Conservative analyst Byron York stopped by the show to discuss comparisons between President Clinton and President Trump. "Do you remember back in the Clinton years when there were all these fights over executive privledge and Clinton didn't want to give anything to the independent counsel?," laughed York, "What we've seen with Giuliani's interview on your [Hannity] show, we've seen a complete turn." York discussed whether a President can even be indicted. Plus, York discusses the best strategy for the White House. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity radio show podcast.
All right, glad you're with us.
And right, has anybody heard anything about me in the last 24 hours names?
You know, at some point when you really think about the obsessive coverage of all things Hannity lately.
I mean, and a lot of it just is typical fake news.
You know, I love the fact I I really would like equal treatment under the journalist ethics.
And uh maybe we ought to start looking into Anderson Cooper's uh different financial holdings, or everybody else on on TV, considering uh everybody's so interested in what they think they know or don't know about mine.
He stood up and he said the name Sean Hannity.
How did he say it?
Was it like, "Sean Hannity".
Sean Hannity.
Hannity Hannity.
Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, John Hannity, Hannity, Sean Hannity, Hannity, Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, Hannity, Hannity, and Hannity's Sean Hannity.
Sean Hannity, the city.
Sean Hannity Oh man.
Here is a true statement.
800 941 Sean.
The media is Wait, wait, I'm sorry.
What was your name again?
My name is Sean Hannity.
What's the name of the show?
The Sean Hannity Show.
Is that a Capital H?
All right, will you stop?
Uh think about this.
When we were out there like we usually are hanging up at the top of a tree out on a skinny branch hanging on to a twig and a leaf on the twig, um, vetting Barack Obama.
They're v there they so hate anybody that supports the president, or the fact that we have done such a a big deep dive into the deep state, and we have exposed what we now know to be the biggest abuse of power and corruption scandal in history.
Um now they just think they're vetting, and Linda, tell me if you disagree, they're vetting me more than they did Obama for president.
I mean, I can remember you talking to George Stephanopoulos when he was getting ready to interview him and saying to him, hey George, do you know about this?
Hey George, do you know about that?
He knew nothing.
He knew nothing, nothing.
He had never heard of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn.
There are two questions that I don't think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don't know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow.
One is his the only time he's ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist uh from The Weather Underground, who on 9-11 of all days in the New York Times was saying, I don't regret setting bombs.
I I I don't think we did enough.
Uh, when asked about it by the political, David Axarod said they have a friendly relationship and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together.
Is that a question you might ask?
Well, I'm taking notes right now.
September 11th, 2001, of all days, uh, there was an article in the New York Times, and there are a number of quotes about Bill Ayers and the Politico had in there the comments about uh from David Axelrod.
I think that's an interesting question that nobody in the media has really brought up.
We've we've highlighted a little bit more here on this program, but let me see if I can help you.
You want any more questions?
Yeah, keep going.
The Chicago reader talked about and commented has comments of Barack Obama why he attended the Million Man March.
Mm-hmm.
That most people don't know that, I don't think.
Uh that's pretty pretty.
Didn't he write about that in his book?
I don't remember that in particular, but I know that he was quoted extensively in the Chicago Reader, December 8th, I forget the year.
Going back a couple of years.
All right, by the way, so my memory's not that good.
But he had never heard about it until I told him.
You see, it's a very simple answer to all questions.
If people would just call you, they would get the information they need.
Well, you see.
All right, really, everybody having a good time.
Sean Hannity, nobody called Sean Hannity.
I said the woman.
I'm sick of my own name.
Somebody would call Sean Hannity.
I spoke to Sean Hannity, everybody reviews.
Listen, if they want to have some fun with it, so can we?
No, but the fun is uh the funny part is is I think they're vetting me more than they did Obama.
And I also think I'm getting a little sick and tired of it.
I've been looking at the TV all day, and there I am on every channel all day long.
I could have sworn you were prime time, but today you're all time.
I don't know what's going on.
Well, it's been the same for the last four weeks.
I mean, when they ran out of the courtroom, oh, he's Michael Cohn's third client.
Oh my well, we explain that in detail.
No cases, no billing, no retainer.
I think three questions on real estate.
But I said, let's I want this attorney client.
Gave him 10 or 20 bucks.
That was it.
And I think they're disappointed.
And so anyway, so now that but I I think I ought to get paid.
I think CNN owes me a paycheck.
I think NBC owes me a paycheck.
ABC, Conspiracy TV owes me a paycheck.
I think they ought to start paying me because they run the my show every day and talk about me every day.
At this point, I'm figuring we ought to get paid back.
Anyway, enough about me.
Um now my sources.
What do you mean?
You have sources.
The funny part on that is, you know, people are writing bizarre conspiracies about Sean Hannity.
Oh, he is the shadow chief of staff, and he talks to the president in the morning, and he talks to the president at night, and he talks to him all the time.
And he's like the and it's almost he should have a desk in the White House.
And then when I contradict something that I knew wasn't true in the New York Times and their anonymous source, how what does he know what he's talking about?
He has no idea no clue what he's talking about.
But I do have sources.
Now, Mayor Giuliani today, in another sign that Kim Jong-un is sincere in his pledge to give up nuclear weapons if it wasn't enough for people in the media because they'd rather talk about Stormy, um, that he walked across the DMZ into the arms of the South Korean president, and history was made.
Um Mayor Giuliani mentioned that uh we've got Kim Jong-un impressed enough to be releasing three prisoners today.
Um, and while it hasn't been confirmed, we are pretty clear.
Um my sources are telling me that's absolutely true.
That that is in fact.
Now, the interesting thing about that is how's the media going to react to that?
Uh this is how it'll be on TV.
Oh, three hostages were released.
But Stormy Daniels, but Russia, Russia, Russia.
That's how corrupt the media is here.
And as of late Wednesday, U.S. official they didn't have the confirmation.
Apparently, you know, we're hearing Sarah Sanders wouldn't confirm it.
Um, but the bottom line is it sounds like really good news is coming.
Thank God for these hostages, and let them get home safely to their families uh as quickly as possible.
And before I get into my interview with uh Mayor Giuliani last night, um something else you're not gonna hear, and I kind of feel it's my obligation to put out information because the media won't do their job.
The fake news gang out there wants you to think that the fate of the world hangs on 130,000 that was paid to a porn star that claims to have had sex 12 years ago.
Um, and who paid who and who knew what when and where, but new applications for U.S. jobless benefits now increased less than expected that last week, and the number of Americans now receiving unemployment aid fell to its lowest level is since 1973, uh, which points to a tightening labor market, which is good for people that are in the workforce because that means that you have employee errors that are going to be fighting for employees.
Initial claims rose 2,000 adjust seasonally adjusted, etc.
But you know, this is all good news.
14 states now have record low unemployment numbers, record no one low unemployment numbers for women in the workforce, record no record lows for Hispanics in the workforce and African Americans in the workforce.
It's all phenomenal.
Um, I want to start with where I probably shouldn't, but I will, because you know, I looked at everything.
I uh look, I was there for this interview with Rudy Giuliani last night.
I know he's done some other interviews since, And I didn't catch it right away, because the question I was asking was different than the one that he originally answered.
And then later in the interview, I went back to it because I wanted to make sure that I had gotten it right because I'm thorough and I want to do a good job.
And that was his comments.
You know, the media is ignoring that he said Robert Mueller's questions are intended to be a perjury trap for the president.
They're not talking about that.
They're not talking about why Trump fired Comey in the long discussion we had about that.
They're not talking about Mayor Giuliani saying Comey is a disgraceful liar and the Mueller probe is tainted.
They're not talking about when he looked in the camera, sorry, Hillary, you're a criminal.
And Comey fixed the whole case.
And Comey's perverted.
You know, they're not talking about my biggest regret is I should have taken the attorney general job.
Uh the country would turn on Mueller if if in fact he went after the first family.
And that he didn't understand.
No, that you know, none of these revelations are really, they basically have recycled out of a 40-minute interview, one Sot, because the others would be too damning to the deep state.
And it all is part of their obsession.
They didn't talk they never played the tape where he said there's no Russian collusion.
That's over.
It's absolutely done and finished.
Now, with all the news that came out of this interview, what is the media folk focusing on here?
You know, not any revelations about the negotiations with Mueller, which are very important.
And what constitutionally Muller has a right to do.
Or when I asked him about the abusively biased team of Mueller, they're not talking about Giuliani's blistering assessment of James Comey.
Not Giuliani's stunning conclusion that the only crimes that have been committed so far, well, have been committed not by President Trump, but by the deep state, by the government.
And he said it numerous times, meaning the Obama Justice Department.
You know, people way up high in the Obama FBI in the Obama White House.
All they have fixated on and focused on and zeroed in on is Stormy Daniels and the mayor's revelation that President Trump reimbursed reimbursed his lawyer, Michael Cohn for $130,000 that Michael Cohn said he didn't ask permission for and used his own money.
And this morning, the fake news brigade was having a collective meltdown that Giuliani's statement means Trump lied when he said he didn't know about the Stormy Daniels payment when he was asked about it on Air Force One.
And when Trump issued the one-word denial no, well, I took it to mean that he didn't know in advance that a payment was being made, which is true because Michael Cohn has said that and stuck with that story and that he did it on his own.
And that he viewed it, I assume, as part of his job.
And it's not surprising if you work for a billionaire at a billionaire's company that that you're gonna handle things like that as a matter of everyday business.
It sounds horrible, but that's in other words, true or not.
I'm not even talking about veracity here.
I'm talking about problem issues that come up that need to be dealt with.
And in that sense, it's Michael Cohn in his position as a general counsel vice president at the Trump organization to jump on a grenade if he sees a problem for the company and his boss, which it sounds like he did.
And um, but by the time the press asked Trump whether he knew about the payment in April, of course Trump knew about that by that time.
Everybody knew.
It had been in the newspapers for weeks.
His no answer obviously referred to some point prior to the Wall Street Journal's first report on the Comb payment in January of 2018.
When he said no, it was in April of 2018.
And time matters.
I'll explain more on the other side of the this break here, and then we're gonna go over what I think were the more relevant points of the interview that were missed.
And I thought the mayor laid out a devastating case against many individuals.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity shows so much that you know, the fake news brigade out there having a melt.
Giuliani's statement means that Trump lied when he was on Air Force One and he said no when he was asked about, you know, did he know about Stormy Daniels' payment?
Well, when Trump issued that one word initial denial, it was on April the 5th.
Now, it was obvious what he was saying is that he took it to me.
I didn't know in advance that the payment was made.
There's no Hillary gets all the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, well, she deleted the subpoenaed emails and ashabs the hard drive, and you know, foreign agencies picked up on our emails, and yeah, she put it in a mom and pop shop closet where it became vulnerable and even classified top secret special access program information.
She gets a pass on everything.
Donald Trump said, Did you know about the payment?
No.
In other words, he didn't know about it in advance.
That's consistent with everything Michael Cohn has said.
In other words, the Michael Cohn took it upon himself, which would be part of his job, I assume, working in the Trump organization and jump on grenades.
And that's what he did.
It's problem arises.
His job, they call him the fixer.
Oh, he's a he's Hannity's fixer.
No, he's not Hannity's fixer.
You know, he's never done any case for me.
Never involved with any third party with me.
So anyway, um, but by the time the press asked the president if he knew about the payment, of course he knew.
He knew because it was talked about night and day 24 7, it was everywhere.
So his no answer referred to, you know, at some point prior to the Wall Street Journal's first report on Comb.
Uh, he didn't know.
It's a simple answer, but it's deep and it's profound, and it shows how corrupt the news media in this country is.
On February 13th, Michael Cohn said neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Miss Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.
What Cohn didn't deny in the statement was the possibility that the president had reimbursed him out of his own personal funds, as Mayor Giuliani said, which would be perfectly legal.
All right, thank you, Scott Channing.
Glad you're with us.
Write down our toll free number.
It's 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
I don't want to belabor this.
April 5th, the question of Trump was Did you know about the $130,000 payment?
Did you know?
Past tense.
The question was not when did you know?
It was, did you know that Michael Cohn had paid it?
And he said no.
And that's consistent with what Michael Cohn said.
That is a hundred percent consistent.
And these idiots in the news media are just dumb.
They're dumb and they're sheep and they're overpaid and they're lazy.
You know, they're lazy because they have to run my tapes all day long because they can't do their own work.
And part of the reason is because they're obsessed with anything that's about destroying and delegitimizing the president.
Not about doing real honest reporting about deep state corruption.
They'll leave that to me.
They'll leave the vetting of Obama to me.
They'll laugh at, oh, ha, Hannity thinks Trump can win.
And they think it's funny.
He's the chief of staff.
Then the next day, he doesn't know a thing.
These people are pathetic.
So if Trump found out about the payment after the journal, after the Wall Street Journal broke the story on January 18th, and the question was, did you know about the payment?
And he says no, he's telling the truth that is consistent with what Michael Cohn said.
So everybody, all this analysis is just backwards, ass backwards, and wrong.
As usual.
In fact, Trump still didn't lie if he found out about the payment at any point after Cohn made it, which was, I guess what, at some point in October.
Because the question was clearly intended to find out if Trump had foreknowledge of that payment, whether he ordered Cohn to make that payment.
Cohn says no, the president says No.
And if he didn't know about the payment before Cohn met it, uh made it, then the president didn't lie.
Unbelievable.
All right, 800, 941.
Now we have a report out today, and it looks like the illegal surveillance of President Trump's associates might have continued up to a few weeks ago.
MBC News is reporting that Robert Mueller wiretap phone calls between Trump and his personal attorney, Michael Cohn.
Look, I I don't know what kind of justification did they have for this.
Maybe they used the bulk of the information in the dossier, just like they did to obtain the Pfizer warrants.
Who knows what they used?
You know, they've offered nothing whatsoever that would justify this kind of egregious violation of attorney-client privilege, let alone every American's basic right to privacy.
You know, that's the whole issue with illegal surveillance and a masking and no minimization.
And, you know, then leaking raw intelligence and Samantha Powers unmasking at a rate of one a day.
You know, we still have to get back into that scandal.
You know, I don't care if a Democratic judge signed off on this, there has to be a justification, just cause.
Otherwise, it's unconstitutional.
Otherwise, we're back to the same tactics that appeared to be used in the case of lying to the Pfizer court judges in their application and subsequent renewal applications to spy on Carter Page, a Trump campaign associates.
The bulk of information was provided by a dossier that Hillary Clinton paid for that was unverified and uncorroborated.
I'm telling you, we are living in really dangerous times here.
You know, this gets really serious if you believe in the rule of law, equal justice under the law, if you believe in equal applications of the law, if you believe in the Constitution, if you're against unreasonable search and seizure.
Anyway, federal investigators have wiretapped the phone lines of Michael Cohn, longtime personal lawyer for President Donald Trump under investigation for a payment he made, etc.
etc.
It all goes back to their obsession over the porn star.
You know, it's unclear whether what incriminating information, but they also are saying that one of the calls was to the White House.
Wow.
Now he represented Trump and the Trump organization in its business dealings, I think for about two decades before Trump was president.
You know, Robert Mueller is interested in information that federal investigators in New York would pick up.
You know, if if that was the case, you know, was the was the government made aware of it.
Two sources, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office and FBI, they declined comment.
Two sources close to Rudy Giuliani say he learned that days after the raid, the president had made a call to Michael Cohn.
I know why he made a call to Michael Cohn, it's obvious.
Because he's worked with him for all these years, and he feels bad for somebody he considered a friend.
And probably, likely, I'm as a matter of fact, I know every one of his lawyers said don't do it.
But he did it anyway because he wanted to support his friend, and he wasn't gonna abandon him in a time of need, which is what I think good people should do.
Anyway, the former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC analyst, said that there's a high bar for having a wiretap approved.
This is an acting, this is an exacting process where the government must demonstrate to a federal judge that there is an ongoing crime.
That's a high bar.
Except the Pfizer court, they have a high bar too, the highest bar.
They approved a surveillance warrant on a Trump associate in the lead up to a campaign, which extended to the entire Trump transition team later on the basis, and then the presidency later, on the basis of the political hallucination that was uh bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and company.
So if it's a high bar, I can't wait to get to details of what actually happened here, which we eventually will get to.
May take us a year.
Took us a long time to find out Hillary paid for that phony dossier.
And what happened with that dossier?
March 8th of 2017, Sarah Carter and John Solomon on this program broke the story that there had been a Pfizer warrant issued with Trump Tower in relation to the Trump campaign.
Nobody paid attention to it.
And then slowly but surely, look at all we learned in a year and how all of this is now come out.
We have some other interesting stuff in all of this.
The Judicial Watch is now suing the DOJ for Pfizer hearing transcripts that are tied to the Clinton DNC dossier.
By the way, I think the American people need to see these applications and these renewal applications and the original application.
They need to see who signed them, like Rod Rosenstein signed off on one, which would render him, you know, somebody that is conflicted out of all of this.
You know, there's a this motion that is now pending before the Pfizer court by some journalists.
You know, there is a specific rule of procedure in the Pfizer court law that requires the government to correct any material misstatement of omission from an application immediately.
Well, we now know that through the Grassley Graham memo, the bulk of information presented to the Pfizer court was the Clinton bought and paid for, foreign national Christopher Steele, Russian propaganda and lie document.
Well, has the correction been made on the record?
I'd love to interview the judges that were lied to and manipulated here.
Oh, a little asterisk may have a slight political take.
Yeah, if Hillary paid for the whole thing.
Opposition party research.
You know, there's a lot of questions that I am telling you, all of these guys are eventually going to have to answer.
You know, look at the story that has been out there about, you know, all these rich Democrats, you know, continuing to pay Christopher Steele and hiring Fusion GPS, still looking to corroborate the hooker's urine on urinating on the bed story.
At this point, you might as well assume it never happened.
Like a lot of the information in there is outright lies and propaganda.
By the way, Hillary was paying for, and Fusion GPS was feeding to the media.
That's called manipulating the American people in the lead up to an election.
Not exactly surprising because that Republicans, conservatives, are always maligned before elections.
You know, Giuliani saying last night the Mueller probe is total, totally garbage, the investigation.
You know, calls James Comey a disgraceful liar.
And he's a perverted man when he said about Hillary, oh, she respects the rule of law.
Giuliani's saying Muller's questions reveal a desperate attempt to trap President Trump into perjury.
The special counsel would like to interview the president.
There's no secret about that.
Every lawyer in America thinks he shouldn't be.
We, meaning myself and Jay Sekolo and the Raskins and all the people involved in the investigation, and now our new colleague, uh Emmett.
Uh, we we're gonna have to decide.
Probably it falls more on us because he's on the government side whether the president should grant an interview.
Here's what it's all about.
It's real simple.
American people can follow this along with me.
Are they objective?
Are they?
Well, right now, a lot of things point in the in the direction of they made up their mind that Comey's telling the truth and not the president.
When you look at those questions about what does the president think, what does the president feel, what does the president really desire.
Those are all questions intended to trap him in some way in contradictory.
What is in fact a very, very uh solid explanation of what happened.
And then with the Washington Post news this week, that in fact Robert Muller uh has talked about a subpoena of the president.
Well, you know, as Dershowitz and others have pointed out, that doesn't leave the president without any options.
You know, he can bring a challenge to court on any subpoena that Mueller brings.
He can go to a federal district court, the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court, that you can't subpoena a president in a criminal case in front of a grand jury, and he'd probably lose the broad issue, but then he can argue you can't ask a president why he engaged in acts that are authorized under Article II of the Constitution.
That is an easy argument to win, in my opinion.
And then they can argue they get they they can't ask him questions that go beyond the scope of the special counsel's authority, namely, you know, to any business dealings of the president, or what he thinks of people, as if thinking is somehow in some way a crime.
You know, and then they could challenge Rod Rosenstein's position to appoint in the first place, considering he signed off on one of the Pfizer warrants, and he himself would be a you know witness A in the case.
And there's so much to get to get to in all of this that is just unbelievable.
Now, the president um responded to the the Cohn part of this on Twitter today, said Mr. Cohn, an attorney received a monthly retainer not from the campaign, having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties known as a non-disclosure agreement or NDA.
These agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth.
In this case, it is full force in effect, will be used in arbitration for damages against Clifford Daniels.
The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair, despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting there was no affair.
Prior to its violation by Miss Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement.
Money from the campaign or campaign contributions played no role in this transaction.
Oh, I mean, I don't think, you know, the timeline fits perfectly into Donald Trump not knowing.
and his answers.
You know, he actually quoted John Dowd, who was one of his...
This isn't some game.
You know, you're screwing with the work of the president of the United States of America.
And with North Korea and China and the Middle East and so much more, there's not much time to be thinking about this, especially when there was no Russia collusion.
And the president's right.
You know, a rig system.
You know, look at look at how they're stonewalling Devin Nunes' committee and Trey Gowdy's committee and Bob Goodlat's committee.
They don't want to turn over documents, the president tweeted out to Congress.
What are they afraid of?
Well, we know what they're afraid of.
We know they're going to get exposed.
You know, why so much redacting?
Why, why such unequal justice?
At some point, I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the presidency and get involved.
I can see that day coming.
I really can.
You know, the questions are an intrusion into the president's Article II powers under the Constitution, that he has the right to fire any executive branch employee.
What the president was was what the president thinking is outrageous.
Well, he was thinking this, but he didn't do it.
He was thinking that, but he didn't do it.
It's we're gonna hold people responsible for thought crimes now.
This is all insanity.
And this is a mass media left-wing Democratic Party psychosis that has taken over.
And it started the moment it became apparent that Donald Trump was winning the presidency and their beloved Hillary lost.
Now it's the insurance policy time of struck page and McCabe.
This is all the insurance policy.
All right, so what happens if in fact Robert Muller subpoenas the president uh before a grand jury?
Well, we have uh three great lawyers gonna join us for the full.
We're gonna go over everything.
The interview last night with Rudy, uh, David Schoen is uh coming in, Greg Jarrett, and Jay Christian Adams.
We're gonna analyze every aspect of that interview, what the president's options are.
Uh is there any legal jeopardy, and how would you deal with Robert Muller and his merry band of democratic donors and unethical lawyers?
Because that's basically who he appointed.
I loved Rudy's answer on that last night.
All right, quick break 800 941 Sean, our toll-free telephone number, and later in the program, we'll check in with Byron York and much more.
All right, as we continue hour two, Sean Hannity show, complete Legal analysis of all the issues that I discussed with uh the president's attorney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, uh, but MBC is now reporting that Michael Cohn, the attorney for the Trump organization,
uh, that apparently we what we know is federal investigators pursuant to a lawful court order warrant were able to wiretap the phone lines of Trump personal attorney Michael Cohn.
That is a wiretap that occurred several weeks before the now public search warrant that was executed in New York several weeks ago, and they went on to say at least one phone call between Cohn and the White House was recorded, and Trump, of course, at the time railed against the raid, as did Rudy Giuliani last night.
Um anyway, let's get uh our panel in here.
We have David Schoen with us, criminal and civil liberties attorney.
We have J. Christian Adams is the president of the public interest of the legal found uh legal foundation, editor of PJ Media, Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, uh, and author of the upcoming book, The Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Uh welcome all of you back to the program.
David Schoen, I'll begin with you.
Well, I assume or have to assume, or should I even assume, in light of what what happened in the lead up to the Pfizer warrants, where in fact Pfizer judges were lied to uh and information was purposely omitted, but I would have to assume that the Feds got a legal wiretap against Michael Cohn here.
I mean, you know, we can make that assumption, but in every single case, and especially this one, those applications have to be examined carefully.
Um we know now from the history that there's a m a history of misstatement and omission, uh both of which in the Pfizer court are particularly troubling.
It would be troubling for any surveillance uh application.
And again, this is the most intrusive kind.
Uh Title III application, listening in on phone conversations and the phone conversations of an attorney.
The Department of Justice has a special set of regulations for this kind of thing.
So you have to make sure every I was dotted, every T was crossed, and that the underlying information was reliable.
Um so many things to check.
Greg Jarrett, your initial thoughts on this, and uh apparently there was one call to the White House.
Now Rudy Giuliani had made the comment earlier today that in fact it the president would have been uh would have had to have been given a heads up if in fact it was him or or at any point, but I guess it could have been anybody at the White House, right?
Yeah, it's it it's hard to know.
Look, this is completely separate from the FISA cord.
This i the DOJ would have had to have gone to a federal district court judge.
And under the Fourth Amendment, a surveillance wiretap is a search and seizure, you have to have probable cause, which is a you know, it's an important standard, and there are uh as David pointed out, guidelines in the uh DOJ guideline book that say this is what this is the burden you have to sustain.
And assuming they followed that, then a judge would have signed off on it.
Uh my my sense is the president knows that when he has conversations that uh that that they can be listened in on.
And uh I you know, he wouldn't have said anything, I suspect, that uh would have been incriminating.
He probably spent the time just saying this is outrageous that they raided your office in his conversation with Michael Cohen.
Well, I've got a uh while that I think that the president of the United States more than anybody should have the most secure line of anyone.
Well, I mean, uh they actually record some of their conversations uh that go through the switchboard.
Uh and you know, when you go through the switchboard, they notify you that some conversations are recorded.
So uh I mean uh I I think the president is very guarded.
Um, and I doubt that he would have said anything uh knowing that they're a raid had taken place.
I mean, look, he's a smart guy.
If they had just raided Michael Cohen's office, he probably knew somebody's listening in on this.
What is your take?
Two two quick two quick two quick points.
I'm sorry, I just want to jump in two very specific technical points.
Number one, there is a minimization requirement under Title III in this case.
That is, once they see that a conversation doesn't relate to the purpose of its investigation, they must stop listening to that conversation.
That's going to be interesting to see if it followed here.
But hang on, David, we know because we dealt with the surveillance issue a lot, and we dealt with wire tap uh uh uh the for example when you have surveillance, you're supposed to, yes, if it's an American citizen, you're supposed to minimize, but not only did they not minimize, then they leaked raw intelligence, and one victim of that was General Flynn.
Right.
Because that intelligence was leaked.
You know, remember, a masking took place at a level of one a day by Samantha Power, who is in fact the UN ambassador.
Why would the UN ambassador be unmasking one American a day?
Yep.
The second point is that any aggrieved person, meaning anyone picked up on this cap as standing to challenge it.
And uh uh because their privacy was invaded too.
Sorry.
Christian Adams, want to get your thoughts.
Yeah, it's laughable.
I started teeth crossed guidelines, all that's uh that's obsolete talk, Sean.
We now have a Justice Department that doesn't care about guidelines.
They've been unmasking private citizens.
You're right, they did it to Mike Flynn.
They they they suck in conversations uh the people have with targets, uh, like Michael Cohn and and his uh former client, the president.
That's what this was all about.
This is about a muscular, aggressive anti-Trump FBI and Justice Department doing what it can to undermine the presidency.
You mean you think that they went to Michael Cohn so they could listen in on his conversations with the president?
I think that they went to Michael Cohn because they have disregard, disregard for the boundaries that used to constrain the department and the FBI.
This is a political witch hunt against the president and anybody who supported the president.
It's designed to bankrupt them like it is doing to Michael Flynn and others.
This is an all-out war by the left using the institution of government to undermine them by criminalizing political differences.
Well, that's what uh Alan Dershowitz has been saying.
You know, it's it's amazing what the media only has wanted to pick up on, which I find pretty fascinating, and that is Rudy Giuliani's comments about the issue involving well the president paying back or keeping Michael Cohn on a retainer.
Uh meanwhile, he talked about Mueller's questions are intended to trap Trump.
Meanwhile, he talked about Comey being a disgraceful liar.
Meanwhile, he mentioned Hillary as a criminal.
Meanwhile, he said Comey should be prosecuted for leaking confidential FBI information.
And uh he also goes on to say, you know, about Robert Mueller and this whole thing that it needs to go away and that Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein need to make it go away.
And um, and all of these things have been ignored.
You know, we'll go to cut 10 here.
Um I was actually in the beginning, I was asking the the mayor, I was asking the in the capacity of the attorney for the president about Perkins CUI in that particular case where money was funneled, and then he brought up the issue of the repayment to Michael Cohn.
Are you concerned in the process of this?
We did discover that a foreign national, Christopher Steele, was paid through Fusion GPS, used Russian sources that not only weren't verified, turned were debunked.
Are you concerned that that was paid for to manipulate the American people in the lead up to an election?
Isn't that closer to the mandate than Michael Cohn?
Why isn't that having something?
Where's Muller on that, sir?
Having having having something to do with paying some Stormy Daniels woman 130,000?
I mean, which is going to turn out to be perfectly legal.
That money was not campaign money.
Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know.
It's not campaign money.
No campaign finance violation.
So they funneled it through the law firm.
Funnel through offer him, and then the president repaid it.
Oh, I didn't know he did.
Yeah.
There's no campaign finance law.
Zero.
So the president just like every Sean.
So this decision was made by everybody, everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning.
I wasn't.
I knew how much money Donald Trump put into that campaign.
I said, 130,000.
But he's gonna do a couple of checks for 130,000.
When I heard uh Cohen's uh retainer of 35,000, when he was doing no work for the president, I said, but that's how he's repaying that's how we how is he how he's repaying it with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes for Michael.
The president, but do you know the president didn't know about this?
Uh I believe that's what I'm saying.
He didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know.
But he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this.
Like I take care of things like this for my clients.
I don't burden them with every single thing that comes along.
Uh These are busy people.
And then he went on to say that he had a retainer.
Now, at no time, everyone's saying in the press that what he he contradicted him.
He's saying he paid him on a retainer, and that, yeah, that would be compensation for the job that he did here and pay back for it.
But I remember Michael Cohn saying, Greg Jarrett, that he didn't inform the president, and he originally did use his own money.
And I mean, everyone's trying to rake Rudy over the Coles, but I don't see anything inconsistent in their stories.
There isn't.
Trump paid Cohn a certain amount of money each month, both as compensation and to take care of business.
Cohen made a hundred and thirty thousand dollar payment over time.
He then reimbursed himself from his monthly retainer.
It is perfectly legal.
It is also perfectly legal to pay somebody for them to stay quiet and go away.
It's done every day in contracts.
If it can be shown, as Giuliani states that Trump reimbursed Cohen, that eliminates any campaign finance problem.
Was it an in-kind contribution?
No, as long as there was another purpose, a personal purpose.
So this should actually exculpate both Trump and Cohen.
It seems because that was not the question I was asking, that that was something that he wanted to say, Jay Christian Adams.
Right.
Only the most radical and zealous campaign finance uh law interpretation would make this a campaign finance violation.
Now, Sean, there are people who want the federal government to have that much power, but right now it doesn't.
So it is not a campaign finance violation because it's not a campaign expense.
It's that simple.
It was an unrelated event.
If that was a campaign finance violation, Bill Clinton in 1991 uh would probably uh have been prosecuted how many times by now because of all the the money that was throwing around to protect his history.
So this is not a campaign finance violation.
What's your take, David Schoen?
I don't agree that the question is resolved based on whether campaign funds were used, as was suggested last night.
But I the whole idea that this is a campaign uh contribution, in-kind contribution, unreported contribution is absolute nonsense.
It's not just that people do this all the time, and that's a very good point that Jack made.
It's that Mr. Trump has done it in the past without any regard to any election ever.
It's a private matter that Mr. Trump wanted to keep private.
Listen, all kinds of cases are settled on confidential terms every day of the week, not just uh this kind of non-disclosure agreement, but this is particularly personal.
Um so it you know, this is the most radical take, as Mr. Adams said, and that's the take I'm afraid Mr. Muller's gonna try to put on it.
But that's a tough case to make.
Uh doesn't pass the last test.
As we continue, we're gonna do this for the hour because there's so much to get into here from the interview with Rudy Giuliani tonight and his subsequent interviews that he did after our show last night, David Schoen, uh criminal and civil rights uh attorney, civil liberties attorney, Jake Christian Adams is the president of the public interest legal foundation, editor PJ Media, Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst.
Um let me get to the question of what he said about James Comey.
He called him a disgraceful liar.
And then I asked him specifically.
Now, Greg, you've chronicled exactly the wrong things that Comey has done.
I um where are the lies that he's talking about that he said should actually he should be prosecuted for leaking?
Well, um he appeared to have exonerated Hillary Clinton for political purposes.
That would be a felony.
It's a crime to steal government documents, that's a felony.
Um if any of the presidential memos he took home included classified documents, which is what the FBI now says, that is also a felony.
And then there's potentially lying to Congress.
He testified that he made the decision to clear Clinton after she was interviewed, documents prove otherwise.
Also was there a lie by omission when he only admitted to giving the documents to one person, but it turned out to be three?
That would be A false and misleading statement 18 USC 1001.
Yes, if you omit a material fact under the statute that's relevant to the inquiry, you're guilty of that felony.
David?
Yeah, but I got to say this the bigger pictured thing to me.
That interview was absolutely amazing.
To have Rudy Giuliani like him or hate him.
Rudy Giuliani is known for one thing in the world besides being mayor, and that's for being a prosecutor, a hard-nosed prosecutor who fought to get every single case he could get credit for it, etc., to put everybody away forever.
Uh for Rudy Giuliani to say Comey is a liar and the investigation is garbage.
You may say, well, he's Trump's lawyer now.
One thing Rudy Giuliani isn't doing it's selling out his credentials as a prosecutor.
To hear it from him, the same reason that people want to hear, you know, the civil liberties issues from Dershowitz, I suppose, but for to hear from Giuliani, Comey, who he knows very well, Muller, who he knows very well, old friends, for him to use that kind of language on national TV on your show is a major coup.
Major event.
We'll pick it up there.
We'll pick up with Jay Christian Adams and David Schoen and Greg Jarrett, 800-941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
We have uh Danielle McLaughlin, Jonathan Gillam also coming up in much more an incredible Hannity tonight at nine.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
Comey should be prosecuted for leaking uh confidential FBI information.
When he leaked uh his report intended to develop a special prosecutor for the president of the United States.
I have never ever turned over a doc.
You know me, Sean.
I uh a lot of allegations from the mob.
Never leaked a damn thing.
I would have considered re resigning if I ever did that.
Or if one of my assistants did it to the FBI leak, did the SEC leak?
I'm sorry, guys.
You did.
All right.
That was Rudy Giuliani in the exclusive interview that I had with him last night.
We continue with our legal panel.
Uh we have civil liberties attorney, criminal uh criminal defense attorney, David Schoen, Jay Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, editor of PJ Media, Greg Jarrett, fact Fox News legal analyst, author of the upcoming book, The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Uh let me go to you, Jay Christian Adams, and and let's go to those specific comments.
Comey is a disgraceful liar.
Comey should be prosecuted for leaking.
Well, Rudy's right, because not only is he been leaking, he's been profiting from it.
But Rudy talked about something else very important, and that is McCabe.
Don't forget Andrew McCabe, number two guy at the FBI working closely with Comey.
The two of them were a pair of liars.
McCabe violated 18 USC 1001, which has put plenty of people in jail, multiple times.
He did it in an inspector general interview under oath.
He did it in front of FBI agents under oath.
I mean, Sean, he should have been hauled in front of the grand jury and indicted a week ago.
I mean, it's not an hard case to prove.
So what's going on with Jesse Liu, the U.S. attorney in DC, or Rod Rosenstein?
What's going on?
Why isn't this happening?
Well, I think that's why it was so important, Greg Jarrett, that when I asked Rudy Giuliani, do we have a dual justice system?
He said yes.
And I well you mean.
Yes.
That was the best line of the night.
There's actually three systems.
There's there's the system for Hillary Clinton in which everything she does is okay.
There's the system for the rest of the United States, you and me and everybody else, in which we have to abide by the law.
And then there's the third system of justice, which is the Trump system.
If he so much as sneezes, it's a crime, according to these top officials at the Department of Justice and FBI.
And David Schoen, you agree with that too.
I mean, look, I I I talked about it, and I'm not it wasn't really even in jest last night.
Because if they want to interview the president, okay.
Well, you know, the questions are a little absurd, and and we've all pointed out, well, what do you think of Comey's Tesla?
Who cares what he thinks?
What do you think about Session's recusal?
Who cares what he thinks or what he thinks about Robert Mueller?
It's irrelevant to anything in this case.
But there are things that are relevant in this case, and that is do we have a dual justice system?
Was Hillary Clinton did she violate the law at a high level and was she given a rigged investigation?
Because if that's the case, we don't have equal justice under the law in America.
Right, right.
There's there's a basis for the expression of the government of laws, not of men or women.
Um and that's what we're seeing here.
Unfortunately, we're seeing personalities and a personal agendas take over the justice system.
I don't like to talk in sort of tight phrases, but we heard about drain the swamp.
If ever that were to be applied in this situation, it's got to be with the Justice Department.
Rod Rosenstein has to be out.
We have to start fresh here.
We have to take a whole new look at this special counsel thing.
Special counsel investigations take on a life of their own under the best of circumstances.
But here there's a definite agenda, a political agenda, and this that has infected the process and it's become a government of men.
It cannot be.
I don't think we've scratched the surface yet, potentially, with Mr. Rosenstein's conflicts of interest.
If Sessions should have been off of this case, then certainly— Wait a minute.
We we we know we know enough that he'd be a witness in the case against Comey, wouldn't he not?
Right.
How about the how about the five applications?
That he would signed off on.
Which is at the heart of all of this.
If he signed off on it, there are a lot of questions to answer, uh including the date.
If he signed off on it during, for example, uh an extension, a second application, third application during the Trump administration, he didn't have the authority to do that on his own, by the way.
Under his 501804, um, he's sort of a default person only if the president certifies that Rosenstein can sign it.
But the main person to sign it is the National Security Advisor.
Um what what happened in that case?
The uh the statute specifically spells out it's got to be certified by the assistant to the president for national security affairs or some other executive branch officer, only the deputy director of the F.I. if the president designates him as a certifying officer.
Did the president designate him?
Did he get somebody else's approval also?
And if he did sign on this, Rod Rosenstein, he's got to be out of this thing.
He can't be calling the shots on Mueller's investigation.
I think that's well said, and I think that's what the Freedom Caucus has been arguing, and we've been arguing here on this program.
Let me go to a legal question that I think needs to be answered, and we got into this in some detail last night with Mayor Giuliani, and that is Mueller raising the possibility of a subpoena of the president.
And what would happen under that case?
And for example, if he issues a uh they issue a subpoena, he refuses.
What are they going to hold them in contempt next?
And how do they enforce contempt on the president?
You cannot enforce uh contempt on the president.
An inferior unelected officer, which is Mueller, cannot hold the pre have or move to hold the president in contempt for violating the subpoena and removing the president uh from his uh discharge of his duties.
That's unconstitutional.
U.S. Supreme Court has said so.
It's in the writings of the framers.
So if I were the president, I would uh simply ignore the subpoena and uh let Mueller try.
Good luck with that.
What do you think, Jay Christian?
Well, Sean, this is indicative of something you mentioned, and that is the politicization of how people view the law and for law enforcement.
I was at the Justice Department under Holder when he first came to office, and I will remember distinctly that if you wanted to go after somebody uh like they're doing to the president, you create the most outlandish radical, far left wing legal theory.
But if you're on the other side, uh like uh like they were with with Obama or Holder, you create the most outlandish defense of Holder.
It it it's a question uh that the law is no longer moored to reasonable, agreeable standards.
The left uh has destroyed that, and that's what you're watching play out now because all of these lawyers of the Justice Department working for Mueller, these Democrat lawyers don't think they're doing anything wrong.
This is just how they behave in the post-Eric holder world.
Yeah.
All right.
So let's walk through this a little bit more closely here, uh, because Alan Dershowitz would say, well, there's a danger here because if he took the fifth, they'll give him immunity and the fifth doesn't apply, and that sets him up for yet another perjury tr uh trap if he says something that contradicts somebody else in a situation where he has to answer.
Well, right, and that's exactly what he's trying to do, is set up a perjury trap.
Because uh 1001, which is lying to a federal uh agent or official or frankly employee, is is very easy to prove.
And you know, Donald Trump has some very colorful ways of expressing things.
And you can be sure the left wing lawyers working for Mueller will look for anything that they think is colorably false.
They probably think everything he says is false already because they're left wing lawyers working for Mueller.
So they will use anything he says against him, and it would be insane for Trump to appear to even do a voluntary interview.
All right.
So then no circumstances, and this was discussed last night.
Under no circumstances should the president give any interview to Mueller.
Should he give a written proffer?
Would Muller agree to that?
Because apparently Muller already has threatened to use the power of subpoena and bring him before a grand jury.
Well, the the president um, as I said, should simply ignore a subpoena.
This is an idle threat.
It cannot be exercised.
Uh you cannot force a president uh uh from office with a contempt citation uh for his failure to respond to a subpoena to appear.
It's just it's as simple as that.
Now, if I were the president, I would uh uh have my lawyers uh make an offer to respond to a limited number of questions in writing.
Apparently that offer has been declined.
Declined by Mueller.
Declined by Mueller.
That's what the mayor said last night.
Then let Mueller pursue a subpoena if he wants.
And and he's a very important thing.
Is Mueller willing to take the country, drag this country, the United States of America through the mud like this.
Now I'm I have always said, based on the team that he's appointed, led by his pit bull, according to the New York Times Andrew Weissman, that this they were out to get the president.
Have I been right the whole time in your opinion, David Schoen?
100% right.
Uh every single time you've said it.
Look, this uh I I wish I were as uh as um confident about this in the process as Greg is, you know, this kind of issue, there's been a tension about this issue since at least 1800, with the early sedition cases, uh Thomas Cooper, then the case of Aaron Burr, etc.
Not such a clear question.
They certainly can't force him out of office, but there are other contempt remedies.
Look, what has to be done in my view is start from the top.
This is why Rod Rosenstein goes.
Now, before we deal with this kind of battle, I'd like to think a judge would have enough judgment not to force this kind of situation on the country to say enough of this nonsense, this is a political witch hunt and agenda.
But start from the top.
There is authority over this special counsel.
Don't be intimidated anymore by this stuff.
People elected President Trump as a man of action.
Take the action, deal with the Justice Department and rein in this uh Mueller Invest so-called investigation from the top.
Before we deal with things that make a mockery of our justice system.
If Mueller doesn't have the authority, as Greg is saying, you know, to to force this issue, which by the way, Alan Dershowitz thinks he does have the ability.
He does.
He has the absolute ability to force the issue.
He files a motion for contempt, and it's up to the judge at that point what to do.
And you know, I wrote a memo on this issue.
All right, so so at the if the judge, if he wants to push it all the way, and the judge in the case is a liberal judge, um, how do you enforce the contempt of the president?
And if he complies and takes the fifth, then they'll give him immunity, wouldn't they?
Yes, they would.
And then what would happen?
How do you enforce contempt?
There's no it raises the spectrum of completely inappropriate conduct to think of anything.
Contempt can be enforced by a fine, a daily fine, Mr. President.
If you don't appear, I'm gonna find you X number of dollars a day.
Um there are other remedies.
However, Greg's ultimate point is right, he can't be forced from office.
So what is the teeth in it?
Never put the country through this battle.
And as I said yesterday, by the way, someone Thomas Jefferson said, never put the country through this battle.
He ignored subpoena on the president.
He turned over some documents, but he said, I'm the president.
Don't try to haul me into court for something like this.
And by the way, we're not talking here about a criminal defendant exercising his fifth and sixth amendment rights to bring a witness forward.
This is a special counsel on the political agenda trying to turn the country upside down by hauling the president to court.
We'll take a quick break.
We'll come back more with our legal panel, David Schoen, Greg Jarrett, J. Christian Adams, and your calls coming up later in the program, news roundup information overload at the top of the hour.
Quick break, right back, we'll continue.
As we continue with David Schoen, J. Christian Adams and Greg Jarrett, 800 941 Shauna's on number.
Uh J. Christian Adams, I haven't given you a chance yet.
Muller raising the possibility, the threat of a subpoena uh with Trump's legal team.
How do you take that?
Well, look, uh Sean, he Can do that, and I'm sure there's plenty of people on the far left who hate the president.
Uh we all know who those people are.
We read about them every day that want this to become a crisis, that want uh the president to have to either take the fifth or just ignore a subpoena, uh so they can they can go to the streets.
I mean, look, make no mistake about it.
This is an integrated attack on the 2016 election by the far radical, often Soros funded left.
Uh whether it's Perkins Cuey, uh who gets gobs of Soros money to represent uh both Hillary and the and the left.
This is an effort to destabilize the presidency.
It's nothing short of that.
Don't lose sight of it.
And so it won't surprise me that Mueller would do that because probably the attorneys working for him believe in doing that.
That's the problem.
And and I can tell you that Rod Rosenstein's deputies do too.
One of Rosenstein's deputies at DOJ, a principal uh assistant deputy attorney general, was a Soros fellow.
I wrote about him in at PJ Media.
At the end of the day, I'm I'm guessing from all of this that now this is headed down a road that's going to go on for a very long period of time.
Predictions, Greg Jarrett.
Well, I don't I I think uh Mueller realizes that he has reached an impasse with his demands to interview the president, and then I think they will negotiate aggressively a resolution of it.
Uh because I think Mueller realizes that as an inferior unelected officer, he cannot uh force the president uh to comply with the subpoena.
Everybody says, oh, well, Bill Clinton did.
That was a civil case.
The subpoena was withdrawn by mutual consent, and uh President Clinton did uh agree to be interviewed privately.
Uh so uh that's different.
Uh this is uh a criminal case.
The president uh cannot be removed from office by Mueller.
Uh what do you think, David Show?
Uh again, uh I wish I were confident.
I know Rudy Giuliani said he was going to bring it to a close.
I don't see any incentive for Mueller or team to close the thing.
They're not going to be embarrassed, whatever they come up with.
That's not an incentive.
They have an agenda.
He's got a whole team with an agenda.
It has to be stopped now.
There is no constitutional crisis in stopping this investigation now.
It's the Constitution working.
It's the president exercising his Article II power through the attorney.
And you think he should pile.
You think he should fire Mueller and Rosenstein politically.
I think Rose Rosenstein.
You want to continue an investigation and have it controlled by someone who has the country's interest.
Remember, one of the criteria under the Special Council Act is it has to be a finding, it's in the public interest to go forward.
It's not in the public interest to take one political partisan position to attack another person and pervert the system by using a special counsel to do it.
Start with Rosenstein.
Let him rein in this investigation.
The next the replacement, rein in the investigation, get focused.
We still don't know, by the way, what the full mission statement that's required under the special counsel uh regulations provided for the breadth of this investigation.
Interesting analysis.
Last word, Jay Christian.
President has the power to fire subordinate officials.
That includes Mueller, includes Rosenstein, uh, it includes even Rosenstein's deputy, Sujit Rahman, who is a Soros fellow that has been giving Mueller cover in this investigation.
All right, thank you all for being with us, 800-941 Sean.
Toll-free telephone number.
We'll have uh more of our coverage.
We'll also have your calls coming up.
We've got a lot of ground yet to cover today.
Byron York will join us.
Also, we'll check in with Jonathan Gillam and our friend Danielle McLaughlin and much more straight ahead.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
Secretary Clinton is someone deeply enmeshed, enmeshed in the rule of law, respect for institutions, a lawyer.
There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and received.
Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
Mr. Mayer, were laws broken?
Let's start with Hillary.
Did she?
I've been on look, we go back three years with this, Sean, when I produced my chart.
I remember 13 crimes she committed, and we got up to about 18.
I'm sorry, Hillary.
I know you're very disappointed you didn't win.
But you're a criminal.
Equal justice would mean you should go to jail.
Uh I do not know why the Justice Department is not investigating you.
Did James Comey James Tony fix the whole case again?
It was rigged.
Well, you can't read that stupid report that he wrote, which is the beginning of his destruction, in which he he says we're not going to prosecute.
No reasonable prosecutor would indict her.
No honest reasonable prosecutor wouldn't indict her.
He said today or yesterday, Cole Me uh he said Hillary deeply respects the rule of law.
Comey said that.
Wow.
Well, that this is this is a very perverted man.
I feel so sorry.
Do we have a two-tier justice system in America?
Yeah, we have one for Hillary and and and uh and all the all those all those Democrats, Bill Clinton.
All right, news roundup and information overload hour here on the Sean Hannity Show, 800 941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, as we are joined by Jonathan Gillam, author of the uh best selling book, Sheep No More, Danielle McLaughlin, an attorney constitutional expert who uh from the Ferr Federalist Society, she wrote how conservatives took the law back from liberals.
Welcome both of you to the program.
You know, Danielle, uh, I know it's a question you don't like.
I know it's a question that needs to be answered.
We heard Rudy Giuliani last night.
Um you have tried to duck and dodge a very simple question about Hillary Clinton, and I want a real serious answer today.
Is that if if in fact what James Comey described, that they were marked classified at the time, and in fact, special access program, which is the top level of classification, was in fact on that computer in that mom and pop shop bathroom closet,
and we're told five or more foreign entities, services were able to hack into that system and get that intelligence which talks about sources and methods and people's lives are at risk, and then she tries to delete what is subpoenaed 33,000 emails, acid wash the hard drive, beat up her devices.
Uh are you gonna make the case to this audience that she didn't violate the espionage act, that she didn't violate uh obstruction of justice laws in this country?
Are you saying that any other American could act in that way and not get penalized by the law for that in a very serious manner?
Hi, Sean.
Great to be with you as always.
Look, I understand uh the concerns around the.
Did I ask about the concern?
I want to listen, you do this every time.
You say hi, Sean.
You you always sound nice and sweet, and you are you're a wonderful person.
I agree.
All right, we agree.
You're a wonderful person, but here's the problem.
18 USC 793 says it it's a v a felony if you mishandle classified top secret special access programming information.
James Comey admitted she did it.
And then when it was subpoenaed, she acid washed the hard drive after deleting 33,000 emails and then beating up her devices.
And my questions are simple.
Did she commit felonies?
Did she obstruct justice?
Let me start with a slightly easier one first, if you don't mind, and that's the 30,000 or 33,000 emails that were uh deleted.
They were a personal emails to the Clinton case.
Wait, wait, whoa.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
How would you know that?
Because she said they were about yoga, a one wedding, one funeral, and emails with her husband, but her husband does an email.
So you're saying she deleted 33,000 emails about yoga, a wedding, and a funeral, and you buy that she's telling you the truth.
So actually, James Comey said this when I looked into the deletions.
He said in that big long press conference that they found no evidence that the deletions were done with any problematic intent.
Wait a minute.
He said under he said under oath before the committee when he was under oath, he went on to say that they weren't individually looked at by the attorneys, as Hillary said.
Hillary lied when she said she sent emails to her husband.
Uh there's no way any one person can write 33,000 emails about yoga, one wedding and one funeral.
It is impossible.
Right.
So this is I want to clear this up.
The subpoena was directed to the Benghazi emails.
And so everything that was not responsive and the Clinton campaign determined by law, you can determine if you're on defense counsel.
I I do this my closet.
It doesn't matter why it was subpoenaed.
She was told to preserve her email records, and she and her lawyers or whoever works for her decided not to agree with the subpoena, not to follow the law.
I understand.
The order was given to delete the emails before the subpoena was served.
That is not true.
That is not true.
I had the timeline.
I had the timeline that her campaign or her lawyers said to the people at Platte River who were the servers, which I will completely admit was a terrible decision and a bad decision to use a private email server.
You will never find me defending that decision, just like I don't want the president right now to be able to do that.
Not even Hillary's team is trying to thread the needle the way you are.
The bottom line is you just heard James Comey.
This is the day he exonerated her after he excoriated her and admitted lies were told and that subpoenaed records were destroyed.
Look, he used the term extremely careless.
He made the decision that he didn't have he didn't have a prosecution.
Prosecutors do this all the time.
I'll be very honest.
I supported her.
I liked her policies.
I can understand your frustration with me and your frustration with her.
No, because you're ducking the question.
I asked you, did she obstruct justice when she deleted acid washed and busted up devices with hammers?
Yes or no.
You're quite you need to know the intent.
Okay, like I you need to know the intent.
Well what what other intent what other intent would there be to than to obstruct an investigation in justice if you acid wash your hard drive, beat up your devices with a hammer and delete the emails that were subpoenaed.
Maybe you don't want your personal emails to make it into the public eye.
Jonathan, this is my frustration with Danielle.
It is comes down to intent.
It is obvious she violated multiple laws here and committed felonies.
And that is that that then leads to the outrage of exonerating her without investigating her.
Danielle Danielle.
Once again, I'm going to have to give you – I'm good, and it's great to be talking with you.
I'm going to have to give you another teaching lesson from the government worker perspective here.
First of all, you're a great attorney, and you're proving that because when Sean asks you one simple question, which is a yes or no answer, I mean, it truly is a yes or no answer.
Um you you dive into this long tirade of of all these other things about the other emails, and they may have been private, and that may be why they did it.
And then you say, I'm just trying to explain to you, Crosses because I've been through it as a defense attorney.
But her team was perfectly legally able to decide what was responsive to that subpoena and what wasn't.
And I do it.
I do it again.
Here's where we're getting into uh the nuts and bolts of this.
When we talk about the sailor a while back, you said this was uh maybe a a bad decision on Hillary's part.
When we look at this sailor a while back, he took pictures of it on a submarine, five pictures, um, and he spent a year in jail for that.
That was one bad decision.
Uh I think he he deserved the penalty that he got for that, because everybody knows it's a top secret environment, you don't take pictures.
He got what he deserved, probably a little less because he got you know, he got pardoned for that.
But overall, that was one incident.
If we look at Charles Manson and we say he made a bad decision with Sharon Tate, um if you look at all the rest of the things that happened, we know through the again I say this every week, the totality of circumstances, what happened with Sharon Tate and Charles Manson and his following was not a bad decision.
That was a calculated decision that fell in line with a number of things that they did that were evil.
When you look at what Hillary Clinton, James Comey, uh Bob Moeller, uh deputy director, uh uh um and all the rest of the people uh that have been involved with this, Rod Rosenstein, all these people.
McCabe, that was the word I'm looking for here, uh Paige and Struck, all these people have done things that are calculated, not one off, not one bad decision.
It was calculated.
And here's the gist of this whole thing.
Even if when we when we're just talking about the the destruction of the phones and the emails, even if that was done to hide personal emails, it's still illegal.
And then when it's wrapped up in a case like this, it will be considered obstruction because even if they're trying to hide personal emails, it doesn't matter.
They were sending and receiving them on a government piece of property.
So that's the thing in the case where they have to follow the law.
I can tell you what happens when a client destroys emails, for example.
They get a it's called spoliation of evidence when they are found to have done it on purpose, and the court, you know, when they get to trial or wherever it is that they're being adjudicated, a jury or a judge is allowed to take the inference that what they destroyed was bad for them.
So that's basically multiple destroyed that kind of evidence.
It's not it's not obstruction of justice.
It is sort of a lot of people.
I'm talking about a private entity exercise in the world.
There's the difference right there.
This is government uh entity.
This is government property.
And when you violate the law with government property that that governing the use of top secret equipment and government equipment, you are in violation of the law.
When you when you use that for personal uh means and you go outside of the process, such as putting this stuff in your home, uh destroying the blackberries without uh the proper chain, you are in fact, whether or not your intent was to obstruct, you are obstructing justice when it comes to investigation and you are destroying government property, which is a violation of the law.
And anybody else that would have done this, take this sailor who spent a year in jail for uh taking five pictures.
Had he taken five pictures of that, had he gone and then done uh gone into some kind of a uh nuclear facility and taken pictures.
What we would see is that uh based on the totality of circumstances, it was not a bad decision, and in fact there was a motivation there.
And that's what we're looking at when we look at this circumstance with Hillary Clinton and the rest of this game.
Danielle.
I I I know what you're always trying to get me to say here is that you know, she's a criminal, she was wrong, she should be thrown in jail.
And all I'm trying to say is these things are processes where prosecutors have discretion.
And I guess we're gonna be able to do that.
But Daniel, you don't have to say that.
You don't have to say that.
I don't mean to interrupt you, but I'm not trying to get you to say that.
The fact is this is government uh property and government stuff.
It is you don't even have to say that she obstructed that she did this.
You can simply say the actions that were performed were an obsession of justice and they were against the law and the way that the law governs the use of government equipment and uh tax secret information.
All right, I gotta take a break right there.
We'll continue Jonathan Gillam and Daniel McLaughlin, Byron York at the bottom of the hour.
As we continue, Danielle McLaughlin and of course Jonathan Gillam, 800-941 Sean is our number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Uh I want you to finish your point, Jonathan, because you're directly challenging in a way you know, what I think it Danielle is really good at, and that's being a criminal defense attorney.
But when you ask the direct question, did Hillary commit crimes, did she obstruct justice?
The answer is obviously yes.
It it's obviously yes.
And what I what I want Danielle and the rest of the people that that don't want to they say they don't want to get into the weeds of saying Hillary is guilty or not.
Um look at the crime, look at the actions that were taken and ask and answer the question are those actions uh according to the law and the governance of top secret uh information and government equipment are without even talking about obstruction, are is that against the law.
Then ask if this stuff was involved in investigation and you did it.
Debbie Washerman Schultz did the same thing with her computer and uh in the Awan brothers.
If people are maneuvering to destroy things when there is an investigation in process, whether it's to hide personal information or not, is that obstruction of justice?
And the answer is yes there as well.
Danielle?
Well, I will all I all I'm gonna say is what what Collie said as the head of this investigation when he decided not to prosecute her.
And that was those 33,000 emails, and I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself.
They were ordered deleted before the Benghazi subpoena.
They had no reason to believe from all the investigation that they did, they there was an intent to obstruct justice or to get rid of those any evidence.
They were able to, as you know, from fragments of thousands of emails and from other emails that weren't produced but came from other people, sort of gather a much broader range of the colour.
We have never confirmed that we've gotten those thirty-three thousand emails back.
No, no, I'm not saying those thirty thousand.
There were some fragments left in the server, and they did what they could.
I gotta let it go here, though, but um I thank you both for being with us.
800 941 Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
All right, more on the uh North Korean hostages, and also the latest on obviously my interview with uh Rudy Giuliani last night, which appears to be you know, I want to start getting money from MBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN.
Because all they do is run my stuff 24-7.
I mean, and they've been doing it for weeks and weeks and weeks, and we get no residuals.
We want we deserve to get paid.
We'll continue.
Secretary Clinton is someone deeply enmeshed in the rule of law, respect for institutions, a lawyer.
There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and received.
Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
All right, she is a woman that has deep respect for the law.
All right, you've got to be kidding me, right?
Um anyway, that was James Comey then and now.
Umeration letters and and varying drafts before the investigation ever took place in that case.
Uh 800-941 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
Byron York is here.
He is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Fox News contributor, author of the vast left-wing conspiracy.
Uh, how are you, sir?
Doing well, Sean.
Thanks for having me.
Uh, it's always good to have you.
Um, let's start with Hillary Clinton and and respecting the rule of law, because if she had such a deep respect, I would assume she would not have deleted 33,000 ew emails, acid wash the hard drive, and then have the devices beaten up with a hammer.
Well, you know, the key word in that is unilaterally deleted all of those emails.
She is the one who decided uh what investigators could see or could not.
And that's that is really the perhaps the most egregious act in all of that.
And I and I do think, in light of everything that's happening now with President Trump, I think the the Clinton example of how she was treated by the FBI, that is how the the exoneration memo was begun in in May, uh how the decision was made before not just Hillary Clinton, but maybe more than a dozen key witnesses uh were ever interviewed.
The fact that immunity was handed out sort of like candy.
Um and also the fact that if you remember, it was kind of a big deal.
It was on the July 4th weekend, July 2nd, a Saturday in 2016.
She was interviewed for several hours.
And then there was some.
She was interviewed by Peter Strzok, wasn't she?
Exactly.
He was one of them.
And there was Sunday and Monday was part of the holiday, and then Tuesday was the first business day back, and Tuesday, the July 5th, was the day that uh James Comey came out and said uh all of the reasons that she should be charged, and then conclude by saying, Well, we're not gonna charge her with anything.
Uh and you you almost wonder if over that holiday weekend the FBI had enough time to go over a three-hour interview with a fine-tooth comb, uh, looking to make sure that she said the truth in every uh single sentence, because they have sure been concerned about that in in current investigations.
So uh there's a just a heck of a contrast between uh between the way that one was handled and the way this one is being handled now.
It's such a that compare and contrast the whole thing.
I know that the media focused on only basically one part of my interview last night with Rudy Giuliani.
Uh I want to play what he said about Hillary Clinton because he didn't mince words, and he was very forthcoming about saying Hillary's a criminal.
Mr. Mayor, were laws broken?
Let's start with Hillary.
Did she I've been on uh look We go back three years with this, Sean, when I produced my chart.
I remember thirteen crimes she committed.
And we got up to about eighteen.
I'm sorry, Hillary.
I know you're very disappointed you didn't win.
But you're a criminal.
Equal justice would mean you should go to jail.
Uh the I do not know why the Justice Department is not investigating it.
Did James Comey James Tony fix the whole case again?
It was rigged.
Well, you can't read that stupid report that he wrote, which is the beginning of his destruction, in which he he says we're not gonna prosecute.
No reasonable prosecutor would indict her.
No honest reasonable prosecutor wouldn't indict her.
He said today or yesterday, Coley uh he said Hillary deeply respects the rule of law.
Comey said that.
Wow.
Well, that this is this is a very perverted man.
I I feel so sorry.
Do we have a two-tier justice system in America?
Yeah, we have one for Hillary and and and uh and all the all those all those Democrats, Bill Clinton.
I mean, I thought that was one of uh maybe, you know, a dozen or more moments that were incredible that the media just dismissed and didn't even report on.
Well, by the way, thank you for that interview last night.
It was it was tremendously newsworthy on a whole bunch of uh levels.
I I agree with you.
There was just uh I learned a lot about uh what uh Giuliani was thinking about the current state of the uh Mueller investigation and the president's inclination or not inclination to interview with Mueller.
I just I I learned a lot out of that interview, so um so thank you for it.
But you know, looking back on 2016, um uh you know, we had a situation in which both major party candidates were under investigation by the FBI.
And I mean, maybe you could make the argument that we had two sketchy candidates, or maybe you could make the argument that the FBI was too involved in politics.
And uh I'm I'm not sure exactly how the Clinton situation should have been handled.
I mean, it is uh just a huge, huge step to indict one of the two candidates for president in the midst of a campaign as it would have been in July of 2016.
But um but I I I just have to think, and uh everything we've seen lately that the FBI has just gotten way too involved in our political system, and um 2016 is maybe exhibit A, B, and C for that.
Let me I keep bringing it up, and I actually raised this with the mayor last night, and who's now the president's attorney.
I said, to me it's very simple is that Hillary Clinton violated the espionage act, eight eighteen USC 793, mishandling classified information, destroying such information.
James Comey admitted in that press conference, you're right, after the you know, just two days after they met with her uh because he was writing the exoneration with Peter Strzok.
That was being written in May.
I've never heard of an exoneration being written so far in advance of of interviewing the main people, seventeen other people and herself.
But on top of that, then she was obstructing justice by deleting the emails, acid washing the hard drive, and and beating up blackberries with hammers or having aids do it.
And then you've got the whole FBI cover-up of this thing, and I do believe they rigged an investigation.
I think the crimes were obvious.
I don't think any American would get a away with the type of behavior that she pulled off there, and I think they aided and abetted her, and that would be obstructing justice in their own way.
And I think it's corrupt what they did, the highest levels of the FBI.
And then if they went forward, I mean, the whole idea that they're looking into collusion with Russia and foreign nationals aren't supposed to influence our elections.
Nobody had a problem with Obama trying to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu in his last election.
But more importantly, she hired an outside uh a foreign agent, you know, somebody outside the country named Christopher Steele.
He was funneled money through Perkins Couie, which funneled it through Fusion GPS, and he used uncorroborated, unverified Russian sources to manipulate the American people.
And then on top of that, it gets worse because the bulk of that information, according to the Grassley Graham memo, was then used to obtain a PISA warrant to spy on an American citizen, former Trump campaign associate, and they never told the judge that nobody verified the information, nobody corroborated the information, and that Hillary paid for it.
And an asterisk that said it might be might have a political taint to it is not the truth.
To me, that's lying by omission.
And well, the thing that's absolutely jaw-dropping in what you were just talking about is that you do have this retired foreign spy uh gathering second, third, fourth hand information about one of the candidates working for uh the Clinton campaign.
And the jaw dropping part is he brings it to the FBI and the FBI wants to hire him to keep doing that work during the campaign and afterward.
The deal falls through uh but the FBI's uh uh uh reaction to this was to hire Christopher Steele and have him do his work for the FBI and my guess is if that had actually gone into effect, Steele would have been collecting paychecks from the Clinton campaign and the FBI at the same time.
Let's talk more about your general thoughts about last night's interview and and what you got out of it in terms of the president with Rudy Giuliani and Emmett Flood and Jay Seculo and really a new team of attorneys now that he's put together I think some of the best in the country and uh what you think this says and where you'd think this is going.
Yeah my my impression after watching your interview was uh that we have just had a massive turning point in this investigation.
Um and the the twenty four or thirty six hours between the leak of the Mueller questions and then Rudy Giuliani's appearance on your program I think really shows this massive change because we had had a situation in the White House in which um uh Ty Cobb and um oh gosh the other uh lawyer who has left uh John Dowd.
Uh uh yes John Dowd Ty Cobb and John Dowd had basically been uh counseling cooperation with the Mueller um Mueller investigation.
Remember back in the in the Clinton years there were all these fights over executive privilege and Clinton didn't want to give anything to the independent council.
He even invented things like protective function privilege like FB like uh Secret Service agents had some sort of privilege.
There we haven't had these privilege fights in this because uh Dowd and Cobb were cooperation.
And the idea was um that if if the White House did cooperate then that could bring the Mueller investigation to a a quicker close.
And I I think anybody you know with two eyes is seeing that that didn't happen.
And I think what we saw here again with the leak of the questions and then uh Giuliani's appearance on your show, I think we saw the White House take a completely different turn toward a much more confrontational approach.
They've obviously got to make a decision about whether to talk to Mueller and, if not, how to handle it.
But I think that they are realizing that as far as the president is concerned, and I know you've gone over with your listeners this question of whether a sitting president can be indicted or not.
I'm one of those who believes he cannot, that impeachment is the proper remedy if there's the belief that the president has broken the law.
I think the White House has realized that that could be where they're heading, depending on the results in November, and they have to get out in front of this and facilitate.
fight it in a different way.
So I think that's basically the biggest uh message from from your show last night.
Isn't it also probably going to dovetail into a referendum come the twenty eighteen midterms you know that's a great question because think back to two thousand six.
It was George Bush's second term, so that's different from today, but um the Iraq war was going terribly George Bush's um approval ratings were in the mid-thirties and the real clear politics average of polls in other words they were five to eight points lower than Donald Trump's are today.
And there was a there was part of the Democratic base that wanted to impeach Bush if Democrats won the House in two thousand six.
And the problem was maybe forty something percent of Democrats supported impeachment for uh George W. Bush far, far smaller numbers among independents and certainly among Republicans.
Nancy Pelosi who stood to become the Speaker of the House if they won, uh was worried about this, worried that it was tur would turn off voters uh if the Democratic election uh democratic uh campaign was you know elect us and we'll impeach the president.
So she came out in May of two thousand six about this time of year and said impeachment is off the table.
Uh And they went on to win, and impeachment was indeed off the table.
Different situation now.
Nancy Pelosi still wants to be speaker, although that may not happen.
But about in the most recent poll we've seen from Quinnipiac, 71% of Democrats want to see the impeachment of the president if Democrats win the House.
Now that is going to be that's a big number and it's going to put a lot of pressure on Democrats.
I'm not sure they can get away with the old impeachment is off the table line from Nancy Pelosi, which means uh since the overall electorate, the overall public is opposed to impeachment.
I think that gives Republicans uh a political argument to say, well, look, look at these Democrats.
Uh our economy is going well.
America is showing strength in the world.
The president is enacting a whole list of conservative agenda items.
And if you elect Democrats, what do they want to do?
They want to impeach the president.
That is certainly going to be one of the arguments we're going to hear as the fall approaches.
We're running out of time completely.
Uh Byron York, uh, as always, you've been doing phenomenal work uh writing for the Washington Examiner, and uh, it's always better when I get a direct link uh from you or a cut and paste.
Uh and uh I applaud anybody making those changes, thank you.
We hear your complaints.
We're listening to you, okay?
All right, Byron York, thank you.
800 nine four-one Sean's toll-free telephone number.
That's gonna wrap things up.
And today we have an amazing Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel, as the great one, Mark Levin, Joe DeGenova, David Limbaugh, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Dan Bongino, Sebastian Gorka, and much more.
That's all happening nine Eastern.
We'll analyze everything in our interview with Rudy Giuliani and the media meltdown that followed.
