Sean Hannity Show - Everybody Is Going Insane - 4.16

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 17, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:33:36

Everybody Is Going Insane - 4.16

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity radio show podcast.
	If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what?
	That's not fun.
	You know, I tried everything.
	I couldn't get a good night's sleep, and this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
	That's right.
	It is my pillow.
	Mike Lindell invented it, and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and it's changed my life.
	I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
	And the good news, you can too.
	Just go to my pillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
	You get 50% off to my pillow premium pillows, two go anywhere pillows.
	Now, my pillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money back guarantee, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
	You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow, tossing in tourney that's not working for you.
	Just go to MyPillow.com right now.
	Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
	You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two go anywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep peeling and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
	MyPillow.com, promo code Sean.
	Hillary Clinton's convinced that that letter defeated her.
	What do you say to her?
	I hope not.
	I I don't know.
	I honestly don't know.
	I sure hope not.
	But the honest answer is it wouldn't change the way I think about it.
	I mean, my hope, I didn't write the book for this reason, but talking about leadership, it was important to tell the email story because it's me trying to figure out how to lead well.
	The people will read that story and try to put themselves in my shoes.
	Try to realize that I'm not trying to help a candidate or hurt a candidate.
	I'm trying to do the right thing.
	And you can come up with different conclusions.
	Reasonable people would have chosen a different door for reasonable reasons.
	But it's just not fair to say we were doing it for some illegitimate reason.
	But but at some level, wasn't the decision to reveal influenced by your assumption that Hillary Clinton was going to win and your concern that she wins, this comes out several weeks later, and then that's taken by her opponents to sign that she's an illegitimate president.
	It must have been.
	I don't remember consciously thinking about that, but it must have been.
	Because I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump.
	And so I'm sure that it was a factor.
	Like I said, I don't remember spelling it out, but it had to have been that she's going to be elected president.
	And if I hide this from the American people, she'll be illegitimate the moment she's elected, the moment this comes out.
	If you knew that letter would elect Donald Trump, you'd still send it?
	I would.
	I would.
	In fact, that was a question asked by one of my best people, a deputy general counsel in the FBI, who is a very thoughtful and quiet person who didn't speak a lot.
	And that morning we were making that decision.
	She asked, should you consider that what you're about to do may help elect Donald Trump president?
	And I paused and then I said, thank you for asking that question.
	That's a great question.
	But the answer is not for a moment, because down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent force in American life.
	If I ever start considering whose political fortunes will be affected by a decision, we're done.
	We're no longer that group in America that is apart from the partisans and that can be trusted.
	We're just another player in the in the tribal battle.
	There's there's no precedent for putting out information like this at the end of a campaign.
	Oh, I've never heard of it before.
	I I, as I say in the book, I I think I did it the way that it should have been done.
	I'm I'm not certain of that.
	Other people might have had a different view.
	I pray to God no future FBI director ever has to find out.
	Comey describes the fateful decisions around the 2016.
	So uh uh glad you're with us.
	Happy Monday, 800-941 Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
	It's very strange to watch my own television network having my name up as a as a lower third in terms of it being a story.
	There is a there's a part of me that really wants to build this up into something massive and make the media go nuts.
	I had no idea all these media people like me so much, and now they have to listen to the program.
	Maybe I should play it off in the last hour or the last minute of the TV tonight.
	Um, but I think this is um I actually think it's pretty funny.
	Uh anyway, so Michael Cohn, this is big hearing today as it relates to his case.
	And part of what went on today was that Michael Cohn was asked by the judge in the case, Kimba Wood, it happens to be her name, uh, about you know who the who your clients on are uh etc.
	Anyway, let's go back to more of the Comey uh interview, and I'll I'll decide if I'm gonna put out a statement here.
	Anyway, here's more of this interview from last night.
	You said as this was happening, you had a flashback to your early days as a prosecutor.
	I had a flashback to my days investigating the mafia, La Cosa Nostra.
	Decades earlier, Comey learned about La Cosa Nostra, our thing in Italian, as a U.S. attorney prosecuting the Gambino crime family headed by John Gotti.
	In the Mafia, a man is measured by the strength of his loyalty.
	There's a distinction between a friend of yours and a friend of ours.
	I felt this effort to make us all, and maybe this wasn't their intention, but it's the way it felt to me, to make us all a Mica Nostra.
	We're all part of the messaging.
	We're all part of the effort.
	The boss is at the head of the table, and we're gonna figure out together how to do this.
	How strange is it for you to sit here and compare the president to a mob boss?
	Very strange.
	And I don't do it lightly, and I'm not trying to by that, by the way, suggest that President Trump is outbreaking legs and shaking down shopkeepers.
	But instead, what I'm talking about is that leadership culture constantly comes back to me when I think about my experience with the Trump administration.
	Critics say the fix was in from the start.
	President Trump says you were writing the conclusion, even before you interviewed Hillary Clinton.
	That is just wrong.
	Anybody who's actually done investigations knows that if you've been investigating something for almost a year and you don't have a general sense of where it's likely to end up, you should be fired because you're incompetent.
	And to those who say you should have brought Hillary Clinton before a grand jury?
	We would prefer with a subject of investigation to do an informal interview, a lot more flexibility there.
	They're still required to tell the truth.
	Comey was a man in conflict, was his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by the public perception that she was too close to the Clinton camp.
	His first concern when she told him to refer to the Clinton email controversy as a matter rather than an investigation.
	Did you think she was doing that to protect Hillary Clinton?
	I didn't know.
	It worried me, it gave me an uncomfortable feeling because the Clinton campaign have been trying to come up with other words to describe it.
	And the final straw, Lynch's meeting on an airport tarmac with President Bill Clinton.
	I decided I have to step, as much as I like her, I have to step away from her and show the American people the FBI's work separately.
	Believing the credibility of the Justice Department was at stake, he made a dramatic and unprecedented move, calling a press conference without telling his boss what he would say.
	The FBI director, James Comey, is about to give a statement to the press.
	I'm here to give you an update on the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system.
	Your critics say this is where your ego got the best of you.
	This was your original sin.
	So if it was about ego, why would I step out in front of the organization and get shot a thousand times?
	I actually thought, as bad as this will be for me personally, this is my obligation to protect the FBI and the Justice Department.
	Given all that had gone on, the Attorney General of the United States could not credibly announce this result.
	And if she did, it would do corrosive damage to the institutions of justice.
	Comey concluded there was no criminal intent and no reason to prosecute Clinton.
	But he was also harshly critical.
	Secretary Clinton used several different servers, contained information that was top secret.
	There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
	Your critics say you offered way too much information.
	The way they put it, listen, in the FBI, we simply do not bloody up people we choose not to prosecute.
	Look, that's fair criticism.
	The Department of Justice has long done that in the appropriate case where it's necessary.
	The Department of Justice, but not the FBI director.
	That's right.
	What was unusual about this, in fact, unprecedented in my experience, is that I decided it was important that I speak separately from the Attorney General.
	Why not put out a one-line statement?
	We decline to prosecute.
	If you issue a one-liner from the Obama Justice Department about the Democratic nominee For President of the United States and say we're done here.
	Corrosive doubt creeps in that the system is rigged somehow.
	Can you assure people that the Obama Justice Department was not protecting Hillary Clinton?
	Yes.
	The FBI drove this investigation, and we did it in a competent and independent way.
	Let's let's get to some of what we're all hearing here.
	Do you know there are two major pieces of this that I want to really hone in on today?
	You know, now I guess James Comey has now set a new journalistic standard.
	Well, it it might be possible.
	Well, anything might be possible.
	You know, working in tandem with former, I mean, it's almost it's not even believable novel form that George Stephanopoulos, you know, of the war room fame and Clinton fame and press secretary fame for the Clintons that he gets the first interview with James Comey.
	There's so much here that was not asked, it's absolutely ridiculous.
	You know, all the questions I was live tweeting it out last night.
	When stop Stephanopoulos asked, Is there any truth to the story?
	Well, it's possible.
	The story about hookers in a bed in Moscow.
	Now here's the problem with that.
	That remember, if you listen to the former FBI deputy director, Rod Rosenstein, quoted as saying, without any dossier, there is no application for a FISA warrant to spy on an opposition party candidate in a lead up to an election.
	There is none.
	Now, that to me means so when he went in January of 2017 to the president elect and said it's salacious and unverified, well, then how did they possibly use that very same information as the basis to get a warrant to spy on an associate of the Trump campaign in the lead up to an election with information that the FISA law would require that they verify,
	that they authenticate, that they corroborate FBI protocols would I would would demand the same type of treatment.
	And here it is all this time later, from October of 2016 to April of 2018, James Comey doesn't even still doesn't even know what the status of all of this is.
	Now, how is that even possible in any way?
	How is it possible that he can't know whether or not it's true or not true, but it's used as the basis for a Pfizer warrant?
	Now here's another question for Comey that they didn't get into in any depth last night.
	If any of you did the following, we do have 18 USC 793 about mishandling, destroying classified documents.
	Now, we know that Hillary Clinton, to avoid congressional oversight, we know that Hillary Clinton, in fact, put all of this information on a mom and pop bathroom closet in a server there at this, you know, Plotts River network place.
	So when you have the government of the United States a congressional subpoena for emails, what do you think happens to any of you if you delete 33,000 emails?
	And then to make really, really sure they're gone, well, you're gonna acid wash those emails.
	Um then after that, if he has any devices left, well, we're gonna bust up those devices with a hammer.
	Now, this is key in all of this.
	And then you get to the fact, all right.
	So Comey works with number one Trump hater, uh, Peter Strzok, him and Lisa Page hate Donald Trump.
	We've seen only a small smidgen of what their text messages went back and forth between them.
	The the eventual person to interview Hillary, not under oath in July of 2016, just a couple of days before Comey exonerates her.
	But from May till July, Comey and Strzok, they're the ones writing the exoneration of Hillary.
	Now they had an interviewed Hillary, and they haven't interviewed 17 other key witnesses.
	And this is what was missing last night.
	And that's literally why I I tweeted out that this is by far the worst case I've ever, the worst interview I've ever seen.
	And it's amazing to me that nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that FISA court judges are lied to in this whole process to obtain warrants to spy on American citizens.
	I doubt any of you would ever want that to happen.
	While working a separate case against Anthony Wiener, the husband of one of Clinton's top aides, FBI agents find hundreds of thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails on Wiener's laptop, but kept that information secret for weeks.
	And then the question for me now is so what do we do now?
	The norm is if you can avoid it, you take no action that might have an impact on an election.
	And I can't see a door that's labeled no action here.
	So in the final days of the election, Comey sends a letter informing Congress he is reopening the Clinton investigation.
	Congress tells the world.
	You could try to find out first whether or not they were indeed relevant, whether they would there was evidence there of a crime.
	Well, maybe, and maybe another director might have done that.
	My view is that would be a potentially deeply irresponsible and dangerous thing to do.
	But we don't know what's in it.
	Well, we know there are hundreds of thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails there.
	That's an affirmative act of concealment.
	That's the judgment you made.
	Boy, you seem to be alone in that judgment.
	You look at previous attorney generals for President Bush, for President Ford, for President Obama, Justice Department officials for President Clinton, they all disagree with you.
	They say this crossed a line.
	Yeah, I've I've heard a lot of that.
	What I would hope is that they would, by reading the book, come with me to October 28th.
	Tell me what you would do.
	Your critics say this is a clear, clear, clear double standard.
	You revealed information about Hillary Clinton, you concealed information about Donald Trump, That elected Donald Trump.
	Take a step back and stare at the two cases and the posture they were in.
	The Hillary Clinton email case was public and the counterintelligence investigations trying to figure out whether a small group of people, not Donald Trump.
	We were not investigating Donald Trump, whether this small group of Americans was coordinating anything with the Russians.
	We had just started the investigation, didn't know whether we had anything, so it would have been brutally unfair to those people to talk about it, and it would have jeopardized the investigation.
	What did it feel like to be James Comey in the last 10 days of that campaign after you sent the letter?
	It sucked.
	I walked around vaguely sick to my stomach, feeling beaten down, felt like I was totally alone, that everybody hated me, and that there wasn't a way out because it really was the right thing to do.
	It wasn't.
	It's all about James Comey.
	That's the thing.
	How petty and small is it when he's talking about the president, and it looked like he went to a tanning bed and his his skin was orange but had white circles under them.
	And he wasn't as tall as I thought he was going to be, and his hands were small, they were average size, but not as big as I thought they were going to be.
	And he always wears these extra long ties that are really too long.
	Um and he doesn't have the temperament to be president.
	There is such minimal contact when you really get to the nuts and bolts of this between the president of the United States and James Comey, and all he did was basically just build up almost like in novel form what he had already told everybody.
	But nobody in the media is asking, well, if you didn't know and you still don't know, and you think, well, it could be possible what was in the dossier, how was that ever presented to get a warrant to spy on an American?
	And number two, how do you justify allowing Hillary Clinton to commit those crimes and violations and handle it the way you handled it by exonerating before investigating?
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
	800 941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program?
	Yeah, I'll get to the issue of uh this circus that took place in uh New York today, and uh with Michael Cohn and Stormy Daniel showed up, and Stormy Daniels lawyers showed up, and everybody in between, I guess, showed up.
	Uh, and my name did come up in the hearing, and I will address that in just a second here.
	But here's what I want to address more than anything else.
	Do you know that a hundred and five cruise missiles were fired in all this coalition of Great Britain, France, and uh, of course, the United States, and all 105 hit their targets?
	And I guarantee you nobody wants to even talk about that.
	Amazing part.
	And what was the reason here?
	Was it nation building?
	I I told everybody that that's not who this president is.
	Not into nation building.
	But, you know, as the president said the other night, do we as a country have a moral obligation?
	If we see these types of weapons as evil and as sinister As they are, you know, if these types of weapons are being used against innocent men, women, children, and even babies, you know, are we gonna say after World War I, after World War II, that the world should unite to ban all of these weapons?
	Now, we were assured that they were gone, 100% of them, when Barack Obama was president because he told us, as did, by the way, uh uh John Kerry saying 100 100% of these weapons are gone.
	But the president couldn't have been more clear.
	They were launching precision strikes on targets associated with chemical weapons capability of the Syrian dictator Assad, a combined operation, by the way, with armed forces of France and with the United States of America.
	Um, another point that the president tried to make, and I think this is a moral dilemma for everybody, and it shouldn't be, because we know evil when we see it.
	These weapons are evil.
	You know, when you see the the these kids gasping for their last breath, and it's not the first time we've seen this with Syria, you know, in pain.
	And um, you know, it's the only an evil monster could commit these types of atrocities against innocent people.
	And that's why it's important.
	Now, is America capable of being the world's police force?
	No, we we can't.
	We don't have the financing to do it.
	We don't we don't have the ability to do it.
	So, but what kind of nation, and this was I thought the best part of the president's speech the other night for all the talk of James Comey last night, which I thought was pretty interesting, you know, James Comey's new standard.
	Well, it might be possible, or a lot of things might be possible.
	Tons of things might be possible.
	But they're, you know, hang on.
	I gotta send this.
	I am on air.
	I wish everybody would stop calling me.
	Anyway, so but we've got to ask what kind of nation when he addressed Russia and Tehran would want to be associated with mass murderers.
	What kind of person would want to do that?
	You know, who what nation would support a mass murderer like this?
	And Putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of these types of weapons.
	Um and it didn't happen.
	Now, the president rightly pointed out that, you know, ISIS has been on the run, the caliphate in Syria and Iraq, ISIS has been liberated and eliminated, but the United States can't get involved in a protracted civil war.
	Well, what side are we going to take here?
	The only reason Assad is still in power is because of Russia.
	And if and if it's possible that the new standard of James Comey, it might be possible.
	Well, if in fact the president was compromised, I doubt he would have been engaged in what happened the other night.
	You know, when asked if there was any truth to this story about the dossier, the answer of James Comey was, well, it's possible, but I don't know.
	And the whole story that is missed in all of this, and this is why it's so bad what is happening as it relates to uh uh, you know, the media in this country and journalism being dead.
	How do you get to use a dossier that is paid for by one candidate that was built by a foreign national when we're not supposed to like foreign nationals getting involved in our elections that contains unverified, uncorroborated, and now we know untrue statements and untrue, quote, facts in this thing.
	How does that then become the basis for a FISA application to spy on an American citizen?
	And not only is that application once, the application is you know, three subsequent renewal applications.
	That's pretty bad.
	That's pretty bad indeed.
	Um 800, 941 Sean, let's get to a call here.
	Cassandra's in Marietta, Georgia.
	How are you?
	Hi, Sean.
	Ah, how are you?
	What's going on?
	I'm good.
	How are you?
	Good.
	What's happening?
	Um, my question is, and I'm so glad I got to talk to you.
	You're my favorite talk show host other than Herman King.
	Oh, thank you.
	I appreciate it.
	You're welcome.
	Um, my question is with this Muller's witch hunt.
	I'm very curious to if you might know about how much money has been spent with that ridiculous witch hunt.
	I'm sorry, what?
	I would like to know if you have any idea how much money has been spent with the Mueller witch hunt.
	I don't know how many millions.
	I know it was in the seven or ten million range, like a month, two months, a couple of months ago.
	But kidding.
	How disgusting.
	Well yeah.
	Well, yeah, I mean it's a lot of money for what?
	We're getting nothing out of it.
	Absolutely nothing.
	Exactly.
	All right.
	800 nine four one.
	You know, Comey says, by the way, Obama jeopardized the Hillary email investigation.
	This is pretty interesting.
	When it comes to Trump, you know, there's really nothing new in the book.
	That's the other thing that struck me.
	But a few unexpected revelations are here.
	Um, where he says Obama Obama jeopardized the Hillary email probe by publicly proclaiming she was innocent.
	I don't think that's going to be covered in any of this.
	All right, back to our phones we go.
	Leo is in California.
	Leo, how are you?
	I'm doing fine, and thank you for uh taking my call.
	You know, you played some expert uh excerpts from the uh Comey Invest um interview, and uh one of the questions that was asked, I'm paraphrasing was that uh about the Hillary email case was uh how could he draw any conclusions before the case was closed?
	And he said any investigator that uh couldn't draw a conclusion after a year uh uh uh is incompetent.
	And I thought to myself, wouldn't that include Mueller?
	Well, yeah, of course it would include Mueller, don't you think?
	Of course it would.
	I just wanted to bring up the point that you know he's talking about one of the friends or one of the people that he actually put in place as in some ways being incompetent.
	Okay.
	Uh yeah, no, I think look, we've gone through the we've gone through all of this in detail about investigating the investigators, and I don't think you put a team together like this unless you have uh some desire to do s you know something nefarious and and look deeper and deeper.
	I won't argue that.
	I just want to bring up another point that has to do with Cohen since he's in court today.
	You know, uh President Trump didn't become President Trump by not knowing what the other side was doing.
	And is it possible that all this that's taking place with the people around him that he knows exactly what's been doing, they're doing and they're playing right into uh the president's hands.
	Mm-hmm.
	Yeah, I think they're playing right into the president's hands in a lot of ways.
	I think also the media has a lot of egg on their face.
	Well, I think it's all gonna come out here shortly.
	Yeah, I think a lot is coming out shortly, and it's just a matter of time.
	Can't wait to get the rest of the IG report.
	We had the first part of the report on the deputy FBI director, uh McCabe the other day.
	All right, should I pay this off?
	Um everybody's going insane here.
	Linda, are you watching all this?
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	There's nothing going on.
	No, there's nothing going on.
	We know we bombed Syria and anyway, so New York today had a big big uh hearing.
	Stormy Daniels was in there, Stormy Daniels attorney was in there, and I guess that Michael Cohn had to list the people that were that he's done some work with or whatever.
	I I don't know what the full thing was that actually went on there.
	So I've known Michael a long, long time.
	And let me be very clear to the media.
	Michael never represented me in any matter.
	I never retained him in the in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer.
	Uh I never received an invoice from Michael.
	I never paid legal fees to Michael.
	Uh but I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
	And I assume that those conversations were attorney client confidential.
	Uh but and the other thing I will I will need to point out to the media that is apparently going insane over this.
	Not one of any issue I ever dealt with Michael Cohn on ever involved a matter between me and any third party.
	Now, I have eight attorneys that I use for varying things in my life.
	And in this particular case, you know, I like to have people that I can run questions by.
	And Michael very generously would give me his time, and we'd always say, okay, attorney client.
	Yeah, good.
	Okay, good.
	And I'd ask him a legal question.
	And that's it.
	And I don't think that you know, I don't think that that is that complicated.
	How did this blow up to be such a big deal?
	I never had any case with him and any that involved any third party, none whatsoever.
	Why do you think the media is going insane with this?
	I mean, let's think about it this way, too, Sean.
	I mean, how many attorneys do we have on the show?
	Oh my god.
	I mean, expert upon expert, we bring people on the show that are experts in their field, whether it's someone like Alan Dershowitz, someone like David Schoen, people who have represented the ACLU, Civil Liberties, whether we're talking about people who are on our side of the field, you know, and they want to defend certain things that are happening for the GOP, whatever it is.
	We have varying experts on the show.
	And that's just the way that it is.
	If you have a question before you go on the air and you want to say, hey, is this the right way to say this, or what's the legal ease for this?
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	And for them to make it seem as if it's something that it's not, just shows their desperation to just pull the narrative away from the good things that are.
	I only had attorney client privilege because I asked him for that, and you know, but he never sent me a bill or an invoice, or did I actually want to make it seem like it's something nefarious.
	There's nothing nefarious.
	People retain attorneys all the time for all sorts of things, whether it's a simple question, whether it's to find out their their expertise on something, whether it's to find out their advice on something.
	Hey, we definitely we definitely would say attorney client when I would ask him something in a legal frame.
	But I never used it, was never used Michael in any case that involved any matter between me and a third party ever.
	Right.
	It's you and Michael.
	It's two people.
	I'll tell you what, I tell you why they're going nuts because they're assuming, because I guess he did some type of um, I guess he did some type of work for some Republican guy, so he's figuring, oh, he must have done a big settlement case for Hannity.
	That's not no, that's not whatn't happened ever.
	Hey, it's pretty involved with any matter between me and any third party.
	That was no.
	Like, for example, I have all sorts of lawyers, some of which people would know their names.
	I just think it's hilarious that, you know, I have 15 million messages flying in and emails flying in even as we speak.
	Oh, I know.
	I have them too.
	But by the way, I think that it just shows that Michael was doing his uh due diligence and being totally thorough about anybody that he might have had attorney client privilege with.
	But I mean, in terms of anything of any significance, none.
	Zero.
	I mean, what else can you say except that okay?
	I never gave him a retainer, never received an invoice, never paid any any fees.
	You know, I might have handed him 10 bucks.
	I definitely want your attorney client privilege on this, something like that.
	Uh I requested that privilege with him when I would ask him, well, this just came up.
	What do you think about this?
	Or what do you think about that?
	I assumed, and I'm uh obviously he assumed and he kept his word that they were confidential on attorney client, but I never had any matter with him between me and any third party.
	How is it possible that NBC and ABC goes absolutely and and MSNBC and CNN goes absolutely off the rails over a simple thing like that?
	It's really unfortunate.
	They are just trying to drive this Comey Muller narrative as far as they can take it, and they'll take anybody down that they can with it.
	It doesn't them the truth is irrelevant anymore.
	Attorney client privilege, irrelevant.
	None of it matters anymore.
	Yeah, it's true.
	Very sad.
	I mean, it's pretty unbelievable.
	The world we live in.
	You know what it is?
	They just they're always hoping for the worst, and it when it relates to any conservative.
	I'm just always hoping for the worst.
	They don't want to Yeah, but not for nothing, Sean.
	In this particular situation, there's just there's nothing there.
	You know, you ask the guy for advice, or you ask the guy for his opinion, and you want his legal expertise, and that's it.
	Here's here's a question for you.
	You know me, and how many attorneys that you know of that I have?
	I have contract attorneys, I have all sorts of attorneys.
	Tons of attorneys, and we use them on a regular basis for your personal, for your business, for on air, for TV, for radio.
	It is infuriating to watch this.
	No, it really is.
	All right, I appreciate it.
	Uh I love this.
	Michael Cohn's mystery third client is Sean Hannity.
	And they're speculating.
	I I'll put this this statement out.
	Uh look, Michael Cohn was never represented me in any specific matter.
	I never retained him.
	I never received an invoice.
	I never paid legal fees.
	But I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
	That's it.
	And I assume those conversations were confidential.
	But by the way, for those that are running wild with their speculation, uh, I want to be absolutely clear, they never involved any matter between me and any third party.
	I'll deal with this more tonight.
	When we come back, Alan Dershowitz, maybe I'll hire him on the phone.
	Maybe he can be my lawyer.
	I have so many lawyers as it is.
	Anyway, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Sarah Carter, David Schoen also check in as we continue on this busy Monday.
	You know what the good news for him is in the Southern District?
	They can bring sessions back.
	He's not any longer accused when it comes from the separate investigation in New York, because that's unrelated to the Russia matter.
	And that gets Rosenstein.
	Sure.
	He recused himself, Sessions, because he was a potential subject or witness in the Russia investigation.
	New York is not about the Rush investigation.
	It's about Cohn.
	It's about pre-presidential activities.
	Sessions is the attorney general of the United States.
	He's back in charge of the investigation, not Rosenstein.
	All right, that's Professor Alan Dershowitz who joins us now, our two Sean Hannity show, 800 941 Sean, our toll-free telephone number, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Uh Professor, welcome back to the program.
	To what extent could Sessions actually uh get back in this and in what regard?
	He should get back in it.
	He's the Attorney General of the United States.
	He's in charge of all cases except those in which he is formally recused.
	Now he's never recused himself, nor should he be recused from the investigations that are occurring, if they're occurring in the Southern District of New York, because they all involve pre-presidential activities.
	They're not part of the Russia probe.
	He's not a potential subject of that.
	He's not a potential witness.
	And there's absolutely no reason why the Attorney General of the United States should relegate that part of his job to the deputy attorney general.
	Um the they they say they're separate, they're separate investigations.
	If they're separate investigations, he's not recused from the separate part of it in New York.
	That's that's pretty fascinating and a new development.
	Let me ask a broad question about what you thought of Comey's interview.
	There were two things that really stand stood out in my mind.
	Uh issue number one, remember the deputy FBI director, Andrew McCabe said without the dossier, the steel dossier, uh there wouldn't have been a FISA warrant application.
	That's number one.
	Also, we know as it relates to the the FISA application that there are certain laws, especially because you're talking about spying on Americans and approving a warrant to spy on an American, there are specific FBI protocols and specific laws as it as it relates to the representation of evidence in a Pfizer warrant application process.
	If James Comey today, last night still does not know what the veracity and truthfulness and never corroborated what was in that we now know Clinton bought and paid for dossier with put together by a foreign national and using Russian sources.
	If they didn't verify it, and if they didn't corroborate it, and they allowed it to be presented before the Pfizer judge, and they never told the judge they knew who paid for it, but they didn't tell the judge who paid for it.
	Isn't that misrepresentation to a judge?
	I think it is, and I think that uh Stephanopoulos asked him that question very directly.
	Don't you think that the president had the right to know who paid for uh the dossier the president though they didn't ask about the Pfizer court judge?
	Yeah, and that's they got the Pfizer warrant three months before.
	Now think about this.
	In January of 2017, Professor, James Comey told President elect Trump that it was salacious and it was unverified.
	And he never told you never told the president elect the source.
	But in October, just weeks before the election, the Pfizer Court was presented that dossier.
	The Grassley Graham memo says the bulk of the application was the steel dossier.
	And they presented it to the judge, and they didn't tell the judge where it came from, and they didn't verify what was in the dossier, which most of which turned out to be false.
	Yeah, and that's right.
	You have the director, it is a problem, the director of the FBI himself saying today, today, I'm not sure it's possible.
	First of all, what is the director, the FBI going around peddling these kinds of salacious rumors on national international television without knowing whether they're true or not?
	Uh you know, he could have just as easily said, I have seen no evidence in any way to validate the allegations, what I call the leak leak, the stuff about you know beds in urination.
	Uh I've seen no evidence to support that, and he should have said the same thing about other issues, uh whether the Russians have him over a barrel.
	He should have said, I have seen no evidence to support that instead of saying, Well, it's possible.
	Anything's possible, it's possible, maybe it's not likely.
	I wouldn't have said it about another president, but I'm going to say it about him.
	No, he's just engaging with such speculation that's so unsuitable for a former director of the FBI who's supposed to go on facts, facts, facts.
	But yesterday it was very, very disappointing to hear him speculate and always the speculation is against the president.
	Can I can I dig deeper inside your legal mind for a a better answer on that in this sense?
	Because you're right, Comey set a new standard.
	It might be possible.
	The problem is that was the very information, the bulk of information, according to the Grassley Graham memo that was used to obtain a Pfizer warrant to spy on an American citizen, and if they didn't verify it, which which is mandated both by law and protocol, was a crime potentially committed there.
	Well, before we get to the crime, I just want all your listeners to ask themselves the question.
	If somebody was trying to intrude into your most personal computers, your conversations with your doctor, your priest, your rabbi, your wife, your lawyer, would it would it satisfy you to know that the criteria were, well, it might be possible.
	It's unlikely, but it might be possible, because that's the criteria that seems to have been used to get the Pfizer warrant.
	Now, you know, whether that's a crime, as you know, I don't like to make things crime unless they're clearly established by the criminal law.
	But it's certainly worthy of much further investigation.
	I'm going to ask the question another way, because you're so good at uh you're you're such a good criminal defense attorney.
	Everything worked everything in your mind works its way through the prism of how do you defend us on all sides, by the way, not just one side.
	But if l if you were the person that was being spied on, and you found out that the FBI presented to the court unverified, uncorroborated, and now even some proven true, information that was the basis of their application to get that warrant against you, and it was done by say an arch enemy of yours, and they never told the court that it was tainted by prejudice in that way.
	Are you I I have a funny feeling Alan Dershowitz, the person would go apoplectic about the violation of civil liberties based on unverified information.
	Of course.
	And so would the ACLU if the person who is being targeted was Hillary Clinton or a liberal democrat.
	But if it's uh you know, you're consistent, you would do it for anybody.
	Yeah, yeah.
	You know, it it's so disappointing.
	Because I thought well uh Comey.
	I met him a few times, he came to Harvard, he spoke in classes.
	You know, he speaks very well.
	He made a generally good impression, I thought, uh, yesterday.
	But the thing that most stood out for me is his lack of courage.
	Here's a man who's supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer, and he's hiding behind a curtain, trying to get his blue suit to match the curtain so he doesn't have to confront the president.
	Uh the president says, Will you be loyal?
	He says, I'll be loyally honest or honestly loyal.
	And now, in front of the television cameras, he's perfectly prepared to stand up to the president because he's no longer working for him.
	But he had no courage and no guts.
	As I said this morning on Fox and Friends, when I speak to any president, whether it was Clinton, whether it be Obama, whether it be President Trump, any president, I tell him what I think.
	And that's why I think they value my insights.
	I'm not going to say yes, sir, yes or yes, sir, and being a yes man.
	And to have the head of the FBI not have the courage of his convictions when he wants to talk to the New York Times, he leaks it through a law professor because he was afraid to confront journalists on his front lawn because they might be upset that he was giving it to one journalist rather than another journalist.
	Wow, that really takes courage to have to stand up to a couple of journalists and say, sorry, I gave it to the New York Times.
	next time I'll give it to you.
	I know how strongly you feel about the criminalization of political differences, but sometimes there are politicians that commit crimes.
	Of course.
	Oh, I've no question about that.
	All right.
	So for example, 18 USC 793 talks about the mishandling and destruction of classified top secret special access programming information.
	And that goes to the heart of the email server in a mom and pop shop that Hillary Clinton had put up that we now know that foreign intelligence agencies were able to hack into.
	And if I did that, I think I'd be in trouble.
	But more importantly, once those emails of hers were subpoenaed, and she deleted 33,000 of them, and then she blew out the hard drive by acid washing it with bleach bill, and then had her employees beating up her devices with hammers.
	And I know I don't think I'm making a a I'm not criminalizing a political difference here.
	I'm stating his fact.
	I think that if Sean Hannity did it or Professor Dershowitz took subpoenaed information like this and you acted that way, you would be in criminal trouble.
	Well, I mean, the question is how many of those facts are actually provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Everyone they're all so true, why didn't career people in the Justice Department come to that conclusion?
	What happened in the end is that Comey announced that there was uh you know serious negligence, but it didn't rise to the level where other people in fact have been prosecuted for this.
	There have been Republicans who also had um email servers at home, but you know, if all your facts are correct about the acid washing and the destroying of that, that deserves being looked into, not by a special counsel.
	I don't like special counsel, but Justice Department, the State Department should be able to look into it through their own.
	Yeah.
	I'm not trying to whitewash anybody.
	Well, then it gets into James Comey in May of 2016.
	He and Peter Strzok, who we know has a personal vendetta against the president, and we know they're the two that were writing the exoneration of Hillary.
	And they were writing it before they interviewed her or seventeen other key witnesses.
	And to me, that's that's the exact opposite the way an investigation's supposed to go.
	We know that he originally, one of the original drafts that he used the legal term as it relates to mishandling classified extreme carelessness.
	Let me give you the headline for today's show.
	Yes, sir.
	Um so what Comey said yesterday about how they conduct investigations is the best argument why Donald Trump should not have to testify.
	Because what he said was we already knew the results of our investigation of Clinton, the only reason basically for questioning her is to see whether she's gonna lie or not.
	That's called a perjury trap.
	And if they pursued the same investigatory tactics, they already know that Donald Trump is not guilty of any sort of collusion.
	They already know he's not guilty of obstruction of justice, and the only reason they want him to testify now is to put him in a perjury trap.
	So I think what Comey said yesterday, describing why they were able to write the exoneration letter and not wait until Hillary Clinton testified is the perfect reason why Donald Trump doesn't have to now testify.
	It's interesting.
	I don't think that that's gonna happen.
	W you know, if you look under James Comey's watch, because he likes to hold himself up as kind of a holier than thou type of guy.
	And but look what happened with his deputy director three times lying on lying, one two times under oath.
	Uh look at all the people that have been demoted.
	Look at Bruce and Nellie Orr in their connection to Fusion GPS and meetings with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS.
	Glenn Simpson admitted he never verified any of the information in the dossier.
	Um Nelly helped write that dossier, working for Fusion GPS.
	Then you've got Lisa Strck and Elisa Page and Peter Strzok, and you got then you got the Attorney General does this weird ominous whatever we don't know about Loretta Lynch comment that that Comey makes.
	What did you make of that?
	Well, I have to tell you that the best part of Comey's statement, the one I agreed with 100%, is he said he was against impeachment, that this is something the public ought to decide in the next election.
	And that's what I think generally, these issues, where they should be decided.
	They should be decided at the ballot box, not in the jury box.
	There should be investigations.
	No one is above the law.
	By the way, when people say no one is above the law, they forget that prosecutors can't be sued, judges can't be sued, senators and congressmen can't be prosecuted for what they do going to the Senate or being in the House of Representatives.
	So there are officials in our government that are not within the same rules of law that the rest of us are within.
	That doesn't put them above the law.
	That just says the law gives them special reading rooms so that they can perform their function.
	The president too has that reading room, which is why he can't be charged with obstruction of justice for simply performing his constitutionally authorized acts.
	Let me let me just ask one thing.
	Where does this all end here?
	And what should the president be doing?
	The president, I don't believe, has much to worry about in terms of Mueller.
	I think Mueller will not find obstruction of justice.
	He will not find illegal acts relating to uh Russia.
	Um if he were to find any such charges, that would create a constitutional crisis, and the vast majority of Americans, I think, would stand behind the president on that.
	Where his real concerns should be focused is on his pre-presidential activities as a business person, or if he did settle any matters with women, he denies that.
	Uh but that's where he doesn't get the kind of constitutional protection he gets under Article II.
	And you know, Bill Clinton ultimately uh fell down, fell was impeached because of his testimony uh regarding something that happened before he was president, and his special counsel was investigating Whitewater, which happened before he was president.
	So it's the pre-presidential activities that should be focused on it.
	He should make sure he builds a very, very good legal team to protect his interest in the Southern District of New York, and in front of the state attorney general, because the state attorney general, if there were ever to be charges there, president can't pardon anybody.
	He has no control over the state legal system.
	All right, we appreciate your time, Professor Alan Dershowitz, thank you.
	A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad.
	A combined operation with the armed forces of France and the United Kingdom is now underway.
	We thank them both.
	Tonight I want to speak with you about why we have taken this action.
	One year ago, Assad launched a savage chemical weapons attack against his own innocent people.
	The United States responded with 58 missile strikes that destroyed 20 percent of the Syrian Air Force.
	Last Saturday, the Assad regime again deployed chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians, this time in the town of Dorma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus.
	This massacre was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.
	The evil and the despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air.
	These are not the actions of a man.
	They are crimes of a monster instead.
	Mr. Secretary, it was just a couple of days ago that you said you're still assessing the intelligence on the chemical weapons attack, suspected attack.
	So at this point, do you know what the chemical was used in that attack?
	Was it sarin?
	Was it chlorine?
	And also, what is your evidence it was actually delivered by the Syrian regime?
	Say the last part again.
	What's your evidence it was delivered by the Syrian regime?
	Are you quite clear it was I am confident the Syrian regime conducted a chemical attack on innocent people in this last uh last week?
	Yes.
	Absolutely confident of it.
	And uh we have the intelligence level of confidence that we needed to conduct the attack.
	Through your decision to well, did did the concern about escalation with Russia affect your decision to keep this more targeted and uh moving from there.
	Uh, how much assurance can you give us that this is gonna do what the strike last year didn't do, which is basically to stop President Assad from using chemical weapons weapons against.
	In uh in these kinds of matters.
	However, we used uh a little over double the number of weapons this year than we used last year.
	Uh it was done on targets that we believed were selective uh to hurt the chemical weapons program.
	We confined it to the chemical weapons type targets.
	Uh we were not out to expand this.
	We were very precise and proportionate, but at the same time, it was a heavy strike.
	All right, that was the president Friday night, and General Mattis speaking about uh the confidence that he had that in fact it was the Syrian regime that conducted the chemical attack.
	There were 105 missiles fired in total, all 105 hit their mark.
	Uh as the president was very clear in saying that these were pre precision strikes that were associated with the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian dictator Assad, and it was a combination with armed forces of France and the United Kingdom.
	And he gave a long explanation too, following the horrors of World War One.
	You know, civilized nations did join together to ban chemical warfare.
	And chemical weapons are uniquely dangerous, not only because they inflict gruesome suffering, but because small amounts can unleash widespread devastation.
	And the purpose of the actions on Friday night were to s establish a strong deterrent that the world is not going to sit idly by when these weapons are being used.
	And the president was clear this isn't about nation building.
	This is a particular action based on the particular cruelty and evil of these uh specific weapons that we're talking about here.
	And I think the president was right.
	It was amazing.
	A lot of a lot of conservatives didn't want the action, but I guess after Iraq, a lot of people are skeptical, number one, about whether or not, in fact, we know Assad has used these weapons in the past, but more importantly, are we going to get bogged down in some type of civil war in Syria?
	No, the president's been clear he's not following that path.
	Anyway, joining us now, Colonel Oliver North, host of war so war stories on the Fox News channel, Fox Business Network.
	How are you, sir?
	I'm glad to be with you, brother.
	How are you?
	I'm good.
	You know, for all the talk about James Comey and how Vladimir Putin probably has compromised information on the president.
	I think that probably Putin by now, with all the actions President Trump has taken, would have dumped whatever he had because he's not exactly the biggest fan of Donald Trump.
	Well, look, this whole thing is a distraction from what's really important in the world.
	I mean, right now we've got a country called Syria.
	It's a totally failed state, uh, using chemical weapons against the people.
	The press has universally come out against the president doing it without constations with Congress.
	Uh, you have this uh, I guess, biography or whatever it is, it's out there as a total distraction from the really important stuff of of what's going on in the world.
	And I I I feel for the president because apparently there's very few people left in our media who understood what happened back when Ronald Reagan was president.
	I happen to have been part of all of that.
	Uh when I look at the the raid that was conducted in 1986, in fact, it was today, 32 years ago, that Ronald Reagan went live on national television and told the American people about 7 p.m. at night, two hours earlier than the present when President Trump announced it, what we'd done.
	And the press went nuts because he didn't notify Congress beforehand.
	In other words, he was acting in an unconstitutional manner.
	Well, in point of fact, he had notified two people, the the Speaker of the House and the uh Senate majority leader minutes before the raid went.
	It's too late for them to go out and clear the deal and and announce it to the world.
	And I don't blame the president uh Trump one bit for not announcing beforehand to Congress what he was gonna do.
	We'd still be debating it in Congress.
	Either the nation is threatened by the idea of nuclear excuse me, weapons of mass destruction being used, or it's not.
	I happen to believe it's an existential threat to the country.
	Clearly, the President believed that.
	It's in the national security interest of the United States to act, act quickly, act proportionally, and with great accuracy.
	And then they criticize him for saying mission accomplished.
	Let me this let me just describe a mission that I know of, where I got an attaboy for mission accomplished.
	In May of 1969, I was ordered to take 14 other Marines with me, no more, no less, into the demilitarized zone that separated North and South Vietnam.
	The mission was to capture an enemy soldier.
	We did.
	We came back out, we captured a North Vietnamese army soldier, proving to the people at the Paris Peace Talks that the North Vietnamese won the southern half of the DMZ.
	And I got an attaboy from the commanding general of the first excuse me, second it was actually third Marine Division, an attaboy that said, well done, mission accomplished.
	It didn't end the war.
	In fact, the war ended all badly.
	But the fact is, my unit accomplished the mission.
	And that's exactly what happened in this case.
	Sean, I'm I'm stunned by the inability, first of all, of anybody in our in our so called media to even know anything about history.
	And when Ronald Reagan did exactly the same thing that President Trump did, the media went nuts too.
	And you know what?
	That was replicated under Barack Obama when he launched the first American strikes into Libya against the same Umar Gaddafi.
	The press didn't go crazy then.
	All they did was point out that the Constitution allowed that that kind of latitude to the pr to the commander in chief.
	So how is it that you've got this double standard of the law, which allows the attorney client privilege to be wiped out?
	This double standard of the Constitution which defines what the President can and cannot do, and this double standard of what drives people nuts when the President says the word's mission accomplished.
	It was accomplished exactly the way that's exactly what he wanted with pinpoint accuracy, which is amazing.
	You know, I I I have in my own mind I've had to reconfigure putting American troops on the grounds in a lot of these conflicts.
	Look, you fought in Vietnam.
	We lost 58,000 soldiers.
	war becomes politicized and in essence we pull out without full victory in Vietnam.
	The same thing can be said about Iraq.
	Everybody thought it was the right idea go to Iraq we toppled Saddam Hussein we eventually find him in a spider hole somewhere but the reality is is that these wars now become politicized and I don't think politically the American people have the stomach to see them through And if that's the case, I don't think one American soldier should die for a war that's eventually gonna we're gonna eventually pull out of.
	I don't think one soldier should lose you lose an arm and a leg.
	I uh I don't know when we got to the point where we don't fight wars to win them anymore, and we put rules of engagement that are so dire on our own troops that they're risking their lives because deciding whether or not they can shoot back.
	Well, and that's a precisely why the president did what he did last week against the the regime in Syria.
	I mean, he did not want to widen the war.
	He has no intention of sending tens of thousands of troops.
	We have two thousand American troops on the ground in northeastern Syria.
	They're there to help the Kurds defeat ISIS.
	They're gonna stay there until they defeat ISIS.
	He's not about to put 50,000, 60,000, 100,000 troops into Syria.
	And that's why he limited the scope of this attack.
	Um I was just reading just before we came alive, is that the press saying that Jim Mattis talked him out of a a greater uh more lethal attack.
	When we did the attack on Libya back in 1986, 32 years ago today, the president was given a list of options of how they how the attack could go.
	It could have involved a lot more F B 111s, it could have involved a lot more aircraft off the Navy carriers.
	But the fact is the president chose the option.
	It was not going to take us into war, but it was going to deter Umar Gaddafi from conducting any more terrorist attacks like the one he'd done in Berlin on the 5th of April.
	It took us 10 days to come up with the targets.
	It took seven days in this case.
	Look at our intelligence is better, the targets were refined, the accuracy of the weapons was better, and it was designed to deter and keep or prevent and deter the kinds of attack that this guy has been launching against his own people with chemical weapons.
	And I just it stuns me that the media is they're trying like the Dickens, and so are the Liberals up on capitalism, so called progress progressives, trying to make this into a political issue rather than add a boy for the U.S. military that contribute you know had contributed to this and made it all happen.
	And commendations for the president to sit down and look at the options and say that's the one we're gonna do.
	And they carried it out flawlessly.
	You know, I was reading, and this is something you'd appreciate, and with the advanced weaponry that you know we have been able to deliver and build, but anyway, this cruise missile attack on Syria ordered Friday night, including air air to surface uh missiles equipped with newly developed stealth missile guidance technology,
	which targeted Syria's main chemical weapons development site, and it's a product of Lockheed uh Martin in in Troy, Alabama, the joint air-to-surface uh standoff missiles, or as they call them, have a low radar cross section.
	It makes them difficult to detect.
	They're designed to penetrate as far as two hundred miles into an adversary's territory.
	The extended version fired late Friday night.
	It can fly more than five hundred miles, and every one of them hit their target, Colonel.
	That is an amazing success.
	Don't leave out Ray Fian, which built all of those standard cruise missiles, the T Lam C's that were launched out of this out of the ships at sea.
	And look at the the race and technology, by the way, is the same stuff that's in the British and the French missiles.
	The Western world has so far left beyond the bounds of where we were ten years ago, even to the technology that's there, and the ISR, the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that's there.
	All of that added to the accuracy of this mission and the effectiveness of it.
	I'm just stunned at the at the way our media is just going.
	And it's all aimed at the president.
	This this president can this president walked across the Potomac River, the Washington Post would say that the president can't swim.
	I mean, it's just unbelievable.
	All right, as we continue with Colonel Oliver North.
	Uh Colonel, by the way, I did notice you're taking a trip to Normandy with uh a bunch of uh friends from the Freedom Alliance.
	When are you doing that?
	Well, it's coming up in in August.
	It's a seven-day river boat cruise from Paris to Normandy, one of the most significant places in military history.
	We're gonna show everybody aboard how these remarkable Americans changed the course of history.
	Where Ronald Reagan paid the tribute to the boys of Portalac in 1984.
	And I'll tell you what, for me, it was a very powerful experience.
	You and I have been there a bunch of times, but this is a very powerful experience because I get to be with these kinds of people every day.
	And I'm I'm hoping that there's some folks, if they simply go to the Freedom Alliance website, uh that's Freedom Alliance.org/slash cruise, or call 877-897-7662, and ask for Allen's cruise to Normandy.
	Join us because it's going to be a great experience.
	Now, can we get back?
	Let me just describe to our listeners.
	Everybody knows a little bit about Normandy.
	We're going to go through all of this stuff on Normandy.
	Here's what the planners went through in seven days.
	A planning cell, of which I was a part back 32 years ago, picking targets.
	Meanwhile, they deployed tankers, search and rescue, arranged for abortion abort bases for damaged aircraft.
	They they use use of the B-1 uh aircraft and the potential for using the B-2 meant that they had to place places for them to refuel and rearm in the region.
	That means Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Turkey.
	Uh you had to arrange for the diplomatic uh approval.
	Yeah, real quick, Colonel.
	All the all the Arab all the Arab countries that joined us, and get the French and the and the British to join us.
	And in 1986, the French abandoned us.
	This time they joined us.
	Kudos to the president and the team over at the Pentagon that did it.
	All right, thanks so much, Colonel Oliver North, 800 941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, all right, with all the new developments, Comey's uh interview last night.
	If you really paid attention, all he did was a cut and paste of what his testimony was and just build up even bigger the interview with uh that he had in the two the few meetings he had with Donald Trump.
	It's absolutely pathetic that that became a book, is he in legal jeopardy?
	We'll check in with David Schoen and Sarah Carter, investigative reporter for straight ahead.
	Why, if this was salacious and this particular part of the dossier unverified, still unverified, by the way.
	Yes.
	So far as when I got fired, it was unverified.
	Did you tell him that the Steel Dossier had been financed by his political opponents?
	No.
	Did but did he have a right to know that?
	That had been financed by his political opponents.
	I don't know the answer to that.
	It wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information.
	I had a flashback to my days investigating the mafia La Cosa Nostra.
	Decades earlier, Comey learned about La Cosa Nostra, our thing in Italian.
	As a U.S. attorney prosecuting the Gambino crime family headed by John Gotti.
	In the Mafia, a man is measured by the strength of his loyalty.
	There's a distinction between a friend of yours and a friend of ours.
	I felt this effort to make us all, maybe this wasn't their intention, but it's the way it felt to me, to make us all a Mika Nostra.
	We're all part of the messaging.
	We're all part of the effort.
	The boss is at the head of the table, and we're going to figure out together how to do this.
	How strange is it for you to sit here and compare the president to a mob boss?
	Very strange.
	And I don't do it lightly.
	And I'm not trying to by that, by the way, suggest that President Trump is outbreaking legs and shaking down shopkeepers.
	But instead, what I'm talking about is that leadership culture constantly comes back to me when I think about my experience with the Trump administration.
	Critics say the fix was in from the start.
	President Trump says you were writing the conclusion even before you interviewed Hillary Clinton.
	That is just wrong.
	Anybody who's actually done investigations knows that if you've been investigating something for almost a year and you don't have a general sense of where it's likely to end up, you should be fired because you're incompetent.
	That was from the uh special last night news roundup information overload hour here on the Sean Hannity show, right down our toll-free telephone number.
	We'd love to hear from you today.
	It's 800-941 Sean if you want to be a part of the program.
	Uh for me, it comes down to some basic simple fundamentals here that the media is just missing and they're missing spectacularly.
	And this is not that complicated.
	And you know, did Hillary Clinton break the law when she mishandled and later destroyed top secret classified special access program information?
	Did Hillary Clinton obstruct justice when she deleted 33,000 subpoenaed emails and asset washed the hard drive and broke up her devices?
	You know, is that something that other people would be prosecuted for?
	I think the answer is obvious and and it's it's not that complicated.
	You know, just go to 18 USC 793, mishandling classified information.
	We know exactly what they did here.
	You know, and you know, to listen to an FBI director obsessed with the size of the president's hands, uh his his total size, the tie color, the color of his skin and eyes, it gets bizarre.
	Now, what's even more spectacular here is okay, maybe he didn't feel it was important to tell President elect Trump that Hillary paid for that salacious unverified dossier as he described it in January of 2017 before Donald Trump was inaugurated, but it was used as the basis, the bulk of information we are told by the Grassley Graham memo to obtain a Pfizer warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate in the lead up to a presidential election.
	So what he's basically admitting here is they didn't follow the law and FBI protocols and do their job, and they didn't vet and corroborate any of the information in the dossier.
	And I think it's a very strange standard that we now have.
	Well, it might be possible.
	That's what he's telling us.
	It might be possible that was presented to a FISA judge to get a warrant to spy on an American.
	It might be possible is not the standard.
	Anyway, joining us now is criminal defense attorney, uh, friend of the program, uh, our good friend uh David Schoen is back with us.
	Also investigator reporter, Fox News contributor, Sarah Carter.
	Um, is there anything I'm missing here?
	Isn't there part of the FISA law that says that you have to only present truthful information, corroborated information, verified information to a FISA judge, and didn't they have an obligation to inform those judges, both in the initial application, three subsequent applications, that in fact that in fact Hillary had paid for this when they knew she paid for it?
	Absolutely, Mr. Hannity.
	Um that's a requirement in every application, every uh judicial officer or agent makes it a lot of the case.
	Is that a crime?
	Did James Comey admit that that a crime was committed.
	Uh you know, I I'd have to hear the whole interview, I suppose, but uh but he's running roughshod over the law, that's for clear.
	And I I have to point out that standard is heightened, as you just said, for the Pfizer court for good reason, because it's a secret court.
	It's done ex parte, as many applications are, but it's done ex parte there with extraordinary uh controversy.
	But he's he's admitting even today he doesn't know.
	It might be possible, meaning the truthfulness in the dossier.
	Most of it's been debunked.
	But if he doesn't know today that it happened, how did we get f four Pfizer warrants if that was the bulk of information used to get the Pfizer warrants?
	And at a minimum, it's a dereliction of duty.
	Um he certainly didn't fulfill his obligations or ensure that the obligations were fulfilled uh by anyone else in it.
	And going back to your earlier uh question, I think, about whether he had an obligation to uh tell Mr. Trump uh that the dossier was paid for by political opponents, of course there's an obligation there.
	You want to put all of the facts out.
	Would anyone uh argue uh reasonably that that's not a relevant fact in this equation?
	Well, I mean, it's a very relevant fact.
	I mean, Sarah, this is something you broke in March of 2017, the whole story of the Trump Tower had in fact been wiretapped.
	Well, we're we've known this now for over a year.
	Now we learn from the former deputy FBI director, Andrew McCabe, he was the one that was quoted as saying that without the dossier, there wouldn't have been a FISA application.
	Now we're learning from Comey, not only did they not tell the FISA court judge in the original application and subsequent applications that in fact Hillary paid for that information, but they never told the judge that this information was unverified and never corroborated, and it was put together by a foreign national uh that used Russian and Russian government sources to obtain it.
	It's incredible, isn't it?
	And and they and the fact that Comey just so callously in the in the interview admits that, you know, even when he briefed uh President elect Trump on this on this dossier that's unverified, that's fallacious, uh that was actually information that was the uh to the British spy, Christopher Steele, ex-British spy by the Russians.
	He doesn't even tell him.
	Well, guess what?
	Uh beyond me briefing you on this, this was also paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.
	Sean, this is incredible.
	And you know, what David Schoen brought up earlier is so important because it is true.
	The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, you have to have extraordinary uh evidence that uh in order to spy on someone, and and they do even they they turn over this dossier which hasn't even been verified, and then they you don't have to defend you.
	So it's like Carter Page, the FBI is turning over all of this information which is unverified to the foreign intelligence surveillance court.
	They're withholding information, and there's nobody really there on behalf of the person that's being spied on, in this case, Carter Page, to fight back and say, okay, this is bogus, this is a complete lie.
	Uh just ask me these questions or let my attorney present you with some facts so that I can fight this so that you're not listening in on my phone calls, so that you're not taking my emails.
	And I think what we saw was extraordinary.
	If this is where our FBI uh and intelligence community is going with investigations, we should be very concerned about this.
	Let me bring up something else that made news by McClachey, and they were suggesting that in fact uh uh the the president's personal attorney, Michael Cohn, may have in fact gone to Prague and met somebody from Russia.
	Uh but Michael Cohn had uh said now publicly that that is absolutely not true.
	He's never been to Prague, he never met with any such official and saying that he has proof that he was in Los Angeles at the time uh with his son.
	What are we to make of that, David?
	Because it would have been a big story if in fact he had remembered he had tweeted out a picture of his passport that had no entry point into Prague anywhere at any point at any time in in the past.
	So um is this just a he said she said I I gotta believe it's something verifiable very quickly, isn't it?
	That's right, 100%.
	It can't be a he said he said she said.
	I from my perspective, I simply wish the lawyer would not have come out with that public statement.
	What I'd much prefer would be to commit the Mueller team to that position, commit the Mueller team to a date and time In which Michael Cohn was in progress with Michael Cohn holding the evidence that he absolutely was not there that day.
	How badly would that undermine the credibility of anything else that came out of that investigation since the Mueller team would have put that forward as a highly material fact.
	If there's no credibility to that, there's no credibility to the rest of the allegations, arguably against Michael Cole.
	Well, then who's leaking that information to McClatchy?
	I mean, McClatchy's considered uh a news service, aren't they?
	Absolutely.
	And uh one of the things I did was I reached out to the special counsel and I asked them specifically, uh, you know, this appears to be coming from the special counsel uh or somebody closely connected to the special counsel.
	Can you for a fact uh back up the McClatchy story?
	Uh they declined to comment.
	I asked them again, I said, Listen, either way, this is a big story.
	Either he was in Prague or he wasn't in Prague.
	And if people from the special council are leaking this information to specific news outlets, it would be beneficial for all news outlets to know the truth now.
	So somebody has to answer and then which they respectfully decline to comment again.
	Well, we're not getting a whole lot of uh information uh about them.
	I gotta take a break, we'll come back, we'll have more with Sarah Carter and David Schoen on the other side.
	All right, as we continue with investigative reporter Sarah Carter and of course civil and criminal rights attorney David Schoen.
	All right, so was there anything, Sarah, as you were watching this whole thing last night?
	I I to me it's uh it's almost impossible that we never got to the fact that Hillary paid a foreign national, Christopher Steele, for what turned out to be Russian lies to manipulate the American public in a lead up to a a presidential election, and Comey never didn't know then and doesn't know now if that information presented to the Pfizer court is true.
	Where's the investigation into the the mishandling of that?
	Well, and where were the questions, right?
	I mean, this is a man who headed the FBI.
	I mean, this was his the buck stops at his desk, right?
	And he was in charge of the obviously this is an investigation into the president elect.
	So he would and he should know what's going on in this investigation.
	What about Lisa Page and Peter Strck and their text messages back and forth?
	What about beyond just McCabe, the the the enormous amount of evidence that the Inspector General uh Michael Horowitz collected on him and his lies?
	What about the leadership?
	I mean, you want to talk about a higher authority and moral standing and being able to teach an ethics class.
	What about the fact that you ran an FBI division I mean, you ran you're the top dog in the United States, you're the top sheriff, you're the top guy.
	And your FBI was full of people on the seventh floor that were lying, people who've been demoted, people who have been fired, people who are mishandling an investigation.
	I mean, this is the real thing.
	I mean, his narrative was is that he's this very moral guy, and he's calling out the president on his character.
	When if anything, he was but that.
	I mean, look at Comey, the very first impression he got of President Trump, the very first thing he said was he made fun of his hair, he made fun of his tan, uh, he talked about the way he looked.
	Uh, he sounded like a jilted high school uh person that had just been dumped by someone.
	He didn't sound like an authority from the FBI who had any evidence whatsoever to target uh the president, a duly elected president of the United States.
	And secondly, Sean, I think what was most disturbing to me, really disturbing to me, is that he continued to pontificate and make allegations against the president, not based on fact, based on his feelings and hearsay and disinformation.
	This is like a really incredible disinformation campaign uh that was not only perpetuated by Comey, but people like McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, all of them making allegations against a duly elected president without one shred of evidence, without one shred of evidence at all.
	The r the Republican National Committee has been ripping in uh Comey's comments during this T V appearance, and and I think that Sarah David is has hit hit this pretty good and highlighted this.
	All of this misconduct happened under his watch.
	Um and if you look at some of the things that he has said, Comey testified he'd never been asked to halt an investigation for political reasons.
	Uh he said that and the RN and then he also said he admitted that when pressed that neither Trump nor his staff asked him to stop the Russia investigation.
	Comey said at the time that Trump asked him to let this go, but that Trump did not order him to do so.
	Uh so it's like, you know, Comey is kind of caught, you know, with these repeated contradictions on big issues, and he leaves the impression that bad things happen, but then contradicts himself own self and backs off it.
	Very sloppy work for a man who's held those positions, who we've put in those positions.
	And I have to say you're right.
	Sarah Carter hit it on the head once again.
	Uh I I really pity Mr. Comey trying to take any higher moral ground with uh Sarah Carter after checking sex.
	Uh and you, Mr. Hannity.
	Um, frankly, it's a disgrace uh what Mr. Comey is doing.
	Mr. Comey appears to be all about Mr. Comey.
	Um, and the country doesn't really seem to matter.
	The integrity of the office doesn't seem to matter.
	This is a spectacle.
	It shouldn't be happening from someone who held that position.
	It's about profit making um and so on.
	But I think last the interview also.
	You know, we have we have short term history, uh short-term memories about history.
	Should Mr. Stephanopoulos really have been conducting that interview?
	You mean you mean the guy that ran the Clinton war room and the guy that used to be the press secretary for the Clintons, that guy?
	That guy.
	That's should that have been the interviewer?
	Uh no, in a short, in short.
	Thank you very much.
	We'll see you both on Hannity tonight.
	We'll have full coverage, what the media will never share with you.
	The questions that should have been asked in last night's interview that weren't, we'll have that, and the inconsistencies of James Comey.
	That's all coming up nine Eastern on Fox.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We'll come back.
	800 941 Sean is our number, and we'll get to your calls coming up next.
	All right, busy, crazy, insane newsday as always.
	You got the madness at the uh court in uh downtown New York City.
	Uh Stormy Daniels, her attorney, Michael Cohn going before the judge there.
	Then, of course, this interview last night with James Comey.
	You know, one of the things, and I expected this was going to be the case because we all knew, and Comey still, in my view, has implicated himself in a legal matter.
	The idea that that he knew that that dossier, which was not corroborated or verified, was used to obtain a Pfizer warrant to spy on an American citizen.
	They have a legal obligation to do so.
	And he never did it.
	And I also believe there's a pretty strong case that could be made about obstructing justice, putting the fix in as it relates to Hillary Clinton.
	Are we really to believe that Strzok and Paige, big Trump haters that when Comey and Strzok were writing back and forth the varying versions of her exoneration long before they interviewed her, and Peter Strzok was the one that got tapped to interview Hillary Clinton?
	Are we really to believe that their feelings for Donald Trump didn't weigh into this?
	I mean, his revelation that his wife and daughter attended the women's march.
	I wonder was that the women's march where Madonna was talking up about blowing up the White House?
	Is that the one?
	Said my girls marched in the women's march the day after President Trump's inauguration.
	I think that's the day.
	That's the day where Ashley Judd just lost it on stage.
	And to our detractors that insist that this march will never add up to anything.
	You but this is the hallmark of revolution.
	Yes, I'm angry.
	Yes, I am outraged.
	Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
	I am a nasty woman.
	I'm nasty, like my bloodstains on my bed sheets.
	We don't actually choose if and when to have our periods.
	Believe me, if we could, some of us would.
	We don't like throwing away our favorite pairs of underpants.
	Tell me why are tampons and pads still taxed when Viagra and Rogane are not is your erection really more than protecting the sacred messy part of my womanhood is the bloodstain on my genes.
	More embarrassing than the sitting of your hair.
	My Wife and girls marched in the women's march the day after President Trump's inauguration.
	At least my four daughters, probably all five of my kids wanted Hillary Clinton to be the first woman president.
	I know my amazing spouse did.
	I wanted a woman president really badly, and I supported Hillary Clinton.
	A lot of my friends worked for her.
	And I was devastated when she lost.
	Well, I guess it was that particular event.
	800-941 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
	Now you've got the FBI.
	James Comey is so pure, all the people that have been demoted.
	Uh James Comey was so absolutely perfect that James Comey was the one guy that um, you know, did nothing wrong in all of this.
	He was he was pristine and in pure, but yet he knew that they never verified the dossier.
	And they presented it in a FISA application anyway.
	And he's the guy that watched 33,000 deleted emails and acid wash them.
	They were subpoenaed and breaking up devices, but that didn't in any way seem to be a crime in James Comey's world.
	Anyway, 800-941 Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
	Uh all right, let's get to our busy telephones.
	Uh let's say hi to uh James in Phoenix, Arizona.
	James, hi, how are you?
	What's going on?
	Hi, good afternoon.
	Thank you, Sean, for taking my call, and I want to thank you for what you do.
	It's very much appreciated to many of us.
	My question is simply this the fact that a fraudulent dossier was utilized to bring the investigation.
	I just am curious as to why everyone that has touched it, brought it to life and continued its life, could not be considered a conspiracy to commit insurrection, sedition, and treason because you're trying to unseat a lawfully seated president, not to mention the involvement in trying to overthrow the election.
	That's it.
	Thank you.
	Well, that's exactly what it comes down to, isn't it?
	Because they think they know better than the American people, which is the saddest part of all of this deep state nonsense.
	Uh let's say hi to Diane is in Illinois.
	Diane, hi, how are you?
	Glad you call.
	Oh, it's great to speak to you, Sean.
	I'm a huge fan, and and it's it's an honor to talk to you.
	Uh it's an honor to talk to you.
	Thank you.
	Well, um, the reason why I called is um it almost sounded like Comey was bragging that his wife would never have believed any type of dossier story if he was involved in it.
	And I thought, well, yeah, you know, my husband has never ever given me any type of um reason to believe he would have participated, and we've been married 35 years.
	But this was the FBI knocking on the door and saying we can't prove this isn't true.
	I think I would still look at him and go, okay, dude, you know what's going on?
	You got anything to tell me here?
	Because the the FBI are supposed to be the good guys, the ones that prove um that save people and they tell the truth, and you're you're you yet they live on the they take care of everybody and and and I would you know, even though we're married that much, I I would have been a little bit one percent suspicious.
	Well, I I'm gonna tell you something.
	At the end of the day, if it's one percent that led he's worried about Milani.
	Now, why would you ask the FBI director about one percent?
	You know, what and you said I want the truth out.
	He's telling him it's not true.
	And he's saying, look, even if she thinks one percent of this is true, it's just I uh can't we prove it false?
	That sounds to me like an innocent guy.
	And for Comey to use his his new standard that we have, well, it might be possible.
	Yeah, okay.
	Well, a lot of things in life might be possible, but after all this time with no verification and the president acting against Russia as harshly as he had, if he was compromised, as Comey suggested last night, I don't think uh it would have happened you know, if they had compromising materials, it would have been out a long time ago now.
	Right.
	And I think the other thing is um as time has been going on, we become more and more suspicious of news and information that comes forward because so many so much has been proven false.
	So maybe in the very beginning, and we're talking a year or year and a half ago, you would go, holy cow.
	And now I look at everything with just a little bit of suspicion, and I do a little bit more investigating to prove that it's right or not.
	And even if it is, the FBI or the CIA or the police, I mean everybody's everybody's being held with a little bit of suspicion, regardless of who they work for anymore in my book.
	Yeah, well, I gotta tell you something.
	Uh people aren't doing the right thing in this, and they're trying to deceive the American people at a really high level.
	800 941 Sean is our number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Uh let's say hi to Joel in Chester, New Jersey.
	What's up, Joel?
	How are you?
	Very well, Sean.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Thank you.
	As you know, all DOJ employees, including FBI personnel, need to be cleared to publish books based on their work.
	Now, Comey's book includes information about an ongoing investigation as well as notes from his meeting with President Trump, which is government property, not his personal property.
	Now, reportedly, Comey says that he gained FBI approval to publish his book with minor edits.
	If this is true, do we know who provided that approval in the FBI?
	Because it smacks with corruption given the classified nature of the information.
	And if not, alternatively, can we get confirmation from the AG as to the propriety of this information being published while an ongoing investigation is at hand in some of the data referenced in government owned classified property, not Comey's.
	All right, Joel, good call.
	Thank you for uh checking in with us today.
	Sandy in El Centro in California.
	Hey Sandy, how are you?
	What's going on today?
	Uh a president's job is very difficult.
	So when they come into office, they deserve information.
	So I think that Comey, listening to the interview, purposely undermined President Trump by not telling him that the dossier was paid for by Hillary and the DNC, and instead emphasizing the salacious information, which is not verified.
	And I also feel like he underf undermined President Trump when he didn't tell him that the dossier was used for the FISA warrant.
	I think the President of the United States of America deserves that information.
	He also lied as other people did when President Trump bought brought up wiretaps.
	Now I know maybe President Trump should have used surveillance, but that doesn't matter.
	They lied.
	We now know for sure that they were surveilling the Trump campaign.
	I also feel like uh Comey undermined President Trump when he failed to tell the American people that President Trump wasn't under investigation.
	And when he talks about evidence of obstruction, Comey doesn't have evidence.
	He just has I claim this, just his word.
	That's not evidence.
	That's just like hearsay.
	That's just his word.
	And when he says uh uh Russians have information on Trump, that's just again him believing it.
	That's not evidence.
	I didn't hear any evidence other than evidence that shows me that there was definitely an intent to undermine President Trump.
	They've never had any evidence whatsoever of collusion, and we have the montage of them saying it.
	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 uh about characterizing the report, which you you all have read.
	We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our that's NSA FBI and CIA with my office, the director of National Intelligence that had anything that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	There was no evidence of that included in our report.
	Now you said in January 2017, this year, that you knew of no collusion.
	Did you know of those two events?
	No, I did not.
	And uh the the statement I made at the time was it was was true.
	We had no I had no direct evidence of of collusion.
	Now we had lots of concerns because we were aware of multiple meetings uh that were going on.
	Well, uh, at least my part was not aware directly of the content of the of these meetings.
	But we were certainly concerned.
	Have you seen anything, either intelligence briefings, through intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you've made?
	They have the documentation that they did the hacking.
	The hacking.
	On the DNC.
	Right.
	And on some of us, you know, that have been a good idea.
	But the collusion, though.
	No, we have not.
	Do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?
	Not at this time.
	It looks like increasingly he's investigating the Russian invasion of the United States political system and not collusion.
	We just don't have we're we're in the sort of the black box behind the veil of ignorance.
	But we still have seen no evidence of collusion.
	Have you seen anything that suggests any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?
	Well, there's an awful lot of smoke there, let's put it that way.
	People that might have said they were involved, to what extent they were involved, to what extent the president might have known about these people or whatever.
	There's nothing there from that standpoint that we have seen directly linking uh our president to any of that.
	Did evidence exist of collusion coordination conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts.
	I don't know whether or not such collusion, that's your term, such collusion existed.
	I don't know.
	The big questions, of course, is is there any evidence of collusion you have seen yet?
	Is there?
	There is a lot of smoke.
	We haven't 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 uh to infiltrate 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, Sandy, thank you.
	Appreciate the call today.
	Thank you, Sean.
	Bye.
	All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
	Thank you for being with us.
	Don't forget, well, full handity tonight on all things, James Comey, all things, how sick and twisted and messed up the media is.
	I'm experiencing it myself.
	It's hilarious.
	Uh, I just actually can't believe some of this.
	But anyway, we'll get to all of that.
	Uh the things that the media missed in their interview with Comey and the questions that should have been asked, and the crimes that may have been committed, and the oversight and the abusive bias and pettiness of Comey.
	We've got it all.
	We'll give you the news and information.
	You will not get anywhere else.
	It's all coming up tonight, Hannity 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	And we've got a great list of uh guests.
	Joe DeGenova, Alan Dershowitz tonight, Lanny Davis, he's no fan of James Comey, Newt Gingrich tonight, Sean Spicer, uh, Sebastian Gorka, Ari Fleischer, and attorney David Schoen.
	So we got all that coming up.
	Set you DVR, nine Eastern tonight.
	We'll have full complete coverage of all of this tomorrow and the media's meltdown over yours truly.
	It's all coming up on the Tuesday edition of the Sean Hannity show.
	We'll see you tonight at nine back here tomorrow.
	Thanks for being with us.

▲