Sean is joined by New York Times Bestseller Peter Schweizer whose new book, "Secret Empires: How The American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends," revisits some of Washington DC's greatest scandals. If you think a title has ever said it all, there is real corruption in the Deep State and Peter Schweizer stops by with some of the best examples. 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.
All right, let's see.
More star lawyer.
You know what's fascinating and phenomenal is that we have had now I honestly think that we had an impact on these cable channels because of the embarrassment we have brought to them yesterday in terms of their obsessive.
Well, hang on, this is now breaking.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has been hospitalized.
I'm told from an inside source I have, it's a high fever, nothing more serious than that.
But anyway, he's probably getting fluids and making sure they can drive that fever down.
If we get any more information, we'll let you know.
But, you know, last night we went into just, and yesterday on this program, we went into very specific detail of the media's obsession, just total, complete obsession with Stormy Daniels and their nonstop stormy coverage on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
And what's really amazing about it is just how unbelievably corrupt the media in this country is because, you know, these are the same people as we pointed out.
Well, Juanita Broderick was never on 60 Minutes.
She never got interviewed by CNN until, let's see, October of 2016.
Meanwhile, this story with her broke in 97 or 98.
And I had the second interview with her.
And I mean, it really is, I mean, this is how deep their hatred now goes towards Donald Trump.
You know, if they got Stormy Daniels, we're going to, I mean, let's just go back.
Let's play how obsessed CNN in particular is with Stormy Daniels because this represents everything that I've been saying about five specific forces against this president.
You've got the deep state leaking on a daily basis, the deep state involved in everything with the dossier to the Pfizer warrant of putting the fix in so Hillary Clinton isn't indicted and everything in between.
And then also leaking on Donald Trump.
They never thought Trump would win.
And then as soon as he did, their effort became to delegitimize him any and every way possible and leaking in unprecedented ways, setting him up in more unprecedented ways, advancing a story that never was true, is not true about Trump-Russia collusion.
Notice the media doesn't talk about Russia, Russia, Russia.
You know, they had a great distraction, stormy, stormy, stormy.
But they won't cover the story, but they never covered the stories involving Clinton because Clinton is a liberal Democrat.
And even though these are charges of abuse, rape, groping, grabbing, fondling, touching, kissing against a woman's will, exposing oneself and dropping his pants.
I mean, it's amazing.
It's stormy, stormy, stormy, stormy all the time.
Detailing on national television an intimate relationship with Donald Trump and the effort to conceal it.
Adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
The White House briefing expected to begin any moment now.
They will certainly face questions about Stormy Daniels.
The Stormy Saga takes a dramatic turn as the porn star speaks out on her alleged affair with Citizen Trump.
Stormy Daniels.
Stormy Daniels is a lawyer.
We haven't heard from him about the Stormy Daniels affair.
Adult film star Stormy Daniels breaking her silence about her alleged affair with President Trump.
We're talking, I think, understandably and appropriately about the most serious legal allegations that Stormy Daniels made.
Stormy Daniels.
Stormy Daniels.
I know you've heard a ton about that.
We have to see where that case goes and what this interview is about.
Is that possible to come up in the Stormy Daniels lawsuit?
She'd be able to say, hey, look, this lawyer is involved with a whole bunch of different things here.
This could be the last nail in the coffin.
Stormy Daniels is causing stormy weather.
Porn star Stormy Daniels claims President Trump broke the law, had her bullied.
Does Stormy Daniels have the president's number?
It sure seems that way.
President Trump might have met his match with Stormy Daniels.
How is Stormy weathering this?
Stormy speaks.
We're hearing quite a bit from Stormy Daniels.
Stormy's, in her own words, isn't going anywhere.
Stormy Daniels has a good lawyer.
The porn star Stormy Daniels was telling the truth.
Stormy Daniels is on a tail.
Quick preview of Stormy Daniels' interview this Sunday.
Breaking news there's Stormy Daniels.
Stormy Daniels.
The reason he can't engage with Stormy Daniels is because she's got his number.
This is CNN.
Your soft porn network.
I'm glad you guys enjoy.
It's true.
All right.
So, what we did last night, we were kind of having fun, but I actually took the questions from a Jerry Springer show and I interspersed them with the questions of Anderson Cooper.
Because Anderson Cooper was between the two interviews that he did about two alleged consensual relationships, you know, back 12, 13 years ago.
Donald Trump wasn't thinking of running for president.
Believe it or not, I'm not even getting into the issue.
But how does a network ignore the serious charges on Clinton?
Oh, that's right.
Then they hired Bagala and Carville and everybody else from the Clinton era and the Obama era.
Axelrod and Van Jones.
Is there anybody they don't hire that's a liberal leftist Democrat?
Anyway, but you intersperse it, and I think it makes my point.
So it's like the same questions that Anderson is asking are the same questions that Jerry Springer asks.
Listen, you told Donald Trump to turn around and take off his pants.
Yes.
And did he?
Yes.
You're young, you like that fun.
You're party girl, et cetera.
So what's the problem?
So what's the story here?
Oh, Lord.
And you had sex with him?
Yes.
Do you want to be with her boyfriend?
No, it was just a one-time thing.
Did you want to have sex with him?
No.
But I didn't say no.
You're not interested in being with him.
She's just a customer, right?
Or are you interested in being with him?
He ended up taking me home.
You work in an industry where condom use is an issue.
Did he use a condom?
No.
Did you ask him to?
No.
So you had sex with him?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
It sounds exactly like Jerry Springer.
You know, and then if you go back and you want to take it even a bigger step further, is you just go back.
It wasn't that long ago.
Although I know there's another generation out there that really probably doesn't know the stories of Juanita and Kathleen and Paula and how the media at the time dismissed Bill Clinton's accusers.
I mean, and just imagine these things said about Stormy Daniels, who's only talking about a consensual relationship.
And imagine if they were just saying these things about, they were saying these things about, you know, women that had alleged real assault as it relates to Bill Clinton.
Imagine this being said about Stormy in the era of Me Too.
Listen.
Yes, the case was being fomented by right-wing nuts.
And yes, she's not a very credible witness.
And it's really not a law case at all.
Some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer.
Wait a minute.
I think she's a dubious witness.
I really do.
So we've got an awful lot to talk about this week, including the sexual harassment suit against the president.
Of course, and that one stuff to figure out who's really being harassed.
Sam not trying to hurt the president.
Does she say that with a straight face?
Why does anyone care?
What this woman has to say.
But is bottom line, Sam, is she not trying to capitalize on this in effect to profit from impugning the president?
I have to profess complete confusion over this entire case, why this is even a case.
If any man, I don't care who he is, invites me to a room and pulls his pants down and asks me to do something, he's going to have a decided limp from that day on.
And I go on with my life.
I don't need to sue anyone.
It doesn't traumatize me.
I don't understand why this is even a case to begin with.
The story doesn't deserve to be dignified by being broadcast and displayed.
What I find fascinating about this case is that we've sunk so low now that a charge of this magnitude can be leveled against the president of the United States with next to no evidence at all.
I think that's outrageous.
I was written either in Time or Newsweek that even the woman herself, Juan Anna Broderick, said she hoped that this thing went away this week.
Even she was sick of hearing about it as her story.
Well, let's hope she gets her way with that.
Are we going to look back on this time 100 years from now the way we look back on Salem?
We're reaching the point where we're going to wind up with government by goody-goody, government by people who have done nothing in their life except walk the straight narrow, who have no creative thoughts.
We're going to look back on this 100 years from now and say we drove some of our best people out of politics.
Yeah, but Bibi's fine.
Okay, we just got word.
He is hospitalized, but we expect him to make a speedy recovery.
Our sources on the ground in Israel are passing on to us, so we're hoping and praying he's okay.
So I mean, you just look at the coverage and you look at all that you got here.
I mean, Anderson versus Jerry Springer kind of sums it up.
I mean, he's the lead, he is the face of CNN fake news.
And I'll be honest, I have nothing against Anderson Cooper, but I think the interviews were creepy and personal.
And the only thing missing from the interviews, to be perfectly honest, can you describe it all?
And they almost got to that in 60 minutes overtime.
They had a specific question that didn't make air.
And I'm like, wow, wow.
This is really creepy.
They wanted me to make a movie.
And I think.
Some of you have you having sex with somebody who looks like Donald Trump.
And I said no repeatedly, much to their, you know.
Why?
Physically, you've seen him in ways that other people haven't.
Correct.
And if need be, I can describe that.
His private parts.
Really, Anderson?
I can describe it to talk about a consensual relationship.
I mean, wow.
I mean, are we going to scrutinize media people like this?
I just, you know, we're going to ask questions of their boyfriends and girlfriends and so on and so forth.
I doubt it.
I mean, it's really the creep factor here is, you know, it was funny because we actually went back and even, you know, if you look at the New York Times, I mean, remember, this is 60 Minutes.
Now, 60 Minutes rightly did interview Kathleen Willey because they saw that that was relevant.
But this is unprecedented as far as anything I've ever seen.
And, you know, nobody seems to have connected the dots that they're not talking about Russia anymore at all because Russia's been debunked.
New fallout tonight in the Russia investigation.
Russian.
Russians.
Russian.
Russians.
Russians.
Russia.
Russia.
Russian.
Russian.
Russia.
Russian.
Russia.
Russian.
Russia.
Russia.
Russians.
Russia.
It's Russia.
Russia.
Russia.
The Russians, Russia.
Russia.
The Russian Russia.
The Russian Russian.
Russia.
Russia, Russia.
Russia.
Russia.
1998 in an op-ed in the New York Times.
They actually said publicly humiliating anyone for consensual adultery is draconian and wrong.
Well, apparently, except if your name is Donald Trump and you believe the allegations.
I mean, it is, these are uncharted waters we're living in here.
We're following here.
These are times that I never expected in my life.
You know, you've got the biggest abuse of power scandal in the history of the country, and for the most part, the media is ignoring all of it.
Hillary fixes a primary, no big deal.
If I was a Bernie supporter, I'd be pissed.
You know, Hillary has Comey and Strzok and Paige and Lynch and McCabe.
Oh, they're putting the fix in in her investigation.
They're not going to really look into the crimes.
We know they are crimes.
We've identified them.
18 USC 793, mishandling, destroying classified information, top secret.
She did it.
And then if any of you dare, I dare any of you, take subpoenaed documents on your email and just delete them, then acid wash the hard drive and beat up your devices with a hammer.
What do you think is going to happen?
And then she pays for Russian information and they don't care.
She paid for Russian and Russian government lies.
And then those lies are used as the bulk of an application for a Pfizer warrant to spy on an American.
Well, actually, an entire opposition campaign.
Unbelievable times.
The media ignores all of that.
All right, Linda's got some announcement she wants to make.
What do you got?
It's very, very serious.
I want to send a shout out to Shelly.
Shelly's actually been a longtime listener of the show.
She used to call when I was call screening.
Cool.
And we became buddies and emailed buddies, and we still talk.
And she heard me the other day talking about moonshine and how I'd never had it.
No, I've watched the series about moonshiners.
That looks like honey.
So there's three coins.
The first one is apple pie, moonshine.
Apple pie, moonshine.
The other one is moonshine cherry.
It looks like, what do you call those marashino?
Maraschino.
Maraschino.
But the funny thing about this, she says a little chocolate ice cream, a little moonshine cherry.
You have a good time.
And then last but not least is her favorite, which is Blackberry Moonshine.
And the name of it, it's from Tennessee.
I didn't know that.
Old Smokey.
Old Smokey, they call it.
Old Smokey Moonshine.
All right.
Now, how do you know that that's real moonshine?
Have you tasted it?
First of all, it's from one of our listeners.
So I trust you.
But you know this particular movie.
Well, don't get her arrested.
You know, it's illegal to do this.
This is legal.
It's distributed.
This isn't like, you know, in the backyard milk cart.
And this is distributed.
It's distributed moonshine.
Distributed moonshine.
It's got, you know, it's got branding and UPC codes.
But I thought it was like clear moonshine, or most moonshine is clear.
That's the stuff you use to clear up the acne on your face as it's all.
This is the stuff that you drink.
No, that's the stuff that I promise my kids if they ever get a tattoo, I'll acid wash their tattoo off.
You'll bleach bit their arms.
I'll bleach bit their arms.
What a horrible thing for a father to say.
No, but in all seriousness, this looks good.
Come on, take a swig on air.
Take it.
Take a swig on the air.
First of all, you don't take swigs on the air.
There's no real effect.
What is that?
Get your shine on.
Let's go.
Oh, shine.
No, no, no, no.
Do it really.
Come on.
Come on.
All right, when we get back, you'll do it.
No.
Well, come on.
I can't have me shooting.
I'll take it.
I'll take a swig after you do it.
If you do it, I'll do it.
do it.
Is there any, we're not really doing it if it's illegal, but we'll do it anyway.
All right, so we'll come back.
You're going to take a swig of moonshine.
If you do it, I'll do it.
You do it, I'll do it.
All right, then we'll get our shine on.
There's no peer pressure on the Sean Hannity show whatsoever.
In the meantime, can you look up any FCC regulations?
I know there's no FCC.
The deep state already wants me in jail.
By the way, Amy Kramer is there.
Wow, hey, Amy, how are you?
Amy, is that real moonshine?
You're from Georgia.
I want to know.
What do you mean you don't know?
She said absolutely, and she is thirsty.
All right, we'll try moonshine as long as it's legal when we get back.
And then the other news of the day.
By the way, the president has gotten the money for the wall.
I've been telling everybody, and now we've got confirmation, and I'll address that when we get back.
800-941-Sean Tolfried number.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
Hey, whoa, whoa, we're moonshine, sunshine.
Where's our moonshine?
You actually want to do moonshine on the air?
Well, what flavors are they?
I can't drink anything cherry because it's filled with cherries.
It's blackberry, and there's moonshine cherries.
I think, well, I'll tell you what, if it's really legal, what I'd like to do is take the apple pie one.
Would you like the apple pie?
No, but I won't take it.
All-American apple pie.
No, but I want to take that one home and try it tonight.
Why are you not taking it home?
It was a gift for me.
Oh, you're not going to let it.
Hang on.
Her hips.
I'm going to bring you some in.
Hold on.
The radio dial.
Lemon drop.
Take a sip.
You know how to get it.
All right, I have mine.
Get your shine out.
Now, Ethan's going to bring you in yours.
Okay, I got it.
And then we're going to do it together because nothing sounds better on the air than two people drinking moonshine.
I think this is.
Which no one can see or experience.
I have never had moonshine that I know of.
Well, this is the first time I'm going to be able to do it.
Remember, I attended a bar for all those years.
I think I know of.
Are you ready?
Are we counting?
Yeah.
One.
One, two.
Hang on.
Can we put music?
Together.
Together.
We have to do it together.
One, two, three.
Oh, I like it.
I like it.
It's very good.
It's not as strong as I thought.
Shelly, good taste from Tennessee, my friend.
Thank you.
It's not even strong.
I've drinking it.
What do you mean it's not strong?
For Putin?
What are we talking about?
Maybe we need to do Kentucky Clear, which they're saying right now.
I need to be able to walk home.
Turn your party light on.
See, now this is what we need to get through a show talking about the deep state.
Now I feel much better about all this.
See?
I'll give Amy Kramer and her daughter a little bit.
I'll stop.
Amy Kramer can't wait.
Put your party light on.
Come on, Amy.
Put it on.
I always thought, because I'm so stupid.
I watched the show Moonshine.
I love all of those shows.
I like the Alaska.
What's my Alaska show that I love so much?
The wilderness show?
Undercover.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
The one, the Alaska show where they're like totally.
The survival show?
No, the one where they live all over different parts of Alaska and they're on their own.
You should have asked me before Moonshine.
You don't remember.
Oh, so you can't remember.
And you're like frustrated because you're supposed to be filling the gaps for old people like me that it doesn't remember.
Anyway, I watch all those shows.
And if you need firewood, you cut your own firewood.
If you need food, you better get it in the season where food is.
I mean, there's one guy that has all of these sleigh dogs.
I got it.
Life Below Zero.
I love Life Below Zero.
You're welcome.
All right, so you watch Life Below Zero, and you literally have like three months to get enough food for the year.
And so you gotta, and then you gotta prepare the meat.
Then you gotta do everything yourself.
Everything.
And I just think it's amazing that I think I would absolutely, for a while, love that life.
At least I think I would.
Are we gonna start talking about going out to the woods to die again?
Is that where we're going with this?
No, no, no, but alone in the woods.
Well, let me tell you right now, that is a true, that is what I'm going.
If God forbid, I am diagnosed with an incurable disease that is going to kill me.
I am absolutely bringing my family around me and the people I love around me.
And I'm going to have a big party.
Might as well hire Florida, Georgia line, and we'll get our shine on.
And I'm going to say my goodbyes, and I'm going to find a place where nobody knows where I'm going.
I'm not saying that I'm not going to have medical care or try to get well, but I don't want my kids spending their life giving daddy a sponge bath in bed and wasting the rest of their life.
Maybe I'm hanging on for five more years and I can't even clean myself after I go to the bathroom.
I don't want my kids doing that.
I'm not going to take such a fun moment and just crash the show into a wall.
She asked me, Are you going to talk about going out?
Yeah, you're going to talk about going out into the woods again.
Now all of us are going to be starting to drink moonshine.
No, stop this.
But think for a second.
I am being selfless by saying that.
By saying I don't want my kids wasting how it might be years of their life giving me, you know, sponge bathes, baths, and cleaning me up after I soil myself.
I don't want them to do that.
They can hire someone to help.
Okay.
But I don't want them to see me in that condition.
I want them to remember me when I was fully, completely alive.
Not this thing that's lying there, you know, just making a mess every five hours and literally incapable of doing a thing for myself.
I think it's quite selfish.
No, it's selfish if I demand that they do that because then their whole life gets disrupted.
I want them to remember dad as dad was when he was really alive.
And I think it's selfless, actually, to say and prepare: look, if I'm going to, it's not like I want to leave them, but I don't want them to watch me rot away because sometimes people hang on forever.
I never thought I'd miss Stormy Daniels' covers.
Oh my God.
I don't you think that you don't see any selflessness in that at all?
No, they're your children.
They love you.
They're going to want you around as long as possible.
Okay, want me around to what?
I'm babbling to myself.
It could be really entertaining for YouTube channels in your old age.
Oh, really?
You want to do this on Facebook Live?
Hannity's got Hannity will have a live cam.
Hannity dying.
We'll be giving you the moonshine barrels of moonshine.
I'll be honest.
I remember my grandfather.
He's this strong guy.
He has a horrible stroke, half his body.
And it's like, that's, I don't want to remember him like that.
I remember the guy that was strong and tough and built a life out of nothing.
And that's the person that I try to remember, but you still have images of him in my bed because that's where we put him at the time of him suffering.
And we did everything for him, but I didn't mind doing it.
But I just think for me, I would prefer that I have a big party.
I say goodbye.
I promise you all you'll hear when I'm dead or when I'm recovered.
Either way, it doesn't look like I'm recovering.
The doctor says I have three months to live, but I'm going to fight and try and fight on my own and do the best I can.
And when I die, I want you to remember, have a big party again and remember the part of me that was alive, not the part of me that is incapable of doing basic human functions.
What?
I assure you that when you die, I won't come sponge you or wipe you.
You can do all that stuff in the woods with someone you hire.
And I'm not going to party back here at Connor.
There's lots of moonshine.
You can pay for it.
I mean, I won't fight you on it.
You know, if you want to cater it and hire FGL and you want me to, you know, that's for the goodbye thing.
No, that's not you.
Go to the woods.
You're not listening to me.
The party, the hiring of the band, I'm going to enjoy.
Then we'll go to, and I'm not going.
Oh, I have to have the party with you there.
You're such a wise ass.
You know, the proposal is for you to go into one with yourself.
I'm not your inner spirit.
I'm not going to.
I'm reclaiming my time.
Reclaim.
I'm reclaiming my time.
I'm not going to the woods.
Where are you going?
I'm not telling anybody.
Are you going to the beach?
I will find a place.
You're going to go to Okemo?
Will find a place where nobody knows where I will be getting medical treatment.
You know where I want to go?
I'm going to go get the medical treatment that the FDA hasn't approved at that time.
You're going to Switzerland.
One of the things that I loved about the president's speech, a State of the Union, he said, let people decide if they want to try this experimental drug.
Why is the government going?
No, you can't try that drug even though you're scheduled to die in 90 days.
Well, if it's my body and I'm about to die and it's got an even 1% chance of hope and I'm willing to take it, it's none of their business if I want to take that drug.
I agree with you.
I have decided that I will cure all illness with moonshine.
Okay.
Breaking news now.
But all I'll do is I will say goodbye just to finish the thought.
And I bet you our audience agrees with me.
I will say goodbye.
I will go somewhere where nobody knows.
I won't have my family sponge bathing me and taking care of me and cleaning me up every five hours.
Will you take your cell phone and tweet from there so we can get updates?
And putting applesauce in my mouth every five minutes.
I tend to like applesauce.
Okay.
There's nothing worse than putting applesauce in the mouth of an old person and thinking that that is the greatest thing that ever happened in my day.
I'd rather be dead at that point.
That's my own opinion.
It's very uplifting.
This is not okay.
It's very okay.
All right.
Are we done now?
Amy, you agree with me, right?
Amy Kramer agrees with me.
Her daughter agrees.
Amy and Kylie are here and they're on my side as just as an understood rule.
They're on your side of the thankfulness.
Kylie says she get Amy Jell-O and not applesauce.
All right.
That's the other thing.
I don't like jell-o and I don't want to be fed applesauce.
You haven't gotten the right flavor.
And I don't want to, you know, my diaper put on when I'm 80 years old or 85 years old.
I've got less trips to the bathroom.
Diapers are very convenient.
Then you can wear them yourself and never go to the bathroom.
Well, I'll wear them with pleasure.
They have lovely designs in the future.
That's fine.
You go and you hang out and let your family suffer, and I am going to lift that burden off of my family.
You lift it, brother.
So they never have to see me that way and remember me the way I was.
You look strong in the end.
Oh, good grief.
There's no hope for you.
All right.
I do have some news I got to get it to.
Now, so the left is losing their mind because for the first time in 70 years, the 2020 census is going to ask about citizenship.
What's wrong about asking about citizenship?
Can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't know, are you a citizen, and why asking that question is even remotely a bad idea?
I don't know what the problem is.
Anyway, the Justice Department asked the Census Bureau to reinstate the question of the census.
It's not appeared since 1950.
At the start of every decade, the Bureau counts the total number of people in the U.S. and the total number of citizens to determine each state's congressional influence and other relevant matters.
It's not like you're going to put the people in jail if they say, no, I'm not a citizen.
Now, the California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, whatever his name is, we've had him on before, has said that he's going to file a lawsuit.
Geez, shocking.
The sanctuary state's going to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration because they're upset over the question.
We're prepared to do what we must do to protect California.
California just needs to leave at this point.
If they're so unhappy with the rest of the country and they want to run and they don't want to obey the laws that the rest of us have to obey, maybe they should go out on their own.
Now, there is a sheriff.
This guy's going to be on Hannity tonight.
They announced that they're going to provide public information on inmates that are released from jail.
And that, of course, is because of the backlash against the liberal state sanctuary laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The Orange County Register, reporting to County Sheriff's Department, will publish who's in jail online, a database, including the date and time of the inmates' release, to help cooperate with other law enforcement agencies, including immigration and customs enforcement, ICE.
And now you have also an anti-sanctuary state movement picking up steam in Orange County.
And just more than a week after this tiny city, Los Alamitos, voted to defy California's law protecting illegal immigrants, Orange County is now poised to become a counterpoint against the state's resistance to the Trump administration and federal law, which is all good.
Now, the best news is, and I told you when the omnibus spending bill came in, I said, I'm telling you, the president's going to pay for the wall.
Now, of course, he's negotiating with Mexico to see if he can get a better trade deal, and then ultimately he's going to make the argument Mexico pays for the wall.
But in the meantime, he didn't say that they were going to write him a check.
I actually asked him that very question many times during the campaign.
You're not expecting Mexico to write you a check, are you?
And he said, no, but we're going to negotiate better deals, and ultimately they will be paying us back for the wall.
So the Democrats who claimed last week that the spending, omnibus spending bill is not going to be used for the wall, they thought they only allocated $1.6 billion.
Well, it turns out Steve Doocy this morning clarifying this dispute.
He was interviewing the White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley, and the speaker told us that you can use concrete, Docey said.
Senator Schumer says you can't use concrete to build the wall.
You can only improve the fence.
So what are you saying here?
Can you use it for a new wall construction?
Gidley responded, it's my understanding you absolutely can, noting that the Hispanic caucus came out vehemently against this bill for two reasons.
One is because in a letter they wrote to the president, it bolsters the president's deportation fence, quote, unquote, and also it builds a wall.
And Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted that the passage of the spending bill, that 100 miles of new walls are already authorized, and the president said Sunday, well, he's going to use part of the new defense appropriation funding to build the rest of the wall.
And then you have congressional representation for sanctuary states could shrink under the new plan to count these citizens.
That's another interesting article.
And you have another GOP senator has introduced a bill to end catch and release for illegal immigrants.
Not that, and that's Senator Jim Inhoff.
Not that anybody in California is going to listen to what the president says.
By the way, you're reading all this stuff about Gavin Newsom?
Gavin Newsom's not going to be president.
Ew.
He thinks he's going to be president.
He's not going to be president.
Send him some moonshine.
Yeah, he's going to need some of that moonshine by the time somebody gets to him and gives him the news.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show 800 941.
Sean Peter Schweitzer, when you hear the inside story how Biden and Kerry's kids, you know, literally making billion-dollar deals, it's pretty unbelievable.
You know, interesting, I don't know whether to get into this or not.
Interesting story on Mediaite.
The stormy Daniels 60 Minutes interview showed that this news story is starting to dissipate.
And then it goes on it somewhere down at the bottom.
And it goes, and while you may roll your eyes whenever Sean Hannity invokes former President Bill Clinton in defense of Trump, he does have a point.
How the country treated Clinton in the 90s and allegations of abuse of women did set a precedent.
Yeah, you think?
So if I was Chairman Goodland, what I would do quickly, because I had to go through this for the last year, fighting Department of Justice and FBI for documents.
I think the American people now know that they stonewalled for many, many months so that we could actually figure out that Fusion GPS was paid by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign to collude and interact with Russians to get dirt on President Trump.
That took us a long time to find out.
And what I would recommend to my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee, and I applaud Chairman Goodlatt for what he's doing, but don't wait.
So when we get back in two weeks, if the 1.2 million documents aren't in the Capitol, then he should immediately move to hold Department of Justice and the FBI in contempt.
And if we have to vote on contempt, then we should immediately move to impeach those officials.
That would be using the full power of the Congress.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, that was Devin Nunes talking to Maria Baratoromo of the Fox Business Channel.
If Congress doesn't get the documents, well, we should hold the FBI and the DOJ accountable and in contempt and move the to impeach officials.
Now, what's so amazing about this is the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatt, will join us at the bottom of this half hour.
He has now subpoenaed the 1.2 million DOJ documents.
Remember, they've only handed over about a little over 3,000 of these.
And he says, well, we want to see everything that the Inspector General has.
Now, part of this investigation is to the botched and, frankly, rigged and fixed handling of the Clinton email server investigation.
So that's part of it.
Also, remember, we have this big question mark.
I have appointed a person outside Washington many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us, and we're conducting that investigation.
So Chairman Goodlott will answer that question.
I also want to know why they apparently are pushing back the Inspector General for the release of the Inspector General's report, because I'd like to get to the bottom of that.
Now, we have, you know, there's one article that was in the Sun Sentinel, and where did I see this?
I forget.
You know, one of the reasons we're getting to the bottom of all of this, and this is the phrase that they use, it's 100 former deeply embedded members of the Intel community, comprising of the FBI, the NSA, the DOJ, have now formed together a powerful force whistleblower group network to expose, you know, what is the soft coup attempt and the abuse of the powerful tools of intelligence of the deep state.
Bill Benny, you know, 40-plus years of highly trained specialist with the NSA and a group of other intelligence specialists now, they're not standing by and watch this happen without exposing it.
So that's part of it.
And it's really important that we get to the bottom of it.
Now, one other thing that I want to get to, and then I'm going to introduce our guests, is that there are new text messages and nobody seemed to pay attention to it.
And Congressman Mark Meadows, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, keeps sending members over.
They're only looking at the 3,000 pages, but I mean, they're so extensive and comprehensive that nobody's had the time to get to every page.
Anyway, so late Sunday night, he was able to release a few of the latest texts incriminating from Lisa Strzok and Page, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page, the FBI lovebirds.
And anyway, it seems like Jim Comey has more questions to answer and whether or not he's part of this coordinated effort to collude with Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in 2016.
Remember, they're the ones that wrote about the need for an insurance policy.
But this newly released July 2016 text between Page and Strzok show a troubling reference to the former FBI director James Comey potentially interfering in the 2016 election.
And the first line actually says they quoted an article, and this is a text from Lisa Page to Peter Strzzok citing this article.
Potentially unpleasant news for Jim Comey.
We need you to intervene in the 2016 election again.
What does the U.S. government know about Russia and the DNC hack?
That's pretty interesting.
By the way, at this point, I'm convinced, you know, as it relates to who got Hillary Clinton and John Podesta's emails, well, we know that at least six foreign intelligence agencies hacked into Hillary Clinton's server.
Was it, let's see, Russia?
Was it China?
Was it North Korea?
Was it Iran?
You know, it could have been any one of these countries.
So what Mark Meadows is pointing out, that these two high-level FBI agents who appear to be discussing and laughing about Comey and him potentially getting involved in the 2016 election days after the Russia investigation into the Trump campaign had begun.
And he asked a question on Twitter, at what point does all this troubling information become enough that we can appoint a special counsel for a nonsense collusion case with zero evidence, but we can't do the same for the DOJ that by now appears as clear as day is that they're politicized.
And that's not the first message.
Anyway, David Schoen now joins us along with Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst.
David Schoen, a civil rights attorney.
Thank you both for being with us.
Greg, you've been following this.
Very few in the media picked up on the latest Strzok Page text here.
I thought that was a pretty interesting find by Mark Meadows.
What are your thoughts?
Every time new Peter Strzok, Lucid Page text messages are revealed, we find more of how they were trying to subvert justice and undermine democracy.
They were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected and defeat Donald Trump.
And once he won, then they tried to bring him down.
And their messages are pretty clear.
Now we have our work cut out for us, which seems to match their earlier emails about an insurance policy in case Trump is elected.
There's no doubt that they were working with Comey, McCabe, James Rubicki, James Baker, all of the top FBI officials to bring down Trump and prop up Clinton.
And as far as the Goodlatt committee is concerned, never again should Congress ever ask for documents.
Skip the asking.
Slap the Department of Justice and the FBI with Penis.
If they fail to meet the time limit, then move for impeachment.
So then we can have Rod Rosenstein begging Paul Ryan again not to release information that the public needs to see?
That's exactly right.
That's what he did before, and he'll do it again.
And it won't work.
I'm hearing, David Schoen, that the Inspector General report is being delayed for reasons that have not been sufficiently explained to me.
We were told it was going to be out next week in early April.
Now they're talking about May.
Why do you think that is?
I really don't know, but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they are really backlogged now.
The investigation has taken them down avenues they never could have anticipated.
And I'd like to think it means that they're taking the job very seriously, as I've known Mr. Horowitz to do in the past.
And they're going to be tough with crooked FBI agents and others.
But I have to return.
Isn't Horowitz, though, an Obama appointee?
And I know he's the one that released, if it wasn't for him, Strzok and Page wouldn't have been exposed and kicked off Mueller's team.
He's got a career of being a straight shooter.
He is an Obama appointee.
He was appointed in 2012.
But he's got a career of being a straight shooter.
Why am I afraid of those words?
Because that's what people said about Mueller, and it turns out not to be true.
Yeah, well, that's a good point.
And certainly has turned out not to be true.
Look, I think what's vitally important here is you've pointed out at the beginning of the show, at the end of the hour, Congress is starting to take a central road.
Remember, role.
Article 1 gives them that authority, Article 1 of the Constitution.
They're a co-equal part of government.
These guys are starting to wake up now.
They've got all kinds of authority.
And Michael Horowitz, by the way, reports to Congress also.
He reports directly to the Attorney General and to Congress.
These congressional committees play a vitally important role in all of the investigations you've discussed, and as you know, and have reported in the FISA scandal that's going on.
And in fact, Judge Collier and the FISA court told Congress that they should be getting documents directly from the Justice Department, these wiretap applications and otherwise.
It looks like Congress is getting involved, and they've got to.
And by the way, Congress can have a central role in the special counsel investigation also.
They can subpoena their own witnesses, witnesses the special counsel seems to be going after to threaten and that sort of thing.
The regulations build in for Congress to have a role in that process also.
And if they want to get the truth out of witnesses, Congress can give them immunity so we can find out what really happened here.
Yeah, I mean, I think that Greg is right.
Let's stop with the please hand us over this because we're wasting valuable time.
And I think that there's so much serious information here.
I don't see any other way but a special counsel at this point.
What do you think that Jeff Sessions means and what was he saying when he made the comment to Shannon Bream that I've appointed a person outside of Washington many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us were conducting that investigation?
I mean, how do we interpret that, Greg?
Well, who recommended him?
My guess is it was Rod Rosenstein who recommended somebody that he knows.
And Rosenstein, of course, should never be trusted.
You know, he's basically a Democrat Baltimore politician and who has always sided with Obama and Clinton and against Trump.
Well, Jeff Sessions says, let me go back to the statement.
He says, I have appointed Sessions doesn't know anybody in the Department of Justice or formerly the Department of Justice.
He's a U.S. Senator.
He didn't know anybody.
And so just look at his appointments of Rod Rosenstein.
It was based on recommendations.
He didn't appoint anybody on his own.
So his recusal was based on the recommendation of Obama people, wasn't it?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
His recusal was based on the recommendation of Obama people.
Oh, absolutely it was.
And it started, he didn't know anybody at DOJ.
And the next day, according to his testimony, he walked in and started meeting with Department of Justice officials.
Who were they?
They were Obama holdovers.
And so, I mean, he's been totally snookered at every turn.
He's oblivious.
He's not in charge of the Justice Department.
Rod Rosenstein is.
And, you know, Sessions is being led around by the nose.
What do you think, David?
Well, you know, one thing Mr. Sessions could do in this case, even after his recusal, is certainly to limit Rob Rosenstein's role in this, and certainly eliminate his role in the position that he holds.
He could get very much involved in that.
Look, Jeff Sessions certainly, if he wanted to, he certainly knows his lawyer is an outsider who also knows the Justice Department inside and out.
That's Chuck Cooper, one of the top lawyers in Washington, should have been the solicitor general in this administration, but he didn't want to go through all of this mud.
I don't know.
The comment's very cryptic.
I will say this.
You know, he asked earlier about Mr. Harwitz's investigation.
It might be telling that in November, just a couple of months ago, Mr. Horowitz was before Congress asking for authority for his office to investigate misconduct by DOJ attorney prosecutors who formerly, you know, otherwise just report to the Office of Professional Responsibility.
So it's hard to know what road that's going down.
I don't know what Mr. Sessions meant by that comment.
One can imagine all kinds of conflicts of interest if you're suggesting the person that's most conflicted is Rosenstein.
Rosenstein apparently signed off on using the bulk of information from the dossier to at least go ahead with the second FISA application, the renewal application, at least one, if not two, and then he hires Mueller.
So I'm sorry, but he seems like he should have been conflicted out a long time ago.
All right, stay right there.
800-941-Sean, David Schoen, Greg Jarrita with us.
All right, as we roll along, David Schoen, Greg Jarrett are with us as we continue our investigation into Deep Stategate.
All right, let's look forward.
I would say the following people, besides Andrew McCabe, Greg, are in trouble.
I would say James Comey is in legal, has legal issues.
Certainly, Strzok and Page.
The fact that they're there makes me wonder if they've cut a deal and are singing like little birds.
Then we've got Andrew McCabe, but also Loretta Lynch beyond that.
Who else do you see potentially dealing with legal issues, especially on the personal side?
Well, the five people who altered the exoneration statement composed by Jim Comey, and that would be McCabe, Rubicki, Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok.
Those are the five people involved.
The electronic communications, which have since been discovered, prove it.
So they're all in jeopardy under obstruction of justice.
But I would say Comey is in the greatest jeopardy of all, because remember, he stole government documents, four of which were classified, kept them at home in an unauthorized location, and gave four of the seven, meaning one classified document at least, to his friend, who now, by the way, says he is the legal counsel for Comey and invoking attorney client privilege for both Comey and himself, Daniel Richmond.
Isn't that convenient?
And who do you see, David Shoan?
I think those are the list of characters.
The big question is: who's going to bring it?
Who has the guts, who has the integrity to bring a prosecution, an investigation first?
And certainly, isn't the criteria under the special counsel regulations and special counsel statute triggered by these facts to a much greater degree than it was for the special counsel farce of investigation that we have now?
We've got to get going with this, though.
It's got to be soon.
The appointment of special counsel, the House should be investigating these things and bring some life to what we've been talking about for a while.
And I'm going to say, Mr. Rosenstein, you know, he probably needs to leave the position.
You don't need to know anything more about his judgment than the appointment of Mr. Mueller and beyond that, that he sat idly by with the team that Mr. Mueller appointed to join him and special counsel.
Remember, the special counsel was appointed because the Justice Department had a conflict.
So many members of that team are Obama administration Justice Department officials, fresh from the Justice Department.
Now, with the Clinton email thing arising again, you've got a prosecutor, Jeannie Ree, who's Clinton's personal special counsel team.
Don't forget Bruce Orr.
Yeah.
All right.
Thank you both, David Schoen, Greg Jarrett.
When we come back, Bob Goodlatt, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Peter Schweitzer, straight ahead.
So if I was Chairman Goodland, what I would do quickly, because I had to go through this for the last year, fighting Department of Justice and FBI for documents.
I think the American people now know that they stonewalled for many, many months so that we could actually figure out that Fusion GPS was paid by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign to collude and interact with Russians to get dirt on President Trump.
That took us a long time to find out.
And what I would recommend to my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee, and I applaud Chairman Goodlatt for what he's doing, but don't wait.
So when we get back in two weeks, if the 1.2 million documents aren't in the Capitol, then he should immediately move to hold Department of Justice and the FBI in contempt.
And if we have to vote on contempt, then we should immediately move to impeach those officials.
That would be using the full power of the Congress.
All right, that was Devin Nunes on with Maria Barratiroma over the weekend on her weekend program.
Joining us now is Congressman Bob Goodlatt of Virginia.
He's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
He's not wasting any time in getting to truth as it results to a lot of these issues.
And anyway, he's now expected to subpoena the DOJ to obtain documents related to how the FBI handled their probe into the Hillary Clinton's email server and other issues.
Mr. Goodlatt, welcome to the program.
Thank you for being with us.
Sean, thank you.
It's good to be with you and your listeners.
Why am I hearing that the IG report now may be pushed back a month?
Is that true?
Well, I've talked to the Inspector General, and he committed to getting it done in April, but he has to go through a lot of hoops.
He has to give it to the three principals in the Department of Justice before he releases the public.
And part of this will be classified, which can come to the Congress, but it cannot go to the public.
So they are in the process of doing this.
Is this something that can be declassified like the memos that went to the White House for declassification?
I would hope so.
I can't say until I see it.
But in my opinion, as much of this as can get to the American people as possible without, you know, in any way jeopardizing sources, I think should be made available as soon as possible.
But I'm still hoping that we'll see it before the end of April, but it is a little later than we had hoped, and it is important that the American people see this.
We have a lot of confidence in the Inspector General, but we won't know what we have until he files his report.
But the Inspector General report goes well beyond the investigation into Hillary's email server scandal, correct?
It could.
He was just recently asked by the Attorney General to also look at the FISA warrant issue.
What we said about that was great.
We want you to look into that too, but we also want a special counsel appointed because you can't go beyond the Department of Justice.
You've got witnesses who've left the Department of Justice.
You've got witnesses in other departments, and you don't have prosecutorial powers.
He can refer for prosecution, but he can't prosecute himself.
So we think that a special counsel is needed, and we also think that he should get this report out regarding how the FBI handled the Clinton email and related matters out now and not wait until he's also done this other work on the FISA warrant.
We need the information out.
Is there any doubt in your mind, Hillary Clinton, when she used an outside server, and we know there was classified top-secret special access programming classification on that hard drive in a mom-and-pop shop, that the early exoneration letters or exoneration statements of Comey and Strzok referred to the fact that foreign intel services had hacked into that?
And I imagine that it was probably easy to do.
Is there any doubt that 18 USC 793, which says mishandling of classified information, or one of the subsections that says destroying classified information?
Do you have any doubt those things were violated?
And is it obstruction of justice if you delete subpoenaed emails, then destroy the hard drive, and destroy any devices that might have the emails?
You have a whole series of issues that were raised back when James Comey went before the television cameras to announce all the things she had done wrong, and I was waiting to hear him say, therefore.
Instead, I heard, however, and it is inexplicable to me.
And that's why Chairman Trey Gowdy of the Oversight Number Reform Committee and I launched an investigation into how the FBI handled all of this starting last October.
That's why we want the documents, which I finally issued a subpoena for last Thursday.
The Inspector General has been looking through 1.2 million documents.
We've gotten a few thousand documents.
I've had conversations now with both the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI.
We have their attention.
I think we're going to see more documents soon, but we need them now.
We need them unredacted.
We know that on the email server alone, isn't it expected that you're requesting 1.2 million documents?
Yes.
Oh, yes, very definitely.
They know we want everything that the Inspector General has minus the transcripts of grand jury testimony, which we cannot get under this subpoena.
But everything else we want.
I mentioned 18 USC 793 about mishandling and destroying classified and top secret and special access programming.
If you subpoenaed Sean Hannity as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and you subpoenaed email records and I just decided to delete about, oh, let me guess, 33,000 of them, just to pull a number out of thin air.
I just deleted them and I acid wash my hard drive with BleachBit and then I broke up any devices where those emails might be on as well.
Would you say I was trying or attempting to obstruct justice?
Is that a crime?
It would look very seriously like a crime.
The Congress can't prosecute you, but we would definitely refer it for investigation and prosecution.
How long ago, if I'm not mistaken, didn't Jason Chaffetz subpoena this information a long time ago, like a year, year and a half ago?
I don't think it's the same information, but it is information that relates to the entire gamut of things that the FBI did during the 2016 presidential election and then going into 2017.
And by the way, this should be bipartisan.
Democrats, independents, everybody should be concerned about how the world's premier law enforcement organization were besmirched by a handful of people who in an incredibly biased manner conducted this investigation.
And Democrats should want to know why it was that Jim Comey announced publicly he was reopening the investigation 10 days before the election.
And they should want to know why Andrew McCabe was leaking to the Washington Post, to the Wall Street Journal about the Clinton investigation.
So this is something that we shouldn't allow to go on and have the same kind of atmosphere infecting the 2020 presidential election.
Both sides, everybody should be concerned that the FBI should be a neutral, impartial, professional organization, as every day thousands of FBI agents do, keeping us safe, preventing terrorist attacks, solving crimes like they're not.
Mr. Congressman, I have no problem with rank-and-file FBI.
I admire them.
I admire our intel community, and I admire CIA people.
But, you know, this is not what we're talking about when we're talking about, you know, I never heard of an FBI investigation that is writing an exoneration months before they interview the main person in the case of Hillary Clinton or 17 other people, or that Peter Strzok, who we know has an agenda, is doing the interview.
It doesn't make sense to me to be writing an exoneration in May when you haven't interviewed Hillary by July, and then two days after the interview, you exonerate her after pretty much admitting that the law was violated.
It sounds to me like they were involved in obstructing justice for her, or at least rigging the investigation.
I think that is a very grave concern.
I'm pleased that the Attorney General fired Mr. Cabe.
I'm pleased that the new FBI director, Christopher Wray, is making a number of changes in the leadership of that agency, that bureau.
But we also need to see these documents, get the truth out to the American people, and then the Congress can decide what other steps need to be taken to make sure that this never happens again.
Well, let me ask you this, because you also said that the do we know who this outside person that the Attorney General is talking about that is from within the Justice Department, that we don't know the name of the person.
Do you know the name of the person that the Attorney General is referring to, that he is appointed to look into a lot of these matters?
I do not know that name.
I mean, what are we to infer from that, that there is a a private Justice Department investigation going on that nobody knows about?
How do you?
I don't know.
We need to find out more about that.
But in my opinion, the Attorney General would be well served.
Now, we were pleased when he said he would take the recommendation that I and Trey Gowdy and now members of the Republican leadership in the House and leading senators like Chairman Grassley have all called for the appointment of a special counsel.
That person should be carefully selected, but then publicly appointed and given a specific charge to carry out this investigation.
Do you worry that James Comey, in fact, ran interference for Hillary's investigation?
Because it certainly seems like he did.
I can't explain a number of actions by former Director Comey.
And that is, again, why this Inspector General's report is important.
What do you make that?
That's the document also going to the Congress, which has a different set of responsibilities than the Inspector General, also needs to have it.
And in my opinion, and I called for this months ago, we need to have an outside investigation, but I don't think it should be private.
I think it should be public.
So I'm looking at the FISA investigation and the FISA warrant that's issued.
Andrew McCabe himself said, but for the dossier, there would be no investigation.
There wouldn't have been an application for a FISA warrant.
Have we established completely that the FBI knew at the time of the October 2016 FISA application that Comey and others, that they knew that in fact, that Hillary had paid for that dossier?
All right, as we continue with the Congressman, Bob Goodlatt, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Can't we subpoena these FISA court judges and ask them what they think about what has happened here?
We think we can get the documents from the Department of Justice.
What we have from the court is their acquiescence to the Department of Justice providing us with the documents, but they have not yet provided us with the documents.
Would it not be, I'd like to know what the FISA judges personally think about being lied to?
Yes, we're getting into an area where it would be unusual to subpoena a judge before the Congress and ask them to tell us about how they handled it.
Well, wouldn't it be criminal if Sean Hannity went before a judge with information I know to be false or not verified and known to be political, but don't tell the judge?
Isn't that lying by omission?
It is.
It is very concerning why these FISA warrant applications were submitted based primarily upon a document that the FBI already knew was prepared by somebody that they were beginning to question their reliability with.
And nonetheless, how much they knew at that point about how the document was prepared and who paid for it and how it was delivered to them are all things that should be made very clear to the public.
But again, that is why this is so important.
And it's not like simply saying, oh, that happened a year and a half ago.
It's old news.
We should move on to other things.
This is very, very serious, and it could happen again.
And that's why the public needs to know what happened here and what's being done to stop it from ever happening again.
Knowing what we know about Bruce Orr, about James Comey, well, Comey's out, but Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, why do they still have jobs at the FBI?
That's an excellent question.
And it would be my hope that action is being taken by the FBI director to remove them and to remove them expeditiously.
There have been a number of changes.
A number of people have resigned, and I think that's good, but there's still more work to be done.
Well, I really appreciate everything you're doing, and I feel like I know these cases inside and out, and I'm pretty convinced crimes were committed and an abuse of power scandal exists before us.
And I think the documents you're requesting will get and shed some light on what the whole truth is.
But in all honesty, Congressman, this whole thing stinks to high heaven in terms of abuse of power and corruption.
Do you see the same thing I see?
I am very concerned about everything I have seen.
That's why we need a special counsel.
That's why we need these documents delivered to the Congress.
And that's why we need to have the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI continue to work to change the environment in the FBI so that we can have confidence this won't happen in the 2020 presidential election.
All right.
I want to thank you, Bob Goodlatt.
He is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Chairman, keep up the good work.
When we come back, Peter Schweitzer, number one New York Times bestseller, brand new book, Secret Empires, How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.
And specifically, we're going to look at the families of Joe Biden and John Kerry and the Obamas next.
But Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge, there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
We did not conclude any evidence in our report.
And when I say our report, that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office.
The Director of National Intelligence had anything, any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians.
There was no evidence of that in our report.
Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?
I think he's right about characterizing the report, which you all have read.
Is there any evidence of collusion you have seen yet?
Is there?
There is a lot of smoke.
We have no smoking gun at this point, but there is a lot of smoke.
Diane Feinstein has said there's no evidence of collusion.
So collusion between whom?
Can you tell us that?
I'm not prepared to say that there's proof you could take to a jury, but I can say that there is enough that we ought to be investigating.
At the time you separated from service in January of 2017, had you seen any evidence that Donald Trump or any member of his campaign colluded, conspired, or coordinated with the Russians or anyone else to infiltrate or impact our voter infrastructure?
Not beyond what has been out there open source and not beyond anything that I'm sure this committee has already seen and heard before directly from the intelligence community.
All right, that, of course, no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Well, that narrative is pretty much dead.
So let's talk about Stormy 24-7 and alleged.
It's just ridiculous how absolutely abusively corrupt the news media is.
And that's why bringing Peter Schweitzer back is so important because these are real issues, you know, not superfluous.
Attack Trump, destroy Trump, try and disenfranchise voters from Trump, delegitimize Trump, which is what the media has been trying to do since before the election.
And it just accelerates every day with their willing accomplices in the news media.
Peter Schweitzer, so he launched his brand new book last week right here on this program.
It's called Secret Empires, How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Families and Friends.
And when he was here last time, I told you that it's going to take numerous appearances to do a deep dive into each issue of corruption that he has discovered.
Now, if you remember, his last book, Clinton Cash, came out in March of 2015.
And look how long the run-up, as it relates to him first discovering everything involving Uranium-1 and the money and the kickbacks, you know, to the point where I'm finally going to interview tomorrow the Uranium-1 FBI informant who literally could have stopped based on the information.
He had infiltrated Putin's network of operatives in America that were involved in bribery and extortion and kickbacks and money laundering.
He infiltrated it, documented it, handed over to the FBI, and CIFIA still, 18 months earlier, knowing that Putin operatives wanted a foothold in America's uranium market, still approved the deal.
And he's describing instances where they're saying they have Hillary Clinton in their pocket.
So it took three years for the public to really, really do the deep dive and understand everything involving Uranium One.
And the talking point, oh, that's been debunked.
Really tell it to the guy that was indicted six weeks ago involved in Uranium One.
Tell it to the informant that you'll see on my TV show tomorrow night.
Anyway, Peter Schweitzer is back with us.
It really is the big picture first.
And congratulations, another number one New York Times bestseller.
How is it possible all this corruption exists and that they have carved out this, I don't know, exemption where, okay, they're not allowed to do deals with the Chinese.
They're not allowed to do deals with the Qataris and the UAE and the Saudis, but their children and family can.
And in the case of Joe Biden, he flies with his father to China and 10 days later is how big was that?
How many billion and a half dollars?
It was a billion and a half dollars.
That's exactly right, Sean.
I mean, what's so interesting is all the discussion about, you know, Trump and his family, you know, this constant attention, which look, we all think that's fine.
Let's have some scrutiny.
They all look at, oh, there may be a potential deal here.
There may be a potential deal there.
In the Biden case, there was a deal.
And it was a billion-dollar deal that then six months later was expanded to a billion and a half dollars.
It was with a foreign government.
But 10 days after Joe Biden left China, his son did the billion-dollar deal.
That's right.
Okay.
Now, maybe they think we're stupid.
Or maybe they want us to believe, oh, don't worry, they're not related in any way.
If you believe that, I'll sell you a bridge to China from the United States.
Right.
I mean, you're really talking about high-level, deep-level corruption here.
No, you're exactly right, Sean.
And here's the reality.
First of all, don't expect that somebody's going to take the effort to track down these deals.
This was a research initiative that took us almost a year to confirm.
It started with a tip that we got from somebody who was a former FBI official who said, you ought to look at family members doing deals in China.
So we looked at Hunter Biden, and he had set up this company called Rosemont Seneca Partners that was half-funded by Chris Hines, the stepson of John Kerry, and involved another Kerry aide named Devin Archer.
So we looked at that company and we did a 360.
Where did they do deals?
And we quickly found they were doing deals in China.
And we found these entities that did three deals.
And we said, well, when did they do the deals and how did they happen?
And we sort of laid this template of these deals, the timing of the deals, with Joe Biden's activities with Beijing.
And what you see is almost a near-complete overlap.
In other words, when Hunter Biden goes to meet with Chinese government officials to secure these deals, it almost completely overlaps with when his father is meeting with Chinese officials, either in the United States or in China or sometimes in South Korea.
So how much money are they making personally?
I mean, because this is the one thing that you really do an amazing job on, and that is that this upper political class, they use their access, they use their connections, they work with even enemy countries.
I mean, nobody's saying that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea aren't hostile entities towards the U.S.
And they make, how much did they make on the billion and a half dollar deals?
We don't know.
And that's part of the problem.
There's no disclosure requirement.
Now, if you took the standard approach that hedge funds do based on fee percentage, you would expect it to be about $30 million a year.
But we don't know if they got a standard deal.
They might have gotten something that was better.
The bottom line is you don't manage a billion and a half dollars for free.
But beyond Sean, the amount of money they made, the question becomes, what happened with that billion and a half dollars?
And when you start to trace how the son of the vice president and this Kerry A. Devin Archer steered that money, you find out this is not just a story of self-enrichment.
This is a story of with national security implications.
So let me just give you one example.
Hunter Biden has this billion and a half dollars to invest, Chinese government money.
One of the things they do is they become an anchor investor in something called CGN, China General Nuclear.
This is an atomic company in China.
So you can already imagine what is the son of the vice president thinking of getting involved in this company.
He's thinking about money.
That's what I think he's thinking about.
That's exactly right, Sean.
And they invest in this.
A year later, the FBI charges senior officials in this company with stealing nuclear secrets in the United States.
And Joe Biden's son got a billion-dollar deal with this company.
Yeah, he's invested in this company.
He invests in CGN.
So Alan Ho.
Whoa, but he invests or he's got money from them.
He gets the billion and a half from the Chinese government.
He then takes part of that money and becomes an anchor investor in CGN.
So he's part of.
That's a Chinese company.
A Chinese company.
So they give him a sweetheart deal.
Right.
You will do business with you.
Here's a billion five.
And oh, by the way, you can invest in it because wink, wink, nod, nod.
I think our new deal is going to make a lot of money because of your American connections.
That's right.
And these investments have huge national security implications.
You've got the CGN deal where a senior engineer with that company says, yes, you're right.
I was trying to steal nuclear secrets and ends up going to jail.
Another one of the investments, they invest in and buy part of a U.S. company called Hennegas.
Hennegus makes very precise machine tool parts for anti-vibration technology.
Well, that deal had to go through CFIAS because it has national security implications.
And that got approved, too.
That got approved as well.
Do we know if we had an FBI informant for six years in that deal?
We very well might have.
It wouldn't surprise me if we did.
How come, so now I assume as part of your research that you made phone calls to Hunter Biden and to the vice president or former vice president Biden.
What did they say?
Nothing.
They wouldn't respond.
We called them repeatedly.
We sent them emails, very specific questions, would not even acknowledge the correspondence.
Talk to the people.
Is that the same with John Kerry and his family?
Same thing with John Kerry.
That's correct.
That's the same thing with Obama and his family.
That's correct.
They did not want to discuss this at all.
I've got to imagine if you're doing a billion and a half dollar deal and then you're also investing in the company that we're talking about a minimum, you're making $100 plus million dollars.
Yeah, and this is the problem, Sean.
One of the things we call for in the book is requiring disclosures.
So think about this with Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, if he gets a $500 campaign contribution, he has to disclose that to the voters.
So voters know who's giving him money, which I think we all think is a good idea.
If he owns $500 in GE stock, people need to know because of potential conflict of interest.
But his son gets a billion and a half from a foreign government, the Chinese.
No disclosure requirement.
Unbelievable.
No disclosure requirement.
We've got to take a break.
We've got to take a break.
We'll come back and we'll continue more with Peter Schweitzer, a new number one bestseller.
It's called Secret Empires, How the American Political Class Hides Corruption, Enriches Family and Friends.
It's in bookstores all around the country, Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
And we'll take a quick break more on that corruption on the other side.
And as we continue, Peter Schweitzer, investigative reporter, his brand new book is out, Secret Empires, How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.
So if it's a billion and a half dollars that they got from this Chinese energy company, it's amazing, or nuclear company.
It's amazing how similar the story is.
Why is nuclear always involved here?
And isn't it the same with John Kerry's son?
Yeah, I mean, this is a key thing for people to understand that, and this is the Uranium One story and this is CGN as well.
There is a global competition for nuclear technologies.
And the United States is the world leader.
And so in the case of Uranium One, it was the Russians wanting to get control of uranium assets in the United States and other assets around the world that Uranium One controlled.
In the case of China, this CGN company that the son of the vice president and this close aide to Kerry are investing in is interested in a nuclear reactor called the AP1000.
So this is made by Westinghouse.
It's a small reactor.
And Sean, the reason they're interested in this small reactor is it's very similar to those that are put on U.S. Navy's.
Is that the light water reactors?
Yes, it's a small portable reactor.
And China is making a push by 2030 to pass the U.S. Navy in naval supremacy.
And one of their shortcomings is in this area of nuclear propulsion for submarines.
So they want this technology.
And you have this bizarre, troubling situation where the son of the vice president and a close aide to John Kerry are investors in the company that's trying to steal this technology.
How is it that now, let's just go to the fact that you obviously are able to figure all this out.
Does that make it legal?
In other words, even though your father is the vice president or your father's the secretary of state, you're still allowed as a family member.
There's nothing to prevent you from going and doing business while your father is in that position of influence and make your entire family rich.
And I assume if you're making $100 million that if dad wants a new car, he's going to get a new car and he's going to get a new house and that they would benefit as well.
Yeah, and this is really, really important.
When you think about bribery laws or conflict of interest laws, it's very clear, Sean, if I'm a politician and you want to persuade me and bribe me, if you give me money, that's bribery.
But if you give my son money, that's bribery as well.
It is bribery as well.
That's exactly.
It's the same thing.
Then why do they do it this way?
I mean, do they think that one removed is going to make a difference?
That if the son becomes a billionaire, that he's not going to share with the father that puts him in the position to negotiate these ridiculous deals they otherwise would never get?
Well, the challenge is going to be the same case as it's been with the Clintons, and that is proving the quid pro quo, proving that there's an exchange of services, and they use these proxies like their sons to say, oh, you know, Joe Biden, I wasn't involved in that.
I never talked to those guys.
So basically, you know, we do have an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
The FBI field office in Arkansas, we've been able to confirm is doing it.
I don't know where it is, but I got to imagine they're looking at that $145 million because they did interview the FBI informant that warned everybody about their uranium one deal.
That's exactly right.
And I think that we will be seeing similar activity as it relates to this Biden deal.
I mean, I can't go into details, but it takes three years ago.
It's taken three.
How many times have I mentioned uranium one to now bring it to critical mass?
Is it three years now that Joe Biden's son can go spend his millions?
Well, and this is key, Sean.
This is key.
The key thing is they're hoping that this story is going to sort of come and go, that it will be gotten into the world.
And so did the Clintons.
Yes, exactly.
And that's why it is so key for people.
I'm like a dog on a bone.
You notice I never give up.
I'll admit it.
Absolutely.
Well, the book is phenomenal, and there's so much information on it.
That's why we have to almost break it down into one topic at a time.
But this is what's happening with your government and the enrichment of these families.
And it's in bookstores everywhere, Hannity.com.
It's called Secret Empires, How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enrich Their Family and Friends.
Same old story, but at a level that is unprecedented.
Congrats, number one, New York Times bestseller, Peter Schweitzer.
Thank you for being with us.
Thanks, Sean.
I appreciate it.
Thanks.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
We're going to get to your calls here, 800-941.
Sean, listen, let me play for you before we get to our phones here.
You got female Dallas Trump supporters, and I think they were all evangelicals.
They actually did on CNN some good work that they didn't, well, they didn't plan on doing.
And they had these women.
They were actually really amazing and smart and insightful.
Anyway, so these women, they're questioned about Stormy Daniels as they were watching it together.
And the CNN, whoever that anchor was, could not believe the answers.
Not one of these women cared about Stormy Daniels.
Listen to this.
She's enjoying this way too much.
On Palm Sunday, these conservative Christian women gathered in Dallas to watch Stormy Daniels' interview on 60 Minutes.
She was shopping her story for money.
Exactly.
Just like all the other people that have tried to make money off the Trump name.
What was your first impression of Stormy Daniels?
I feel sorry for her.
My heart hurts for her.
This is a porn star.
Why are we giving it any credibility?
Exactly.
And the fact that she now wants to come out with a story because she's afraid of her children?
My goodness, would you tell the kiddos about your full-time job?
These women all voted for Donald Trump.
And despite Stormy Daniels' claims, they still don't buy her story.
Why would she come out and give this interview if she wasn't telling the truth?
Money and she said, based on this interview, do any of you believe that Stormy Daniels did have sex with Donald Trump?
I don't believe it because I haven't seen any hard proof.
Should we believe the president of the United States or a stripper porn star?
I go with the president of the United States.
Most in this group believe God ordained Donald Trump to be president and stand by him despite his imperfections.
I know that when I voted for him, I wasn't voting for a quiet boy.
He had to change as a person in order to become a president.
Stormy Daniels, if you the lifestyle that she's leading right now, I mean, I wish she would turn her life over the way that Trump had it.
This group suggests the women coming forward with tales of having had an affair with Trump are being targeted.
Someone is looking and shopping for these people to come out of the woodwork because it is demeaning to our president.
And as some strongly suggested, all part of a media plot to bring down Donald Trump.
You can throw all of that stuff up in our face as many times as you want, but that means that we will work harder for Trump.
Is that not so, ladies?
That's correct.
This is the media defining the narrative.
The people, we the people, are ready to define the narrative.
And it's not about tawdry sexual peccadellos.
In order for somebody to come forward, you could be pushed by somebody else, correct?
Right?
And so I think the thing is, is you're looking for a way to impeach my president that I worked very hard for.
You know, now compare those women.
Those were women in Dallas, evangelical women, watching for CNN, a focus group that they did.
And just not one of them cared about, you know, 12, 13 years ago, an alleged consensual relationship.
Now, here's the media dismissing, let's see, Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willey, you know, Brian Gumbel on NBC, Charlie Gibson, Good Morning America, Evan Thomas, you know, formerly at Newsweek, and all these people.
Listen to the difference in the tone, except the big difference here is one is two instances of a consensual relationship long before Donald Trump ever thought of running for president.
And the other deals with, let's see, one rape, one exposure of oneself, dropping your pants and showing your private parts.
And the other one is groping, grabbing, fondling, touching, kissing against a woman's will in the Oval Office.
Yes, the case was being fomented by right-wing nuts.
And yes, she's not a very credible witness, and it's really not a law case at all.
Some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer.
I think she's a dubious witness.
I really do.
We've got an awful lot to talk about this week, including the sexual harassment suit against the president.
Of course, and that would figure out who's really being harassed.
Sam, not trying to hurt the president.
Does she say that with a straight face?
Why does anyone care what this woman has to say?
But is, bottom line, Sam, is she not trying to capitalize on this in effect to profit from impugning the president?
I have to profess complete confusion over this entire case, why this is even a case.
If any man, I don't care who he is, invites me to a room and pulls his pants down and asks me to do something, he's going to have a decided limp from that day on.
And I go on with my life.
I don't need to sue anyone.
It doesn't traumatize me.
I don't understand why this is even a case to begin with.
The story doesn't deserve to be dignified by being broadcast and displayed.
What I find fascinating about this case is that we've sunk so low now that a charge of this magnitude can be leveled against the president of the United States with next to no evidence at all.
I think that's outrageous.
I was written either in Time or Newsweek that even the woman herself, Juanita Broderick, said she hoped that this thing went away this week.
Even she was sick of hearing about it.
It was her story.
Well, let's hope she gets her way with that.
Are we going to look back on this time 100 years from now the way we look back on Salem?
We're reaching the point where we're going to wind up with government by goody-goody, government by people who have done nothing in their life except walk the straight narrow, who have no creative thoughts.
We're going to look back on this 100 years from now and say we drove some of our best people out of politics.
I mean, the amount of hypocrisy here is breathtaking.
All right, I promise we're going to get to the phones.
Let's do that.
Bob is in Palm City, Florida.
Bob, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
I'm doing well, Sean.
Thank you for the opportunity.
And I just wanted to kind of go back to the omnibus.
And I think that actually Trump was smart to sign it because he's got the negotiations coming up with the North Korean.
And if we were in a back and forth between Congress and the White House on the budget, it would put Trump in a weak position.
Now he's in a strong position to go in against the North Koreans and the Chinese saying, I've got all the money I need and the military I need to take the military option if I have to.
So I actually look at this as, you know, strategically a smart thing that Trump signed the budget.
Well, I'm going to tell you right now, the best thing out of the budget, and everybody thought they were so smart, but we confirmed.
I knew this last week, but I kind of was keeping it under my hat a little bit because I wanted to totally confirm it.
I knew it was 99%.
You know, Democrats claiming, well, the wall wasn't even funded in this bill yet is because the Democrats were saying, well, you can't use concrete.
Well, the president's using the military budget and the massive military spending, you know, the amount of money it's going to take for the wall is going to be insignificant and construction is beginning now.
And the Democrats can't argue in any way that makes any sense that securing the border is not a national security priority.
So at the end of the day, even Sarah Sanders acknowledged that 100 miles of new wall has been authorized by Congress and it just goes from there.
And the president's taking it out of the defense budget, which, by the way, doesn't excuse other parts of the bill and the other spending within the bill, but it certainly at least is a major promise that the president made that he's keeping.
That makes sense?
Yeah, and that does make sense.
And also, if he cuts a good deal with North Korea, everyone will be very grateful.
And all the people that were concerned about this budget, just like the wall being built, will be extremely happy if we can resolve North Korea.
Well, look, I mean, certainly bribing the North Koreans didn't work.
They got nuclear weapons.
Bribing the Iranians, that didn't help us either with $150 billion.
But little Rocket Man, you know, being pressured economically and sanctions and an allegiance with China has led to a pretty good position where now he wants to negotiate and satellite photos yesterday showing, oh, North Korea stopped their nuclear program and missile program, and then not going to be firing missiles, at least in the near term, over Japan and threatening Guam and everything else they've been doing.
You know, I got to tell you, it's so sad and pathetic that the news media in this country just refuses to acknowledge even a single good thing that the president does.
It's pathetic.
All right, back to our busy phones.
Tim, Mississippi.
Tim, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Thank you so much, Sean.
Appreciate it.
First of all, let me congratulate you and thank you for the job that you've done over the last, what, 18 months or so with Sarah Carter and Cheryl Atkinson.
If there was Sarah Carter, Sarah Carter and you would be winning Pulitzer.
Now, how about they get the Pulitzers and I'll get the let's see the media's treatment of hating me.
That's reward enough that, you know, absolutely.
The news, especially the creepy people asking personal.
The only question CNN didn't ask in 60 minutes didn't ask, can you describe it for us?
That's the only question they didn't ask about a consensual relationship.
Yeah.
It's so creepy.
The key reason I was calling Sean is I've had a theory for a while and it's now become pretty much obvious to me.
Not liberals, honest liberals, I'm fine with those.
But the progressives, these far left, I don't even know how to describe them.
The Adam Schiffs and his panty sniffer, Eric Swalwell.
Sean, if you were caught making mistakes on the air, I'm sure you'd be embarrassed about it.
If you were caught telling an outright lie, I'm sure you'd be humiliated about it.
I think that hard left liberal, hard left progressives, I think they're missing a gene.
I think they were born without the shame gene and without the embarrassment gene.
Listen, I'm going to tell you something.
There is a missing chip in this regard.
They are so ideological.
It doesn't matter what.
If Donald Trump gave every single American $5 million out of his own pocket and said, all right, go enjoy your life here.
This is my gift from me to you.
They'd find a way to hate him for that.
Look, there is a derangement.
The media is unhinged right now about all things Trump.
You know, it's funny because we've been really monitoring very, very closely the coverage today as it relates to Stormy Daniels.
I don't think I've ever pounded the media as hard as I did last night on television.
And the point is, CNN is softcore porn.
Anderson Cooper's questions were creepy.
And, you know, we actually did a side-by-side of Anderson Cooper asking questions of Stormy and Jerry Springer asking questions of his guests, and they're exactly the same.
You told Donald Trump to turn around and take off his pants.
Yes.
And did he?
Yes.
You're young.
You like that funny party girl, etc.
So what's the problem?
So what's the story here?
Oh, Lord.
And you had sex with him?
Yes.
Do you want to be with her boyfriend?
No, it was just a one-time thing.
Did you want to have sex with him?
No, but I didn't say no.
You're not interested in being with him.
He's just a customer, right?
Or are you interested in being with him?
He ended up taking me home.
You work in an industry where condom use is an issue.
Did he use a condom?
No.
Did you ask him to?
No.
So you had sex with him?
Yeah.
This is CNN.
Your soft porn network.
Anyway, what's going on?
You know what I mean?
Like, I'm interspersing.
Why are you guys laughing?
It's true that this is not about how do you ignore rape, fondling, touching, groping, grabbing, kissing against one's will and really creepy behavior when you what guy pulls his pants down in front of a woman the way Clinton did with Paula Jones.
How is that?
And they didn't care, but they care about Stormy.
It's unbelievable.
Jerry, Kansas City, Missouri.
What's up, Jerry?
How are you?
Hi, Sean.
Blessed Holy Week, first of all.
And I'm just, I'm like, you're pretty well disgusted.
These people who are so disgusted by Trump's actions, even assuming some of them are creepy, as you said about Anderson Cooper, these same people don't seem to be offended by what Hillary and Bill did.
And I am getting so sick and tired of Hillary's complaints about losing the election.
Mr. Trump won, like it or not, under the rules as they were posited at the time.
As a Democrat, I am disgusted.
If they want the popular vote to be what wins, the next time they have the levers of power, if they ever have them again, let them have the courage to change it.
Or if they lose elections, like for a little while, say a month or two, six months even, is an acceptable shelf life.
But 18 months, and Bill is a better politician than Hillary.
I'm sure he lost elections when he lost, tightened his belt, bucked up, and prepared for the next election.
And that's what Hillary should be doing, although I don't think the Democrats will be stupid enough.
But you've got to understand, they have got to tear this man down.
I mean, literally, limb by limb.
They want to shred him so that they want to so discredit him and literally disenfranchise all voters from him and ignore every positive thing he's done.
And the list is enormous just in the hopes that they can get back power.
All right, I got to take a break here, though.
I appreciate it.
Jerry, thank you.
Hey, Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern Fox News Channel.
Among our many guests, the great one, Mark Levin, also fallout from yes, stormy, stormy, stormy.
But also, the president gets tough on Vladimir Putin.
The media, of course, ignores it.
Sarah Carter has investigative reports about Michael Flynn that I predict might set Michael Flynn free before you know it.
