James O’Keefe, Founder of Project Veritas and Michelle Malkin, join the show to talk about the New Jersey chapter of National Education Association's defense of some pretty bad teachers. Malkin and O'Keefe discuss the power of the teacher's unions around the nation and their desire to "defend the worst of the worst." This is when unions go too far. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
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 MyPillow, and it's changed my life.
I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
And the good news, you can too.
Just go to mypillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
You get 50% off to MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows.
Now, MyPillow 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 interney 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 GoAnywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, and comfortable, and deep healing, and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Sean.
All right.
Wow.
What a lot of news we've got going on today.
Glad you are with us.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we have Ty Cobb, a former counsel for the president.
He is out.
We have a new appointment for the president's team.
The way the media is taking it, of course, is so, so very wrong.
The headline on Drudge now: Mueller May subpoena president, obstruction key focus, serious threat.
And we talk about the lawyer shuffle.
We'll get to all of that in a second.
Yeah, it's always been a serious threat.
That's why those questions that we've been pointing out are absurd on their face.
What were you thinking about as it relates to Jeff Sessions?
What were you thinking about as it relates to James Comey?
What were you thinking about as it relates to me, the special counsel?
Somehow we're going to punish thought, we're going to have thought crimes in America.
Before we get into our deep dive into this today, you know, Katie Hopkins, who's been on this program a number of times, so she's going to check in with us later today.
I mean, it's hard to imagine that this always gets to happen.
You know, you had the Trump play in Central Park where they're, you know, killing Donald Trump.
You have the severed head of Donald Trump.
You have the Madonna's dreaming of blowing up the White House.
And very little reaction.
The left never criticizes their own.
They always just stay united, a united front.
But if it's a conservative, they would feign such outrage.
You know, liberals love to think of themselves.
They are kind.
They are compassionate.
They are sensitive.
They are inclusive.
They're everything we conservatives are not.
And I think they've actually bought into their own lies, their own talking points and propaganda that they use every two and four years.
Republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.
And over a period of time, I think they begin to believe their own lies about conservatives, which is beyond outrageous.
And it's unfair and it's untrue, but it's their talking point.
And it's not like they have a positive agenda that's going to create jobs and make the world a safer place because they failed on a spectacular level in the last eight years vis-a-vis Barack Obama.
Imagine a play, The Assassination of, it's called The Assassination of, and put in any prominent liberal's name because that's the name of a play that the British left have put on.
It's called The Assassination of Katie Hopkins.
Imagine the reaction if conservatives ever produced a play, The Assassination of Blank Blank, put in any liberal name.
What would happen?
The left would go insane, bonkers.
You know, if it was in this cut, the Southern Poverty Law Center, media hate crime alert, you know, Nancy and Chuck would be demanding the FBI round up everybody involved.
24 hours, the left would dispatch, you know, whatever groups protesting such.
But there's some, you know, but it's feigned outrage by the left.
I always keep saying it's feigned outrage.
It's not real outrage.
People act like they're upset all the time at words that conservatives utter, and it's not true at all.
They're not upset at all.
They're trying to use it as a political weapon.
This is why they tape programs like this every minute, every second, every hour, every day.
That's why they do it.
And they do it for those reasons, to silence voices that they disagree with.
Anyway, we'll check in with Katie later in the program.
We also have Michelle Malkin and James O'Keefe on today, James O'Keefe Project Veritas.
Now, we're going to link it on Hannity.com.
They have a new blockbuster undercover video today.
And this, you know, before I tell you about it, let me just remind you: we have new data from the U.S. Department of Education.
So, just so you know, how good our schools are doing, and I've talked often about an unholy alliance between the Democratic Party and teachers' unions.
You can't even fire bad teachers, they have scandal in New York, it never gets resolved.
You have teachers that are abusing kids, you can't fire them, and they basically spend years on the beach doing nothing, taking home a paycheck for teaching nobody.
And even though they know they've committed horrible acts against kids, they can't even fire them.
And then they get their paycheck and then they get their pension, and they never get fired because of this ridiculous, unholy alliance.
Well, now we have new numbers: 65% of eighth graders in America and public schools in 2017, they're not proficient in reading.
That's 65%.
You can't get, I mean, that's insane.
And 67% are not proficient in math.
This is according to the national assessment of the educational progress test results released by the U.S. Department of Education.
Now, why do I bring that up?
Because the new Project Veritas, and we'll play it for you later, undercover video.
You've got the New Jersey teachers' union president talking about bending the truth, covering up child abuse in schools, protecting drug use, and shoplifting teachers in the school.
It's a Hamilton Township Education Associate president, David Perry, you know, explains on tape.
I've now seen it myself, and it's crystal clear how unions protect teachers who could even beat up on kids and threaten kids.
He said, I'm here to defend even the worst people.
Says it on tape.
These are kids we're talking about.
And then on charges that are made against teachers, we're going to bring it down a level.
Oh, okay.
We're not going to expose bad teachers and bad charges and bad things that they do.
And then admitting that they misrepresent the facts of abuse on reports to cast students as liars.
I need to know the truth so we can bend the truth.
Okay, that's a nice way of saying lie and call the kids liars.
Quote, we do turn these reports around to where, let's say, there's a physical punch.
Quote, it wasn't a punch.
It's just a shove.
Really?
Who are we protecting here?
The teachers, not the kids.
And if it comes to me tomorrow, I'm going to date, well, back, I'm going to date the report back to the day after the incident.
Oh, I'm going to lie and misrepresent the truth again.
And don't tell a soul about any incident you're involved in because people talk.
And the longer the incident goes unreported, the better, because, you know, Camerage footage in schools is erased over time.
Yeah, we'll actually bring that to you coming up in the course of the program today.
Look, we have, it looks like what's happening, and I'll also make an announcement.
Rudy Giuliani, the attorney for the president, is going to speak out on Hannity tonight for his first interview.
And this is an important interview in light of the all of the news that has been coming out.
Ty Cobb is now leaving as the lead counsel representing the president in the ongoing probe.
Emmett Flood, who's a great attorney, is now taking over his position.
And Flood represented President Clinton during his impeachment.
Of course, the media is interpreting that.
Well, they're just preparing for impeachment.
But I've been the one that has been sounding the alarm from the get-go.
And anybody that would listen to me, I would say, nah, just look at Mueller's team.
Look at the Democratic donors on his team.
And then I would say, look at Andrew Weissman, his pit bull.
And then I go over Andrew Weissman's atrocious record.
We went over it in detail yesterday with Greg Jarrett and Sidney Powell, who wrote the definitive book on who, in fact, you know, Andrew Weissman really is.
Now, the president rightly is ripping the special counsel probe as a setup.
Now, Joe DeGenova and also Alan Dershowitz have been outspoken about all of this, even going as far as to say these, quote, release questions are asinine.
And there was an, let me play Alan Dershowitz and Joe DeGenova both criticizing these ridiculous questions the New York Times put forward, even though I know for a fact that some of them were not true.
And I have my sources, multiple sources.
You know, it's funny in the media.
One day, I'm the shadow chief of staff of the president.
The next day, I know nothing and have no sources.
The media needs to make up their mind.
Anyway, here's Alan Dershowitz and Joe DeGenova on the so-called questions.
The questions are very inartfully drawn.
They are written as open-ended questions.
They're not cross-examination questions.
They're not sharp questions designed to confront and test.
They're really designed to let him ramble and talk.
And I suspect that's the strategy of the special counsel because they know that may be President Trump's weakness.
If they were to ask him direct, tough questions to which he can answer yes or no, that might not give them the advantage they're seeking.
The questions are an intrusion into the president's Article II powers under the Constitution to fire any executive branch employee.
To ask questions, as Mr. Mueller apparently proposed, is an outrageous, sophomoric, juvenile intrusion into the president's unfettered power to fire anyone in the executive branch.
It is a symptom of how ridiculous this appointment was by Rod Rosenstein when he made the appointment with no evidence of a crime.
Well, I think it is juvenile.
And Rod Rosenstein, what have we learned?
He signed off on one of the FISA warrants.
What was the basis of the FISA warrant?
Even Deputy Attorney General, I'm sorry, Deputy FBI Director McCabe said, without the dossier, there is no FISA application.
And then you take it a step further.
You know, then the bulk of the information presented to the court.
You know, so there's so much going on here.
But if you look at, for example, the so-called questions, it's like, as Greg Jarrett said, it looks like that of a first-year lawsuit student is about to flunk out.
You know, all of these questions are protected by executive privilege.
And others, you know, the idea of asking what was in your head, what was in your mind, Geneva's right.
It's juvenile.
You know, what is now Mueller, the thought police?
Because they can't get him on Trump-Russia collusion.
So now we'll move on to Stormy, Stormy, Stormy.
And what was in your mind?
What did you think about Comey's testimony?
It doesn't matter what he thought about Comey's testimony.
What did he think about Sessions' recusal?
Who cares what he thought?
What do you think about the appointment of a special counsel that thought it sucked?
You know, who cares what he thinks?
Mueller's not entitled to ask questions about Donald Trump's thoughts any more than he's entitled to delve into, you know, Donald Trump's dreams.
I mean, these questions are irrelevant.
And he can ask, you know, what was your intent in firing Comey or your intent when you did this or that?
But obviously, something is happening here at a very high level, which I suspected from the beginning, that this team assembled by Mueller is designed to do the work of the deep state and take out a duly elected president on now what has become a silly, superfluous, insane witch hunt from Russia collusion to stormy, stormy, stormy.
You know, by the way, the president's approval rating's up at 50% on top of it.
CNN put, you know, Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, 59 times on the air in two months.
Okay, so we know where their priorities are.
This is a classic entrapment.
This is a perjury trap for the president.
And Mueller and his team wants Trump to recount his, you know, conversations and his thoughts at the time.
And if Trump dares to give a version that is even one word different would say Comey's version, Mueller will believe Comey, even if he's wrong.
Even if we know he lied and he lied by omission, even under oath, Mueller will believe the version given by his old pal, his old friend, and then they'll want to lay out the case for impeachment against the president.
That's what's happening.
It's that bad.
And that's who this team is.
And that's what the deep state is.
And that's what I've been warning about from the get-go.
All right, so you could have harsh treatment to look younger.
Why would you risk that?
Now, Joanne from Connecticut writes, my husband looks 10 years younger because of Genucell.
Now, he saw results the first day he used it.
And I have also had remarkable results.
I can't live without it.
Now, imagine bags and puffiness under your eyes, gone forever, and sagging, drooping eyelids gone forever.
It may take years off your appearance.
In fact, you're guaranteed to have immediate results in as little as 12 hours or your money back, guaranteed, no questions asked.
And now until Mother's Day, well, if you order Genucelle, you can try Shamonay's brand new Genucelle eyelid lift if you have droopy, sagging eyelids.
Absolutely free.
Order now, Shamoni will include also a surprise luxury gift.
That's free.
Just go to genucelle.com, genucelle.com, call 800-skin509-800-SKIN509.
And if you call now, Express Shipping is also free.
800-SKIN509-800-SKIN509-GenUcelle.com.
That's genuicelle.com.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show.
All right, so changing lawyers, which, by the way, I think is fairly common and, you know, predictable and not as big a deal as the media is trying to make it out to be.
But I do think the Mueller threat that we learned about in the Washington Post is real.
And in my conversations with my friends and people I know and people I talk to, I've been warning, Linda, how many times have we been warning people that you don't assemble a team that Mueller assembled if you're not out for maximum, for some justification of their existence?
Yeah, it's an agenda-driven group.
Has been from the get-go.
And I just think it's been naive of people not to realize that Mueller and his pit bull, Andrew Weissman, you know, based on their backgrounds, based on their history, based on there's no Republican donors.
There are Obama donors and Clinton donors.
And then you just see how deep this whole thing has run.
It comes down to this simple thing here.
You know, what has gone on is Hillary Clinton violated laws, obstructed justice.
Then she had her deep state friends literally rig the investigation, the exoneration before the investigation.
Then, of course, there is the insurance policy between Strzok and Paige and the lovebirds.
And then you have Comey and Strzok writing the exoneration before the investigation.
Then Strzok does the interview of Hillary Clinton.
Why don't we, we'll follow that standard for Donald Trump.
If he ever sits down with anybody, it's got to be a Donald Trump lover and supporter.
And then we'll go, then, of course, they're looking into Trump-Russia collusion.
They find nothing, but we did find that Hillary Clinton hired a foreign national.
I thought they weren't supposed to impact our elections that used phony Russian and Russian government sources to manipulate the American people.
Then they used the unverified, uncorroborated Russian information to get a FISA warrant to spy on a campaign aid of Donald Trump in the lead up to an election.
And then, of course, they reauthorized this four times, and it was based on the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies.
You can't make it up.
And they want to protect those people, and they want to go after Donald Trump.
And if they have to go from Russia to Stormy Stormy and whatever they had and set a perjury trap, they'll do it.
They're doing it.
Hi, 25 now till the hour.
Glad you're with us.
I want you to stay with me here.
And I want you to understand everything that's going on here.
Because the Mueller team of Democrats and Democratic donors and some people that have the most unethical behavior as their history.
AKA, his pit bull, Andrew Weissman.
I want you to understand what they're doing here because they, as I suspected from the beginning, it doesn't matter.
This is about the deep state.
You know, Chuck Schumer, you're taking on the Intel Committee.
They'll get you eight ways in Sunday.
And Brennan, of course, his threat.
Stay tuned, Mr. President.
All right, we're beginning to see, for example, the league questions.
What do you think about Comey's testimony?
What a dumb question, number one.
You know, all these questions would be protected by executive privilege.
What do you think about Sessions' recusal?
What do you think about the appointment of a special counsel?
Okay, it doesn't matter what he thinks.
Mueller's not entitled to know what Trump's thoughts are with his open-ended questions.
You know, he can ask, what was your intention, but not how they're designing it.
And what we have is very, very obvious and should concern everybody because I can play every Democrat, and I'll do it later in the show, saying there's no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
A lot of smoke, but no fire.
Every top Democrat saying it.
We've seen no evidence to date.
And, you know, look how deep we are into this.
Today, as a matter of fact, is day 350 of this witch hunt, and we still have zero evidence that Donald Trump did anything wrong ever, that there was no Trump-Russia collusion.
So now they want the president to sit down for an interview and 49 questions, supposedly.
My sources tell me a lot of it is BS, but supposedly.
But it's obvious what Mueller and his team want to do.
And Dershowitz has nailed it, and Greg Jarrett has nailed it, and David Schoen has nailed it, and so has Joe DeGenova has nailed it, and some of the top lawyers in the country have all nailed it.
And it is a classic perjury trap.
It's entrapment.
When you can't get somebody on the original crime, you set up a perjury trap.
And Mueller wants Trump to make, you know, to go into the, as if he's not been busy to recount, you know, his conversations with Comey about Flynn.
And that's just one of, you know, 50 areas he's supposed to recollect.
And God forbid, if Donald Trump gave a single version with one iota difference than that of, say, James Comey, BFF of Robert Mueller, who set the trap by leaking, we believe may have even committed a crime, privileged information, government property, to not one person as he testified to, but three people.
Could be a lie by omission.
Could also be a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793, the Espionage Act, mishandling classified information by leaking it.
Interesting that the three people he leaked it to, he's now lawyered up with.
He thinks he's being clever.
And then they want to take the differences in versions and say, Comey's telling the truth.
Trump is lying.
And lay the case and write out a report that says Donald Trump, we believe, committed perjury.
And then that leads to impeachment.
This 2018 election is now becoming a referendum election.
This is going to be one of the most historic midterm elections in the history of this country because the left wants to use this as an opportunity to get power back.
And Nancy Pelosi is saying she will be the next speaker for the very purpose, although they're saying privately amongst themselves, don't talk about impeachment.
Don't say it out loud.
Don't be honest with the American people.
But that's what the election is now coming down to.
Now, this is exactly what Mueller did with Flynn.
And I'll get to Flynn in a second.
They put that sentencing off yet again.
And even though the FBI agents, including Strzok, who hates Trump, interviewed Flynn and said he was telling the truth.
Well, Mueller still charged Flynn with making a false statement to the FBI.
And then Mueller went about destroying Flynn.
You know, let's not use prosecutorial discretion that maybe he misremembered an event.
Or was it deeper than that?
Were they threatening to go after his children if he didn't agree to this?
Because that's, we all know that's how a lot of prosecutors work.
We'll threaten your family.
And what father's not going to fall on the sword for his own child?
Anyway, so Mueller went about destroying Flynn.
Forget 35 years of serving your country.
Put all that aside.
This is what happens when you have an overzealous prosecutor with an agenda, as evidenced by the team he put together.
They can destroy lives.
They can leave people penniless.
Oh, you've got to hear that.
We've got to get this guy Caputo on.
Reading the article about this former Trump campaign advisor.
Says he spent $125,000 on lawyers to comply with the demands of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
I mean, basically telling everything you can go to hell.
Reminds me of Ray Donovan in the Reagan years.
Where do I go to get my good name back?
And this is what's happening before our very eyes, except this time it's the president.
You know, Comey's saying that, oh, I'd still be the FBI director if Clinton won.
I'm like, what?
And then he actually had the unmitigated gall to go out and say that Hillary Clinton, you know, literally deeply respects the rule of law.
What would your life be like if she won?
I also don't know the answer to that.
I think I would still be the FBI director.
And the reason I say that is someone asked me to compare the two, and it's too hard for me to compare the two, except Secretary Clinton is someone deeply enmeshed in the rule of law, respect for institutions, a lawyer.
And so given that background, I'm reasonably confident that even though she was unhappy with decisions the FBI had made, she would not fire the FBI director as a result.
But look, again, I don't know that for sure.
The rule of law?
Does he not remember his own televised testimony to Trey Gowdy where Comey described Clinton's rampant law breaking during the email server scandal?
Who deletes 33,000 subpoenaed emails?
Is that respect for the law?
And then acid washes the hard drive of where the subpoenaed emails once lived and then breaks up devices where they may have gone to with hammers.
The rule of law, has he gone insane?
Apparently, Comey wants to now nominate her for sainthood.
And we'll get to that.
You know, all of this now is so transparent.
We have a dual system of justice, the special treatment that Hillary gets, the exoneration before investigation, the crimes that she gets away with, you know, evidence of manipulation of a campaign, paying a foreign national for Russian propaganda.
The FBI doesn't do their job.
They never verify.
They sign off on a FISA warrant where the bulk of evidence is used from the Clinton bought and paid for dossier.
But don't tell the judge it's not verified.
Don't tell the judge that she paid for it.
And he thinks he'll be the FBI director.
Well, by the way, there's nothing that would motivate a guy like Comey more than threatening and the threat of losing power.
And then you got Clapper.
And then you got Brennan and Strzok and Paige and McCabe and Loretta Lynch and Bruce Orr and Nellie Orr.
They wanted to perpetuate their power.
They thought she was going to win.
That's why they twisted and contorted the law and the facts to clear her.
Something that would never happen to any other American.
It didn't work.
Then they use a phony dossier that she paid for and lie to a FISA court, not only in the original application, but three subsequent applications, all in an attempt to overturn an election, a duly elected president, and now force him out of office.
And Comey claims, well, Trump's attacks make us less safe.
No, Comey's abuse of power, McCabe's abuse of power.
What they did, it makes us less safe because we're now using the powerful tools of intelligence against the American people.
And this is the highest levels.
You want to talk about a constitutional crisis?
You know, they're now talking about issuing a subpoena to the president to appear before a grand jury.
Well, that's a greater risk, which they threatened.
Apparently, according to the Washington Post, in March, that would be a greater constitutional crisis than firing Rosenstein or Trump and Rosenstein, you know, or as a replacement, should recognize this and stop it immediately.
It's within the president's authority to fire anybody under special counsel regulations.
So they issue a subpoena.
The president and his team refuse.
Then they what?
File contempt against the president, then proceedings follow.
And then, how do they enforce the contempt on the president of the United States?
How far does Robert Mueller want to go here?
What are their options?
Okay, the president takes the fifth.
He complies.
Okay, then they'll give him immunity, as Alan Dershowitz has said.
So then the fifth, pleading the fifth, wouldn't apply.
And then they set him up for another perjury trap, not covered by immunity.
This is not about getting answers or getting to the truth.
It never has been.
It's always been about undoing an election.
That's why 2018 means everything now.
This is a redo of 2016.
If you fire Rosenstein, who is more conflicted than anybody in this whole thing for good cause, and because he's not reining anything in, he's just letting us go absolutely out of control wild.
Where's Jeff Sessions in all of this?
Well, you know, if this were about getting information and getting to the truth, well, the president can write answers.
It can be provided by an attorney proffer.
And they wouldn't ask questions that they in the New York Times say they know the answers to already, or questions that they're hoping the president expands on until he says something that they can say perjury, perjury, which is seemingly what they want to do.
This is this, this is a team of people, a level of corruption I never thought was possible in the United States of America.
This is an abuse of power I never thought was possible in the United States of America.
I never thought people at that top level could be capable of this behavior.
And it's all proven out to be true.
You know, Rod Rosenstein saying that he's not going to be extorted by Congress because Congress has an oversight job and Rod Rosenstein is the guy that has been fighting tooth and nail to the point where he won't turn over documents that are subpoenaed.
Has he not read the Constitution about checks and balances?
I can tell you, there have been people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time.
And I think they should understand by now, the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.
We're going to do what's required by the rule of law, and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job.
Okay.
Really?
Congress has a job too.
And you're stonewalling by not handing over subpoenaed documents.
And then, interesting, Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on one of the subsequent FISA applications, he says, well, if they're found there be false information, there are serious consequences.
Well, you signed off on one.
And we know the judges weren't told the truth about who paid for it.
And we know the bulk of it was based on Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for foreign national Christopher Steele dossier, what had Russian lies in it that you never verified or corroborated.
I said it yesterday.
You know, okay, Donald Trump should get the Hillary treatment.
He can testify, but not under oath.
He can testify, but it's the interview's not recorded.
It cannot be transcribed.
And on top of that, he gets to have a supporter of his do it.
I think that's fair.
Mueller must agree then to destroy any incriminating digital evidence like they did for Cheryl Mills and others, laptops.
And if any pro-Trump witnesses are found to have purged themselves, he's got to agree to give them retroactive immunity like Mills and Uma Abedeen.
And James Comey, you know, Peter Strzok, all right, let's let Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin do the interview.
If we're going to follow the same rules, if we have equal application under the law, because that's what they did for Hillary.
Unbelievable.
House Judiciary Chairman urges the Justice Department to investigate the Obama administration's obstruction of the FBI's Clinton Foundation probe.
That's another instance where Hillary Clinton got a pass.
By the way, it's interesting, Mueller delayed General Flynn's sentencing yet again.
There's a joint request, red flag that, you know, who knows what's going on in this case.
The judge has wanted all the evidence in that case so he can decide what's exculpatory.
Mark Meadows is now urging Rod Rosenstein to resign.
He should.
But Paul Ryan is backing Rosenstein.
Unbelievable.
The whole thing is unbelievable.
All right, we have a lot more on this.
We have David Schoen, the attorney, Sarah Carter, investigative reporter.
Later on, we have James O'Keefe.
What do you see?
Oh my gosh, this will take your breath away.
Their new undercover video, Michelle Malcolm, coming up as well.
Katie Hopkins, there's a play, The Assassination of Katie Hopkins now in Great Britain.
She'll join us.
All right, Rudy Giuliani, the attorney for the president, will join us his first interview tonight exclusively on Hannity.
A lot of ground to cover.
He said earlier today that if the president agrees to be interviewed by Robert Mueller, the scope of the questions would be very narrow and the questioning would last two to three hours max.
It should all be done by proffer, in my opinion.
Anyway, so we'll have Rudy Giuliani on and something that will make every liberal's head explode is you got 18 House members have put Donald Trump up for the Nobel Prize.
Love it.
Let's see what happens with Little Rocket Man.
All right, when we come back, Attorney David Schoen, Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, and much more.
Any reaction to the news that certain members of the House Freedom Caucus have talked about drafting up articles of impeachment despite your best efforts to comply with their document requests?
They can't even resist leaking their own drafts.
I saw elaborate on that.
I saw that draft.
I mean, I don't know who wrote it.
It really does illustrate, though, a really important principle about the rule of law and a distinction between the way we operate in the department.
And we make mistakes.
That's not to say we're flawless.
I can tell you, there have been people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time.
And I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.
We're going to do what's required by the rule of law.
And any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications.
And many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
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.
What would your life be like if she won?
I also don't know the answer to that.
I think I would still be the FBI director.
And the reason I say that is someone asked me to compare the two, and it's too hard for me to compare the two, except Secretary Clinton is someone deeply enmeshed in the rule of law, respect for institutions, a lawyer.
And so given that background, I'm reasonably confident that even though she was unhappy with decisions the FBI had made, she would not fire the FBI director as a result.
But look, again, I don't know that for sure.
All right, so that was Rod Rosenstein and James Comey about FISA abuse has consequences.
This is my point.
Okay, didn't he sign off on one of the FISA renewals?
The answer is yes.
I mean, it's unbelievable that he'd say that.
Anyway, joining us now, our two Sean Hannity show, write down our toll-free number.
It's 800-941-Sean.
We have David Schoen, civil and criminal, civil liberties and criminal rights attorney, also investigative reporter Sarah Carter.
Let's start on the legal side and the conflicts of Rod Rosenstein.
If in fact now we know he signed off on one of the FISA warrants, one of the renewals, how is he even involved in this case at all?
Listen, there are many, many reasons, in my view, why Rod Rosenstein should not remain in this position.
You've listed, you've named now one of the primary ones.
Signing that FISA application ought to give rise to a conflict of interest that ought to be disqualifying and should have been disqualifying a long time ago, including before he authorized the raid on President Trump's lawyer's office.
Let me say this.
I've got to answer this in one minute, frankly.
All of this talk that a constitutional crisis would be raised by having the Attorney General fire Mueller or by firing Rod Rosenstein is absolute nonsense.
It's nothing other than the Constitution working as it's intended and as the special counsel regulations provided.
I'll give you two quotes.
Rod Rosenstein, yesterday, when he said he's not going to be extorted, gave it a real truism.
He said that the Department of Justice is not independent of the executive branch.
Its mission is to enforce the law, but also carry out the priorities of the administration.
The Department of Justice comes under Article II power of the president, period.
Now, Neil Cadiel, who wrote the guidelines, specifically said, what can Mr. Trump do about this?
Mr. Trump could order Mueller fired.
I know because I wrote the regulations in the Clinton administration, Mr. Cadio said.
This comes within the whim of the president to direct the Attorney General.
It's within his bailiwick period.
Here's the bottom line.
The chief executive, President Trump, was elected to set an agenda, working in concert with Congress.
The AG, the Deputy AG, the FBI director, they all work at his pleasure once they're appointed and confirmed.
That's the Constitution working.
If he wants to appoint a new one every day, fire one and appoint a new one, he could do that.
And if people don't like it, you know what they can do?
They can vote him out next time.
But for now, he was voted in.
And so we don't pervert the justice system and the special counsel role to achieve a different election result.
I understand many people oppose the substantive agenda the president has.
There are ways for them to have their voices heard.
But let's get on to the business of the country, not perverting the special counsel role and the justice system.
Rod Rosenstein ought to go.
Person ought to be put in place to serve properly in that place, to regulate this run-a-muck investigation and to provide the proper guidance and direction that it should have, period.
And we can't ignore the fact that what eventually became the Nunes memo, Sarah Carter, only happened after they waited till the last minute.
Every single document that has been subpoenaed, it's always the last minute.
And the person that ran the interference up to the last hour was Rod Rosenstein.
That means we wouldn't have known about all the FISA abuses if he had his way and Paul Ryan had capitulated.
If it wasn't for Nunez, Nunez and others, the House Judiciary Committee and the other committees threatening contempt, we would never see those documents.
We would never see them because they stonewalled, they lollygagged, they did everything they could, and they're still doing it so that the American public is not aware of what's going on.
And that's what they're doing.
And David Schoen is absolutely right.
I've talked to a number of attorneys on this.
I mean, look, the president has every authority under Article 2 of the Constitution.
He also has executive privilege.
And another thing, the questions that Mueller apparently would ask that was leaked to the New York Times, those particular questions, he already has the answers to those questions.
This is the President of the United States.
The President of the United States should not be called or subpoenaed to answer questions that somebody else can answer.
I mean, he's not readily available to do that.
And I've talked to a number of attorneys about this.
This is his job.
His job is to be president of the United States, to take care of the issues that affect us, not to be sitting around answering questions for Robert Mueller, by the way, very open-ended questions that could probably entrap him because that's why they're so open-ended.
They're trying to get a perjury trap or something on the president.
No, they already have the answers to these questions.
They could go to other people for these questions.
He doesn't need to sit there and answer them.
And I think that if he does, it would be a grave mistake.
Let me go.
Yeah, go ahead.
By the way, let me, it's true, if it weren't for Nunez, we wouldn't be where we are.
And I'm going to say it again.
If it weren't for Sarah Carter and for Sean Hannity pushing this issue and tenaciously not letting it go, we wouldn't be where we are either.
But let me say this.
Everyone makes new rules for Donald Trump, and Donald Trump, they say, is so arrogant and he won't comply, etc.
Let me say this.
Historically, you know what?
He's in pretty good company.
This issue arose in 1806 with Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Byrd tried to subpoena him.
Thomas Jefferson said, listen, this should be a matter for the president to decide.
He's too busy.
He's doing other things.
So does everyone call Thomas Jefferson now arrogant and out of control and he should be thrown out of office?
Let's put things in perspective.
These things, you know, have a history.
Came up with John Adams also.
Very frustrating.
What do both of you make of this latest delay as it relates to General Flynn, especially in light of all the new developments that now the same issues have now arisen for a lot of other people as it relates to lying to the FBI, not the least of which is former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and questions surrounding 18 U.S. C-793 with James Comey and Strzok and Page?
Why do they keep delaying the sentencing in the case of Robert Mueller, especially because that was the judge in the Ted Stevens case who actually found withheld exculpatory evidence that eventually exonerated Senator Ted Stevens after he lost his seat?
What do you think is going on with this?
Well, if you're asking me, Sean, I've spoken to a number of sources today about this, and this is certainly taken on a big part of the news today that they've requested that the sentencing for Michael Flynn be delayed another two months.
There is talk that the judge is concerned.
And all of this new information that has come out, we've known from the beginning, we reported on this early on last year that both of the FBI agents that had interviewed Flynn and Comey addressed this apparently behind closed doors to Congress, although he's trying to say that he didn't do that now.
But those stories were out there.
Comey addressed this, that those agents did not believe that General Flynn lied.
I can tell you, speaking to law enforcement officials and knowing this early, early on, that they did not believe that Flynn lied.
Now, one of those agents, ironically, is Peter Strzok, right?
And who has been involved?
He was the agent that has been so vehemently anti-committed.
Well, he interviewed Flynn.
He interviewed Hillary.
I mean, look, I said yesterday, I hope Donald Trump gets the Hillary treatment.
And by the Hillary treatment, let's have somebody that is pro-Donald Trump interviewing him.
And let's make it off the record.
And let's not tape it.
And let's exonerate way before we even have the interview.
Absolutely.
And if all things are equal under the law, if justice is equal, that's exactly how it's going to be.
But we see it's not.
We see it hasn't been.
We see this constant attack on the administration, on the office of the president.
It's very, very concerning because we still don't have any criminal evidence.
And you played it in your, you know, in your tapes where we hear Comey himself saying, we don't have any proof that this dossier is actually credible.
This fallacious dossier that was put together by foreign spies that we're using to, for the last, since this presidency began, to go after this administration.
And now we have nobody to check on the special counsel, nobody to check on Rod Rosenstein.
Who is there to oversee these people and their investigation?
No one.
So it appears that they have carte blanche on investigating the president of the United States based on nothing.
Unbelievable.
What about Comey's comment?
This was actually a news week.
Hillary Clinton deeply respects the rule of law.
You know, David, I just, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.
Because I guess he has to say that, considering he exonerated before investigating, right?
That's right.
Look, I don't know that anybody's in a better position than you to document the potential crimes, let's say, that could apply in our situation.
So it's absurd.
I mean, this book tour is absurd in the first place, but some of the things coming out of there, but some of them are telling also, by the way, when you have Mr. Comey telling the media at his book tour how he would prosecute President Trump, first of all, how inappropriate that is coming from the position he came from and coming from the idea that we still have an investigation going on here, in which President's been told he's not a target.
But beyond that, if you listen to what he said, what he said is basically he would prosecute him to set him up in a trap for obstruction or something.
And that's how he would couch the questions.
Quick break.
We'll come back.
More with Sarah Carter.
More with David Schoen.
800-941-Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
Later on, James O'Keefe, Michelle Malkin, will be checking in with us as Project Veritas has a new breakthrough video.
Much more as we continue.
Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
Former New York City mayor, now attorney for the president, Rudy Giuliani, his first interview tonight at 9.
And as we continue with Civil Liberties and Criminal Defense Attorney David Schoen, investigative reporter Sarah Carter, also a Fox News contributor, I keep hearing that there is blockbuster information within the latest request that I guess we have a deadline of Thursday of Devin Nunes specifically about Rod Rosenstein.
What do we know, Sarah Carter?
Well, we're waiting.
It should be interesting to see.
You know, everybody on the Hill has been very quiet about what is expected.
Thursday is the deadline, and I think Rod Rosenstein is going to have a lot of explaining to do when it comes out.
Look, right now, all we know is that there's a lot of documentation that's still out there, not even just on Rod Rosenstein, but what happened inside the FBI.
We have the Inspector General's report that is going to be coming out hopefully very soon.
I know everybody's going to be able to do it.
I keep hearing May 7th.
Is that happening or are they going to delay it yet again?
Well, you know, nobody has the exact answer because the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, has been keeping that very close hold.
He did wait, remember, until Comey went forward with his book to release his first report.
That was on McCabe.
And he, I was told that he and his team were waiting for Comey to continue his book tour.
They were going to listen to everything that he was saying.
They were going to assess everything that was coming out before they released their second report.
And the second report is really important because that's the one, Sean, that focuses on Hillary Clinton, on the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton.
And then there's going to be a third report.
And that report is going to be on the foreign intelligence surveillance applications that were taken out on Carter Page.
And of course, that report will definitely address all the different players that signed off on those warrants and whether or not they had actually given enough information to the courts.
And we've seen that the courts themselves have said, look, release the applications.
We have no problem with it.
You can tell that the court itself is very angry to some extent and probably feels as though they've been played and that they were played by the FBI and these other folks involved in the investigation.
So we have a number of reports still on their way out from the Inspector General, a number of documents that are still expected from the House Intelligence Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee.
All right, we're going to have to let you go.
David, we just ran out of time this segment, but I thank you both for everything you're doing.
Sarah Carter, David Schoen, and it gets more tense every day.
Former New York City mayor, now the attorney, one of the attorneys for the president, Rudy Giuliani, tonight on Hannity 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
We have had the ever-iconoclastic, humorous, fun Katie Hopkins on the program many, many times.
This is not a fun interview we're about to do here.
And it really should shock the conscience and soul of anybody that is listening.
But, you know, liberal progressives, they love to think of themselves as kind and compassionate and sensitive and inclusive and tolerant, especially when compared to, you know, conservatives.
You know, every two to four years, conservatives are racist and sexist and misogynistic and homophobic and xenophobic and Islamophobic.
It's the same lie every two to four years because they don't have a plan that's actually going to make the country a better place.
Anyway, you know, imagine if a group of conservatives produce a play about the assassination of put in any liberal name.
Democrats, I rightly would go bonkers.
You know, you'd have groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center would issue a hate crime alert, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, everybody would demand an FBI investigation, et cetera.
Well, something like that is happening.
There is apparently an unmistakable glee that permeates a new musical stage production that in fact features commentator Katie Hopkins.
Now, if you're familiar with Katie Hopkins' work, you know, she is an iconoclastic, outspoken conservative in Great Britain.
Anyway, in the opening scenes, it's called The Assassination of Katie Hopkins.
We learn that she's been gunned down outside the British media awards.
We don't see the murder on stage.
Instead, you see you discover what went down gradually via the fractured, sometimes contradictory prism of social media.
Katie Hopkins joins us now.
Katie, welcome to the program.
I wish it was the usual fun that we had here.
How are you?
I'm well.
Thank you, Sean, and thank you for being so kind.
But you're absolutely right.
You know, this is a play in Wales, the assassination of Katie Hopkins.
And I suppose the two things that are slightly perturbing about it are that this is state funded.
So this is sponsored by our government, by taxpayers' money and by the state that represents me, I suppose.
And the second thing is, as some of our listeners, your listeners will be aware, I had a threat on my life.
Two G Hardies were sent down less than six months ago for plotting to behead me.
So I suppose, you know, many of us who are normal thinkers, who are fairly straight thinking, we know that it's a play and that's okay.
But I think there's an element out there in society who might not see this as a play and see it as a kind of the state saying, condoning that this is actually, it's okay.
You know, the assassination of Katie Hopkins is an okay thing to think about.
And that's a curious thing, as you say, because if I was to put up, for example, the assassination of, say, Sadiq Khan, I can imagine I would be arrested and probably locked up before the end of the day.
Well, I mean, what are the laws?
Because I understand there are such laws in Great Britain.
Are there not?
Well, there's a law which you could take this to the police and claim incitement, you know, incitement to violence against me.
My concern with that is that our police are stretched.
And I never ever, I've never reported anyone for anything.
I never report any of the death threats I get because I think I put myself out there and so I have to suck it up.
And I believe that.
Listen, this is the thing, and I often hear of people on the left and for the first time they've experienced the death threat.
I do agree, sadly, it is a part of being in the public eye.
It is a part of being outspoken.
I don't speak about it often, but over the years, like you, I have had every range of threat that you could ever imagine.
I wish it weren't so, but it is reality.
I try to measure based on individual, you know, I make an individual threat assessment and I check in with authorities at all times.
I mean, the reality is we are out there, but you still have the right.
For example, it is against the law in America to make a terroristic threat or a threat against somebody's life.
You know, you can't harass and intimidate.
You can't, you know, there are stalking laws in the United States.
Agreed, but I fear, and I obviously have my own bias on this, but I fear that the way that our police are now and the way the Metropolitan Police are in particular, they too seem to operate with a bias and conservatives always receive much harsher treatment.
And therefore, I think if I were to even report it, possibly they would say, look, it's a play.
It's in Wales.
It's not a direct threat on you.
And that's fine, even though my house was installed with alarms about the police's request because of the threats against my family.
But I suppose one of the more, I guess, something more, something to do with humanity, Sean, is my parents are elderly.
You know, I love them dearly, as we all do.
My mum's 72, and my dad's in his 70s as well.
And I think it was them.
It's my mom ringing me and saying, what's this I've read?
The assassination.
I don't understand.
And also, I have three children under 13.
I think it's those conversations, Sean.
You and I know the industry we work in.
You and I know the grief that we both take for good or bad.
But I think sometimes trying to explain it to just people that you care about and care about you, that's obviously a lot of a harder conversation.
And I was worried for my mum and trying to explain it to my mum in a way that makes sense.
And of course, it's hard to make a play about my assassination make sense.
Well, number one, I'm sorry that you're going through it.
And yeah, people do forget.
You know, I actually think that things have that conservatives in particular have been so demonized that it's almost like they think that conservatives aren't human.
I think they've begun to believe their own false narrative, their own lies, their own opinions that they regurgitate about conservatives.
You know, in other words, I think in their minds, they think that they are morally superior, that they are smarter, that we don't know what we're doing.
There's little evidence of it here and there.
For example, well, the elevator doesn't go straight to the top of these people.
That's CNN's Washington, Chief Washington correspondent, or, you know, irredeemable deplorables by Hillary or Barack Obama, bitter people in Pennsylvania that cling to their God, their faith, their Bibles, their religion.
There's a revelation in those comments that are pretty revealing to me.
Yes, I agree.
And there is a little bit of that sense of this with this as well, because it's a play and therefore it sits under the bracket of kind of art and performance.
It's seen as something, there's some kind of sneering that goes alongside this.
As if people like me, people that I represent, Brexiteers, Trump supporters, conservatives, we're too stupid to get how clever this play is.
You know, actually, if you were an academic or you're from the liberal elite in London, oh, how you would laugh.
There's a little bit of that as well.
And with our state reporting from our BBC, the state media, you know, in support of the play.
If they could talk about this play more, I don't know how they could.
It seems to have taken priority above everything else in the news agenda.
However, Sean, you know, we battle forward, we battle on, and we are not deterred by these sorts of things.
I'm certainly not.
And I guess the point is I'm not dead yet.
But I can go back.
There was a, well, no, that's not even as much as you joke.
And I know you have a great sense of humor, far better than mine.
And by the way, I give a warning whenever you're in the States that when you and Linda get together, watch out because it's going to be warfare.
Clear the pubs.
No, no, clear the path.
Oh, yeah, right now.
Clear the way.
But British police forces, now this goes back a little ways, actually arrested at least 3,395 people for offensive online comments in one year.
Now, that happened.
Those were figures obtained by the Times through the Freedom of Information Act, 3,395 people across 29 forces arrested last year under Section 127 of the, quote, Communications Act of 2003, which in Great Britain makes it illegal to intentionally cause annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety to another.
I'm sorry, the year was 2016.
Now, it would seem that your case fits that definition perfectly, and there's obviously a lot of precedent for it.
I think you're right.
And there has been legal advice taken.
I have been to see lawyers, and I have taken legal advice.
But on balance, I see that in my heart, I guess as a true conservative who believes in, you know, people being free other than a baby.
This isn't about conservative.
Katie, your safety is not about being a conservative or a liberal.
Your safety is about your safety.
This is about your family.
This is about your husband, your kids.
I do agree with you.
But there is this thing in me.
And we get brought up with it, isn't it?
You don't bother the police.
You don't make a fuss.
You don't get in the way of the police because they have a job to do.
And I know that doesn't really stand up these days when our police are policing Twitter, particularly my Twitter at £1.7 million a year to do so.
So I could complain, but I still try and hold the high ground and say, listen, I can channel my energies better than by complaining.
I may be wrong.
Listen, this may be the first time we really have a passionate disagreement here because I think your thinking is wrong on this.
I think the idea.
You know, what do we talk about all the time?
What does the left talk about hate language?
Now, I don't think, I think at the end of the day, the people that act or commit acts of violence, they ultimately are held responsible.
But if people are trying to inspire such violence, and I think the assassination of Katie Hopkins play would fit that category, I think it deserves attention, especially in light of what the laws are in Great Britain.
And certainly a lot of recourse has been taken by a lot of other people.
Look, if not for yourself, you know, certainly for your family.
Yes, of course.
And I think you probably are right, Sean.
I think probably I spend a little bit too much time accepting everything that comes my way because that's my manner.
And perhaps this is a manner too.
I mean, you have to.
Yeah, of course, of course.
But, you know, we are in a London in particular is a terrifying place.
You know, we have a higher murder rate than New York right now.
The 64th victim fell last night, 63 murders in 2018.
So it's not as if I'm living in a safe capital city or a safe country.
You know, violence is everywhere.
We just had a guy in a McDonald's yesterday with a six-foot hunting knife to stab someone.
So, I mean, I do live in a violent place.
And perhaps on this, I'm Sean, I'm going to have to concede that you are probably right.
And the assassination of anyone probably isn't okay, especially not when it's sponsored by the city.
And this is what I never understood.
Imagine we have talked at length about this in this country.
Madonna saying that I have thought seriously or dreamed about blowing up the White House.
Yes, I'm angry.
Yes, I am outraged.
Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
Or any numerous Hollywood actors talking about a desire to punch Donald Trump in the face or the head or what, you know, and it goes on and on.
And I always just replace, okay, well, let's say it's a conservative and they said it about Barack Obama.
You know that the reaction would be different.
The outcry would be, you know, it would hit decibels you've never heard before.
And there would be such a double standard when it comes to how conservatives are treated.
And that's all across the board.
I think that's completely right.
You know, I think that's probably the thing that jumped out at me first about this whole play, the assassination of Casey Hopkins.
It's not the title itself.
It's not what it does.
It's not that I feel necessarily in immediate danger.
It is more the hypocrisy.
I know in the country in which I live, if I was to put up the name of a, let's say, a black politician, someone from the BAME community, or indeed a Labour MP who's a female, I know within the day I would be picked up by the police, partly because of my reputation as a conservative and partly because it would be seen as inciting racial hatred.
And the curious thing is, always, is that the conservatives, and particularly white conservatives, are the only kind of grouping that have no protection whatsoever, either in the marketplace or politically.
And that's a very curious thing.
I guess as we become minorities in our own country, eventually we will get protected minority status and white conservatives.
And maybe then we can fight back.
As we continue with Katie Hopkins, there's a new play by the British left, quote, The Assassination of Katie Hopkins.
I just have a feeling.
I've been watching a lot.
I watch a lot of the history channel and the American Heroes channel.
And I watched, I love to read autobiographies and history, especially you think of the tumultuous 60s and early 70s.
You know, you gotta.
I'm wondering if the divide now is now comparable or worse to in many ways to those times.
I mean, it's hard, it's hard to have that perception because obviously we were just young kids at the time.
We weren't there, yeah, of course.
Well, no, no, you weren't there.
I was a young kid, I was but a baby at the time.
I forget, yeah, you, I forget you're so much older than me.
Yeah, thanks a lot.
But look, this is uh, to me, I'm just wondering, as a natural, I don't know, progression, if you will, in this, do people do people act on words?
Do people act on demonization and false narratives?
It's a scary thought about how crazy some people are.
I think that's it, and that's kind of the point about this play, these posters, words in general, isn't it?
And how we have become so divided.
You know, I've been saying recently that the UK is more divided than at any time in our history, certainly in any history that I recognize.
All right, thank you, Katie Hopkins.
I want you to know that you're in our thoughts and prayers.
We love you.
Katie Hopkins, 800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show.
All right, news roundup, information overload hour, toll-free.
Our telephone numbers: 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we have the latest sting operation by Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, who'll join us in just a second here.
It should break your heart.
You know, I read about this: this often comes up in New York City public schools that teachers that are abusing children, you cannot get rid of them.
You cannot fire them.
And for years and years and years, they sit on the sidelines getting their paychecks and eventually their pensions, even after all the evidence is in, and they're not allowed to be in a classroom with any kid.
Well, this undercover video, New York Teach, New Jersey Teachers Union president is literally caught saying we're going to bend the truth and cover up child abuse in schools and protect drug-using, shoplifting teachers.
Now, the stage here, as we said it for you, is the Hamilton Township Education Association president, a guy by the name of David Perry, explaining how unions can protect teachers who beat up and threaten kids.
I'm here to defend even the worst people, he says.
And on the charges, we're going to bring it down a level.
And then he said that he would represent misrepresent facts of abuse and on reports to cast students as liars.
I need to know the truth so that we can bend the truth.
And then it goes on.
We're going to play all this for you.
We do turn these reports around to where if it was a physical punch, it wasn't a punch, it was a shove.
If he comes to me tomorrow, I'm going to date the report back to the day after the incident and then advises teachers: do not tell a soul about the incident.
And the longer, by the way, the incident goes unreported, the better because camera footage in schools is erased over time.
They've got it all on tape.
Listen up.
Nobody brings it up from school.
I don't say boo.
You don't want to bring attention to this.
You know what I mean?
Because obviously it wasn't big enough for him, for that student to complain, I got hurt.
I was beaten.
I was threatened.
I was boomed.
You know what I'm saying?
Unless, of course, and I've had this where the teacher would say, you say anything, I'll kill you.
Well, that's.
Okay, see, he damn.
He means to come on file that an incident occurred.
And when the school brings it up on me, of course, we're not going to give him that information.
In other words, we're going to bring it down a level.
Yeah, I'd really, you know, you want to bring this down to a lower level that if anything was to come about, that we would say, uh, this was my argument, would be, and I'm telling you what I would do, which again, I'm just trying to make ease his mind because I'm sure he's nervous, he's upset.
I mean, they go for tenure charges all 10 yards.
Is that yes, Mr. Jones came into me four weeks ago, three weeks ago, and he told me that there was an incident in school and he was a little concerned because this kid could be, you know, as like could be a liar, could say something, but didn't want to get blown out.
And what Peter Smith told me was that, yes, he did put him in his seat, or he did pull him, or whatever.
But we didn't get any notions.
We don't come back and say that we threatened him.
We never threatened him.
The kid could have gone to anybody.
Nobody, that's these are questions I got to ask him.
Did anybody, did anybody hear him say that?
You know, I'll kill you if you tell somebody or I'll get you.
Because if he did that and there's witnesses, they do what they call a hip investigation.
They'll get the class.
See, these are all questions I need to know.
But he needs to not tell a soul about this.
Nobody.
People in school because they all talk.
I don't care if it's his best friend.
He needs to keep it with his wife and you, and that's it.
So when he comes in here, and I'm going to tell him what to say, basically.
In other words, you didn't threaten a kid.
You said, knock it off or else.
Yeah.
But if, but if he actually said, knock it off or I'll kill you or I'll beat the out of you or I'll hurt you or I'll hurt your family.
We don't say that.
It's a mistake.
It was out of the emotions.
We don't even log that in.
But if we log it now and somebody calls me, oh yeah, I would like HR would call me and says, we're doing a hip investigation by the kid.
Went to his mother.
Parents are complaining now that this teacher threatened him.
He's like, whatever he needs to be.
Okay, I got this, but I'm going to let you know right now he came in the day after.
Even though he didn't, I would say he did.
So it wouldn't be like a mark on his record.
Oh, God, no.
Oh, God, no.
I would never.
Okay.
If you go to the Hamilton Board of Education and report this, they're going to call the police and they're going to call parents and all that.
We don't do that.
We don't do that here.
I'm here to defend even the worst people.
God forbid if a child, and I hate to keep using this, was sexually mistreated and a person came and said, Listen, Dave, I made a mistake.
First of all, I'm going to be pissed off because you don't do that.
But it's my job.
It's almost like being the priest.
It's my job to protect.
So what do you mean by sexual misconduct?
Because he touched her hair.
It's not sexual.
Was it right?
No.
But you see, you get it down to the lowest level possible.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
It's beyond shocking.
Now, I will add one thing before we go to James O'Keefe and Michelle Malkin here.
And this just came out.
65% of eighth graders in American and American public schools for the year 2017 were not proficient in reading.
65%.
67% were not proficient in mathematics, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress test results released by the U.S. Department of Education.
And by the way, the results are absolutely worse in certain school districts.
Joning us now from Project Veritas.
He's the founder, James O'Keefe.
Michelle Malkin, host of her own series on Conservative Reviews, CRTV.
Michelle Malcolm Investigates.
Welcome both of you to the program.
James, let's break this down.
So basically, they are talking about lying, about covering up a child abuse in schools and protecting the worst behavior.
And this is only part one of what is going to be a series.
Thanks, Sean.
Thanks for having me on again.
Thanks for playing that tape.
It's very important that parents and taxpayers hear this.
This is the president of a local NEA National Education Association chapter president near Trenton, New Jersey.
And the way I frame this, Sean, is that every truth passes through three stages before it's recognized.
And the first, it's ridiculed, and the second, it's opposed.
And then it becomes self-evident.
This organization has become so corrupt that this president, he's a PhD, he's a doctor, and he's telling this person who he believes to be someone whose friend was abusing students.
He's confessing all of the things he has covered up.
And Sean, I think the, I mean, this is just 20 minutes of unbelievable footage, but the top three in my mind are when he says, I need to know the truth so that we can bend it, bend the truth.
He says, I'm here to say.
Well, another word for that is lying.
How we can cover up, how we can lie.
How we can cover up the truth.
He says, quote, I'm here to defend even the worst people.
That's my job.
He says we need to reverse it back onto the child.
So these people would say, Sean, that they are there to protect the institutions and therefore they're protecting the children.
It's become a perversion.
It's become about, literally, in his words, herding over the children.
And the content speaks for itself here, Sean.
We're talking about child abuse and then turning a child who tells the truth into a liar.
Well, that's mental and emotional abuse in my mind, Michelle Malkin.
It certainly is.
And what taxpayers and parents and teachers who act in good faith to protect and educate their children need to know as well is that this is systemic.
This isn't just some rogue union official out there.
It is embedded in the DNA of this public employee union.
And I have a personal connection to this, and I'm so grateful that Project Veritas and James have been on top of this, filling a vacuum in investigative journalism.
Why?
Because so many of the left-wing progressives in the media see their job as covering for the teachers' union instead of uncovering these truths about how they handle this.
And my personal connection is I'm from South Jersey.
I'm very familiar with Hamilton Township and the way things operate in the school systems in Atlanta County because my mom was a public teacher in South Jersey for more than 20 years.
She was forced to pay the dues that fund these kinds of thugs whose main job is to protect the most rotten apples in the system.
And there are 3 million members in the NEA.
They are committed to extracting as much in dues from these teachers in order to collective bargain, in order to strike, and in order to agitate.
All of us have talked many times over the years about how the NEA itself puts Olinski on its rating list.
A does not stand for what we think it stands for.
It stands for agitate in the school systems.
And these people should be arrested and put in jail for putting lives and children at risk.
Do we have you identified in the course of all of this?
Because I've got to imagine that there are crimes being committed here.
Has Project Veritas, I know you guys have a battery of attorneys because people unfairly have attacked you over the years, and you have to dot every I cross every T. Have they identified crimes, James O'Keefe?
Yes, there is a statute in New Jersey that says you have to be a mandatory reporter.
So there is the chance that this guy, he's a Dr. David Perry is his name.
He's the president of the NJEA chapter there in New Jersey.
There is the chance that they broke the law.
We're still trying to figure out if that's the case.
There is a quote in the video where he says he would, quote, backdate it.
I'm going to date it back to the day after the incident.
So there is fraud.
This is out-and-out fraud.
And the audience might wonder how a lot of people, Sean, are tweeting to me, how did you get this guy to say these things?
And my response is: these people have never been held accountable in their lives.
They've never had a journalist ask them a difficult question.
The local media and the national media is monolithic in its support for Randy Weingarten and the NEA.
So they've never been challenged.
Therefore, they're arrogant and they're honest.
And as Michelle said, this is a systemic issue.
And one of the best quotes from the video is he says, I'm here to defend the worst of the worst, the worst teachers, the worst people.
He said, that is my job.
So what's remarkable is we're on the radio here, but if you look at the video online, behind his head.
By the way, we put a link to these videos on Hannity.com to make it simple.
It links right to your website to make it easy for everybody.
There's a slogan behind his head, and it says, works for children.
So as this guy, Perry, is saying, you know, turn it back on to the child, the banner behind his head says, NJEA works for children.
This is the great lie, and it's being exposed.
And of course, this is part one.
Now, we did get a response from the NJEA already.
They're angry at me.
They said, we have no credibility.
We're not journalists.
And we're the ones who did that.
By the way, every time you catch somebody, it's the same letter.
It's the same, you know, then the next thing we know, the person's going to be fired.
I mean, there's a pattern to this now over the years.
How many years now have we known each other, James?
A long time.
Nine years.
Okay, and from the beginning, I mean, now there's a pattern.
The first thing they say is they attack you.
The next thing that happens is usually somebody gets fired the next day.
And you have, how many series, how many tapes will you be releasing?
Well, probably going to release another one tomorrow on the same organization.
And we have to do it this way, Sean.
We've been doing this for nine years.
Thanks to you, you've gotten the message out.
And I think you're one of the main people that has the courage to spread these messages.
So thank you for playing the tape in front of millions of people.
We're going to probably release another one tomorrow, but this is damning.
I mean, I don't see how they're going to be able to spin this.
It doesn't get much worse than this.
And we did get a response from a spokesperson who told New Jersey 101.5, the spokesperson said that we're not journalists, that we're the dishonest ones, and the video is fraudulent.
So we'll see what happens next.
Listen, we'll take a quick break.
If you guys can stay five more minutes, I don't want to shortchange this.
We'll come back more with Michelle Malkin and James O'Keefe.
All right, our final moments with Michelle Malkin and James O'Keefe, James O'Keefe, Project Veritas.
You have to see these videos for yourself.
We put them up on Hannity.com, Project Veritas, their website, where they went undercover and they've discovered the worst behavior of the New Jersey teachers union president talking about bending the truth, covering up child abuse in schools, and so much more.
Michelle, we've talked about education.
We fixed the educational system in this country.
We have fixed probably most socioeconomic problems that exist for the entire country, and we never do it.
Why?
Because of tapes like this.
Yes, and because of the grip, the iron grip that public employee unions have, and certainly the teachers' unions, both the NEA and the AFT, have over the government schools.
Their goal is never about the children.
They've said it explicitly.
Look up a quote by Bob Channon, the former top lawyer thug for the NEA, who explicitly said it's not about bettering the education of the children.
It's about protecting their own rank and file members.
It's union solidarity over safety, and it's about the security and self-preservation of the union, not about the children.
Remember that when you see that it is teachers, union leaders, their rank, not just their, not their rank and file, right, but their leadership that are out there exploiting things like the massacre in Parkland to distract from their own failures in their backyard and districts.
Thank God for James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, because what they do for the public is lift up the rug so that we can see how the cockroaches operate.
You know, I could write columns out the wazoo, and we could have position papers by think tanks, but nothing is more valuable than seeing these people in their corrupt action.
All right, James, we'll give you the last word.
Give us a preview of what may be coming tomorrow.
Well, it gets worse.
You may think, how could it possibly get worse than a guy saying, well, Michelle said, I think the guy was from 30 or 40 years ago, he said, when children start paying union dues, I'll care about them.
I mean, this guy basically says this today.
He says, we turn it, we reverse it back onto the child.
I'm here to protect the worst of the worst.
So tomorrow, this is a guy who's saying these things.
Tomorrow, we have an incident, an unspeakable act that was in a document, not just the video.
Now we have the documents.
Unspeakable acts from another president, leadership in the union, talking about covering up a atrocity, a sexual atrocity, and protecting the person's pension.
So it is systemic.
It is not an isolated incident.
It is systemic.
We're trying to confirm it.
Unbelievable.
And thank God you do this work because you know what?
These are kids' lives you're protecting.
And we appreciate your sharing this with us and the good work you do.
Thank you very, very much.
Quick break.
We'll come back.
Wide open telephones.
Final half hour.
Sean Hannity Show.
All right, 25 now till the hour, top of the hour.
We'll get to your calls here in a minute.
800-941.
Sean, you know, with all of the hysteria, the breathlessness, let's just remind you, there's no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
But Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge, there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
We did not conclude any evidence in our report.
And when I say our report, that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office.
The Director of National Intelligence had anything, any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians.
There was no evidence of that in our report.
Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?
I think he's right about characterizing the report, which you all have read.
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
There was no evidence of that included in our report.
Have you seen anything, either intelligence briefings, through intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you have made?
They have the documentation that they did the hacking.
The hacking.
On the DNC.
Right.
And on some of us, you know, that happened.
But the collusion, though.
No, we have not.
Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?
Not at this time.
Have you seen anything that suggests any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign?
Well, there's an awful lot of smoke there.
Let's put it that way.
People that might have said they were involved, to what extent they were involved, to what extent the president might have known about these people or whatever.
There's nothing there from that standpoint that we have seen directly linking our president to any of that.
Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts?
I don't know whether or not such collusion, and that's your term, such collusion existed.
I don't know.
The big questions, of course, is, is there any evidence of collusion you have seen yet?
Is there?
There is a lot of smoke.
We have no smoking gun at this point, but there is a lot of smoke.
Dianne Feinstein has said there's no evidence of collusion.
So collusion between whom?
Can you tell us that?
I'm not prepared to say that there's proof you could take to a jury, but I can say that there is enough that we ought to be investigating.
At the time you separated from service in January of 2017, had you seen any evidence that Donald Trump or any member of his campaign colluded, conspired, or coordinated with the Russians or anyone else to infiltrate or impact our voter infrastructure?
Not beyond what has been out there open source and not beyond anything that I'm sure this committee has already seen and heard before directly from the intelligence community.
Let's remind you of the comments of Rod Rosenstein yesterday about FISA abuse and oh, hello.
Yeah, he can't lie in a FISA court and his attacks against the Freedom Caucus.
Any reaction to the news that certain members of the House Freedom Caucus have talked about drafting up articles of impeachment despite your best efforts to comply with their document requests?
They can't even resist leaking their own drafts.
Would you care to elaborate on that?
I saw that draft.
I mean, I don't know who wrote it.
It really does illustrate, though, a really important principle about the rule of law and a distinction between the way we operate in the department.
And we make mistakes.
That's not to say we're flawless.
I can tell you, there have been people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time.
And I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.
We're going to do what's required by the rule of law.
And any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications.
And many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application is.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
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.
What would your life be like if she won?
I also don't know the answer to that.
I think I would still be the FBI director.
And the reason I say that is someone asked me to compare the two, and it's too hard for me to compare the two, except Secretary Clinton is someone deeply enmeshed in the rule of law, respect for institutions, a lawyer.
And so given that background, I'm reasonably confident that even though she was unhappy with decisions the FBI had made, she would not fire the FBI director as a result.
But look, again, I don't know that for sure.
Unbelievable.
And then, of course, the president articulately defending himself because he's been proven right the whole time.
The entire thing has been a witch hunt, and there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself and the Russians.
Zero.
Let's put it this way.
There is absolutely no collusion.
That has been proven.
When you look at the committees, whether it's the Senate or the House, everybody, my worst enemies, they walk out, they say, there is no collusion, but we'll continue to look.
They're spending millions and millions of dollars.
There is absolutely no collusion.
I didn't make a phone call to Russia.
I have nothing to do with Russia.
Everybody knows it.
That was a Democrat hoax.
It was an excuse for losing the election.
And it should have never been this way where they spent all these millions of dollars.
So now even the Democrats admit there's no collusion.
There is no collusion.
That's it.
All right.
You know, it just shows everything they will not tell you, how wrong they have been and how corrupt these players are and how right we've been the entire time.
All right, let's get to every, let's get to our busy phones here.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Josh is in Salt Lake City, KNRS.
Rod Arquette Land, what's up, Josh?
How are you?
And glad you called, sir.
And I wish I was eating a Crown burger right now.
Great, Sean, and it's glad to talk to you.
I just wanted to talk about Mueller and sit down with Trump and that.
Really, Trump wants to go through and prove that he's smarter than Mueller, and he wants to go through and prove that he can do this.
But he's got to take into consideration at this point.
He's not just dealing this for himself at this point.
If he goes through and sits down with him and I get him in a perjury trap or anything like that, all of the momentum that we've got going in this country for trying to turn things around and drain the swamp and everything is out the window.
And I don't think it's wise on his part to go through and community.
Yeah, it's state.
There's no collusion.
So now we got a perjury trap, and we moved on from Russia collusion during the 2016 campaign.
And now we have moved on to a place of stormy.
That's how absurd this whole thing has gotten.
And the left loves it.
You know, that's the whole plan for 2018.
Let's impeach Trump.
That's what we're going to do.
Then we'll repeal the taxes and we'll put Obamacare back in place.
Look, this midterm will become one of the defining moments in American history.
It is taking on a level of importance that nobody could have imagined a year ago in terms of the impact this congressional midterm election will have on U.S. history.
It's that profound, in my opinion.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And like I said, I mean, the biggest thing that I would like Trump to understand is this isn't just about him at this point.
It's not about proving who's smarter in this argument.
It's about keeping the White House and keeping the Senate and the House to go through and advance the agenda that we all voted for.
Very well said, sir.
Thank you for calling.
We appreciate it.
All the best in Salt Lake.
Dan is in, well, let's go to Chris in Mobile, Alabama next.
Chris, hi, how are you?
We're glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Sean.
Yeah, I've just got something to say about how I think this can be cleared up to the American people.
I really think it's important for President Trump to have a state of the union to come in and explain exactly what's going on with the Mueller investigation.
Comey, just break it down like BB did a couple of days ago, because I think after talking to family and friends, people are very confused.
They get fragmented information.
They're really not sure how it all ties together.
And I think it's time for President Trump to come out and let people know what's really going on.
Instead of, you know, I watched CBS this morning with my wife, and unfortunately, everything on there was anti-Trump, but there was no information about what was going on with Comey, Mueller, Rose.
They're never in the mainstream.
Yeah, they're never in the mainstream media going to give it to you.
And, you know, some people say, well, Hannity, for a year, the story has gotten so big with so many players, and there's different aspects to it.
There's the aspect of, all right, Clinton committed crimes with the email server.
She obstructed justice as such.
Then you've got the Comey, Strzok, Paige, McCabe, insurance policy, cover-up, exoneration before investigation, Loretta Lynch's role in all of that.
Then you've got the same guy that interviewed General Flynn.
Peter Strzzok interviews Hillary, but we know he was part of writing the exoneration months earlier, and then she's exonerated two days after the interview.
But he hates Trump and loves Hillary and wanted Hillary to continue because that's what he was involved in.
And then you've got the whole issue of, oh, okay, there's no Trump-Russia collusion, but we do have evidence that, in fact, Hillary Clinton paid a foreign national to build a dossier that was based on Russian lies, Russian government lies, to help manipulate the American people and win an election.
And then, of course, we know that that dossier became unverified by anybody and never corroborated and mostly proven false now, and that it was presented to a FISA court.
And it was the bulk of information, according to the Grassley Graham memo, that was used in the FISA court in the application to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate weeks before the election.
And that that was also, there were three subsequent applications.
And you got guys like Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller signing off on the FISA warrant against Trump, which is a massive conflict of interest.
Now, as I have just said that, and I haven't even mentioned Bruce Orr and Nellie Orr and some of the other, just think that that is the biggest summary I can give, and it's all true.
Now, think if anybody in the media is talking about what I just told you.
And I listen to you every day, and I'll just be honest, to keep up with it on a daily basis, and I'm amazed that you're able to keep up with it, but that's what you do.
But it's hard for just the general public out here to understand.
And you reach somewhere between 8 and 10 million people a day on your radio show.
Actually, more like 15 or 16, but not like 17 to 20 million.
Oh, okay.
Thanks, London.
I was looking at something else.
But I think President Trump has the ability to reach.
I don't know what he reaches during the state of the United States.
Oh, no.
Listen, here's the thing.
You know, and thanks to all of you, you make this radio show successful.
You make this TV show successful.
And I'm really appealing to you here, Chris, because many people have told me this.
The reason I try every night, the reason my monologue on TV is so detailed is because I know you work all day.
You're serving your fellow human beings, whatever goods and services you produce, whatever job you have, and you're taking care of your families and paying the taxes and making the country great.
So it's my job to simplify that.
I've done graphs.
I have identified the players.
I put their pictures up.
And, you know, I'm not going to lie.
It's hard sometimes for me to keep it all together and put the pieces together.
And I do this 24-7.
So I'm going to keep thinking of ways to make it more understandable.
But that summary I just gave you is it.
And maybe we should just put the summary on the website.
Would that help?
Sure, it would.
I mean, I think it would for, I could send my family and friends to that summary.
And, you know, I just, we appreciate what you do, Sean, and keep up the good fight.
And we'll just keep, we'll just keep it happen.
Listen, you make it possible.
And don't think that the little, you know, we have a group of people that have been amazing in helping, aiding, assisting, investigating the whole time with us.
And I can promise you, we're never going to stop because we've been right.
We're being proven right every day.
And what has gone on here is the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in history.
And the media has been missing in action.
And they still are.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
We're going to lay out everything that Mueller and his merry band of Obama Clinton donors and people with ethical issues are up to at this particular time.
Politico.
Oh, they may even make Ivanka Trump a target.
Is there any end to this madness?
And then we have an exclusive interview, Rudy Giuliani, the president's attorney, speaking out for the first time exclusively on Hannity tonight.
