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 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.
Uh, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been hospitalized.
Uh, I'm told from uh an inside source I have it's a high fever, nothing more serious than that.
But anyway, he's probably getting fluids and and making sure they can drive that fever down.
Uh if we get any more information, we'll let we'll let you know.
Um 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 uh 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, that this is their how deep their hatred now goes towards Donald Trump.
That you know, if they got Stormy Daniels, we're gonna I 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 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.
There's 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 um affair.
Adult film star Stormy Daniels breaking her silence about her alleged affair with President Trump.
We're talking, I think, understandably and appropriately uh 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?
Will she 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.
Foreign 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.
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 pair.
Quick preview of Stormy Daniels interview this Sunday.
Breaking news Stormy Daniels.
Stormy Daniels.
The reason he can engage with Stormy Daniels is because she's got his number.
This is CNN.
Your soft porn network.
Uh I'm glad you guys enjoy.
It's true.
Well, all right.
So what we did last night, we were kind of having fun.
But I actually took the questions that from a Jerry Springer show.
And I interspersed them with the questions of Anderson Cooper.
Because Anderson Cooper was beg between the two interviews that he did about two alleged consensual relationships, you know, back twelve, thirteen 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 the network ignore the serious charges on Clinton?
Oh, that's right.
Then they hired Bagala and Carvel 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 to have fun, you're party girl, etc.
So what's the pro so what's the story?
Oh, Lord.
And you had sex with him.
Yeah.
Uh, do you want to be with her boyfriend?
No, it's just a one-time thing.
Did you want to have sex with him?
No.
But I didn't, 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 uh is an issue.
Did the 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 uh another generation out there that really probably doesn't know the stories of Juanita and Kathleen and 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 to 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 is 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 uh 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 is she not trying to capitalize on this in effect to to to profit from impugning the president?
I 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 gonna 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.
It's I think that's outrageous.
We could even the woman herself, Juan Anna Broadwick said she hoped that the same went away this week.
And she even she was sick of hearing about it.
It's her story.
Well, let's hope she gets away with that.
Are we gonna look back on this time a hundred years from now the way we look back on Salem?
We're reaching the point where we're gonna wind up with government by goody goodies, government with people by people who have done nothing in their life except walk the straight narrow, who have no creative thoughts.
We're gonna look back on this a hundred years from now and say we drove some of our best people out of politics.
Yeah, but uh BB's fine.
Okay, we just got word.
He is hospitalized, but we expect him uh to make a speedy recovery.
Uh our sources on the ground in Israel are passing on to us, so we're we're hoping and praying he's okay.
Um I 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 leader, he is the face of CNN fake news.
And I 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 said of you having sex with somebody who looked 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?
Is that I can describe it to talk about a consensual relationship.
I mean, wow.
I mean, are we gonna scrutinize media people like this?
I just, you know, we're gonna ask questions of their boyfriends and girlfriends and so on and so forth.
I doubt it.
And 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 Willie because it 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.
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 these are un these are uncharted waters we're living in here.
We're following here.
These are times that I I'd 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 uh Comey and Strunk and Paige and Lynch and McCabe.
Oh, they they're putting the fix in in her investigation.
They're not gonna really look into the crimes.
We know they are crimes.
We've identified them.
18 USC 793, mishandling, destroying classified information, top secret of it.
She did it.
And then if any of you dare, I 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 your devices with a hammer.
What do you think is gonna happen?
And then she pays for Russian information, but 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 announcements she wants to make.
What do you got?
It's very, very serious.
I want to send a shout out to Shelley.
Shelley's actually been a longtime listener of the show.
She used to call when I was call screening.
Cool.
And we became buddies, emailed.
Screening buddies, and we still talk, and she heard me the other day talking about moonshine and how I've never had it.
No, I've watched the uh series about moonshiners.
That looks like honey.
So there's three coins.
The first one is Apple Pie Moonshine.
Apple pie moonshine.
So the other one is moonshine cherries.
It looks like uh what do you call those marash?
Marashino.
Marashino.
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 uh Blackberry Moonshine.
And the name of it, it's from Tennessee.
I didn't know that Old Smoky.
Old Smokey, they call it Smoky Moonshine.
All right.
Now, how do you know that that's real moonshine?
Have you tasted it yet?
First of all, it's from one of our listeners.
So I trust you.
But you know this particular well, don't get her arrested.
You know, it's illegal to do this.
This is legal.
It's it's distributed.
This isn't like, you know, in the backyard milk car, 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 I'm told.
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 the tattoo off.
I'll bleach bit their arms.
Yeah.
Uh what a horrible thing for a father to say.
No, but in all seriousness, this is this looks pretty good.
Come on, take a swig on air.
Take it.
Take a 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.
Can't I can't have moonshine?
I'll take a swig after you do it.
If you do it, I'll do it.
You do it.
I'd 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 gonna 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 the shine on there.
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.
Why are you 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 uh 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 Tollfried number.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
Hey, son, whoa, whoa, we have moonshine sunshine.
Where's our 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.
There's blackberry.
And there's moonshine cherries.
I think uh well, I'll tell you what, is it 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 pieces.
No, but I want to take that one home and try it tonight.
It was a gift for me.
Oh, you're not gonna let hang on.
Her hips.
I'm gonna bring you some in.
Hold on.
Shine down.
The radio dial.
Home jars.
Lemon drop.
Take a sip.
Don't stop girl.
Alright, I have mine.
Get your shine out.
Now, Ethan's gonna bring you in yours.
Okay, I got it.
And then we're gonna 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 this is the first time.
Remember, I attended bar for all those years.
I think you know of.
Are you ready?
Are we counting?
Yeah.
One.
One, two, hang on.
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.
Shelley.
Good taste from Tennessee, my friend.
Thank you.
It's not even strong.
I've drink it.
What do you mean it's not strong?
What are we talking about?
Maybe we need to do Kentucky Clear, which they're saying right now is.
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, eh?
I'll give Amy Kramer and her daughter a little bit.
Oh 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 uh 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?
Uh the Wilderness Show.
Uh undercover.
No, not uh 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 and 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 the fill in the gaps for old people like me that it doesn't remember.
Anyway, I watch all those shows.
And I can I you mean 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 uh 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 it everything yourself.
Everything.
And I just think it's amazing that though I it's 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.
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 gonna kill me.
I am I am absolutely bringing my family around me and the people I love around me, and I'm gonna have a big party.
I'll might as well hire Florida Georgia line and we'll get our shine on.
And I'm gonna say my goodbyes, and I'm gonna find a place where nobody knows where I'm going.
I'm not saying that I'm not gonna 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.
And just crash the show into a wall.
She asked, she asked me.
Are you gonna talk about going out?
Yeah, you're gonna talk about going out into the woods again.
Now all of us are gonna be starting to drink moonshine.
No, stop this for 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 baths, baths, and cleaning me up after I soil myself.
I don't want them to do that.
They can hire someone to help.
Okay.
I 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 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 gonna it's not like I'm I wanna leave them, but I don't want them to watch me rot awake because sometimes people hang on forever.
I never thought I'd miss Stormy Daniels coverage.
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 gonna want you around as long as possible.
Okay, want me around to what?
Uh I'm babbling to myself.
Um You could be really entertaining for YouTube channels in your old age when you're gonna be able to do it.
Oh, really?
You want to do this on Facebook Live, Hannity's Hannity will have a live cam Hannity dying.
We'll be giving you the moonshine barrels, barrels of moonshine.
I'll be honest, I meant remember my grandfather.
He's this strong guy, has a horrible stroke, half his body, and it's like he that's I I don't want to remember him like that.
I remember the guy that was strong and tough and and 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.
Uh the doctor says I have three months to live, but I'm gonna 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.
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'll have a party back here at home in your honor.
I see not the moonshine.
You can pay for it.
I 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.
Go to the woods.
You're not listening, you're not listening to me.
The party, the hiring of the band I'm gonna enjoy, then we'll go to the and I'm not going Oh, I have to have the party with you there.
All right, you're such a wise ass.
You're not gonna be able to do that.
I thought the whole purpose was for you to go into the woods, and be one with your inner spirit.
I'm not going to be able to do it.
I'm reclaiming my time.
I'm not good.
I'm not going to the woods.
I'm gonna where are you going?
I'm not telling anybody or the beach.
I'm I will find a place.
Gonna go to Oakima?
I will find a place where nobody knows.
Where I will where I will be getting medical treatment.
You know, I'll you know where I want to go.
I'm gonna go get the medical treatment that the FDA hasn't approved at that point.
One of the things that I loved about the president's speech as State of the Union, he said, let people decide if they want to you know try this, you know, experimental drug.
Why is the government going no, you can't try that drug even though you're you're scheduled to die in 90 days.
Well, if it's my body and I'm about to die, and it's got a even one percent 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 I will 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 and putting it.
Can you take your cell phone and tweet from everything?
And putting applesauce in my mouth uh every five minutes.
Okay.
I uh 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.
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 with you.
Well, they're on your side of the of the thank you.
Kylie says she could eat me jello and not applesauce.
All right.
That's the other thing.
I don't like jello, and I don't want to be fed applesauce.
And I don't want to, you know, my diaper put on when I'm eighty years old or eighty-five years old.
Then you can wear them yourself and never go to the bathroom.
Well, I'll wear them with pleasure.
They have lovely designs.
I'm gonna t I am going to lift that burden off of my family.
You lift it, brother.
So they never have to see me that way.
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 gotta get to.
Now, um, so the left is losing their mind because for the first time in 70 years, the 2020 census is gonna 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.
Why did it's not like you're gonna put the people in jail if they say no, I'm not a citizen.
Now the California Attorney General, Xavier Bassera, whatever his name is, we've had him on before, is said uh that he's gonna file a lawsuit.
Geez, so shocking.
The sanctuary state's gonna file a lawsuit against the Trump administration because they're 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 have, of course, is uh because of the backlash against the liberal state sanctuary laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The Orange County Register reporting the 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 uh in Orange County.
And just more than a week after this tiny city, Los uh 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 gonna 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 gonna make the argument Mexico pays for the wall, but in the meantime, he didn't say that they were gonna write him a check.
I actually asked him that very well very questioned many times during the campaign.
You're not expecting Mexico to write you a check, are you?
And he said, No, but we're gonna 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 dollars.
Well, it turns out uh Steve Ducey this morning clarifying this dispute.
He was interviewing the White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley, uh, and the speaker told us that you can use concrete, Deucey 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 a hundred miles of new walls are already authorized, and the president said Sunday, well, he's gonna 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 gonna listen to what the president says.
By the way, you're reading all this stuff about Gavin Newsom.
Gavin Newsom's not gonna be president.
He thinks he's gonna be president.
He's not gonna be president.
Send him some moonshine.
Yeah, he's gonna need some of that moonshine by the time uh by the time somebody gets to him and gives him the news.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show, 800 nine-four one, 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.
Um, you know, interesting.
I don't know whether to get into this or not.
Interesting story on on Media IT.
The Stormy Daniels 60 Minutes interview showed that this news story is starting to dissipate.
And then it goes on at somewhere down at the bottom.
And it goes, and while you may roll your eyes whenever Sean Hannity invokes former President Bill Clinton and in defense of Trump, he does have a point.
How the country treated Clinton in the nineties 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 I had to go through this for the last year, uh 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 Goodlap for what he's doing, but don't wait.
Uh so when we get back in two weeks, if the one point two million documents aren't in the Capitol, then he should immediately move to hold Department of Justice and the FBI in contempt.
Uh and if we have to vote on contempt, then we should immediately move to impeach those officials.
Uh 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 uh Maria Baratromo 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 Goodlett 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 that's part of it.
Um also remember we 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.
Um now we have uh you know what there's one article that was in the uh Sun Sentinel and uh or where did I see this?
I forget.
You know, one of the reasons we're getting to the bottom of all of this, and they this is the phrase that they use, it's one hundred 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 the soft coup attempt and the abuse of the powerful tools of intelligence of the deep state.
Bill Benny, you know, forty plus years of highly trained specialist with the NSA and a group of other intelligence specialists now.
They're not they're not standing by and watch this happen without it or 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, you know, keeps sending members 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 Struck and and Paige, Lisa Page, Peter Strck and Lisa Page, the FBI Love Birds.
And uh anyway, it seems like Jim Comey has more questions to answer, um, and whether or not he's part of this coordinated effort to collude with Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in twenty sixteen.
Remember, they're the ones that wrote about the need for an insurance policy.
But this uh 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 Strzok citing this article.
Uh 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 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 you know for a nonsense collusion case with zero evidence, but we can't do the same for the D.O.J. 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.
Uh thank you both for being with us.
Uh Greg, you've been following this.
Very few in the media picked up on the latest Struck Page uh text here.
What I thought that was a pretty interesting find by Mark Meadows.
What are your thoughts?
Every time new uh Peter Strzok, Lucy Page text messages are revealed, we find more of how they were trying to subvert justice and undermine democracy.
They were they were trying to uh get Hillary Clinton elected and defeat Donald Trump, and once he won, then they tried to bring him down.
And their messages, you know, are pretty clear.
Now we have our work cut out for us, uh, 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, uh James Rubicke, James Baker, uh, all of the top FBI officials to bring down Trump and prop up Clinton.
And as far as the you know uh good lat uh committee is concerned, it never again should Congress ever ask for documents.
Skip the asking.
Slap the Department of Justice and the FBI with subpoena time limit.
If they fail to meet the time limit, then move for impeachment.
So then we can have Rod Rosenstein uh 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 uh 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.
What do you think that is?
I really don't know, but I I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they're really backlogged now.
Um 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. Harwitz to do in the past, uh, and they're gonna be tough with uh crooked FBI agents and others.
But I have to return to the Is it isn't Horowitz, though, an Obama appointee?
I know he 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.
And uh he's got a i he's got a career of being a straight shooter.
He is an Obama appointee, he's appointed in two thousand twelve.
He 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.
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, the the ending of the hour, Congress is starting to take a central road.
Remember, uh role.
Article one gives them that authority.
Article one 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.
This 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 uh scandal that's going on.
And in fact, Judge Collier and the Pfizer 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 uh involved and they've got to.
And by the way, Congress can have a central role in the special counsel uh investigation also.
They can subpoena their own witnesses.
Witnesses the special counsel, you know, 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 uh please hand us over this because we're wasting valuable time.
And and I think that, you know, 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 uh means and and what was he saying uh 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.
Would I mean what how do we interpret that, Greg?
Well, who recommended it?
My guess is it was Rod Rosenstein who recommended somebody that he knows, and Rosenstein, of course, should never be trusted.
Uh, you know, he's a basically a Democrat uh Baltimore politician and who has always sided uh with Obama and Clinton and against Trump.
So Jeff Sessions says, let me go back to the statement.
He says, I have appointed Well, Sessions doesn't know anybody in in the Department of Justice or formerly the Department of Justice.
He's a U.S. Senator, he didn't know anybody.
And uh so and just look at his appointments of Rod Rosenstein.
It was based on recommendations.
He didn't appoint anybody on a recusal was based on the recommendation of Obama people, wasn't it?
Well I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
His recusal was based on the recommendation of Obama people.
Oh, absolutely it was.
And he it started, he didn't know anybody at DOJ, and the next day, according to his testimony, he walked in and started meeting with uh Department of Justice officials.
Who who were they?
Well, 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 uh the Justice Department, Rod Rosenstein is, and you know, uh Sessions is being a led 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 uh what Rod Rob Rosenstein's role in this, and certainly eliminate his ph his role in in the position that he holds.
Um he could get very much involved in that.
Look, Jeff Sessions certainly do i 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.
Um I don't know.
The comments very cryptic.
I will say this.
You know, he asked earlier about Mr. Harwood'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 uh investigate misconduct by DOJ attorney prosecutors, uh who formally 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. She 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.
Because 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 mullers.
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 Jarrett are with us.
And as we roll along, David Schoen, Greg Jarrett are with us as we continue our investigation into Deep State Gate.
All right, let's 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 struck in Page.
The fact that they're there makes me wonder if they've cut a deal and are singing like little birds.
Um then we've got you know Andrew McCabe, but also Loretta Lynch beyond that.
Uh who else do you see potentially dealing with legal issues, uh especially on the personal side?
Well the five people who altered the exoneration statement uh composed by Jim Comey and that would be McCabe, Rabicke, Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Struck.
Those are the five people involved, the electronic uh communications which have since been discovered, prove it.
So they're all in jeopardy under obstruction of justice.
But I would say Comey is is in the greatest jeopardy of all because remember he stole government documents, four of which were classified, uh 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, as says he is the legal counsel for Comey and invoking attorney client privilege for both Comey and uh himself Daniel Richman.
Isn't that convenient.
And who do you see David Shaw?
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 house 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 right uh Mr Rosenstein you know he he he probably needs to leave the position.
You don't need to know anything more about his judgment than the appointment of Mr Muller and beyond that that he sat idly by with the team that Mr Muller appointed uh to join him in 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 Rewis Clinton's personal special counsel team don't forget Bruce terrible thank you both David Schoen Greg Jarrett when we come back Bob Goodlat Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Peter Schweitzer straight ahead.
So if I was Chairman Goodland what I would do quickly, because I I had to go through this for the last year uh 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 and what I would recommend to my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee and I applaud Chairman Goodlat for what he's doing but don't wait.
So when we get back in two weeks if the one point two 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 Deviness on with Maria Burratoromo over the uh weekend on her weekend program.
Uh joining us now is Congressman Bob Goodlat of Virginia he's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee he's not wasting any time in getting to uh truth as a results to a lot of these issues and uh anyway is now expected to subpoena the DOJ to do obtain documents related to how the FBI handled their probe into the Hillary Clinton's email server and other issues uh 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 uh and uh he committed to g 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 uh part of this will be classified which can come to the Congress uh but it cannot go to the public.
So they are in the process is this something that can be declassified like 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 uh uh you know in any way jeopardizing uh sources I think should be made uh available as soon as possible but I'm still hoping that we'll see it by the 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 uh he was just recently asked by the Attorney General to also look at the Pfizer warrant issue.
Uh 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 uh that a special counsel is needed and we also think that he should get this a report out regardling regarding how the FBI handle the uh Clinton email and related matters out now and not wait until he's also done this other work on the Pfizer warrant we need the information out.
Is there any doubt in your mind, Hillary Clinton, when she used a 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 U.S.C.
793, which says mishandling a classified information or one of the subsections that says destroying classified information?
Do you have any doubt those 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 No 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.
uh last Thursday uh the Inspector General has been looking through one point two million documents we've gotten a few thousand documents uh I've had conversations now with both the Attorney General and the director of the FBI we have their attention I think we're gonna 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 one point two 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 U.S.C.
793 about mishandling and destroying classified and top secret and special access programming.
If you subpoenaed Sean Hannity.
as as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and you subpoenaed email records and 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 bleach bit 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 uh very seriously like a crime.
The Congress can't prosecute you, but uh we would definitely refer it uh for investigation and prosecution.
How long ago, if I if I'm not mistaken, didn't Chasen Chaffetz subpoena this this information a long time ago?
Like a year, year and a half ago?
I don't think it's the same information.
Okay.
Uh but it is it is um uh information that uh 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 independence,
everybody should be concerned about how the world's premier law enforcement organization were besmirched by a handful of people who in in an incredibly biased manner uh conducted this investigation.
And Democrats should want to know why it was that Jim Comey announced publicly he was reopening the investigation uh ten days before the election.
And they should want to know why uh Andrew McCabe was leaking uh to the Washington Post.
I mean to the to the Wall Street Journal uh about uh 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, uh, as every day thousands of FBI agents do, keeping us safe, uh preventing terrorist attacks, uh solving crimes like they're gonna be able to do that.
I have no Mr. Congressman, I have no problem with rank and file FBI.
I admire them.
I admire our intel community and I admire CIA of people.
Um but you know, there's 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 the main person in the case of Hillary Clinton or 17 other people, uh, or that Peter Strzok, who we know has an agenda, is doing the interview.
Um 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 uh a very grave concern.
I'm pleased that the Attorney General fired Mr. Cabe.
I'm pleased that the new FBI director, Christopher Ray, uh is uh making a number of changes in the leadership of that agency, that bureau.
Uh, but we also need to see these documents, get the truth out to the American people, uh, and then the Congress can decide what other steps need to be taken to make sure that this never happens again.
Mm-hmm.
Well, let me ask you, 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 the n that name.
Is uh I 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 think that's the I don't know?
We need to find out more about that.
But in my opinion, the the Attorney General would be well served.
Now we were pleased when he said he would take the recommendation that I and uh Trey Gowdy and now uh members of the Republican leadership in the House and uh leading senators like Chairman Grassley have all called for the appointment of a special counsel.
Uh that person should be carefully selected, but then publicly appointed and given uh a specific charge to carry out uh this investigation.
Do you worry that James Comey in fact ran interference for Hillary's investigation?
Because it certainly seemed like he did.
I can't I can't explain uh a number of actions by former director Comey, uh and that is again why this Inspector General's report is important.
What do you make then 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, uh, and I called for this months ago, uh, 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 Pfizer warrant that's issued.
Andrew McCabe himself said, but for the uh dossier, there would be no investigation.
There wouldn't have been been an application for a Pfizer warrant.
Do we have we established completely that the FBI knew at the time of the October 2016 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 uh Bob Goodlat, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Can't we can't we uh subpoena these Pfizer court judges and ask them what they think about what has happened here?
We think we can get the documents in in uh uh from the Department of Justice.
What we have from the court uh is uh 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.
Uh we're getting into an area where it would be unusual to to subpoena a judge before the Congress and ask them to tell us about how they handled the Well, wouldn't it be criminal if Sean Hannity went before a judge with with information I know to be false or not verified and 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 often things that should be made very clear to the public.
Um but uh again that uh is why this is so important.
Uh and it is not like uh simply saying, oh, that's that's you know, that happened the year and a half ago, it's old news, uh, we should move on to other things.
This is very, very serious, and it could happen again.
Uh and uh that's why the public needs to know why 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 Struck and Lisa Page, why do they still have jobs at the FBI?
That's an excellent question.
Uh and uh it would be my hope that uh action is being taken by the FBI director uh to remove them and to remove them uh uh expeditiously.
There have been a number of changes, a number of people have resigned, uh, 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.
Uh and I think the documents you're requesting will will get and shed some light on what the whole truth is.
But in 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 uh everything I have seen.
That's why we need a special counsel.
That's why we need uh these documents delivered to the Congress, uh, and that's why we need to have the Attorney General and the director of the FBI continue to work to change uh the environment in the FBI so that we can have confidence this won't happen in the 2020 presidential elections.
All right, I want to thank you, Bob Goodlat.
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 gonna look at the families of Joe Biden and John Kerry and the Obamas next.
Uh 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 you all have read.
Is there any evidence of collusion you have seen yet?
Is there?
There is a lot of smoke.
We had 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't 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 uh Donald Trump or any member of his campaign colluded, conspired, or coordinated with the Russians or anyone else in Phil trade or impact our uh voter infrastructure.
Um not beyond uh 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 uh an alleged uh it's just ridiculous how 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, uh attack Trump, destroy Trump, uh try and 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 la 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 it's gonna take numerous appearances to do a deep dive into each 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 one and the money and the kickbacks, you know, to the point where I'm finally going to interview tomorrow the uranium one FBI informant uh 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 of money laundering.
He infiltrated it, documented it, handed over to the FBI, and CIFI is 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 to 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.
Uh tell it to the informant that you'll see on my TV show tomorrow night.
Anyway, Peter Schweitzer is back with us.
Um it really is the big picture first, and congratulations, another new 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, ex 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 ten 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.
Uh, you know, this constant attention, which look, we we all think that's fine.
Let's have some scrutiny.
Um, 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 ten days after Joe Biden left China.
Yes.
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, that they're not related in any way.
Um if you believe that, I'll sell you a bridge to China from the United States.
Right.
I mean, it's were you really talking about high-level deep level corruption here?
No, you're exactly right, Sean.
And and and here's the reality.
They're first of all, don't expect that somebody's going to take the effort to track down these deals.
This was a research uh 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 of uh John Kerry, uh, and involved uh another carry 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 these entities that 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 or sometimes in in uh 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 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 deal?
We don't know.
And that's part of the problem.
There's no disclosure requirement.
Now, if you took the standard approach that 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 got it might have gotten something that was better.
Uh 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 carry aide 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 a 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 he's invested in this company.
He invests in CGN.
So Alan Ho.
Oh, 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 the 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 not.
I think our new deal is gonna make uh a lot of money because of your American connections.
That's right.
And these investments have huge national security implications.
So 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 and and ends up going to jail.
Another one of the investments, they uh invest in and buy part of a U.S. company called Hennegus.
Hennegis makes very precise machine tool parts for anti-vibration technology.
Well, that deal had to go through Cypheus 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 uh for six years in that deal?
How come so uh now I assume as part of your research that you made phone calls to Hunter Biden and and to the vice president or former vice president Biden, uh, what did they say?
Nothing.
They wouldn't respond.
We called them repeatedly, we sent them emails, very specific questions, uh, 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.
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 a hundred plus million dollars.
Yeah, it it's and that's th 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 five hundred dollar 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 five hundred dollars 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 got to take a break.
We 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.
All right, as we continue, Peter Schweitzer, investigative reporter, his brand new book is out, Secret Empires, how uh 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 this is the uh 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 aid to Kerry are investing in, uh, is interested in a nuclear reactor called the AP 1000.
So this is made by Westinghouse.
It's a small reactor.
And Sean, the reason they're interested in the small reactor is it's very similar to those that are put on U.S. Navy.
Is that the light water reactors or 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 is uh let's just go to the fact that they 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, uh 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 a hundred million dollars, that if dad wants a new car, he's gonna get a new car and he's gonna get a new house and and that they would benefit as well.
Yeah, and that this is really, really important.
When you think about bribery laws or conflict of interest laws, it's very clear, Sean.
If if 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 to change, that's bribery as well.
It is bribery as well.
That's exactly it's the same.
Then why do they do it this way?
I mean, do they think that's that one removed is going to make a difference?
That if the son becomes a billionaire that he's not gonna 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, I, you know, Joe Biden, I I wasn't involved in that.
I never talked to those guys.
So basically, you know, we do have an investigation in 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.
Right.
But I gotta imagine they're looking at that hundred and forty-five million because they did interview the FBI informant that warned everybody about the 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 there's a but it takes pre 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?
Yeah that Joe Biden's son can go spend his his millions.
Well, and this is this is key, Sean.
This is key.
The key thing is they're hoping that this story is gonna sort of come and go.
That it will be gotten in a couple of years.
Yes, exactly.
And that's why it is so key for people.
You know, I never give up.
I'll admit it.
I absolutely uh 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.
Yeah, but uh 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.
Uh, congrats, number one New York Times bestseller, uh 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.
If we're gonna get to your calls here, 800-941 Sean.
Listen, let me play for you before we get to our phones here.
Um, you got female Dallas Trump supporters, and I think they were all evangelicals.
They actually did a 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 do any 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.
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, the lifestyle that she's leading right now, I mean, I wish she would turn her life over the way that Trump has.
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 uh 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 foresee it and a focus group that they did, and just not one of them cared about, you know, twelve, thirteen years ago of an alleged consensual relationship.
Now, here's the media dismissing, let's see, Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willie, you know, Brian Gumbel on MBC, Charlie Gibson, Good Morning America, uh, Evan Thomas,
you know, formerly a newsweek, and all these people listen to the difference in the tone, except the big difference here is one is k two instances of consent 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 is 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 uh sexual harassment suited against the president.
Of course, and that wouldn't 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 is she not trying to capitalize on this in effect to to to profit from impugning the president.
I 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 gonna have a decided length 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 what I find it 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.
It's I think that's outrageous.
She hoped that the thing went away this week, and she even she was sick of hearing about it.
Well, let's hope she gets her way with that.
Are we gonna look back on this time a hundred years from now, the way we look back on Salem?
We're reaching the point where we're gonna wind up with government by goody goodies, government with peewed by people who have done nothing in their life except walk the straight and narrow, who have no creative thoughts.
We're gonna look back on this a hundred 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 gonna 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 uh, I just wanted to kind of go back to uh the omnibus.
And uh I think that uh 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 looked at this as uh, you know, strategically a smart thing that Trump uh signed a budget.
Well, I'm gonna tell you right now, the best thing out of the budget, and everybody thought they were so smart, um, 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 ninety-nine percent.
You know, Democrats claiming, well, the wall wasn't even funded in this bill yet is because the uh the 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 is gonna 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 a hundred 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 that does make sense.
And and also if he c cuts a good deal with uh North Korea, everyone will be very grateful, and and all the people that uh you know were concerned about this budget, just like the wall being built, uh, we'll be uh you know, 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.
Uh, but little rocket men, you know, being pressured economically and sanctions and an allegiance with uh 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 uh threatening Guam and everything else they've been doing.
You know, I gotta tell you, he 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 uh to our busy phones.
Tim, Mississippi.
Tim, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Thank you so much, Sean, appreciate it.
Uh first of all, let me really 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.
Uh if there was a Sarah Carter Sarah Carter and you would would be would be winning Pulitzers.
Now, how about they get the Pulitzer and I'll I'll get the uh let's see, the media's treatment of hating me.
That's reward enough that you know the news meeting and the especially the creepy people asking personal.
The only question CNN didn't ask in sixty 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 biggest reason I was calling Sean is I I've 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 are left.
I I don't even know how to describe them.
The Adam Schiffs and her 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 they were born without the shame gene and without the embarrassment gene.
Listen, I'm gonna I'm gonna 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 five million dollars out of his own pocket and said, All right, go go enjoy your life here.
This is a 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 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 soft core porn.
Anderson Cooper's questions were creepy.
And you know, we actually did a side-by-side of Anderson Cooper asking questions of 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 fine your party girl, etc.
So what's the pro so what's the story here?
Oh, Lord.
And you had sex with him.
Yeah.
Uh, do you want to be with her boyfriend?
No, it's just a one-time thing.
Did you want to have sex with him?
No.
But I didn't 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 uh 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.
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 you and and they didn't care, but they care about Stormy.
It's unbelievable.
Uh, Jerry, Kansas City, Missouri.
What's up, Jerry?
How are you?
Uh hi, Sean.
Uh Holy Week, first of all.
And um, I'm just I'm like hearing pretty well disgusted.
Um 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 positive at the time.
As a Democrat, I am disgusted if they want the popular vote to be what we 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 right for a little while, say a month or two, six months even is an acceptable shelf life.
But eighteen 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 as a good thing.
No, but you gotta understand they they have got to tear this man down.
I mean, literally, limb by limb.
They want to shred him so that they they want to so discredit him and 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 gotta take a break here, though.
I appreciate it.
Jerry, thank you.
Hey, Hannity tonight, nine Eastern Fox News Channel, among our many guests, the great one, Mark Levin, also fall out 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.
We'll break that at 9 Eastern Tonight's set you D VR Hannity Fox News Channel.
