't happen.
But putting that aside, so Zuckerberg's saying, well, I will testify to Congress that it's the right thing to do.
And maybe I should do more interviews.
And I'm not sure if Facebook shouldn't be regulated.
And the Russians were focused on trying to divide people, which is true.
They wanted to sow Discord.
And asked if we can trust Facebook.
He says, well, we need a tool to show people if their data was affected by a rogue app.
And the fact that this has gone on for so many years, I'm like, no, shame on you at this point.
In other words, look, everybody wants to hack into these different systems.
We know it.
They're making billions.
They have an obligation, especially to protect all the people that use their applications, their websites, etc.
Let me play for you what Zuckerberg said, then we'll get your reaction on the other side of this.
Lawmakers in the United States and the UK are asking you to testify.
Everybody wants you to show up.
Will you testify before Congress?
So the short answer is, I'm happy to if it's the right thing to do.
You know, Facebook testifies in Congress regularly on a number of topics, some high-profile and some not.
And our objective is always to provide Congress with this extremely important job to have the most information that they can.
We see a small slice of activity on Facebook, but Congress gets to have access to the information across Facebook and all other companies and the intelligence community and everything.
So what we try to do is send the person at Facebook who will have the most knowledge about what Congress is trying to learn.
So if that's me, then I am happy to go.
What I think we found so far is that typically there are people whose whole job is focused on an area.
But I would imagine at some point that there will be a topic where I am the sole authority on and it will make sense for me to do it.
And I'd be happy to do it at that point.
You are the brand of Facebook.
You are the name of Facebook.
People want to hear from you.
And that's why I'm doing this interview.
But, you know, I think that there's the question in a question of congressional testimony is what is the goal?
And that's not a media opportunity, right?
Or at least it's not supposed to be.
The goal there, I think, is to get Congress all the information that they need to do their extremely important job.
And we just want to make sure that we send whoever is best informed at doing that.
I agree separately that there's an element of accountability where I should be out there doing more interviews.
And, you know, uncomfortable as it is for me to do a TV interview, I think that this is an important thing that as a discipline for what we're doing, I should be out there and being asked hard questions by journalists.
Given the stakes here, why shouldn't Facebook be regulated?
I actually am not sure we shouldn't be regulated.
You know, I think in general, technology is an increasing, increasingly important trend in the world.
And I actually think the question is more, what is the right regulation, rather than yes or no, should it be regulated?
What's the right regulation?
Well, there are some basic things, and then I think that there are some big intellectual debates.
On the basic side, there are things like ads transparency regulation that I would love to see.
If you look at how much regulation there is around advertising on TV and print, it's just not clear why there should be less on the internet.
You should have the same level of transparency required.
And I don't know if a bill is going to pass.
I know a couple of senators are working really hard on this.
But we're committed, and we've actually already started rolling out ad transparency tools that accomplish most of the things that are in all the bills that people are talking about today.
Because we just think that this is an important thing.
People should know who is buying the ads that they see on Facebook.
And you should be able to go to any page and see all the ads that people are running to different audiences.
Are you specifically seeing bad actors try to meddle with the U.S. election now?
I'm not 100% sure what that means because it's not, I think the candidates aren't allowed to do that.
Are you seeing anything new or interesting?
What we see are a lot of folks trying to sow division.
So that was a major tactic that we saw Russia try to use in the 2016 election.
Actually, most of what they did was not directly, as far as we can tell from the data that we've seen, was not directly about the election, but was more about just dividing people.
And so they'd run a group on for pro-immigration reform, and then they'd run another group against immigration reform and just try to pit people against each other.
A lot of this was done with fake accounts that we can do a better job of tracing and using AI tools to be able to scan and observe a lot of what is going on.
And I'm confident that we're going to do a much better job.
Facebook has asked us to share our data, to share our lives on this platform, and has wanted us to be transparent.
And people don't feel like they've received that same amount of transparency.
They're wondering what's happening to their data.
Can they trust Facebook?
Yeah, so one of the most important things that I think we need to do here is make sure that we tell everyone whose data was affected by one of these rogue apps, right?
And we're going to do that.
We're going to build a tool where anyone can go and see if their data was a part of this.
So the 50 million people that were impacted, they will be able to tell if they were impacted by this.
Yeah, and we're going to be even conservative on that.
So, you know, we may not have all the data in our system today.
So anyone whose data might have been affected by this, we're going to make sure that we tell.
And going forward, when we identify apps that are similarly doing sketchy things, we're going to make sure that we tell people then to, right?
That's definitely something that, looking back on this, I regret that we didn't do at the time.
And I think we got that wrong, and we're committed to getting that right going forward.
Cybersecurity now is key.
Look, Life Lock is an advertiser.
And I'm telling you, if you don't have Life Lock, you're crazy.
You've got to protect yourself in this day and age.
And the bottom line is our government should be so secure, wrapped up that nobody could hack into it.
Nobody.
You know, at the end of the day, people are going to ask, well, where did Julian Assange get the emails?
It was from Russia.
Okay, unless we have any proof.
How do we know?
Because we know at least six foreign intel agencies were able to hack into Clinton's server in a mom-and-pop bathroom closet.
So it could have been Russia, it could have been China, it could have been Iran, it could have been North Korea.
Who knows where it all came from?
Or any one of a dozen other potential places that were able to hack into this.
There's some very brilliant people when it comes to their capabilities in terms of computers.
I just am not one of them.
But at some point, we've got to protect our systems.
That's why when American sources and methods are left on a mom-and-pop shop bathroom server closet, well, that puts American lives at risk.
And that's why these are felonies, and that's why the fix never should have been in in the investigation.
All right, let's go to Kim in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Kim, sorry to keep you waiting.
You're on the Sean Hannity show.
Hi, Sean.
Thanks for taking my call.
Hey, I have a quick question for you.
Why can't Trump fire Rosenstein?
Well, he can, but I think if he does politically, it would be a very bad idea.
I think Rosenstein is conflicted.
I mean, he is, as it relates to the subsequent FISA renewal applications, he was up to his eyeballs in it, and yet he still appointed a special counsel, his best friend, Robert Mueller.
And so I think he should have been conflicted out.
Yeah, why he didn't have to recuse himself is beyond any imagination I have.
Here's the thing: you know, there is no evidence of collusion, and there never will be evidence of collusion.
The problem is there was no specific crime as the special counsel law mandates that sent out Robert Mueller to find if there was a crime.
Robert Mueller now just keeps going from point A to point Z to point Q to point R.
It goes all over the map.
There's no limitations on the mandate, which is what Rosenstein should have done from the beginning.
And that means that, oh, if they want to investigate the Ukraine in 2005, and, well, Paul Manafort didn't pay $100 in taxes, let's indict him.
They can do that.
And that's the insidious nature of special counsels.
Now, with all that said, you know, well, then you're asking, well, why would Sean Hannity say we need a second special counsel?
Because we know that McCabe, we know Comey, we know Peter Strzzok and Lisa Page.
We know Loretta Lynch.
You know, the upper echelon, and I would say we should be investigating Clapper and Brennan and other deep state operatives like Susan Rice.
At the end of the day, they can't investigate themselves.
So the only option we really have, because the IG report is going to shed a lot of light on how corrupt things were at the top, not rank and file people in the FBI or the DOJ.
And the only tool, prosecutorial tool we have is that we'd have to appoint a special counsel as the Inspector General has no prosecutorial powers of his own.
So we're going to take that information, and I would say that's when the second special counsel comes in.
Wouldn't he report to Rosenstein, though?
And the American people are never going to find out what's going on.
This guy doesn't want any information.
Well, at that point, the second special counsel will be investigating him.
That's the irony in all this.
Who would that second counsel report to?
Who would be his director or his boss?
Who would that second counsel report to?
Well, remember, that's supposed to be independent, separate, and apart, and that's the whole meaning of it.
That's why everyone was freaking out at the idea that the president may end up firing Robert Mueller, which he never said.
He just said, like Dershowitz said to us last night, he never should have been appointed.
I don't agree with Alan Dershowitz, a very smart guy, that we need to stop what we're doing now and then have an independent investigation and a committee because I don't believe anybody's independent anymore.
I think everybody has chosen a side.
And in our case, as conservatives, we've chosen the side of the rule of law, equal application under the law, constitutional law.
On the side of the left, they have bought into conspiracy theories and fishing expeditions.
And that is what, you know, for them represents news, supposedly.
Scary, scary times, I got to tell you.
Anyway, I hope that answers your question, Kim.
Let's say hi to Michelle is in Chicago, Illinois, on the answer.
Hey, Michelle, how are you?
Hi, Sean.
Thanks for taking my call.
And I am just enraged like you are on this lack of accountability for these government workers who, time over time, throughout their careers are involved with just flat-out malpractice, ruining the lives of Americans, not doing their job, but yet continue to get rich on us, enrich themselves through these positions, and then aren't fired like I could be fired if I don't show up for work on time every day,
even if I'm a decent performer.
I just don't get it.
And at some point, we have got to take back accountability oversight as voters.
We cannot account for these appointed people, these FBI folks.
We have little control over this, and look where it's brought up.
Listen, I got to tell you something.
There is no accountability.
The deep state is and has been out of control.
What should be investigated, the things that we have uncovered as of now is only being investigated on the periphery.
Our time is now coming.
We have now, we have broken this wide open enough that there will be an investigation into Hillary, her email server, the crime she committed, those that covered up those crimes, rigged the investigation.
We will be investigating all of this.
And it's all coming.
And we will have a second special counsel.
All right, 800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
It's like a year's worth of work now culminating in what I think will be the second special counsel coming, which has to come.
These guys cannot investigate themselves.
All right, Kevin, tonight, 9 Eastern.
You don't want to miss this show.
The insane coverage and double standard: Stormy versus the Clinton women.
Nobody else will give you the information we have.
And a deep state look into the deep state, a deep state investigation.
Except it's a Hannity deep state dive into Clapper and Comey and Brennan and the rest of them.
Wait till you hear the information we have been able to dig up.
