Fox News Legal Analyst and author of the book, "The Russian Hoax", and David Schoen stop by the show to discuss the White House FBI Investigation and the news that the White House mole might be longtime GOP operative, Stefan Halper. Plus, have you heard of Crossfire Hurricane? If not, you must listen to this show. The Sean Hannity Show is live 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 Go Anywhere 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 in tourney that's not working for you.
Just go to mypillow.com right now.
Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Sean.
All right, glad you're with us.
We have an astounding news day for you.
Glad you're on board.
Write down our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
Why did you just go to your office to get a big winter coat?
Are you cold in there?
I'm very cold.
We actually have temperature controls.
You can use it.
It's a little cold in here, but I like the cold more than ever.
And I have no idea.
My TV studio is known as like the Letterman Studio.
It's so ice cold.
And I know certain people like I, when I'm on air, I start sweating.
And I don't know why.
Not profusely, not like.
It could be all the arm waving.
Yeah, it could be a little bit of the arm waving.
It's like a, you know, I'm conducting an orchestra here in the studio.
You know, it's one of the reasons I never ever wanted to put a camera inside the radio studio.
And everybody, put in a camera.
People want to see it.
People want, I'm like, okay, if they want to see me, they can watch the TV show.
I like the mystery of old-time radio.
Radio is a heart medium.
You know, and all these dumb liberal reporters over the years that, you know, that don't understand, oh, how is that idiot successful?
I'm like, because I'm normal and I believe in this country.
I love this country.
I want this country to succeed.
And you can't fake it four hours a day.
You know, maybe somebody could pull it off.
I don't know.
I couldn't.
You know, I remember Howard Stern once in an interview said, I don't know what happened.
All of a sudden, the light went on and this stuff comes flying out of me.
That's a little different than the content of this show, but it's the same experience I had.
If you look at Howard Stern's movie, Private Parts, and all the moving and all the stupid, dumb PDs that I've had to deal with in my life, et cetera, et cetera, it's all true.
You know, WNBC.
I mean, all that stuff has happened.
And so I remember I sat down with one guy one day and his name is Al Gardner.
So he's now retired.
And, you know, I was in Atlanta.
They did a big research project.
They came back.
You got to do topic A for the whole three hours.
We're going to do it all day from 6 a.m. to 12 midnight.
Topic A.
And I'm like, I can't do this.
I can't do it.
They wanted to focus on there had been the value jet plane had gone down.
But it was like four months later.
Stay on topic A.
And I can't do that.
And I used to like have Stanginator go and find out when the bosses were in meetings and I'd immediately change topics and put on the guests that I wanted to put on and do the topics I want.
I'd go to lunch with Al.
And he said, look, you know, at the end of the day, you're going to succeed or fail.
You might as well do it on your terms.
And he used the term, your bat, your ball, your ass is on the line.
And at least if you're going to get canned, which a lot of people in this business do, unfortunately, I don't like it.
Even people I don't like, I've never thought this is a zero-sum game, that my success is predicated on somebody else's failure.
And I think small-minded people think that way.
And I just learned from that day far, I'm going to do my show.
That's it.
And I've been blessed that I have had a lot of people, you know, support me in my efforts to be myself.
And my team on radio, my team on television, they support who I am and what our vision is for the show.
And we all work and collaborate together.
We all work pretty darn hard.
Anyway, I have no idea what I've got off on that tangent.
All right, so I have so much news.
When I tell you this, it's now all beginning to fit.
And the New York Times has, they don't give the number of pages.
Let me see what page.
It doesn't have the pages because it's a printed out version.
It actually says how long it should take you to read the piece.
In this particular case, it's a 16-minute read.
All right, so it's a long piece.
And the headline is, a secret mission, a code name and anxiety inside the early days of the FBI's Trump investigation.
It is more revealing of a soft coup by high up upper echelon deep state operatives than anything else.
Now, without even acknowledging that there has been another narrative by people like me and Sarah and Greg and John and Sidney Powell and Sebastian Gorka, I'm going to forget everybody, but you got the point.
That they almost had to write this piece knowing darn well what we have exposed in a year.
Not them, we have been able to unpeel the layers of the onion.
That's what's just start there as a fascinating observation, having spent the 16 minutes reading the stupid piece, although I read faster than that.
Now, you couple this, and I'm going to get to the details of that in a second, with Devin Nunes.
If Trump was set up spied on and the DOJ covering up, it's a real problem.
Yeah, it all happened.
He's right.
You know, this obstruction that Congress is facing, and I've got a letter in my hands from Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Ron DeSantis asking the president of the United States to intervene and get the documents that have been subpoenaed now for well over a year in many cases,
and that the DOJ's been slow walking, stonewalling, obstructing, using, quote, redactions in the name of national security that are proven false, you know, slow walk, whatever you want to call this, it's obstruction of Congress's constitutional duties of as a co-equal branch of government, as a check and a balance, as a separation of power.
And it's all deeply profound.
That's it.
It's all impactful.
And that there is a really big reason why they don't want you to see what they've been up to.
Why Rod Rosenstein didn't want the Nunes memo, what became the Nunes memo, that information to come out.
And that's why he was begging Paul Ryan up at the final minute of the final hour of the due date of the subpoena in terms of the documents that proved the FISA abuses.
Now, we've got, you know, on top of that, the new news, and it's going to get bigger probably tomorrow as it relates to the spy that was in the FBI.
You know, the name has already been released in certain places.
I've known it.
I've said it yesterday.
I said it last night in terms of initials, but I'm not going to go beyond that at this particular point.
It's a big deal as it relates to Oleg Daripaska.
the Russian oligarch and his contacts and his relationship with Robert Mueller that was concealed.
I don't have a problem at this point, based on the knowledge we have, that then FBI Director Mueller was working hard to save the life of a retired FBI agent, then CIA operative within Iran that was taken hostage and prisoner.
And if he can get this Russian oligarch, Derek Pasca, to pay the $25 million, you know, to get the guy out, I'm all for it.
But you can't then turn around and use Daripaska as the bad guy.
And as Judge Ellis III said, you know, go back to a 2005 case.
This is ridiculous.
As it relates to so-called tax fraud with Paul Manafort that had already been investigated ad nauseum and dig up a 2005 tax fraud case that had nothing to do with Russia, but to put the screws on Manafort to make Manafort sing in the words of the judge and for the purpose of getting something you can prosecute the president with or impeach the president on is a stretch way too far.
And yet it's the same oligarch in this particular instance and they never disclosed it.
And it's either he's a bad guy or a good guy.
What is it?
You can't have it both ways.
But the efforts to save the prisoner, the CIA operative, I'm all for that.
That's a good thing.
You know, and there are certain laws that even Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, who I respect both of them, have cited that Mueller may have broken.
It is incidental to me if it was a real effort to save a real American whose life was in jeopardy.
You know, these laws, well, you have to pay the guy.
Shut up.
You know what?
If it's your family, you're going to get the family member out.
You know, this is where we become stupid.
You know, this is where laws are ridiculous.
Oh, well, Barbert Mueller didn't put the oligarch on the payroll and he shouldn't have used his money.
If he got the American free, I'm all for it.
And, you know, the petty insignificant.
But the problem is, is Mueller is using the petty, oh, he didn't register as a foreign to FARC law, which never has been prosecuted.
You know, one time successfully since, you know, whatever, you know, 50 years it's been in place, longer, whenever it was first put in place.
Stupid.
It's petty.
It is politicizing political differences or criminalizing political differences.
And it's so obvious.
This is where you can indict the proverbial ham sandwich.
You know, just like these phony indictments against these 13 Russian companies.
They never thought that these Russian companies were going to defend themselves.
Now they're caught in the middle.
Watch Mueller.
Well, how's he going to handle this besides dropping it?
And one of the companies wasn't even in existence.
It's embarrassing.
It really is embarrassing.
But that's how desperate they are to make a, quote, Russia connection as it relates to everything.
I mean, by the way, and even the revelations, the releasing of the transcripts of Donald Trump Jr., it is such a big yawn when you look at it.
It's amazing, actually, how dumb it is.
And by the way, if somebody's offering you information about a candidate, I'd listen.
Is it wrong to listen?
I don't know.
When did that become a crime?
Well, you're collaborating.
You're colluding with collusion's not a crime.
And by the way, every bit of evidence in the, what nobody in the media is pointing out is they all were like, this was a colossal waste of our time this meeting, as they talked about adoption.
Even the guy that set it up said, oh, he wrote the guy, the musician's family in Russia that asked them to set up the meeting.
He goes, I sat through a meeting on adoption.
You embarrassed me.
Why did I have to do this?
Anyway, you know, even Mark Warner now saying, you know, this has got to end.
It doesn't look like there's any collusion after all.
We know what Mark Warner's scared of?
Mark Warner sees the blue wave in retreat.
It sees, you know, what was supposed to be a tidal wave, it's not even going to be a trickle.
That's what he's most afraid of.
The other one suggests something so colossally awful that it beggars the imagination or it goes far beyond any spy novel we've read, which is the idea that the Trump campaign knowingly, knowingly, and with some intelligence and foresight, cooperating with the Russian government.
Do you still think that ladder is possible?
David, I'm reserving my final judgment until we've seen all the witnesses we need to see and that we've gotten all the facts.
So I'm going to hold off.
I've been under enormous pressure for the last year for some folks who say, hey, shut it down.
There's no there there.
Allah, Mr. Trump.
There's others who want to try to say, oh, Trump is guilty from day one.
I'm not going to weigh in until we've seen everyone.
One of the things that has surprised me, though, is that here we are spring of 2018.
And in many ways, we have at least more lines of inquiry in terms of outreach from Russians or folks that have mysterious background to individuals in the Trump or than we did, say, a year ago.
Now, again, this may all be simply a set of coincidences, or it may be, as you said, there was not the sophistication to realize what was happening.
Oh, okay.
All right, 800-941 Sean is the number.
I'm going to tell you about the secret mission code name.
We'll give you the code name.
Just think Rolling Stones.
And the anxiety inside of the early days of the Trump's investigation.
Let me tell you something.
It is more revealing by the New York Times than you'll ever know.
And the New York Times were in their head, obviously, things that they never broke on their own.
And I'll lay this out for you.
That's next.
All right, so we have spent a lot of time on this program and on television talking about the biggest abuse of power and corruption scandal in our history.
The New York Times inadvertently, they did not do this on purpose as marriage.
It's so obvious that they're so trying to desperately cover for their deep state friends and rationalize this abuse of power.
And in the process, what they're doing is that they're trying to get ahead of how bad this really is and making excuses for every player.
Comey, Strzok, Paige, all of McCabe, all of them, just making one excuse after another.
And there's good news and there's bad news about what I'm going to get into with this article.
The good news is, is that they know our reporting and are corroborating our reporting is accurate.
The bad news is they're trying to spin it away so as to protect the guilty.
That's a problem because they themselves, in their ideological fervor and in their desire and their pathological hatred of Donald Trump and all things Donald Trump and all people that like Donald Trump, they've missed it all.
So now the last thing that they could ever do, when you think about it, is acknowledge that, let's see, guys on Fox like Hannity and Sarah Carter and Greg Jarrett and Sebastian Gorka and I can't list everybody, that they've all been right and that they've been wrong.
There's not going to be an article in the New York Times that ever says, oh, never mind, everything we said about Trump-Russia collusion is total BS.
It's totally manufactured.
They're not going to come out and say, oh, yeah, there really was deep state operatives that lied to FISA court judges.
They're never going to say Hillary broke the law.
They're never going to say the fix was in by this team of Comey, Strzok, Paige, Loretta Lynch, et cetera.
They're never going to say it.
So this is, it's fascinating to read.
I'll get into it next.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean toll-free number.
Let me start before I get to the New York Times.
And again, I can't give you a long setup here because I did in the last half hour.
The New York Times piece, a secret mission, a code name, and anxiety inside the early days of the FBI's Trump investigation.
Before I get to that, there is Paul Sperry's piece that has come out.
Now, Brennan has mentioned the Brennan revelation.
Remember, Brennan, stay tuned, Mr. President.
Remember, Brennan and Clapper lied.
Brennan and Clapper both lied.
So we know they're liars.
And, you know, with that as background, and I've always said that they're going to become exposed in all of this deeper than you think.
And Brennan in particular, with his, you know, hostility towards the president, stay tuned.
Basically, a deep state threat towards Donald Trump.
Anyway, so Paul Sperry writes, two senior intelligence officials now say in 2016 that Obama's CIA chief, John Brennan, you know, the guy that voted for the communists once, that guy, how he ever got that job is unbelievable, used the completely unverified, now discredited Trump dossier to get the intelligence community to go along with his theory that President Trump colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton.
Now, we've had multiple investigations that proves no votes have been changed at all, including one last week or the week before.
So anyway, Brennan's insistence that this steel foreign national, Russian, unverified, uncorroborated, now debunked dossier, was not part of the official intelligence community assessment on Russia and the election is now contradicted by two former officials.
And I have been saying it's rank and file FBI, rank-and-file CIA, rank-and-file intelligence community.
They are the ones, that's how great they are, the 99%, in exposing these guys at the top.
And they resent that their good work is tarnished by the likes of Comey, McCabe, Paige, Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch.
They resent it because they know how stringent the rules are.
Anyway, so you have recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stating in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did not factor in to the ICA and that Clapper and Brennan, who is the director of national intelligence, conceded in a CNN interview that the assessment was based on some of the substantive content of the dossier.
They didn't elaborate.
And they maintained that we were able to corroborate certain allegations.
Okay, which ones?
Now, these accounts are now at odds with Brennan's May 2017 testimony before the House Intel Committee that the Steele dossier was, quote, not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community's assessment of the Russia interfered in the election to help Donald Trump.
Brennan has repeated that claim many times.
He was on Meet the Press March 5th, 2018.
In a letter to House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes, Adam Rogers informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier, described as the Christopher Steele information, was added as an appendix to the ICA draft.
And that consideration of the appendix of that appendix was part of the overall ICA review approval process.
His criticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of their crucial conclusions that Putin personally ordered a cyber attack on Hillary's campaign to help Donald Trump.
We now know, too, that they went after both campaigns and that they wanted to create chaos, et cetera.
So, yeah, we do know, by the way, this whole thing that, oh, we do know Russia wanted to create chaos.
Yeah.
Devin Nunes wrote it in a paper back in 2014.
Now, to the New York Times today.
Secret mission, code name, and anxiety inside the early days of the investigation.
And it talks at length, and I'm going to read some parts of it, you know, about, you know, it starts with within hours of opening the investigation.
They admit in this article that the same players that were responsible for putting the fix in on Hillary are the same players that, quote, according to the New York Times, days later, were responsible for launching this investigation.
That's later in the piece, but it's a much-needed background.
Now, within hours of opening this investigation, this was in July of 2016, they sent a pair of agents to London on a mission they discussed so secretive that all but a handful of officials were all kept in the dark.
Their assignment, not previously reported, to meet the Australian ambassador who had evidence that one of Donald Trump's advisors knew in advance about Russian election meddling.
After tense deliberations between Washington and top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol, allowed the ambassador to sit for an FBI interview describing the meeting with George Papadopoulos.
By the way, I was around the Trump campaign.
I never heard of George Papadopoulos.
Never.
Now, remember, this became four-way hearsay.
Your hearsay is not admissible in court.
Never mind four-way hearsay by some low-level guy that I didn't know, and I was actively involved in covering this from top to bottom.
Yeah, and I did want one side to win.
Yes, I did.
Shocker.
Full disclosure, I might have used a bathroom at Trump Tower once or twice while I was there doing interviews.
Anyway, the agents summarized their highly unusual interview, sent word to Washington August 2nd, two days after the investigation that was opened.
Their report helped become the foundation for the case.
It's all a crock Because you can't use four-way hearsay.
Anyway, they used the code name Crossfire Hurricane.
If you've ever heard of the Rolling Stones, the lyrics, I was born in a Crossfire Hurricane.
It's a well-known lyric.
And by the way, there's even a documentary you may want to watch on Netflix one day about it or somewhere on Showtime or somewhere.
Anyway, days after they closed the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, well, slow down.
Let me transcribe that.
Days after they closed their exoneration before investigation, days after they rigged, because we know Hillary committed crimes, obstructing justice, deleting the emails, acid wash, the whole bit.
And of course, it was illegal to put confidential, private, top-secret special access program information on a mom-and-pop bathroom closet server.
Anyway, so if the piece goes on, and the Inspector General is going to report on all of the corrupt goings on and happenings in this.
Anyway, agents, this is how they defend the actions.
Now, remember, the New York Times is not acknowledging that Hillary committed crimes.
She did.
18 U.S.C. 793.
You don't get to delete 33,000 subpoenaed emails, acid wash your hard drive, and have an aide beat up your Blackberries and devices.
They're not acknowledging the highly unusual practice, and the piece goes into it, how both these investigations were brought in-house and away from field agents.
They're not acknowledging that it is beyond improper to write an exoneration before an investigation.
They're not doing any of that.
They're not acknowledging four FISA court judges were lied to in this case.
Agents considered then rejected interviewing the Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation, but it risks revealing the existence of the case.
It's all a crock.
Now, here's the other interesting point.
Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees over at the Justice Department.
Guess who made that decision?
Peter Strzok, the guy that interviewed Hillary, the guy that worked with Comey to write the exoneration in May.
They didn't interview her till July, or 17 other key witnesses.
And he explained in a text that the Justice Department finds it too tasty to resist sharing.
I'm not worried about our side.
He hated Trump, actively involved in Hillary's exoneration because he didn't want her to lose.
That's the corruption part of it.
Only about five Justice Department officials knew the scope of the case.
Yeah, all friends of Obama.
Comey said it was unfair to compare the cases, et cetera, et cetera, underpinning of both cases, meaning the Clinton.
Days after they literally exonerate and keep Hillary away from the indictment she deserved, then they start the hit on the other guy.
That's what the New York Times doesn't even understand they're revealing here.
And the FBI, oh, they write, faces very criticisms and more because agents feared that being seen as withholding information or going too easy on going too easy, she committed crimes that would put every one of you in jail that are listening to this program.
And they worry that any overt actions against Trump would only reinforce his claims that the election was rigged against him.
You know what?
The piece also recognizes that they thought Hillary was going to win.
They never doubted it for a second, which impacted their decisions.
You know, and then they go through everything that Devin Nunes has said.
They try to call it a conspiracy.
No.
And but they're not talking about them not wanting to hand over documents that are subpoenaed, violating the Constitution, government oversight, checks and balances, co-equal branches of government.
And they quote Marco Rubio, and they quote a 20-year Justice Department veteran.
Oh, okay, that matters.
And they say, Crossfire Hurricane, which is the name they get.
This is the song, by the way, if you've never heard, imagine Mick Jagger on stage.
Let me continue.
There was Crossfire Hurricane Began 100 days before the presidential election.
Days after they exonerate Hillary, now they go after Trump.
The mood was those early meetings where anxious they go on.
And the question still persists, was anyone in the Trump campaign tied to the...
We still don't have any evidence of such.
That's another thing the New York Times is pointing in on.
And they focused in on Flynn and Manafort and Page and Papadopoulos.
Okay.
Why don't they focus in Hillary committed felonies, obstructed justice, the fix was in?
You don't write an exoneration before investigation.
Struck, they're acting as though he is just, well, they do put in that he did say some things that were inappropriate and seemingly political.
Seemingly, they're political.
He had an agenda.
And they just, they kind of gloss over the insurance policy comments.
That's it.
There's no evidence of.
And by the way, collusion is not a crime.
That's why, you know, they've been trying to talk about Donald Trump Jr. and the release of these, there's nothing there except that Donald Jr. and everybody associated with it said the whole thing, the whole meeting for the most part, was about adoption as a favor to somebody that everybody knew.
Anyway, it goes on to say the FBI crystallized by mid-August after the CIA director, now we know a massive Trump hater, left-winger John Brennan, shared intelligence with James Comey showing the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election.
Something that Barack Obama said, no serious person would believe this.
Intelligence agencies began collaborating.
Well, they hated Trump.
That's the one common threat of all of them.
And the same people involved in exonerating Hillary and not holding her accountable.
And Andrew McCabe is a part of it.
And, you know, then they go through the struck page memos and on and on, exchanging texts, questioning Trump's intelligence, you know, believing that, feared that he would damage the country.
So that explains why you exonerated Hillary and why you started an investigation based on four-way hearsay if you believe that part of it.
But the New York Times is trying to say, they showed such cautiousness and caution in intelligence gathering.
And that was done on purpose because they're good people.
Then they quote Sally Yates in the article.
You do not take actions that will unnecessarily impact an election.
Another Trump hater, Sally Yates.
I'm so proud of you who sent that email back in the day.
You understand what's going on here?
It's like everything we've been telling you is exposed and they're kind of half acknowledging it because it's irrefutable at this point.
It's incontrovertible.
But their answer to it is to explain it in a way as if it's nothing.
Lying to FISA judges and giving them false information, unverified, uncorroborated, paid for by a political opponent, not telling them a political opponent paid for it.
That is basically taking your Constitution and setting it ablaze.
And the powerful tools of intelligence now turned on the American people in favor of one person to get elected over another.
That's a big problem for the country.
And to ignore the crimes of one candidate because that's your chosen candidate.
And then to set out to damage another candidate.
And then to create the environment for what we have now lived through for so long.
I am telling you, this is going to get far worse before it ever gets better.
And you are not going to believe the depths to which some have sunk to literally undermine this president, this election process, to help save a candidate and undermine another candidate, all because they think they know better than you, the American people.
And begrudgingly, the New York Times is helping to make my case.
They don't even know it.
Well, let's talk about how did this get started.
So you had Fusion GPS that was hired by the Democratic Party in the Clinton campaign to draw up a dossier on the president or as the president was running for president.
What happened with that is that in his testimony, he mentioned that there was a source within the campaign.
Glenn Simpson, who runs Fusion GPS.
Glenn Simpson said that in public, or what was closed testimony, then it became public.
Now he's confirmed that he was telling Congress the truth, which is probably a good idea.
We believe he was telling the truth.
And what we're trying to do is get the documents to figure out, you know, did they actually have what methods were used to open this counterintelligence investigation?
That is true.
If there is a spy.
We don't normally believe he's telling the truth, but in this case, you really.
It kind of sounds as if, if you got, if your congressional investigators got the information regarding this secret source, it sounds like that might call into question the narrative we've heard so far.
It's like, oh, really?
It didn't happen like that at all.
Well, I think if they were, I think if the campaign was somehow set up, I think that would be a problem.
Right?
If there were somehow meetings that occurred and all this was a setup, because we have yet to see any credible evidence or intelligence that led to the opening of this investigation.
By you saying that, it makes it sound like you believe Donald Trump was framed.
So look, I believe that they didn't have that.
Well, first of all, I believe they never should have opened a counterintelligence investigation into a political party.
Counterintelligence investigations are, you know, very rarely do they happen.
And when they do happen, you have to be very careful because you're using the tools of our intelligence services and relationships with other countries in order to spy on a political campaign.
It's probably not a good idea.
All right, as we have been saying, our two Sean Hannity show, glad you're with us.
800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
So much breaking news today.
It is stunningly spectacular how this New York Times newspiece not only corroborates everything, the length and depth to which they go to defend the indefensible is remarkable.
And I go back to what I said in the last hour, but for the work that has taken place, let's see, Sarah, John, Greg, Gorka, David Schoen, Sidney Powell, I can't name everybody.
They're almost acknowledging everything and giving a, you know, now a code name in the early days and the players that exonerated Hillary to protect her from obvious crimes days later then turned their sights on Donald Trump, the same people.
The great article by Andy McCarthy from about two days ago, the struck page texts, you know, how important they are to get that information.
Because we may not need to look at anything else because it's probably all in there, which is why they redact everything and we haven't gotten a hold of everything and why we deserve to see everything.
Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, author of the upcoming book, The Russian Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton, Frame Donald Trump, David Schoen, criminal and civil liberties attorney.
Thank you both for being with us.
Greg, I just go right to the title of your book.
I don't know if you've had time to read this New York Times piece.
It's a long read.
It's a lengthy read.
A secret.
You know, Crossfire Hurricane, I felt it did two things.
It corroborated everything we believed and talked about and have exposed, and then tried to spin it out of it in a way that was almost remarkable.
But it didn't work.
And they also tried to justify their original reporting from last December 30th, the big bombshell report that it was George Papadopoulos is mouthing off in a London bar to an Australian diplomat that triggered the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
That was utterly preposterous.
Well, I want you to explain why, because you were the first person that pointed out to me that this is four-way hearsay.
Hearsay is not allowed as admissible in court.
Explain it.
Because somebody in Moscow told somebody else who told a professor who told Papadopoulos, who passed along the information in a bar to an Australian diplomat who then calls the FBI.
But the FBI had already started their investigation of Trump because they had met with Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, who had already penned his first memo, which, and I have it here in front of me, Republican Candidate Donald Trump's activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin is the title of it.
And it goes on to accuse Trump of being in bed with Putin for five years, trading information and the so-called perverted sexual acts, the P-tape.
So the FBI had already started investigating Trump.
Papadopoulos was well after that.
But, you know, the New York Times doesn't know that.
So in other words, they're lying.
In other words, they're going with the story.
They were just, they were gullible because the FBI, trying to cover up the role of the dossier, fed them this false story about Papadopoulos.
So give us the timeline then.
What are you saying?
Well, if you go back and you read Glenn Simpson's testimony that was essentially leaked by Dianne Feinstein, and you dig deep into it, he says that in early July,
after Steele had written the first memo of his dossier, he met with the FBI because according to Simpson, Steele was so upset that Trump and Putin were colluding to win the election that he felt he had to tell the FBI.
And if you also dig now into the libel lawsuits involving Christopher Steele, he's essentially admitting that, well, this is rather rough field intelligence and it's not reliable.
My Lord, this is what brought about the whole scandal and Trump-Russian collusion narrative, and a guy's now admitting basically that he was full of BS.
Unbelievable.
Let me bring David Shoan into all of this.
You know, David, you've become such a great addition to the program and know this case now.
You're following it like we all are.
It's funny because the news media started out with, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, they released the transcripts of Don Jr.
And they all ignored the main point, which is everybody was disgusted with the meeting that was obviously done as a favor because it was all about adoption in the McGinsky Act.
Yeah.
Yeah, so many aspects of this so-called Trump Tower business that are really, really troubling.
The first is, I have to say, that the entire focus for the media and maybe for the government now at this point is on what happened at that meeting, what the purpose of the meeting was, et cetera, which turned out, as you say, to be a complete bust and there was no information transmitted.
Second question would be, of course, and if there were, what is about opposition research?
And if there were information transmitted about illegal or inappropriate conduct by Hillary Clinton, isn't Mr. Trump entitled to know that?
Isn't the American people entitled to know?
Aren't the American people entitled to know that?
But where's the focus then on the underlying conduct?
Where's the investigation into the conduct that we believe may have occurred by Secretary Clinton and all that?
Everything is turned on its head.
That has absolutely no relevance to the media or to investigators.
You know, I hear everything you're saying, and I don't know if you've had a chance to read this New York Times piece, but as I read it, and I think what is so remarkable to me is acknowledgments that they almost are acting like they were following themselves, and they weren't.
And, you know, Mark Warner is now, maybe there's probably not collusion.
Let's move on.
There's an election coming in a few months.
It's pretty revealing.
Yeah, by the way, I don't even know anymore what the word collusion means.
It certainly isn't a crime.
If it means working together to acquire and disseminate information the American voters ought to know, you may want to plead guilty to that, frankly, as a matter of strategy, but it's not a crime in any event.
But look, what we're starting to scratch the surface of now is this so-called mole in the campaign business coming out.
That, to me, is one of the most serious issues that you have touched on.
You've touched on many, many serious and troubling issues.
This is the latest one.
It's as troubling as anything I've heard.
And we've said before, are there parallels here to Watergate?
And you've made the point cosmetically, this could be worse than Watergate between the FISA lying and all of that business.
This, I mean, specifically looks like Watergate.
What was the purpose for the burglars breaking in in the first place into the Watergate?
If this is really the insertion of a mole in the campaign, God only knows what the purpose was in terms of understanding strategy for the campaign to then fight that strategy during the election.
That's unprecedented in our system, and it's a danger to every voter in the country if that's what happened.
You know, Greg, I can glean a lot from the title of your coming book.
I wish it was out today, to be honest, because it's so relevant.
It will be relevant when it comes out, and it's so detailed because I've watched you build this entire book as your office is two doors down from mine.
But it really comes down to the very same players that knew Hillary committed felonies, obstructed justice, subpoenaed emails, all that, and wrote an exoneration before investigation, rigged the investigation to keep her in the race, and overlook crimes that would put anyone else in jail.
Then days after they get through their exoneration, now turn their sights on Donald Trump in what is a real power play to hurt him and his candidacy and literally help catapult the person they thought and acknowledged they thought was going to win.
These people at the FBI and Department of Justice abused their offices.
They contorted the law to clear Clinton.
Then they weaponized laws and regulations to try to frame Trump for crimes he didn't commit.
There was never any evidence that he and his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the election.
And the FBI had no legal basis to initiate its investigation.
They simply invented facts and they perverted the law.
The law enforcers became the law breakers.
And Comey, more than anybody else, is the guy who manufactured the most notorious hoax in modern American history.
Then he schemed to trigger the appointment of his longtime friend, Robert Mueller, as special counsel.
It was a devious maneuver leaking stolen presidential memos.
You know, this is the story, as the title of my book says, of the Russian hoax.
And I wish it were out today, but that's up to the publisher.
You know, it takes time to print it up and get it out.
It doesn't take that much time.
I'd put them on 24-hour shifts, and I think we can get it published and printed and moved out.
I want to talk about where this is headed and likely to end up more with David Schoen, more with Greg Jarrett.
800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
You know, this swamp is worse than we ever thought.
It really is.
You know, what we're seeing, learning every day, I mean, about the deep state, how they think they know better than you, the American people, about a dual system of justice, no equal justice under the law, shredding of constitutional rights.
It's all happening.
All right, as we continue, Sean Hannity's show, 800-941-Shone.
We're going to actually wait till we show you what we do on TV.
I think visually it's going to make it more explainable, if you will.
Greg Jarrett, his new book soon to be released, Russian Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
David Schoen, criminal civil rights attorney, civil liberties attorney.
Greg, where do we go here?
Where does this end up?
You know, a very cynical friend of mine said, I watch and listen to you every day, but you know and I know they're going to find ways to defend and get away with all of this crap.
That's what he said.
Well, I think Mueller will try to justify his own existence and his investigation by issuing a report that sort of hedges and will give Democrats in Congress who hate Trump a reason to argue that articles of impeachment are merited, which will be completely false and spurious.
I don't think there'll be any evidence or accusation of collusion, so there won't be an indictment.
Obstruction of justice doesn't really apply.
So it'll be a big nothing burger on its merits, but he'll give Congress something.
But the real issue will be, will charges be brought against McCabe and Comey and Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and others who were involved in the hoax and abuse the law.
In Comey's case, stealing government documents, filing a false FISA warrant application.
That's going to be the real test.
Let me ask the same question, David Schoen.
Here's the answer.
Eternal vigilance is the price of democracy, to paraphrase.
Your show is the eternal vigilance.
We cannot talk only in the past tense about these issues.
The past tense informs us, but we have to move forward.
That's why the dynamic nature of your show is so important, that you're following all of these stories.
Because one of the last points Greg Jarrett made was Comey's actions in ensuring that his special prosecutor, Mueller, was put in place.
That's the future, so that Mueller acts as a proxy with a team made up completely of fellow travelers, acts as a proxy for Comey McCabe.
People have been driven out already to stymie policy for the Trump administration, which I must say has not been so effective.
We had the great day in foreign policy with the Jerusalem Embassy Act being enforced last week.
North Korea, you've identified all of these things.
But the future is so dangerous because a person like Mueller is in the position he's in to stymie so many things.
We have to keep our eye on that ball.
Where does it go?
Yeah.
And you go back to the Judge Ellis and then compare it.
This is why judges, elections matter.
Judges matter, why we talk as conservatives about the danger of legislating from the bench, et cetera.
Reconcile the two judges, Ellis and this D.C. circuit judge.
Okay, this is a very, very important issue.
I'm so glad you focused now on Judge Jackson's opinion.
The simplest reconciliation would be to say Judge Ellis laid into the lawyers because that case is even one step further removed from the so-called Russian collusion investigation.
Therefore, it really exemplifies unfettered power.
You could say Judge Jackson's case is a little closer and she tries to make the case for why it's really included.
But here's why, in my view, her opinion is so important and so dangerous.
She essentially provides that unfettered power.
She provides everything in that decision that Judge Ellis was afraid of.
What do I mean?
Unbelievable, real quick.
She cites the regulations, but she says they're not binding on anyone.
I'm telling you, this decision really raises the appointments clause issue that we discussed a little bit and must be discussed much more.
David Chung, Greg Jarrett, thank you both.
Ram Paul, more coming up.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
I want to go back to the issue of North Korea first.
And Heather Noward, who used to work at Fox, now working at the State Department, they haven't heard from North Korea.
They haven't heard that they're backing out of any summit, which is kind of hilarious.
But even if they did, Trump didn't dump plane loads of cash and cargo planes of cash and other currencies to get three hostages removed.
Kim Jong-un literally dismantling his nuclear site or his test site.
Him walking across the DMZ to stop firing missiles over Japan and threatening the world.
I'd say already we're in a pretty good spot.
Here's what she said.
We have not heard anything from that government or the government of South Korea to indicate that we would not continue conducting these exercises or that we would not continue planning for our meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong-un next month.
And the fact that the media is, oh, it's over.
No, it's not over.
Because the president can go back to, let's see, sanctions, the military strike forces off the coast of North Korea.
There's a lot of options there.
One other thing, I mean, we played some of this yesterday.
I want to go back to, if we got this, Jason, the cut of the president calling on Congress to secure our borders and stop sanctuary cities and shut down policies that release violent criminals.
When are Republicans going to go on offense and demand the Democrats answer these questions?
Because this is happening to real Americans.
As I have been down to the border, I have shown you over and over again the briefing I had with then Governor Rick Perry, how many Texans alone in a seven-year period were victims of crime, some petty and some really serious, like murder.
This morning, I especially want to speak to the young sons and daughters who join us here today.
I want you to know that your moms and dads were among the bravest Americans to ever live.
When danger came, when darkness fell, when destruction loomed, they did not flinch.
They were not afraid.
They did not falter.
They stared down danger, raced down alleys, chased down criminals, kicked down doors, and faced down evil.
We will always remember Agent Martinez, and we will honor his noble sacrifice by continuing his vital mission.
The first duty of government is to protect our citizens, and the men and women of DHS are on the front lines of this incredible, heroic fight.
That is why we are calling on Congress to secure our borders, support our border agents, stop sanctuary cities, and shut down policies that release violent criminals back into our communities.
We don't want it any longer.
We've had it.
Enough is enough.
North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States.
They will be met with fire, fury, and frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.
Frankly, the people that were questioning that statement, was it too tough?
Maybe it wasn't tough enough.
They've been doing this to our country for a long time, for many years.
And it's about time that somebody stuck up for the people of this country and for the people of other countries.
And what they've been getting away with is a tragedy, and it can't be allowed.
If anything happens to Guam, there's going to be big, big trouble in North Korea.
If he does anything with respect to Guam or any place else that's an American territory or an American ally, he will truly regret it, and he will regret it fast.
Rocketman is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.
This shouldn't be handled now, but I'm going to handle it because we have to handle it.
Little Rocket Man, we're going to do it because we really have no choice.
It just is unbelievable.
We've got to protect people.
I don't understand why people don't understand the need to protect the American people.
It's like, you know, compare Clinton and Trump on North Korea.
Just think of that one example.
Little Rocket Man, we've got bigger missiles.
Our missiles work versus this is a good deal for the American people.
I'm going to try and bribe Kim Jong-un's father, Kim Jong-il.
Before I take your questions, I'd like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallushi signed this morning.
This is a good deal for the United States.
North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program.
South Korea and our other allies will be better protected.
The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.
South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing.
And they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.
The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments.
Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.
All right, lastly, before we get to the phone, Sarah Sanders literally talking about the White House still hopeful that North Korea, the summit happens, but as I said, if it doesn't, it doesn't.
Then we'll just put more sanctions in place and show a military presence.
And probably, if he fires missiles again, take out his sights.
Unbelievable, the comparison and the hysteria again in the media.
Oh, by the way, at the top of the hour, Ram Paul's going to join us.
Let's get to our busy phones.
Let's say hi to Lady Sim in Calabasas, California.
Lady Sim, is that right?
Is that your name?
Yes.
Hello, Sean.
You're my unsong hero.
You know that.
Oh, how are you?
I'm so honored to speak with you.
I am great.
And I was so angry.
And not only that, I was frustrated last couple of days what this Kim Jong-un is doing.
So, Sean, the reason I'm giving you a call, first of all, I want to thank our president.
Such a commanding job for our country.
Not only that, bring back home three hostages for North Korea.
And second, about Kim Jong-un.
This guy is nothing more than psychopath liar, brutal, vicious dictator.
Mr. President, I want to give you advice as a South Korean and a proud American.
And never trust this guy.
He is stolen kind of, so he can hide a nook.
He will never give up this nook.
Mr. President, keep the sanction intact, maximum pressure.
He has not done that.
Listen, no, no, but this president is not giving him a penny.
The only help we'll give them is the help in dismantling the nuclear program.
The only thing we'll offer is, okay, you can join the world community, but that's after there's denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
And the only thing we've gotten so far is him crossing the DMZ, stop firing missiles, breaking down his nuclear test sites, and releasing American hostages.
So far, I'd say plus, plus, plus, plus, plus, Trump, zero Kim Jong-un, little rocket man.
And my guess is he'll show up.
But that's not going to change.
Trump is not Obama.
He's not Clinton.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
I have a great faith in our president, and he's doing a commanding job.
And you, and you sacrifice yourself, and you speak for us, and you fight for us.
And these liberals, liberals in Korea, same thing.
Carbon talking about in America.
You know something, though?
It's hard for liberals.
Lady Sim, let me tell you something.
If you look at the people in North Korea and you look at the people in Iran, let's just take those two countries.
The people suffer.
Those are fellow human beings living under tyranny, under mad despots, in fear, intimidation.
And it is sad to see in this day and age, but it exists.
It's breaking our heart.
It's breaking our hearts.
South Korean majority of mama, we're breaking heart because it's a family.
In fact, my father's younger brother is kidnapped by North Korea.
We don't know.
He's still alive.
How long ago?
Lady Sim, how long ago was that?
It was 1950, which is the Korean war breakout and they invaded South Korea, which is middle of the night, 1950, June 25th.
He was young.
He was very young.
And he got Kenneth.
And South Korean family, North Korean family, we are family.
We are divided brother and sisters, mother and father.
And most folks are dead because it's old age.
Well, I want to tell you something.
I think you capture the humanity of all of this.
And, you know, and I got to tell you, we as Americans, we're kind of spoiled.
We take for granted all we have.
And, you know, I look, you know, I go to Gladiator.
Gladiator has a line where Marcus Aurelius is asking the Russell Crow character in the movie, you know, about Rome and how he will, Marcus Aurelius will be viewed as a dictator, as a tyrant, you know, as a, you know, this is what I've created.
I've only owned four years of peace.
And why are we doing this, Maximus?
And he goes, for the glory of Rome, sire.
And then, ah, the glory of Rome.
He goes, but you don't, you haven't been to Rome.
And he said, and Maximus says, this world is dark.
This world is cold.
This world is cruel.
And Rome is the light.
And Marcus Aurelius says, but you haven't been there.
And it's been corrupted.
America needs to be that light.
America needs to be the better country.
Because, yeah, there is a lot of darkness in this world.
This country, liberals, and the media, and the faith media in South Korea have existed as well.
This liberal Moon Jae-in, he's giving you everything.
I don't know what he had a conversation and agreement, April 27, which is historic meeting.
And this guy, and at Moon Jae-in, his own people, six of them, South Korean, are hostage.
Hostage right now.
He didn't even demand his countrymen back to South Korea.
And then he is posting this brutal dictator motor and posting him and his wife, this Kim Jong-un to this wife, and posting champagne and the BMG.
Our South Koreans are, we were stomach sick.
We were so disgusted.
This guy giving in everything to this Kim Jong-un.
That's why he's playing A. Still, we are so upset with this Moon Jae-in.
He didn't even demand for his giving in before the Winter Olympic.
People don't know this.
He gave over $30 million.
He kept giving the money after Olympic.
I got to run.
I don't mean to cut you off, Lady Sim.
And we do appreciate your call.
And we share your sentiment.
And I hope people can hear the humanity and what it is that we're talking about when we talk about these issues.
Anyway, God bless you.
We appreciate it.
800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
We got a lot more coming up, including Brand Paul at the top of the hour.
All right, here's a quick preview of what we'll be doing later in the program today.
I mean, there's no one in the ATF, the DOJ, that's been held accountable.
Everybody's still actively working.
Nobody's been punished.
Maybe a slap on the hand.
That's about it.
Dennis Burke, as we know, got a $2,000 fine and lost his lawyer's license.
You know, we paid $15,000 to put my brother in the grave.
I mean, there needs to be accountability.
There needs to be justice for my brother.
He deserves it.
He spent 22 years serving his country as a law enforcement officer, a Marine, and that's what he deserves.
All right, so here is a letter from Eric Holder in 2014.
He says, Moreover, I'm committed to you in our meeting holding those responsible for your brother's murder accountable to the full extent of the law and ensuring the operation like Fast and Furious ever happens again remains a top priority for the Department of Justice and for him personally.
Do you believe him?
Come on, no.
No, I don't believe him.
You know, I met with him in person, me and my mom, and I could just tell he was just lying through his teeth the whole time I was talking to him.
But when I met Mr. Trump back on the campaign trail, he was very apologetic for the actions that the previous administration did.
He was very sincere about getting answers.
He said it was shameful, and that I think Mr. Sessions has step up and reopen the case, reinvestigate it, and hold it with combo.
Hopefully we just.
And this just goes to show you your gut feeling was probably right.
A joint staff report on Operation Fast and Furious recovered in June of 2017 showed the department did not take care to make sure the Terry family received information and support.
On the contrary, the department appears to have viewed the Terry family as a public relations nuisance.
How does that make you feel?
It angers me.
You know what?
If you look through all those emails that were released last summer, how they were saying that the family was a nuisance, certain people in the family weren't intelligent enough to have a conversation with.
They're talking about wiretapping the family.
It's just disgusting.
All right, when we get back, Senator Ram Paul checks in with us and your phone calls 800-941-Sean as our number.
The president and others have said these early timelines about things need to be done by a certain point.
Now, our new president had, of course, not been in this lot of work before.
And I think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the Democratic process.
All right, of course, excessive expectations.
And one does not know the complications, the artificial deadlines, the complexities of putting legislation together, and so on and so forth.
Joining us now is Senator Ram Paul of Kentucky to respond to all of this.
News Roundup Information Overload Hour.
How are you, sir?
Hey, Sean.
Thanks for having me.
You know, I do think you did ask.
I have a different position than you do on enhanced interrogation, by the way.
And if we look at the facts, and I've interviewed Jose Rodriguez many times, he was in the room, for example, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded under severe medical supervision.
And Jose Rodriguez said that it was KSM that gave us the name of the courier that gave us bin Laden.
And we only did it three times.
Yeah, I just think torture that we're better than that.
And I don't think that we should stoop to something like that.
It wasn't only the torture that we did in these secret black ops sites around the world.
We actually sent people to be tortured by Assad.
Think about it.
We now bomb Assad because we think he's a barbarian because he gassed his own people.
But we sent people to him a decade ago because we knew he was a barbarian and would torture the hell out of people.
I mean, no rules, nothing.
I mean, we're talking about everything you can imagine you can do to a human would be done by Assad, often until death.
Same way in Egypt.
We sent them to Mubarak in Egypt.
Many of these people never wound up again.
And the problem is, of 125 people that was tortured, 26 of them were mistaken identity.
It was the wrong person.
We often released people after torture and said, sorry, whoops, we got a guy with the same name, but it was a different person.
Let me move on to some other issues.
I just wanted you to comment on that because I just know we have a disagreement on it.
And I do admire a lot of what you're doing in the Senate because you're one of the few guys that do stand up for principles.
You just heard Mitch McConnell on the complexities of legislation and early timelines and expectations of people.
I actually give the president the credit for having the sense of urgency that I don't think that the Senate and the House has enough of.
I think the biggest disappointment was not repealing Obamacare.
We introduced the same legislation.
I forced them to vote on this.
They didn't want to vote on it.
But in 2015, every Republican, virtually every Republican, voted to repeal Obamacare, not replace it with the government program, not replace it with big or small version of Obamacare light, to repeal it.
And so when we voted on it again, six people who voted to repeal it in 2015, now that we could repeal it with President Trump in the White House, changed their mind and voted against it.
It was the identical legislation.
So that's where the problem is.
And actually, Senator McConnell wasn't one of those six.
But six Republicans did change their vote from repeal to no.
Yeah, that was 2015.
I supported you, if you remember, on getting that up and down vote.
I thought it was seven.
I don't know why it's six, but I mean, the fact that they went against their own promises was shocking.
And I know Senator McCain is sick, but the fact is, you know, he had promised the people of Arizona that he would go in and vote to repeal or replace.
In 2015, when it was an easy vote, Senator McCain was for repealing Obamacare.
In 2017, when we had a Republican president, he changed his mind, and he was no longer for repeal.
So that was a huge disappointment.
But there have been some good things.
I mean, the tax cut, I think we've got a rip-roaring economy right now, and that's thanks to the Republican tax cut.
Yeah, I mean, the economy, look at the 14 states with record low unemployment numbers.
Same for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women in the workforce.
Add to that an 11-year confidence in the economy and the right direction of the country.
And, you know, then you can add to that, you know, the possibilities, the changes in North Korea.
It's not done yet, but certainly we've seen so many things crossing the DMZ, stop firing missiles, shutting down nuclear test sites on top of releasing hostages.
There's certainly hope there in spite of recent rhetoric in the last 24 hours, right?
Yeah, I think President Trump has exceeded all of my expectations.
You know, I ran against him in the primary.
I wasn't sure how conservative he would be.
He's turned out to be a more conservative of a president than either of the Bushes by far, but really on track to be as conservative or more conservative than Reagan.
Now, Reagan had great flowing rhetoric that nobody could equal, but Trump has actually appointed people to the bench, 21 people to the circuit court we pass now.
This is a big accomplishment for the Senate.
These 21 people are about an eighth of all of the circuit court judges, and they interpret the law and interpret whether or not government can expand or whether we can have an expansive living constitution.
So I don't know.
There have been some good things that have been done, and I do compliment President Trump on this.
Tax cuts, Corsage, regulatory reform and repeal.
So there's a lot of good things that have happened.
Yeah, well, I think a lot.
And the regulatory appeal.
Look at, for example, the impact on energy alone, which is pretty amazing.
What about this issue of Mitch McConnell?
And I hate to bring it up because I know he's your other state senator.
So I guess it puts you in an awkward position at times.
And I'm not trying to do that.
But, you know, is the president right that McConnell should shut down Democratic obstruction, that we shouldn't need 60 votes to advance legislation?
Well, particularly on nominees.
The Democrats have been stonewalling and filibustering nominees.
And the rules are that you have to speak for 30 hours.
Each senator gets one hour.
And we should force that.
Every time they filibuster a nominee, make them stay up all night speaking 30 hours.
They've done it to me, frankly.
The Republicans have shut me down.
When they disagree with me trying to cut spending or balance the budget, boy, they'll shut me down in a heartbeat.
But they haven't really shut down the Democrats as much as I think we could.
And I think we should force them to speak for the 30-hour period.
I tell you from experience, it's hard to get people to speak, 30 different people to speak for an hour.
And if it goes all night long, they'll do that once or twice.
I think they are putting pressure to bear, though, and we're starting to get a pickup.
But we've had fewer of President Trump's nominees for government appointed or approved by the Senate than any other president in the history of our country.
You know, pretty amazing.
What do you make?
There is an incredible article today that is so revealing in the New York Times about the investigation into President Trump and so-called Trump-Russia collusion.
Now, Devin Nunes, I think, is right by saying that it was a setup, that Trump was set up.
I'm very, very, very concerned about this because John Brennan, you know, the former head of the CIA, has now come out of the closet as an out-and-out Trump hater, uses disparaging language, is out-and-out partisan in his rhetoric towards the president.
He was head of the CIA, and there are reports that he met with the head of British intelligence.
He met with them to gather information that the Brits had gotten on Trump campaign officials.
And the question of who started this is very important.
It's also a question of whether or not it's even legal to receive this.
If this is information about American citizens, the CIA is prevented by law from collecting information unless it is related to espionage.
Now, if John Brennan is actively soliciting this information from the British intelligence, this is something that is a crime and he could be put in prison for.
Even just receiving it, though, I think is inappropriate because the thing is, it's not legal to spy on Americans.
That's not what the CIA is supposed to be doing.
What do you make?
We now know that even though the FISA law says that any information presented in an application to a FISA judge has to be verified and corroborated, and FBI protocols similarly were not followed, we now know that a Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dossier put together by a foreign national, Christopher Steele, that contained Russian lies, Russian sources, never verified,
and they never told the judges in the original application of subsequent applications that Hillary paid for it.
To me, laws were broken.
Where do you stand?
Without question.
If they're going to present a dossier that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and not tell the judge that, because that would obviously have the judge saying, well, gosh, maybe this is a political question and not a legal question.
And this goes on and on.
And so what we had was an FBI run amok.
I think James Comey will go down in history as the worst FBI director ever because he's ruined the reputation of a great group of men and women who do protect us, who are great law enforcement officers, the vast majority.
But James Comey has tainted all of that by getting involved in electoral politics.
But is it not?
It's more than Comey, though.
It's Comey.
It's McCabe.
It's Strzok.
It's Page.
And I think by the end of this, you're right.
Brennan Clapper, certainly Loretta Lynch's conduct in all of this.
I mean, do you think this is exactly, Sean, this is exactly why you have to have controls because Madison wrote that men are not angels and therefore we have to have a constitution and checks and balances to keep them in place.
What we need in place at the FBI is that if they want to search people's records so they're not searching Republicans or conservatives or Trump supporters, we have to say that searches should have to go to a judge to get a warrant and that would be the check and balance against these people run amok.
Because you're right, it wasn't one person.
It sounds like there was a gaggle of people both at the CIA and the FBI.
And I fully believe that President Obama on the way out, you remember all those reports saying spread the information, spread the information everywhere.
But basically they're spreading gossip and information that was basically bought and paid for by the Clintons.
They act all like they were acting something in the good interest of the country.
But in reality, I think what they were doing was using the apparatus of the FBI and the CIA to spread disinformation.
And so, no, I'm very, very troubled by this.
Do you believe as I believe that Hillary Clinton broke the law, the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 793, when in fact she put confidential top-secret special access programming information on a server in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom that Comey originally wrote in his exoneration, first exoneration draft that five or six foreign intelligence services hacked into.
But then when those emails were subpoenaed and she chose to delete 33,000 and then acid-washed her hard drive with BleachBit and then had an aid break up for BlackBerries and devices that might have the emails, was that obstruction?
Do you believe she, A, did she break the law and did the FBI fix that investigation by writing the exoneration before the investigation?
Absolutely, she broke the law.
And the thing is, is this is what's most troubling is they just did whatever they could to whitewash that and get rid of that because as Peter Strzok was texting to his girlfriend Lisa Page, he said, you know, now we can turn to what really matters, and that's the investigation of Trump, which was paid for and instigated by the Clinton campaign.
So yeah, this is terrible.
And this is why all of the intelligence agencies need to be reined in.
I remember reading 1984 for the first time and thinking, well, it's not going to be that bad because they don't have the technology to snoop on me in my house everywhere.
Now they do have that technology, and we've got to have more checks and controls on government because big government, you know, in this case, it looks like they went after Trump, but what's to stop them from being either too Republican or too conservative or too liberal?
We really want them to be unbiased, and the only way to do that is to have checks and balances and make them get judicial warrants.
Well, I mean, what's the point of having the checks and balance?
Like, for example, look at, you know, the letter that was put out today by Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan and Ron DeSantis.
I mean, they wrote to the president about this obstructionism, slow walking, redactions in the name of national security that turn out to be outright lies when we know constitutional oversight belongs with Congress.
We have co-equal branches of government.
Separation of powers, checks and balances.
And there's been no indication of whether Peter Strzzok and Lisa Page are still under investigation or whether they should keep their jobs.
We know they've been transferred.
Well, Lisa Page quit recently, and it wasn't announced in the big fanfare, but Strzok is still in there.
And from what we know, he has access to top-secret information.
Yeah, and so I've written to Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, on this, and the initial note they sent back to me was, oh, everybody has top-secret information.
But then we've gotten back through channels, and this hasn't been well publicized, that maybe he doesn't have access anymore, that his access has been limited.
But the thing is, that needs to be known by everyone.
There needs to be a public airing of this, and there needs to be an investigation of whether or not he should have this enormous power to search Americans in these databases.
Every FBI agent that has top secret clearance can look up Republicans at work if they want, can look up Trump donors at work if they want.
That's why I want there to be controls that says they can't do it without going to a judge first and asking for permission.
Why are there not more people in the House and Senate that actually care about the Constitution as you do?
And I honestly feel like in the media it's been Russia, Russia, Russia, stormy, stormy, stormy, and the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in our history is unfolding before our eyes.
And if you think that's hyperbole, tell me.
The problem is, is when the shoe's on the other foot, if all of this were a Democrat president, people switch sides based on partisanship.
Now, you know me.
I've been harsh on Republican presidents, Democrat presidents, Republican leadership, Democrat leadership.
I try to be consistent in trying to defend the Constitution.
But the Constitution protects our civil liberties, protects your right to privacy, but it also would have a very small government.
So, you know, I've introduced a budget, the penny plan, that will be voted on tomorrow morning, and it would get us back to constitutional government.
It will cut one penny out of every dollar for the next five years and balances in five years.
I presented it at lunch to the Republican caucus to a bunch of empty blank stairs, and we'll see how many of them actually believe they believed in.
You're the only one left in Congress that supports it.
You know, I've supported that for years.
And Connie Mack was singing the same tune, and you were working with him at the time.
We'll probably get 15 or 20.
I'm guessing 15 to 20 Republican senators, no Democrats.
So it's important to know that no Democrats believe in this.
But the interesting thing is, most Republicans, almost all of them, have voted for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which requires balance in five years.
And I told him at lunch, look, if you're for the balanced budget amendment, why wouldn't you vote for this budget?
It basically enacts.
Because Republicans and Democrats are mostly alike, and the Republican Party has become basically a watered-down version of the Democratic Party, but they're pretty close.
This is the problem I've had over the last several months.
The spending bills that we've put forward and the annual deficit exceeding a trillion dollars is exactly why I ran for office because I thought President Obama was spending too much and borrowing too much, and now the Republicans are doing the same thing.
All right, Senator Ram Paul, keep up the good work.
We do appreciate it.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Your phone calls are coming up next.
We need to find out the truth, exactly what happened, how it happened, why it happened.
We need Mr. Trump, President Trump, to unseal the documents, reverse the executive privilege, so we know what would happen, and that we can hold the people accountable that are responsible.
There should be examples set in place so this doesn't happen again.
I mean, there's no one in the ATF, the DOJ, that's been held accountable.
Everybody's still actively working.
Nobody's been punished.
Maybe a slap on the hand.
That's about it.
Dennis Burke, as we know, got a $2,000 fine and lost his lawyer's license.
You know, we paid $15,000 to put my brother in the grave.
I mean, there needs to be accountability.
There needs to be justice for my brother.
He deserves it.
He spent 22 years serving this country as a law enforcement officer, a Marine, and that's what he deserves.
All right, so here is a letter from Eric Holder in 2014.
He says, Moreover, I'm committed to you in our meeting holding those responsible for your brother's murder accountable to the full extent of the law and ensuring the operation like Fast and Furious ever happens again remains a top priority for the Department of Justice and for him personally.
Do you believe him?
Come on, no.
No, I don't believe him.
You know, I met with him in person, me and my mom, and I could just tell he was just lying through his teeth the whole time I was talking to him.
But when I met Mr. Trump back on the campaign trail, he was very apologetic for the actions that the previous administration did.
He was very sincere about getting answers.
He said it was shameful, and that I think Mr. Sessions has step up and reopen the case, reinvestigate it, and hold those accountable.
Hopefully we just.
And this just goes to show you your gut feeling is probably right.
A joint staff report on Operation Fast and Furious recovered in June of 2017 showed the department did not take care to make sure the Terry family received information and support.
On the contrary, the department appears to have viewed the Terry family as a public relations nuisance.
How does that make you feel?
It angers me.
And you know what?
If you look through all those emails that were released last summer, how they were saying that the family was a nuisance, certain people in the family weren't intelligent enough, intelligent enough to have a conversation with.
They're talking about wiretap in the family.
It's just disgusting.
All right, that was Kent Terry, the brother of Brian Terry.
You know, you haven't heard his name in a long time, but you know what?
That whole thing, just the stench of it all, you know, it still bothers me greatly because we had our government literally handing over weapons to people that they knew were involved in criminal activity.
And that one of those weapons is used to kill a border agent, an American citizen.
And his name is Brian Terry.
And then, you know, he died in Operation Fast and Furious, if you've forgotten.
And there are records.
There are documents.
We never got to the bottom of it.
I want to see those documents.
I want this reopened.
Now, you just heard from Kent Terry, who joins us now.
He is the brother of the Slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
Also, Congressman Darrell Issa with the House Oversight Government Reform Committee.
I have no idea why you're leaving Congress.
That is a really depressing decision since you're one of the few people that actually do some work over there.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Kent, good to talk to you.
And again, I'm sorry to you and your family, and I'm mad because nobody talks about it anymore, Kent.
Nobody brings it up anymore.
And I felt from the get-go that the fix was in again, and we never got to the bottom of it.
And I want to know what happened.
And I think you and your family deserve to see those documents and reopen this case.
You know, Sean, we do deserve it.
It's been seven years.
We've been waiting patiently.
And we're tired of getting BS' around from the DOJ, especially the previous administration.
But now I feel like we're doing a repeat of the previous relationship with the DOJ with this DOJ.
I mean, Mr. Sessions needs to get off his butt.
He needs to release these documents unredacted, you know, so my family can move on with their life.
I mean, it's every day we think about it.
And I promised my brother justice when I lowered him in the ground.
And I will continue on the fight.
But Trump promised me that he would open up the books in Brian's death in Fast and Furious.
Now it's Sessions' Dad to open them and give us the documents that we deserve, Congress deserves, and the American people deserve.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Congressman Issa, you're there.
You know the Attorney General.
Why won't he open up this case and at least unseal these documents?
And has this been brought to the president's attention?
Because I do believe he would have the ability to do that too, wouldn't he?
Sean, the president's engaged on this.
That's why he's taken the personal meetings with the family.
It's why he's brought it up time and time again.
And as you know, President Trump keeps his campaign promises, whether it's the Jerusalem embassy or vote after vote, including rolling back regulations.
Let me give you a quick update.
I was on the floor talking to Trey Gowdy just a matter of minutes ago.
And, you know, Trey and I and everyone else that's been involved in this case, we are waiting for Amy Berman Jackson to sign off for the release of thousands of documents.
And, you know, a common phrase in America is we want to get to the bottom of something.
These documents help us get to the top of it.
We've already seen documents that show that Attorney General Holder was complicit in the cover-up, in holding back information.
He not only thought that the Terry family wasn't right to talk to, but he once called in a text, Issa and his idiot cronies referring to the staff that were going after the truth.
But the thousands of documents we will receive as a part of this agreement is a good down payment.
Like most members of Congress, you don't want to go through a seven-year fight because this kind of delayed relief for the family isn't good enough.
And so H.R. 4010 was passed out of the House.
Everyone listening to you today can call their senator and ask him to bring up and pass that bill.
That bill would have meant that the compliance would have been in months, not years, where we had to go to a judge and wait for the judge and wait for the judge.
That shouldn't be the case.
When Congress has a lawful subpoena for documents, they should be able to get to a judge and get it decided in a timely fashion.
That is what we're trying to do to bring real justice to the Terry family, which is get the documents, expose Eric Holder for the liar that he is, for the cheat that he is, for the man who should be disbarred that he is.
But in the long run, it's the permanent change.
It's a Brian Terry bill that means in the future, this kind of cover-up can't go on for seven years.
It's just as outrageous, you know, and I think of your family, Kent.
And, you know, why does your family, you know, and this goes to the Benghazi families too?
Why do we have to work so hard to get the truth about, in this case, a fellow American for me and your brother?
This is your brother.
You have a right to know.
You know, and maybe if there's certain confidential information, you still have a right to be brought in and given a real explanation.
Why, in God's name, would our government provide guns and weapons to known criminals and cartel members and gang members.
You know, and then when an American is killed, not accept responsibility for the part and the role they played in that.
Well, you know what?
You know what, Sean?
It's sad because not only for my brother, but Jaime Zapata also, the ICE agent, killed in Mexico with these weapons.
And then in 2010, you had 16 children slaughtered in Mexico at a birthday party with the same fast and furious weapons.
I mean, where's the Democrats outrage on this?
Where are they on this?
I mean, kids are getting killed with these daily down there, but it's okay.
It's a different story, though.
It happens here in the U.S.
A life's a life, no matter what country you're in.
You're right.
And by the way, and you're right.
It's been on both sides of the border.
It's not just and the pain that you and your family have suffered.
You know, other families have suffered.
We don't, you know, for all the talk about, you know, I'm a big believer in the Second Amendment.
I really am.
And the right.
But you know something?
The one thing that I think everybody agrees on, we don't want guns in the hands of criminals.
And, you know, I think one of the arguments that are made by the left, well, bad people don't obey the law.
Good people do.
They respect the laws.
And that's the difference.
Go ahead.
You know what, Sean?
We've got one of the major highest criminals in the world, El Chapo, and he ended up with one of these fast and furious weapons.
How many people do you think just got killed with that one weapon he had?
Can you imagine the thousands of weapons that HEF let go to know himself?
That's aiding and betting a criminal.
I mean, if you or I or ICE were to do it, we'd be in prison by now.
I totally agree.
Well, there's always that double standard, Congressman.
Well, there is.
And Sean, the weapon that Ken is referring to that was recovered when we got him was a .50 caliber sniper rifle, either the same or one just like the one that brought down a Mexican helicopter by literally piercing the turbine motor.
It's an incredibly powerful weapon.
But you asked an important question that will never be answered fully.
Why did they do this?
And the answer, in my opinion, after looking at this case and working it for seven years, is this was, we don't have the smoking gun on this because it was probably all done oral.
This was all about getting the assault weapons ban back in place.
This was about their attack on the Second Amendment.
They were going to let thousands of assault weapons go south of the border.
Most of the weapons were that type.
And then they were going to justify that they had to have an assault weapons ban if they were going to do it.
And we've never been able to get to it, just as we were never able to get the truth out of Eric Holder.
He lied to us time and time again with impunity.
As a matter of fact, if you believe Eric Holder, there were only about 200 documents that would have ended this case.
We didn't accept that deal.
We held him in contempt.
And there are thousands of documents that have been delivered and thousands more that are going to be delivered as soon as In 2016, they released their records, and they found over the past three years leading up to then that a total of 94 Fast and Furious, in other words, the majority of firearms were recovered in Mexico City, 12 Mexican states.
One of the weapons recovered, 82 were rifles, 12 were pistols, all part of the Fast and Furious program.
And reports suggested then that those guns were tied to at least 69 killings.
You know, they never know the counters.
Even weapons that were found in Europe recovered there.
There's no question at all that these guns will continue killing for a long time.
And the only justice that the Terry family in the long run will get is to prevent another Border Patrol agent or somebody else from being a part of this kind of activity with the cover-up that they've had to endure.
You know, when they talk about sensitive information, you know, Brian's cousin, who heads the foundation, the Brian Terry Foundation, was in fact a chief secret service agent guarding the president.
He was operating out of San Diego, and he was lied to, openly lied to, by Eric Holder and the president.
All right, I'm going to let you both go.
I want you both to know something.
Look, if people want to call the DOJ, they have a number.
Release the documents.
202-514-2000.
Just be polite, as always.
202-514-2000.
Kent, I say this to you and your entire family.
You're in our thoughts and prayers.
I'm so sorry that you've lived through all of this and continue to live this nightmare to this day and how the government of our country has let you and your family down in a spectacular way, you know, resulting in the loss of your brother.
It is inexplicable to me that we find ourselves in this position.
And Congressman Issa, I think you need to change your mind and run.
Well, we need to pass the subpoena enforcement activity.
Why are you avoiding my question?
I asked you, I said, I think you need to change your mind and run.
And you sounded like Hillary Clinton to me.
Sean, I am not selling my house in Washington or my house in California.
I'm going to stay very engaged.
You haven't seen The Last of Me.
If anything, leaving Congress is a liberating opportunity for me.
No, I understand.
Listen, I couldn't put up with that crap either.
I don't blame you, honestly.
All right.
Thank you both.
All right, let's go to our busy telephones here.
Bob is in New York.
Bob, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hey, Sean, how are you doing?
I'm good, sir.
How are you?
I'm a big fan of yours.
I listen to you every day.
You want to make people I trust in the news media.
I really appreciate it.
There's a few of us out here.
Thank God.
Thank God.
By the way, you talk just like Linda's, just in case you didn't know.
Okay.
What's going on?
Hey, I just got back from my son graduated Michigan Law School, and it was a shock.
I mean, he's one of only probably 10 conservatives in the law school.
What they go through on a daily basis, half the professors all day spend their time bashing Trump.
If you say you're a Trump supporter, you will fail.
They threaten you, basically, with your employment.
They won't recommend you for employment.
100%.
By the way, this is not paranoia.
This is real, that there are a lot of liberal professors.
If you let it be known you're a conservative, you're going to get, you know, you're either going to fail or get a much lower grade than you deserve.
It's a risk you take.
My advice is play the game.
My advice is you know the truth.
Play the game, get your degree, and move on with your life.
Because you know what?
What's the point of failing out and then you have to go back and redo the stupid class and play the game later anyway?
I mean, life is a little bit threading that needle.
Donald Trump did it in New York.
He played with the politicians.
What?
Had the graduation?
Went to the grad, the commencement and at the commencement is the first time I ever been to a commencement where there was no Pledge, Allegiance or national anthem, no military flags whatsoever.
And you know, my dad and uncle were in the military.
So I went up to the president at a banquet after that and I asked him.
I said I said, why isn't?
I've never been to any graduation that was like this.
I don't understand half of what goes on in schools anymore, but I get, on the other hand, you really need your degree in this world today.
You know it's frustrating.
Everybody, I know, needs a degree.
All right, Hannity tonight, nine Eastern.
On the FOX NEWS channel we are loaded up, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows and Ron DeSantis that letter to the president.
This is pivotal.
Also the NEW YORK Times, basically unknowingly unwittingly, corroborating everything we have been reporting to you.
We'll go over all the legal aspects with Joe DeGenova and Greg Jarrett.
Also we have Sarah Carter, Newt Gingrich, 9 Eastern tonight Hannity, FOX NEWS.
We'll see you tonight at nine, back here tomorrow.
