Liberals, especially in California, continue to create "sanctuary cities" where they effectively ignore all immigration laws in favor of an "open door" policy. California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher shares the sobering truth about the economic impact of these Sanctuary Cities. The costs are higher than you might think. 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.
Graduation season now is around the corner, so let Job Genius power your job search.
Now, Job Genius offers free advice on job searching, resume writing, interviewing, and tips to ace your first day on the job.
Just go to expressprose.com/slash job genius today and search job genius on YouTube.
Now, let this educational video series be your guide for entering the workforce.
Now, Job Genius is brought to you by our friends at Express Employment Professionals, the leading staffing company that employs more than a half a million people a year.
And when you're ready to start your job search, well, turn to ExpressPros.
Apply now at expressprose.com for administrative jobs, including customer service and sales and accounting positions, as well as skilled labor jobs like drivers and forklift operators and welders and CNC programmers.
Now, each Express Employment Professional office is locally owned and operated.
They never charge a job seeker a penny, no fee.
And ExpressPros takes pride in connecting the right people with the right company.
Just go to expressprose.com.
All right, glad you're with us.
Sean Hannity show, write down our toll-free telephone number.
We'd love to have you be a part of the program.
Newt Gingrich today, Congressman Dana Rohrbacher today, our news roundup information overload.
Before I get into what is the biggest news of the day, there are now reports, rumblings, and it's being picked up by a lot of sources at this moment.
And the Inspector General report will declare, and this is part of a slow bleed, the FBI, the DOJ, broke the law in the Clinton email probe.
You think?
I think we've kind of been, you know, knowing that for a while, but why it's taken this long is beyond any imagination.
Before I hit that, though, this is just another example of the Destroy Trump media, how utterly desperate they are to find just anything that would take out this president.
That is bad news for this president, that looks bad on him.
They're literally pretending that there's no difference between the brutal gang, MS-13 and gang members, and the average immigrant who comes to this country illegally.
They just, they don't care about the truth.
They just ignore it.
MS-13, brutal El Salvadorian gang that has, you know, moved north now, as many cities know, mostly targeting, you know, immigrants, high school kids in many cases, has been found.
And, you know, one of anyway, one of these kids, the president, long story short, the president is asked about this.
He's asked a question during a roundtable of California's sanctuary state laws.
The Fresno sheriff is named Margaret Mims, and she mentions to Trump the difficulty of working with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to notify them of an illegal alien MS-13 gang member.
The question is, there could be an MS-13 gang member I know about.
If they don't reach a threshold, I can't tell ICE about them.
Here's the question and answer.
Thank you.
Why would there be an MS-13 gang member I know about?
If they don't reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about them.
We have people coming into the country trying to come in.
We're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country.
You wouldn't believe how bad these people are.
These aren't people.
These are animals.
Talking specifically about gang members from MS-13.
And then, you know, it starts up with Never Trumper.
The Washington Post has become probably Jeff Bezos' paper, one of the most corrupt newspapers in America.
It is so like the New York Times.
Oh, we hear cha-ching every time there's an anti-Trump story.
Oh, okay.
So basically, you're going to play to whatever brings in the most money.
You're no longer a paper or record.
We get it.
You know, she attacked Trump's evangelical supporters, posting a link to a report by The Hill that claimed the president called all illegal aliens animals.
That's not true.
It never was true.
Now, finally, they're beginning to back off on that lie.
All right, let me move on to, I think, a more important point.
There's so much going on here that we've got to talk about.
One thing is the headline that broke.
Paul Sperry first tweeted this out that the IG, Michael Horowitz, has found, quote, reasonable grounds for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI and Department of Justice's handling of the Clinton investigation and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to the guy, John Uber, that was appointed by Jeff Sessions, the guy out in Salt Lake City, who's also an Obama appointee, as is Horowitz.
That's bothered me from the beginning.
And so, anyway, for possible criminal prosecution.
Sperry also noted on Twitter, and Paul Sperry is somebody we've had on the program many times.
He's a good guy, good reporter.
And he also noted that the FBI and DOJ had been targeting the former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn, before his December 2016 phone call with his Russian or soon-to-be-Russian counterpart, stemming from photos of Flynn at a December 2015 Moscow event with Vladimir Putin.
Oh, and Jill Stein was in attendance.
And the interesting story about all of that is who was involved, Sally Yates and some other people.
But, you know, as we were reporting last night, it looks like they're finished this report.
Now, I don't know the extent of it, but I'm a little concerned here.
And the media is not going to point this out to you.
Now, the long-awaited Inspector General's report, this has not been clarified on the FBI, DOJ's cover-up of the Clinton email crimes.
I'm worried that it may end up being less than what it should be.
Let's put it that way.
It turns out that the FBI and the DOJ will have the final say on what information gets released and what information they decide to keep secret.
Here we go again.
I mean, it's no different than the obstructionism we've been living with.
And Congress has been, well, a few members of Congress have been desperately fighting.
This is what the letter by Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan and Ron DeSantis was all about yesterday.
And that is, you know, now they're saying to the president, you're going to have to step in here and use your executive powers to get the information that we have legally subpoenaed.
You know, you've got to understand, you know, as Judge Ellis said, we don't want any one branch of government with unfettered powers.
We have co-equal branches of government and we have, you know, checks and balances.
One of the checks and balances is congressional oversight.
And that's the legislative branch over the executive branch.
Anyway, so long story short, you know, they've been fighting and fighting for all this information.
We have 1.2 million documents in total that we're talking about here.
And, you know, they have a right, an oversight, constitutional duty to do their job.
And we see nothing but slow walking and phony redactions in the name of national security that ultimately turn out to be proven false.
And then, of course, just outright obstruction and a lack of cooperation.
We never would have gotten the Nunes memo.
We wouldn't have learned about FISA abuse, but for Devin Nunes, the Freedom Caucus members, Dana Rohrbach, are a few strong people that have been fighting tooth and nails.
We wouldn't have learned that the bulk of information for the application for the FISA warrant, the original application, three subsequent applications, was the Clinton-Boughton paid-for phony Russian dossier.
Anyway, the problem is, is that it looks like the same top FBI DOJ officials who spent these years stonewalling congressional requests for information on their Clinton email and Russia gate investigations, apparently they're going to be editing the IG's report of their own misconduct.
Now, the Inspector General in this case for the Justice Department is a guy by the name of Michael Horowitz.
And he said that the report was, the draft report was done in a letter to members of Congress.
And he didn't say when the results of the review will be officially released to the FBI and DOJ and congressional committees.
But the Inspector General said he's provided a draft to the Department of Justice and the FBI, asking them to first review it to identify any information that should be protected from disclosure.
Here we go again.
We're asking Rod Rosenstein.
He didn't want any of the information on the FISA abuse.
He's so conflicted in all of this.
You know, he recommends firing Comey.
He's witness A, you know, in any case Mueller brings about why the president, who had full authority to fire him or fire anybody.
Just like everyone was acting like it was such big news yesterday that Robert Mueller had said to Rudy Giuliani that he can't indict a sitting president.
Yeah, no kidding.
We've been saying that forever and ever.
Or the fact that as it relates to a sitting president of the United States, there's so much that is just frustrating to me.
Anyway, so the quote is consistent with our usual process.
We've asked the department and the FBI to provide us with any comments they wish us to consider regarding the report's accuracy and completeness.
Okay, over the 400 years we might hear back from them.
Horowitz wrote in the letter that he is making relevant portions of the draft report available for review and comment by those interviewed in the probe and those whose conduct is addressed in the probe.
He said that will allow the DOJ and FBI to submit a formal written letter to be attached to the final report before releasing it.
Okay, so basically they get to cover their CYA, cover their asses and the backside of this.
We'll update you on the specific timing for the report's release.
I will be prepared to provide a briefing and testify publicly about our findings and conclusions as soon as the report is released.
That's problematic for me.
And it should be to everybody else because now you're letting the wolf into the hen house, so to speak.
You know, okay, the whole point is why you needed a special, a second special counsel, they can't investigate themselves.
You know, we have in the case special counsel Mueller turned over a memo written by Rod Rosenstein outlining the scope of Mueller's Russia Gate investigation that was requested by Judge Ellis, T.S. Ellis III, in that beatdown a couple of weeks ago.
They had to turn over and they notified the court in Virginia that it had filed under seal an unredacted memorandum that is expected to shed light on the scope of the wide-ranging probe and the Russian interference.
This is dealing with the Manafort case, you know, the same case, the tax fraud case rather, from 2005, that as Judge Ellis said was to put the screws to Paul Manafort and make him sing, but he may compose.
That beatdown.
Anyway, the filing was made, and it's going to be interesting to see how the judge reacts in this particular case.
And, you know, why was this relevant at all when it obviously had nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion?
Now, we were right on the target yesterday when we were, and I didn't know until last night.
I didn't put it all together.
I was telling you all about that explosive New York Times report that confirmed pretty much everything we'd been telling you, but it had the added caveats.
In other words, the things that they didn't report throughout the last year and however long this has gone on.
But they know that this is going to be revealed.
So they put it in there with a lot of excuses for deep state actors.
But the New York Times did confirm in that piece yesterday, the FBI did have a spy inside the Trump campaign.
New York Times confirming the Obama FBI had recruited, it's the person still not identified.
I know who the person is.
And a member of the Trump campaign, and many others do too, to conduct a spying operation.
Why?
Why did they do it?
They also, as we pointed out yesterday, they mistimed everything in there and the whole Papadopoulos story getting drunk with the Australian guy and the FBI going down there after they exonerated Clinton.
But anyway, the New York Times used the words agents obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters, a secret type of subpoena, and at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos.
Kim Strossel has been reporting in the Wall Street Journal.
She was the one that first reported.
The reason these leaks are now coming out, because all of it obviously is in the IG report, and somebody within the IG report, I guess, universe is now leaking because it's coming out anyway.
So they want to slow bleed it out.
That's the way it works in cover-ups, and that's the way they work in Washington.
It's so disgustingly corrupt.
Crossfire Hurricane Edition, Sean Hannity Show, Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
Wonder what other big stones tunes they're going to pick for the next covert operation to target a conservative.
Who knows what we'll call that?
Sympathy for the devil.
What are some of the, you know, I don't even know the names of our beast of burden, Robert Mueller, become literally hurting the country at this point.
Anyway, so we got the New York Times saying, yeah, we obtained, and they buried, as McCarthy says, Andy McCarthy said it is, Pete, they buried the lead.
We obtained phone records, other documents using national security letters and secret types of subpoena.
And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos.
And remember, it was Kimberly Strassel on earlier this week, been reporting in the Wall Street Journal on the FBI's Trump campaign spy since last Friday.
Now the Times knows the IG report is coming, and this is clearly an attempt on that and so many other issues, which they try to explain away about the conduct as it relates to Comey, the deep state, the FBI to let Hillary off the hook and then undermine Donald Trump, which they haven't been covering as they've been obsessed over Trump-Russia collusion and Stormy Daniels.
You know, the biggest takeaway, Strassel tweeted last night, this is the DOJ FBI leakers attempt to get in front of the facts that Devin Nunes is forcing out.
That was my argument yesterday, to make it not sound so bad.
Don't buy it.
It's bad.
It is bad.
And that's why my analysis yesterday of the New York Times piece, you know, biggest takeaway is government sources admitting the Obama, FBI, and DOJ spied on the Trump campaign.
Tell me how that's not worse than Watergate, a two-bit break-in of a political opponent.
They spied on the Trump campaign.
For what reason?
For what reason did they lie in a FISA application, original application, about the Clinton bought and paid for dossier?
They never verified according to the law, according to protocols, and never told the judge, nor in the subsequent applications that Hillary paid for it all.
You know, it's this, this is, this is the biggest corruption abuse of power scandal ever for the New York Times to slip in that confirmation.
It makes it look like it isn't a big deal.
It is a big deal.
And as Strossel said, in serving their desire to get a sympathetic story out of their actions, the DOJ leakers now and the FBI leakers, they're willing to provide more details because they're all coming out, confirming everything we've told you.
All right, this Crossfire Hurricane Edition of Hannity continues.
Crossfire Hurricane Edition, Sean Hannity Show.
How are you?
Glad you're with us.
800-941 Sean is on number.
You want to be a part of the program.
You know, so if the New York Times is basically doing what Kimberly Strassel said, government sources now have to admit the Obama DOJ and the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.
Spied.
Now, they can bury it as deep as they want it, as far down in the story as they want to bury it.
It's still a big deal.
Oh, by the way, I forgot.
If you or anybody you know needs a job, don't forget expresspros.com.
They put over a half a million people to work every single year, and they never charge a job seeker a penny.
Go to expresspros.com.
And it's so, all this is, and I knew it yesterday.
And then when I got the news on TV last night, the IG report is finished.
It all fit that you've got these deep state actors, these guilty players in the DOJ and the FBI that have been obstructing Congress to get their hands on this information because their hope is that the IG will be a little kinder, that the IG won't be as brutal.
So they'll give it, they'll delay, delay until the IG report comes out.
Then they'll slowly leak out the real documents that we can compare and we can contrast.
And they're willing to provide yet more details of the top secret source.
Are we going to get all the struck page memos in this particular case?
Because who's ever leaking to the New York Times from the DOJ and the FBI?
They don't have any credibility.
This is a CYA big time.
And what they're doing here is they're willing to provide the details, you know, to friendly media, but they won't give it to the Congress.
You know, and the New York Times did one other thing yesterday.
They literally blew the Obama White House's Russia Gate coverage, and that hasn't really been picked up by a lot of people either.
I think this is very important.
I think something we ought to be paying attention to because the New York Times bombshell confirming that the FBI had a spy inside of the Trump campaign also inadvertently revealed that the Obama State Department, yes, Barack Obama, as well as the Obama White House, almost certainly played an active role in the RussiaGate investigation from the very onset.
Oh, this is where Brennan gets involved.
This is when, you know, Clapper gets involved.
This is when all these deep state players get involved.
You know, then we bring up the issue of a masking comes up.
Anyway, I say it inadvertent.
The whole thing inadvertently acknowledged everything that we and Sarah Carter and Greg Jarrett and Sidney Powell and Sebastian Gorka and David Schoen and Jay Seculo that we've all been pointing out for a long time.
That was the big takeaway from the New York Times yesterday.
They're sitting there confirming and corroborating the highlights that it took us a long time to develop.
At the end of the day, this is all really simple.
Hillary committed crimes.
Hillary obstructed justice.
Hillary Clinton had the fix-in by these deep state actors within the DOJ FBI and that they covered for her and that they saved her presidential campaign and they rigged an investigation.
And then they launched an investigation because they wanted her to be president, always assumed she'd be president.
And also, struck page memos even revealed that they wanted to curry favor with the incoming president.
And so they rigged the investigation.
They ignored all of the crimes, all of the cover-up, all of the impropriety.
Nobody takes all these investigations in-house.
That was another big revelation yesterday.
You know, why did they take the investigation away from rank and file FBI field offices?
These are the guys that do their job every single solitary day.
They're it.
They're the guys that we trust.
They're the ones that deserve our respect and are unfairly tainted in all of this.
You know, sadly, the damage done by these deep state players is deep and it's profound.
But the revelation appears at the very beginning of the Times story yesterday.
And if the Times editors had realized the implication of what they were reporting, I think they would have buried this detail just like they buried the detail that they had a spy inside the Trump campaign.
That was purposely buried in that story.
Because within hours, it says, of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.
In the summer of 2016, the FBI dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive, the Times goes on, that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.
Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador who had evidence that one of Donald Trump's advisors knew in advance about Russia election meddling.
After tense deliberations between D.C. and Australian officials, well, they broke with diplomatic protocol, allowed the ambassador Alexander Downer to sit for an interview with the FBI to describe his meeting with his fellow drinking buddy, George Papadopoulos.
Now, if there were, quote, tense deliberations between Washington and top Australian officials, well, that wasn't just James Comey on the phone trying to get, quote, top Australian officials in order that their ambassador, you know, sit for an FBI grilling.
And if diplomatic protocol had to be broken to arrange the interview, well, then at a very minimum, the Obama State Department had to be involved.
And I don't see how the Obama FBI enlisted the Obama State Department's help without the Obama White House signing off on it.
And if that happened, which apparently it's in the New York Times, it's got to be true.
That means John Kerry, as well as Obama, played an active role in instigating this investigation from the very outset.
You know, the same John Kerry who was recently trying to undermine the president on the issue of getting out of that horrific Iranian deal.
So maybe it's time to drag Secretary Kerry up to Capitol Hill.
What did he know?
When did he know it?
What did President Obama know?
When did he know it?
About the tense deliberations with the top Australian officials, which were necessary to launch the entire Russiagate investigation.
Well, the investigation was going on, by the way, before, you know, we now learn, too, that was another problem.
It's just one problem after another.
Now, let me get to another point here.
There's a grand jury witness saying that Mueller is trying to manufacture crimes.
This was in the Daily Caller today.
A witness who testified before Mueller's grand jury last month is accusing the special prosecutor of, quote, manufacturing crimes against Trump associates in order to pressure them to testify against the president.
This is huge.
Former Trump aide Michael Caputo, he was interviewed and said, even though it doesn't seem so far that they've got direct evidence of Russia collusion, they're still managing to manufacture crimes.
And Caputo believes Manafort has a really good chance of defeating the charges brought against him during the Russia probe, and that the team of Mueller is headed by, you know, headed a jamming up Roger Stone.
That was the latest, you know, apparently they now have subpoenaed Roger Stone's Twitter advisor or Twitter guy.
And anyway, you know, and they've accused Stone of knowing what was in the WikiLeaks drop before that ever happened, which I doubt ever.
I doubt that's true at all.
I don't think anybody knew.
Anyway, they're not going to find any Russia collusion on Stone's part, but when they don't, they're going to get frustrated, Caputo said.
They'll go after him for jaywalking.
He said the former Trump aide also said Mueller's investigation is to find people, and then they're trying to find the crimes for these people.
That's all true.
This is what Judge Ellis warned us about.
Judge Ellis, smart guy.
Now, there's an upcoming ruling as it relates to the Manafort judge could launch an investigation into Mueller's own team.
Now, we go back two weeks, two Fridays ago, where Judge T.S. Ellis III, well, he may be about to turn the tables on Mueller's investigation, issuing a ruling that could subject Mueller's prosecutors to a pretty thorough grilling by lawyers for Manafort.
I hope he does rule this way.
The person that was leading that initial court proceeding was none other than Andrew Weissman.
Yeah, the guy responsible for tens of thousands of Anderson accounting workers to lose their jobs.
The guy that lost 9-0 in the U.S. Supreme Court in an overturn.
The guy that put Merrill executives for them in jail for a year.
That was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
And the same guy that twice has been excoriated for withholding exculpatory evidence.
Yeah, that guy.
Anyway, Mueller filed papers in the U.S. District Court in Virginia opposing a request for Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing, to hold an investigation hearing into the rash of press reports on Manafort.
And Downing cited 10 stories sourced to unnamed people who implicated Manafort in possible criminal activity.
They've been leaking like civs.
I don't care what anybody says.
He contends the information came from grand jury testimony, which would be illegal for any prosecutor to leak.
In a footnote to the filing, Mueller's lead prosecutor, the one and only Andrew Weissman, the New York Times describes that's Robert Mueller's pit bull, made a preemptive argument before District Judge T.S. Ellis III.
If the judge does allow a hearing, Weissman says Mr. Downing should not be allowed to question special counsel prosecutors or other Justice Department lawyers.
In other words, the guys that might have leaked.
To the extent Mr. Manafort contemplates testimony by the Department of Justice attorneys, he would have to overcome the rule that testimony from prosecutors trying criminal cases is disfavored.
Interesting from a guy that loses as often as he does and a guy that has been has the most unquestionably despicable ethics.
This was why unless Weissman and that team disbanded, I would never ever in a million years ever allow the president to talk to this person.
Anyway, disfavored.
Weissman was in the Justice Department as the chief of their fraud division before Mueller recruited him in 2017.
Weissman says he made a separate private filing with the judge that provides the court additional information.
Nunes, California Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has asked the Justice Department to provide information on meeting Mr. Weissman conducted with news reporters last year when he headed the fraud division because there's suspicion he was leaking to the press even then, which probably is true also, like everything else that we see happening.
I mean, this is so corrupt.
I can't even believe it.
Now, let me get to some other points here that I think need to be made.
You know, Juliani suggesting the FBI spy, we could challenge the legitimacy of the entire investigation.
I believe that the former mayor, former prosecutor, is right on that one.
Comey dodged a Senate-Russia hearing as contradictions and questions mount.
Yeah, he skipped a Wednesday closed-door intelligence committee hearing where top and current former Intel community officials reviewed conclusions about Russia meddling in 2016.
Let's see, John Brennan, Admiral Mike Rogers, former National Intelligence Director Clapper, attended the hearing.
Comey's decision not to attend.
That's interesting.
We're watching that very closely.
But Comey's FBI did have a mole inside a Trump world.
Dirty dossier.
You know, everything suggests the whole thing is absolutely not anything you could have ever predicted.
None of this.
It is so downright corrupt and dishonest in every way imaginable.
You know, now they're going to edit the report before we get to see it.
Why don't we get to see it first?
Why do they get to keep it first?
Now, I will say this, and the idea that we even have to answer these old questions that have been dealt with over and over again, we've had expert after expert.
I think Levin on Hannity last year.
Yeah, Mueller can't indict a sitting president.
Why is that even news at this point?
You know, I guess because that's what the left wanted.
The left has always wanted anything that they can get on Donald Trump.
Anything.
They don't care about the truth anymore.
You know, the media in this country is basically, you know, to watch them now play catch-up because they know their embarrassment is forthcoming and they want to now, you know, sort of get ahead of it because deep state actors that love their support are now leaking to them.
This is going to be really bad for you.
We want to just jump out ahead of this.
It's coming really quickly.
You know, you might want to protect yourself here.
It's unbelievable.
Jumping Jack Flash.
Only Linda would know this.
Do you know what Jumpin' Jack Flash, that song is about?
I have no idea.
I'm pretty sure it has to do with drug use.
I'm so glad that you conflate that with me, though, but thank you.
No, I know what you're so sensitive.
It's unbelievable to me.
First of all, I'm never sensitive.
Don't get it twisted.
Of all, you've gone a little snowflakey on me of late in the last 24 hours.
Wow.
So, you are a little snowflake.
You're a brave man to say that on national radio.
No, I'm not.
Snowflakey, do you want me to ship your crayons overnight to you?
Did you want that for early morning priorities?
No, no, no, hurry.
You're the snowflake.
You're the one that would need them, and of course, your smelling salts.
And you're, of course, you probably need your comfort pillow.
Is that answer?
I send you the cocoa and the reason with the puppies that you want to raise on the farm in the woods.
Can I finish?
The reason I said you would know is because you are a singer.
Right, because all singers know about drugs and rolling stones, of course.
No, you know about music.
All right, hurricane.
I didn't know.
Crossfire Hurricane Edition continues.
Newt next.
I think maybe more than any place else right now, there's a revolution going on in California.
They want safety.
It had a thousand people together.
Many of these were illegals.
They were criminals.
They were also working.
And she informed them, and they all fled, or most of them fled.
And that whole operation that took a long time to put together, I mean, you talk about obstruction of justice.
I would recommend that you look into obstruction of justice for the mayor of Oakland, California, Jeff.
She advises thousand people.
They told, get out of here.
The law enforcement's coming.
And you worked on that long and hard, and you got there, and there were very few people there.
To me, that's obstruction of justice.
And perhaps the people are very angry about what happened.
Why would there be an MS-13 gang member I know about?
If they don't reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.
We have people coming into the country trying to come in.
We're stopping a lot of them.
But we're taking people out of the country.
You wouldn't believe how bad these people are.
These aren't people.
These are animals.
All right, that was the president obviously talking about MS-13 members.
If anyone pays attention to it, what's so despicable, but yet predictable, is how the news media tried to spin that.
He's calling immigrants animals.
The question specifically dealt with MS-13 gang members.
Yeah, dangerous people.
And yeah, we know the crimes and the murder and all of the actions and crimes associated with that group.
Anyway, just a typical day in the news media in the United States today, which is so sad.
Fake news, if you want to call that and more.
Joining us now, former Speaker of the House, author of the soon-to-be released book, Trump's America.
Newt Gingrich is back with us.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing well.
And by the way, you know, the most recent part of this dance is Nancy Pelosi defending MS-13.
That's so true.
That's another added point.
Good point.
Think about this.
You have Trump, and anybody who has read the horrible crimes, the deliberate viciousness of the gang rapes, the murders, the torturing.
MS-13 is a truly bad organization.
But to get to a point where liberals just can't help themselves, so she's out now basically defending MS-13, wanting us to be sympathetic to their basic humanness.
Well, you show me somebody who's been part of gang raping a 13-year-old or somebody who's been part of torturing a 17-year-old.
It's a little hard for me to be too sympathetic.
You know, last night, I mean, we've been going over in all the detail, and I can really sum it up this way in terms of where we are.
And now we're heading into the release of Michael Horowitz's investigation as it relates to the Clinton email server scandal.
This is what we know.
We know Hillary, by choosing to bypass congressional oversight, put her server that in fact had top-secret classified special access programming information on it that we believe at least five or six foreign intelligence agencies hacked into.
She put it in a mom-and-pop shop bathroom closet.
That's illegal.
It's a violation of the law, 18 U.S.C. 793.
Well, those emails were subpoenaed.
She deleted them.
Then she acid washed the hard drive.
Nobody knew about BleachPit until then.
Then, of course, devices were busted up just in case some of the emails still existed there.
Then we had an exoneration investigation that was being written by Peter Strzzok and James Comey in May before they ever interviewed Hillary and 17 other witnesses in July.
Three days after the Hillary interview, they exonerate Hillary, even though they admit she had done all these things.
Now we know three days after that, Crossfire Hurricane begins, a secret operation by the FBI to investigate Donald Trump.
Peter Strzok, the Trump hater, the one that exonerated Hillary, interviewed Hillary.
He's now leading up this investigation.
We know that led to the point where they decided to get a FISA warrant based on a Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dossier put together by a foreign national, Christopher Steele, with proven now Russian lies and misinformation.
It was never verified, corroborated, presented in an original application of the FISA court, and they never told the judge they never verified or that Hillary had paid for it.
It happened in three subsequent renewal applications.
Now, you've been in politics a long time, sir.
Break all of that down for me and tell me what this means for this country.
Well, what it means is that we were very close to having the top levels of the Justice Department, the White House, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation engaged in systemic corruption on a scale that we have literally never seen in the United States,
ranging from the millions of dollars the Russians gave the Clinton Foundation, the half-million dollar speech the Russians paid for from Bill Clinton, the deliberate cover-up.
I mean, just the simple fact.
You're not allowed to delete 33,000 emails from a server that involved government information, and then you get to tell us that we should trust you.
I mean, anybody except Hillary Clinton who did that would have gone to jail in no time at all because it's an open and shut case.
We put young men and women who are in the services in jail for minor infractions compared to what Hillary Clinton did.
And then you turn around, and it's not bad enough that they're in the tank, totally corrupt for Hillary Clinton.
They go out of their way to launch, I think, the most amazing project we've seen maybe since J. Edgar Hoover was wiretapping Martin Luther King Jr.
I mean, you have this run-amok top people.
And we were discussing this today at Gamers Productions because we were sorting out Andy McCarthy's brilliant new column on the New York Times story today and everything that's involved here.
And part of what hit me that all of us have understated, this is Barack Obama.
You couldn't have had this level of activity without Obama and the Obama White House being involved.
Everything we know about how they ran things, they had an iron grip.
They had people who were frightened of them and loyal to them.
And all of this in the end had to, just as they methodically lied to the country about Benghazi, and no reasonable person today can doubt that.
I think they methodically set out to guarantee that Trump would not win and to set him up for destruction.
And I think they were prepared to corrupt the FBI senior level and corrupt the Justice Department to do it.
It's a study.
There's nothing like it in American history.
I have said this is, you know, Water.
It's so much bigger than Watergate.
I call it the biggest abuse of power scandal in history.
If you take any one component, Hillary and putting top secret classified special access programming information on a mom-and-pop shop server, you know, that in and of itself is huge.
Any American that went through the efforts of obstructing justice with subpoenaed emails and acted that way would be put in jail.
You know, then you take it to the next level, and of course, the fix was in for her.
And you've got these, we now have text messages of the people investigating hated Donald Trump and helped Hillary or the FISA court.
Could you imagine if Sean Hannity or Newt Gingrich presented to any judge in this country information that we never verified, never corroborated, turned out to be Russian lies that was bought and paid for, say, by us, and we didn't inform the judge of that important fact.
Any one of those things would put us away forever.
And remember, you have the President of the United States, President Obama, publicly saying he is certain that Hillary will not be indicted.
You have his Attorney General saying to the head of the FBI, I think you should use the same language that the Clinton campaign is using to describe what you're looking into.
Now, I mean, that is a level of politicizing the justice system that is really sobering and I think really, for any serious person, more than a little frightening.
Well, you have Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, who in many, many ways, in my opinion, is missing an action.
And Rod Rosenstein, who's so conflicted, Rod Rosenstein writes the letter to fire recommending firing Comey.
Rod Rosenstein himself signed off on one of those FISA applications to spy on a Trump campaign associate with the bulk of the information coming from the phony dossier.
How did he get to appoint Robert Mueller in the first place?
Then you looked at Robert Mueller's team of Democratic donors and frankly, people with the worst track record as it relates to ethics before courts.
Well, and remember, you also have in Rosenstein somebody who was trying not to give any of this information to the Congress.
He has been, not because any of it's secret, not because any of it involves national security.
These guys have been engaged in a gigantic, massive cover-up.
And I think it's beginning to all unravel.
How do we actually get this all cleaned up to the point?
I know the Inspector General is going to do their job.
You know, a lot of people are very skeptical.
A lot of people say to me, you know, the Clintons have always been able to dodge everything all throughout their careers, going back to Whitewater, Travelgate, all of, you know, selling the Lincoln bedroom out and all these other scandals.
What makes you think this time that people will be held responsible?
Well, I know we've had fired and now retired and some people let go at the FBI.
That's a start.
I think it was really, but I think there are other players here.
You're right.
I think this goes to the upper levels of the Obama administration.
We're beginning to learn more about Brennan and Clapper, who are known liars.
Yeah.
I think too many people have been involved doing too many things for the cover-up to have survived.
And I think, and I keep using the term unraveling because I think that's what happens as a historian when I look at these kind of scandals.
They start to unravel almost like a piece of cloth.
And you gradually, this person collapses, then that person collapses, then you get this report, then you get that report.
And every week there are new things that are almost impossible to imagine.
And all of them involve the elite media trying to cover up and protect the left-wing bureaucrats and the left-wing people who were, I believe, clearly violating the law.
But I also think that Congressman Nunes deserves an enormous amount of credit.
And the Freedom Caucus guys, too.
They've been great.
You know, and so I think when you look also at Grassley, the chair of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and Goodlatt, the chair in the House, those guys have also stood up.
So you've had some very stand-up guys who have begun to make a big difference.
And you're exactly right.
When you look at the work that was done by Jim Jordan and others in the Freedom Caucus, again, there's been this continuous pressure where people have had the courage not to back down, not to give up, not to get exhausted.
And so I think this is going to just continue to grow.
I think the more we learn, the bigger the momentum will be to strip back the lies and to get to what really happened.
Well, I think we've been slowly unpeeling that onion every single day.
Let me get back to Jeff Sessions for a minute.
You know, none of this happens at Jeff Sessions, the day after he's confirmed, recusing himself.
Why didn't he tell the president that he was going to do that?
Because the president has a right to have an attorney general of his choice, not one forced upon him in all of this in the case of Rod Rosenstein, who I believe is very conflicted.
Well, and look, I think that Sessions now has every right to step back in and withdraw his recusal because it's very clear we're not doing anything involving the campaign.
And remember, the original excuse for the recusal was that he'd been involved in the campaign, there were some questions, and he might be conflicted.
None of the stuff they're now looking at in any way is a conflict for Sessions.
And frankly, he ought to do his job, and he ought to take back control, and he ought to have Mueller report direct to him, and he ought to manage it, which is, you know, the system's not designed to have an independent counsel run amok.
The system's designed to have the senior leadership of the Justice Department looking over their shoulder and guiding them and limiting them.
Well, the fact that they've slow walked, they've used national security as a justification for redactions, and it proves that it's not even nationally, there's no national security interest in it, and then just downright not abiding by subpoenas.
So I think the president should step in and order the attorney general to have all these documents sent to Congress.
They have constitutional oversight authority.
We do have a checks and balances system and co-equal branches of government.
800-941-Sean is our number.
If you want to be a part of the program, Dana Rohrbacher is going to join us from California in a minute.
A congressman, he's been fighting for answers also.
He deserves a lot of credit.
All right, as we continue with the former Speaker of the House, soon to be releasing his next book, Trump's America.
Newt Gingrich is with us.
Let's talk about the 2018 election.
A lot of people in the press have been talking about this big blue wave.
Historically, midterm elections don't go well for the party in power at the White House.
Why do I think all bets are off in terms of predictions this year?
Well, I just did a newsletter at Gingrich Productions on the whole notion that all the people who were wrong in 2015 and all the people who were wrong in 2016 are now back being wrong again.
I mean, why would you think they've learned anything?
And these are all the folks who don't get what's going on.
I think that the blue wave is at most going to be a blue trickle.
I think it might not even be that by the time we get to Election Day.
Watching the Democratic Party self-destruct in these primaries is amazing.
They're nominating in Houston.
They nominated an openly anti-Semitic candidate.
They've nominated openly socialist candidates, people who run around and say, yes, I'm a socialist.
Not even claim to be a Democrat.
So in a very real sense, you're seeing a brand new Sanders wing of the Democratic Party emerge that is so far to the left.
I mean, in the age of Venezuela and the collapse of socialism and the human pain of the Cuban system, how could anybody think that in a general election, socialism is going to work?
So I'm watching the Democratic Party, frankly, run off a cliff.
And I think that the odds are very good that Trump is going to be able to rally the nation and be able to win a surprising victory this fall.
I got to actually say goodbye.
I'm looking at my clock.
I'm a little long here.
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, we always love having you, sir.
Thank you for being with us.
When you look at all the main flashpoints, the Trump Tower meeting, the Stormy Daniels payment, the raid on Manafort, the raid on Cohen, is there any one part of that that concerns you more than other parts of that?
Yeah, their inability to reach a conclusion that is obvious and their unwillingness to recognize the damage this does to our country all over the world.
This was engineered by Comey.
You said today there's a plan B and C. If Mueller doesn't wrap this thing up, we're entering the second year.
You guys are very well aware of how much time and effort this takes to answer these questions, ongoing investigation.
Bill Clinton found that out.
What is the plan B and C?
Well, we are going to demand an answer.
We cooperated beyond any other president ever cooperated.
All those documents, 1.4 million, all those witnesses.
But what's the plan B and C, Rudy?
Is it firing Mueller?
Firing Comey, firing Mueller?
Then we just start from day one again, as the president pointed out.
What we're going to do is we're going to see what kind of legal remedies are available to us, including if they subpoena us, challenge the subpoena.
Well, the headlines today, CNN, John Don Jr. admits he was looking for dirt on Hillary from the Russian.
Wow.
And they weren't looking for dirt on Donald Trump?
Only the dossier.
When I ran against them, they were looking for dirt on me every day.
I mean, that's what you do.
Maybe you shouldn't, but you do it.
Nothing illegal about that.
And even if it comes from a Russian or a German or an American, it doesn't matter.
And they never used it is the main thing.
They never used it.
They rejected it.
If there was collusion with the Russians, they would have used it.
Do you have any information or any sense, again, given your background at justice, how these things tend to go, that there's any chance that Bob Mueller gave immunity to Jim Comey?
No, I don't.
I have no idea if he gave him immunity.
I don't know why he's not being investigated.
That troubles us because a lot of the president's statements contradict Comey.
They're much more logical than Comey's, but they contradict his.
If you want to disbelieve Comey, then you're walking him into a trap.
And Comey's not been investigated.
So I don't think we would sit him down for an interview unless Comey was investigated and treated in the same way.
All right, then, of course, Rudy Giuliani last night on Hannity, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program joining us now to respond to this and the immigration battle that's in California and elsewhere around the country.
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, Congressman, I thought first Laura asked some really good questions and we got some really good answers here.
We're also getting some reports now in the media coming out.
Paul Sperry, one of them, Reitbart, another, that the Inspector General may declare the FBI and DOJ broke the law on the Clinton email probe, which, by the way, we already know that happened, but it would be good to get the confirmation that I think we deserve for a long time.
What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are, number one, I am so proud of you, Sean.
You're the Paul Revere.
You're out there warning people that our freedom is in danger, and the troops on the other side, the fake news and the deep state, are actually making their move and immobilizing the Patriots.
So thank you, Sean.
And what you just said, listen, I'm not doing it alone.
There's a few of us, but there's not enough.
And I think you're right.
I think the overall arching narrative of the mainstream media has been so off-base and so corrupt and so desirous to delegitimize and ultimately destroy this president.
I've never seen anything like it in my life.
And in the interim, they have missed the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in our history, sadly.
Especially Reddit, the constitutional protections that we have.
They have politicized our intelligence agencies and the FBI to the point that they were doing the bidding of a candidate to defeat another candidate in the election.
This has never happened before.
And we are on the edge of losing our freedom.
And thank God that we've had you and, as you say, a team of patriots who are out there alerting the American people to this.
This is, as you say.
There's only been a few of you in Congress, Congressman Brahrbacher.
It's been people like you.
It's been people, members of the Freedom Caucus.
It's been Devin Nunes.
Only a few others that, you know, look how hard they have to fight the Department of Justice to hand over subpoenaed documents so they can do their constitutional duty and follow up with oversight because we have co-equal branches of government and checks and balances that they're not allowing to have happen.
Devin Nunes and a few of us, but Devin, I'm going to make the hero of the day.
My two heroes are between him and you.
Devin Nunes, it's Nunes and Hannity, as far as I'm concerned.
You're very kind of heroes today.
We've got to stand up.
This almost, as I say, I have never seen a situation where the other side was so arrogant that they were willing, after the voters made their decision, to supersede the voters to try to undo the authority transfer that is given in our democratic process by the voters to the one who won the election.
They have disrupted that.
That is about the hype.
I don't want to say treason, but being not loyal to the fundamental democratic process that has seen us through so long.
Where do we go from here?
Is it going to take Congress or will it take the executive branch?
Is Congress got to hold the DOJ in contempt for not complying with subpoenas, slow-walking, phony redactions in the name of national security that later are proven not to have anything to do with national security?
Or is it going to take the executive branch demanding that everything get sent over to Congress, which I guess the president has the authority to do?
Does he need to involve himself in that?
Well, I'm afraid that Jeff Sessions, who I've known for a long time, has not proven to be an aggressive force that he should have been in this time of crisis.
We shouldn't have to beg him to send information from the Department of Justice over to a congressional inquiry.
It's insane that we have to fight someone within the president's own administration.
But we've got the news media, by and large, except for Fox and a few others, just overwhelmingly every day, reinforcing a total false image of what's going on.
And not only that.
What is the worst part for you?
Is it Hillary's crimes?
Is it that they rigged the investigation?
Is it FISA abuse?
What is the worst part for you?
Or is it all of it together?
I think altogether the worst thing is, because it ties it all together, is they have compromised the integrity of our law enforcement and our intelligence systems to the point where Hillary could get a $150 million infusion of cash into the Clinton Foundation.
That's not even looked at.
And then they're looking at some guy, things that are so much smaller in scale and have no value in terms of determining.
By the way, that investigation is still ongoing.
There is an FBI field office investigation into Uranium One.
I know.
Remember, we had an agent undercover within that time period where literally there was bribing and blackmailing and extortion and money laundering by Putin agents within the U.S. that wanted a foothold in the uranium market.
And guess what?
We had an agent there the whole time, and that agent did, in fact, speak to other agents that are investigating it in Arkansas.
Sean, I've been with you all the way on that investigation.
I haven't been bothering you because I know how busy you are, but I have been doing a parallel work with the same fella, and you're right.
This is explosive.
And ironically, if these people wouldn't have been trying to undermine the legitimate win that the president had at the polls by undermining his assuming the authority that he's been granted as president, we would never have known about that and that fellow.
So they've actually shot themselves in the leg by creating, well, in the head, actually, by creating a crisis and a controversy that should have been left alone because they are more guilty than this president ever could dream of.
There is a great irony in that, and that's why I've called this the year of the boomerang because everything they've alleged, starting with collusion, the only collusion was Hillary as it relates to Russia hiring, well, first funneling money through a law firm so they cover the expense.
That hires, that money goes to Fusion GPS.
Fusion GPS hires a foreign national.
The fire, foreign national, we keep forgetting this, Christopher Steele in interrogatories in Great Britain under oath, he debunks his own dossier.
You know, well, maybe 50-50.
It wasn't meant to be a problem.
He's taking a lot of part of the list, Sean, that people are so far to the left that they don't understand how their own weaknesses, they can't see the reality of where they're putting themselves in danger.
Take California, what we're doing right now, Sean.
The liberal left of the Democratic Party controls the Democratic Party, which controls the state government.
And what are they doing?
They're passing rules that local police cannot cooperate with federal authorities in order to go after criminal illegal aliens.
It's unbelievable.
How does your state of California get away with their status as a sanctuary state?
How does that happen?
Well, thank God we have a federal suit against that now.
But what happened is, just over the years, we haven't had a president who was committed to protecting our borders and securing our borders.
We've had this massive flow of illegals into our country and into our state in California.
It's tilted the political spectrum way to the left.
And so here we have our state government clearly, when they say they call it the California Values Act.
It's actually SB 54.
We call it the Sanctuary State Act.
They have actually sided with foreign criminals over the safety of their own citizens.
They are so far to the left, they can't even see why anyone would be upset with that.
You know, it really is unbelievable.
Anyway, so you have California governor, you have the Attorney General.
They've done zero in terms of being helpful.
Is it a case where, I guess the first thing, I mean, I guess they feel that states can circumvent what is federal law.
That's correct.
All right.
But the federal government doesn't have to hand over the funds to those people that circumvent the laws of the land and, frankly, are aiding and abetting law breaking in the country.
I support that position.
Not one cent to people who have not cooperated on the federal government's primary responsibility of securing our borders and making us safe.
Sean.
Hang on right there one more second.
We've got Congressman Dana Rohrbacher with us.
He'll stay with us a few more minutes.
News Roundup Information Overload Hour coming up at the top of the hour.
A huge Hannity tonight.
Reports now leaking all over the place that the Inspector General will declare the FBI DOJ broke the law in the Clinton email probe.
Watching it very, very closely.
And as we continue with Dana Rohrbacher, congressman from the great state of California, there's a mass exodus happening from states like high-tax states, like New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and elsewhere.
You know, how is it that a state like Texas or a state like Florida, they have zero state income tax, zero, and lower taxes on so many in so many other areas?
California is 13.5%.
New York, 10%.
How do these other states build better roads, better highways, have better infrastructure, and yet they don't have a state income tax?
How do states like California get away with, all right, if it's 40% nationally now, it's 53.5% of people's income, and that's before all the other taxes that you have to pay?
How do they get away with that type of high taxation?
You have a totally incompetent government in California because it's not based on Thomas Jefferson and the things our founding fathers laid down as fundamental American principles, but it's based more on Karl Marx.
And they've sunk so far to the left that they now are an enemy to those basic things that we have taken for granted that has made our country the gem of the world.
I mean, we're the people who've actually raised the standard of living of average people and average working people than ever before in history.
And now the state government in California has rejected all of those fundamental principles.
So no matter where we're going down the tubes, and by the way, Sean, the President of the United States, he wants to get control of the border first.
That's his primary thing because he knows we're bleeding not only in California, but the whole country.
What do you make of these 20 or so Republicans that want to couple with the Democrats that discharge petition for amnesty?
Is that going to happen?
I don't think it's going to happen.
And they hit us with it with a, oh, we have to be fair to you and give you a vote.
But the bottom line is, and by the way, I thought that I listened to them about it in the beginning and I understood, my God, this is just going to bring us down at a time when the president's trying to hold the line.
You know, Sean, the president's main problem is that he wants to control the border.
And when he deals with Congress, he says, this is how much it's going to cost.
A wall will cost maybe $50 billion.
And so the members of Congress who don't want him to succeed have actually tried to undercut his position, saying we can't afford it.
I have a plan, Sean, and I will tell you right now that we can find, I have a specific piece of legislation that will finance the wall and the business.
I'll tell you what we'll do.
We will have you back to discuss that situation because obviously it's an ongoing controversy.
Dana Rohrbach, it's been a long time.
We always appreciate you being on.
Thanks for all you're doing.
One of the few guys we can depend on as you have your whole career.
Thank you so much.
We're glad to have that voice in Congress.
800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
A lot more breaking news.
Waiting for the Inspector General report.
Will it declare the FBI DOJ broke the law?
That and more straight ahead.
I wanted to ask you about what some people are calling your best week ever last week.
You had two Supreme Court decisions supportive of the Affordable Care Act and of gay rights.
You also delivered a speech down in Charleston that was pretty warmly received.
It seems that you've built up some political capital for the remaining months of your presidency.
I'm curious how you want to use it.
What hard things do you want to tackle at this point?
During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most, and troubled you the most?
Let me write this down.
Surprised.
Trouble.
I've got what was the first one?
Surprise.
Surprised.
Troubled.
Troubled.
Enchanted.
Enchanted.
Humble.
And what was the last one?
Humble?
Humbled.
Thank you, sir.
Oh, this is such a blessing to see you, Mr. President.
Thank you for taking time out of your day.
Oh, gracious God.
Thank you so much.
All right, there we have it.
News Roundup Information Overload Hour, Sean Hannity Show.
Yeah, those were, you know, one of the funniest things.
Let's go back to this here.
I mean, Jim Acosta's being interviewed.
Jim Acosta's become the biggest jackass in the White House press corps.
He's so obviously anti-Trump.
Frankly, the whole network over at CNN is, and it's not helping them.
I look at TV ratings every day.
And by the way, thanks to all of you.
We're usually number one every day.
And they're like getting a third of the ratings that we get.
And it's anti-Trump, anti-Trump, anti-Trump.
And then the next thing they try to do, which I guess is their little trick, they figure, well, I'll tell you what we're going to do.
We'll run tapes of Sean Hannity's monologues and tapes of Hannity's show.
And we'll do segments on Hannity because his ratings are high.
I mean, I want residuals.
I think I needed to get paid.
Same thing with conspiracy TV, MS. Anyway, this, you know, we see such a difference.
This is Acosta with a straight face.
You just heard for yourself how kind and soft and loving they were to their champion, you know, Barack Obama, the Nobel Prize winner.
But here's what Acosta said.
I'm hated by the best people or the worst people.
Are you their least favorite of all?
Probably.
But, you know, as FDR once said, I welcome their hatred.
I do.
And, you know, listen, when I covered Barack Obama, I was just as tough on him.
And if they're going to lie to the American people, those lies come with consequences.
And it's our job.
And listen, they can play all the games that they want and not call on me.
There's going to be somebody else who's going to come in.
I have other colleagues in the briefing room who ask hard questions as well.
And, you know, we're just not going to stop.
Anyway, here to react to all of that.
Jonathan Gillum, author of the best-selling book, Sheep No More, Danielle McLaughlin, attorney, constitutional expert.
Thank you all for being with us.
Are you going to say that I don't think there's ever been a president in the history of the country that has been ganged up on by the media more than this one?
And the polls bear that out, that the American people see that as well, and the numbers bear it out.
91% negative coverage by the mainstream media of all things Donald Trump.
Is that bias in your view, Danielle?
Hi, Sean.
How are you doing?
Hey, Jonathan.
The job of the press is to hold power to account, and they did it to Obama.
They did it to Hillary Clinton.
No, they didn't do it to Obama.
Let me stop you right there.
They absolutely did.
They absolutely.
Okay, let me stop you right there.
How many times, now, if Donald Trump, I can prove to you you're wrong.
If Donald Trump began his political career, remember when he came down the escalator at Trump Tower with Melania Trump, remember, and he announced he was going to run for president.
Of course, yes.
Okay.
What if Donald Trump actually made that announcement, started his political career, because that was the start of his political career.
What if he did it in the home of two unrepentant terrorists that were part of the weather underground responsible for blowing up the Capitol, Pentagon, New York City police headquarters?
And of all days, one of them quoted on 9-11, 2001, you know, lamenting that they didn't do more in terms of that type of activity.
How many times do you think Barack Obama in the course of the presidency was asked about Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn where he started his political career?
Look, I mean, his political career started back when he was out of law school, let's be honest, with community organizing.
Not a great choice.
No, his first announcement.
When he first announced it was in the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn.
How many times do you think the media in the course of that 2007, eight campaign asked Barack Obama about Ayers and Dorn?
How many times?
Take a wild guess.
Actually, that's a great question.
Probably not enough in your estimation, but I'm not going to defend it because I think that's completely inappropriate.
One time.
I will say about that.
The answer is one time.
And the only reason the question got asked is because I fed it to George Stephanopoulos when he was on my radio show the day before he was hosting a debate.
He'd never heard of them before.
And Obama's, you know, he's just a guy in the neighborhood, George.
No, he wasn't just a guy in the neighborhood.
Everybody knew exactly who he was.
What do you think about the revelation that for all the years Obama was president, they hit a picture of him and Louis Farrakhan?
Is that deceptive?
Is that lying?
Who hit the picture?
Who hit the picture of him and Lewis Farrakhan?
Well, there was a picture of a DNC event, and this picture was purposely withheld from the people of this country in the lead up to that election.
Well, honestly, if you're really that concerned about a picture being a problem in terms of what people are doing.
But if you hang out with, if you're an Acorn organizer, an Olinski disciple, you start your career in Ayers and Dorn home, you go to the church of GD America, Reverend Wright, and he is like family to me, Obama said about Reverend Wright.
You know, America's chickens have come home to roost.
Not God bless America, GD America.
Wouldn't it be a fairly, well, good assumption that he probably knew Farrakhan in the course of hanging out with all the other radicals in Chicago?
I am far less concerned about the concealment of one photo than I am about the fact that there was a counterintelligence investigation going on against the Trump team, and no Americans knew about it before the United States.
That's a good pivot.
I will give you credit.
We'll get to that in a minute.
I'm far more worried about that.
Jonathan, can anyone with a straight face make the case that Donald Trump and Barack Obama are treated the same?
Absolutely, absolutely not.
And let me just start off by saying what Danielle said.
very first thing that she said, I hear so much that the press's job is to do this or the press's job is to do that.
Let's just be honest here and let's set the record straight.
The press has no job.
There's nothing in the Constitution or in the law that says the press has a job.
There's no fourth estate, fourth branch of government.
The press, as we know it today, is a group of companies that manipulate information for a profit and for the gain of political power.
That's what they are.
When we look at the Constitution and it says that freedom of the press shall not be infringed upon, they're talking about the printing press and they're talking, in other words, about dissemination of information.
The press or the media is something that has morphed into companies that play with information.
And in a lot of ways, they are a part of the criminal sides of the government.
And when I say the government, I mean the Republican and the Democratic parties.
That's what they are.
So we can't look at anything with a straight face, quite frankly, that is reported.
There's commentary like your show, Sean.
There's commentary where you openly say, this is my opinion based on information that we've received.
But when you look at like CNN and this Jim Acosta person who, when you look at their background, there is nothing there.
They are tools of the Democratic Party.
And when you look at what they report, it is manipulation of information.
That's it.
And when we look at the last thing that you brought up, which is the relationship of Obama and not just Obama, all the people that surrounded him and the Clintons and their relationship, the totality of the relationships of all these people, Bill Ayers, the Reverend in Chicago, all these different individuals.
Not one of these people on the peripheral of their mainstream relationships love America.
They all hate America.
They're all racist.
And you don't have to be, as some of these activists will tell you, you don't have to be white to be a racist.
These people are racist.
They hate America.
And somehow, some way, one of them was able to get elected and serve for eight years.
And the game that they play with the media is dangerous.
And the American people, including Danielle, you need to see this and take it for what it is.
You know, Jonathan, I love you, man, but the idea that Barack Obama hates America is just something that I can't go without pushing back on.
This is somebody who was in public service basically from the time that he left law school.
He grew off in poverty.
And I'm not saying that Grabong Garang makes you a good person, but the idea that we can have a conversation where you're saying that somebody hates America and he was the president of the United States for eight years.
I just have to push back on that because I think that was a man who loved America.
You might not like his policies.
You might not like his vision for America, but he loved this country.
So the last thing you said there, his vision for America.
If you don't understand and defend the Constitution, here's what you understand about all these politicians, Daniel.
They don't swear an oath to the Constitution like we do when we serve in the military or in law enforcement.
We put our lives on the line.
I can guarantee you I bled more in training than the majority of politicians will ever bleed in their life for this country unless they get a massive amount of political.
I don't doubt that for a second.
I don't doubt that for a second.
So their love of country is quite often based upon the love of the benefits that they get from power and from monetary gain.
Let me move on.
Let me ask, you had brought up the issue, Danielle, of the FBI now having a spy in the Trump campaign.
Why are you laughing?
Yeah, no, I mean, I've seen the reporting and I've seen the word spy used.
What we do know is that there's a counterintelligence investigation going on, and the FBI was apparently talking to somebody within the campaign.
You call that person a spy, I call that person an informant, but the FBI doesn't have an interest in talking to somebody unless they think there's wrongdoing, right?
There was an investigation open for a reason.
This will bear out ultimately.
What was the reason?
Well, we know that they opened it because Papadopoulos had spoken to a person.
No, you didn't read the New York Times yesterday, did you?
The investigation was open before that.
It was opened on July 31st.
Okay, it was open before Papadopoulos.
Now, the other part of the Papadopoulos story is you're an attorney, correct?
Can you use hearsay in a court of law?
Not when you're examining witnesses.
You can't.
So you can't use it.
What about two or three-way hearsay?
Is that inadmissible?
Without context, it's a hard thing for me to do.
So we have four-way hearsay as it relates to Papadopoulos and the Australian minister guy.
So it really is irrelevant what two drunk people were saying to each other at a bar that supposedly became the impetus for all of this.
And you're right about hearsay.
You're right, but that doesn't mean you can't use that kind of information to open an investigation.
But they already opened the investigation, so what we've been told is not true.
All right, we've got to take a quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue more with Jonathan Gillum and Danielle McLaughlin on the other side.
Author of the book Sheep No More, Jonathan Gillam, and attorney Danielle McLaughlin.
Now, we do have new information today that I think is getting pretty interesting.
I mean, I can't wait to see what the Inspector General report ultimately finds.
There was a tweet put out by Paul Sperry that the Inspector General Horowitz has found reasonable grounds for believing there's been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to this guy, John Huber, that was appointed by Jeff Sessions for possible prosecution in all of this.
So I think that's going to be pretty interesting.
But do you think that Hillary Clinton, and I've asked you this question, and you duck and you dodge, when Hillary Clinton put top-secret classified information, special access programming information on a computer off-site, which is illegal, and then she erased 33,000 emails and acid-washed her hard drive, is that a crime?
Yes or no?
No.
Two things.
The recipients of all of those emails had security clearances, which are the same.
18 USC 793.
Number two, and actually I learned this from reading Jim Comey's book.
What the FBI did, which was unprecedented, and I, as a defense lawyer, would never let the government do this.
They interviewed the lawyers who reviewed her emails and they took the devices of those lawyers.
James Dwen, Jim Comey said that they never read through each individual email that they erased.
Hillary specifically said they were about yoga, a wedding, a funeral, and conversations with her husband.
Well, her husband does an email.
So you don't believe that subpoenaed emails can be deleted, acid-washed, and then your device is busted up, and you don't believe it's a violation to put top-secret special access program information on a mom-and-pop bathroom closet server and then acid-wash the server.
I mean, the fact that you're saying this sounds ridiculous.
I don't believe that.
There's nobody that agrees with you.
It's not true.
Well, ultimately, the FBI agreed with me because they decided that they declined to do that.
Excited because they rigged the investigation because we now know the person that did the interview and that the former FBI director were writing her exoneration in May before they interviewed her in July.
Two things.
It's not unusual to start drafting a complaint once you've got all of a decision or a memo, which changed many, many times over that following month once you have all the documents in.
Number one.
Number two, I'm glad you brought up Horowitz's report in the OIG.
I want to see that too, because if there was wrongdoing, I'm not going to stand up and defend it.
It just is so frustrating because if any American acted the way she did, that would be obstruction of justice.
You don't get to delete subpoenaed emails and then acid wash your hard drive.
We just don't.
And it's overwhelming and incontrovertible.
And the fact that they put the fix in for her is part of the cover-up.
That's the problem.
All right, guys, thanks for joining us.
We will have you back here next week.
We appreciate you being with us.
All right, 25 now until the top of the hour.
Yeah, Jumpin' Jack Flash is a gas, gas, gas.
Our crossfire hurricane coverage continues of your deep state dive, FBI spies, FISA Warren abuse, unmasking of American citizens, fixing and rigging elections for candidates that have committed felonies, and then attacking the one that the American people want.
Yeah, it's only the beginning of this.
Anyway, glad you're with us.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, let's hit the phones.
Bob is in St. Cloud in Minnesota.
Bob, welcome to this Crossfire Hurricane Edition of the Sean Hannity Show.
Hi, Sean.
Thanks for having me on.
My point, I guess, I want to make is: you know, the media seems to be by far the most powerful aspect of the deep state.
And, you know, when you think about what happens when a coup occurs, what's the first institution the perpetrators take over?
And it's the media.
And I think they've already done that.
And I agree with the president that the media is the enemy of the people and that they've sort of co-opted the Democrats and morphed them into an anti-American movement.
I do believe it's anti-American.
And I don't think they're going to give up, Sean.
I don't think the deep state will easily give up at all.
I think they'll keep going until they either win or lose.
Because if they give up, think about it.
It would just prove to everyone that they're ineffectual and they're not able to wield their power as expected.
You know what?
It's taken a while, the most amazing part of all of this.
And the president played a big role in it.
And those of us in the media that have been digging deep, and there's a lot of us.
I give a lot of credit to my talk radio colleagues and a lot of credit to the people, the team that we put together on Fox that has been doing a deep, deep dig dive into all of this.
And the American people, there's a reason why when Donald Trump says they're fake news, those people in the back, fake news, that the, you know, at times the audience will just turn around, not violently, as the media so desperately wants people to believe, but they'll call them out because it's a really strange thing in life.
Once your eyes are opened, once you're hip to it, once you see it, and once you understand it, you begin to, there's a part of you that first says, how did I not see this before?
How did I not get this before?
And then you see the level of it now, and it's taken on a level of intensity, and it's personal, and it is, you know, they speak with one voice.
It's one big echo chamber.
You can't not see it anymore.
You know, it's sort of like once you wake up to certain truths in your life about yourself, you just can't deny them anymore.
And there is a certain truth.
The media is corrupt.
The media is abusively biased.
The media is literally the press arm of all things Democratic Party.
You know, the New York Times yesterday, it was the greatest article ever because they're admitting everything we've been telling you is right.
They just tried to make excuses.
And then when I found out last night that the IG report is scheduled to come out, that they've finished the draft of it.
Well, now we know why they're doing it.
They're doing it in preparation of what is about to hit because it's an embarrassment to them.
They're never going to do a Maya Culpa.
They're just going to act.
Well, we've reported on this before.
Yeah, like five days ago.
But look, the bottom line is for them not to be successful, the American people need to understand one thing.
You know, if you like what this president is doing, if you like the direction of the country, if you like what has happened to the economy, if you like peace through strength and you like his foreign policy and you believe his policies on immigration, energy, and all of this, then you got to know that 2018 is the most important midterm election in your life because that is the referendum.
That is the vote of confidence you can give the president.
And if you have a horrible Republican, and there are many of them, look at those that want to do the discharge position on amnesty.
There's another example.
If you have a Republican, at least you're going to probably suck it up, hopefully, and do it for the president so he can continue the work that he was hired to do.
Because if Nancy Pelosi gets the speakership, they will impeach him.
They will try.
Let's get to our phones.
Let's say hi to Jamie's in San Antonio, W-O-A-I.
What's up, Jamie?
How are you?
Glad you called.
Hello, sir.
How are you today?
I'm good.
What's happening?
Good.
Okay, so I had a comment about Peter Stork and Lisa Page as FBI investigators or federal employees more specifically.
I think that they can talk and say the things that they've said about Trump on their text messages, and that's still not prevent them from doing their job.
As a former soldier, that's something that happens every day with active duty soldiers.
I'm sorry.
You know, if you're working for the FBI, one of the main qualifications for it is that you pledge equal justice under the law and that politics doesn't play a part in your work.
With Strzzok and Page, we've only, again, we've only gotten a small sampling of how much they hated Trump, what their insurance policy was about, the level of detail that is emerging about their activities.
Frankly, it is a massive betrayal, abuse of power, and undermining of our entire justice system.
You can have people like Peter Strzzok exonerating somebody who we know committed felonies and obstructed justice, and then days later, now turning on the other candidate in an effort to fix a presidential election.
And the fact that he's still there is just wrong.
He should not be.
It reminds me like New York City public schools, all these teachers that are involved in sex scandals, some involving students, they just put them on the sidelines and keep paying them.
No, you have violated the trust.
And I would argue there probably is legal jeopardy for both of them by the time this is all said and done.
Well, Mr. Hannity, I think that if someone went into your personal text messages, they may find something that you said that wasn't meant to get out.
And that doesn't prevent you from standing where you do on policy, on procedure, on even your...
Here's the difference.
I'm not the one that has the power to impact whether a guilty person continues to run for president or not.
I'm not the one that is, I'm not the one that interviewed General Flynn.
I'm not the one that was writing an exoneration in May before he interviewed her in July.
I'm not the one that went to London the way Peter Strzok did, you know, in what has become a witch hunt against Donald Trump and this phony, you know, Russia collusion narrative of theirs.
I'm not the one conspiring with Andrew McCabe for an insurance policy because we can't let this bad guy ever become president because we know better than the American people.
So, you know, I'm a talk show host.
I, I, that's what I do for a living.
And, you know, I don't have the kind of power that people seem to think, you know, at times and accuse me of having.
I mean, one minute I have it all.
One minute I'm a chief of staff of the president.
And the next minute, if I cite sources that they don't have, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
So all I do is my job.
And my job here is to get to the truth.
And I think we've done a pretty good job.
And we have a lot more work to do.
And that's what I'm going to continue to do.
Back to our phones.
Let's say, is it Ken in Columbus, Ohio?
Hey, Ken, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hey, how are you doing, Sean?
I'm good, sir.
Good.
Hey, I'm a 31-year-old, and I've been listening to you for about 17 years.
And I finally got through to your show, which is awesome.
And the blue wave that everyone that the media keeps talking about is not coming, Sean, at least not in Ohio.
I'm a part of Jim Jordan territory, and down in the southeast, though, that's not Jim Jordan territory, but everyone keeps talking about how Trump's tariffs and the promises that he does with the economy, they're going to keep voting for him.
The blue wave is not coming in Ohio.
Look, I don't like to make predictions.
We're still in May.
The November elections are upcoming.
And you can't take anything for granted.
I've always said about elections because I've seen year after year after year.
We saw it in this last presidential election, the big October surprise.
What's going to come out on the weekend before the election that could impact the election?
I think a lot's going to happen between now and then.
But look, all signs point to you being correct.
Democrats had a 17-point advantage in February.
The generic ballot is now one point difference between the two parties.
If you look at unemployment, record low unemployment in 14 states, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, if you look at what the president's done with energy, ending the bureaucracy, incentivizing companies to come to this country and invest, the biggest tax cut in history, the president's push to control the borders, getting rid of the individual mandate, the president of foreign policy, Iran, Israel, North Korea.
Things are looking good.
Now things can change.
Difficult moments arise in the course of a presidency.
But the fact that this president accomplished that much with really never having a single day of peace as we now are into the second year of this witch hunt is pretty spectacular to me.
And it's good for the country.
And it's not a good position for Democrats to be in.
You know, for them to get power back, they have to convince you that Donald Trump has to go.
And that's all they've got.
The only agenda item that they are articulating right now is that we hate Donald Trump and we're going to raise your taxes.
So, you know, I think it's going to be a choice election.
And it's also a little bit, there's going to be a referendum on the president, and there's no doubt about it.
And if you support the president, like what he's done, it's going to mean you're going to have to do something that historically a lot of people don't do.
And that's get your ass out of bed on election day, 2018, because you want it to continue.
And I know that, you know, it sounds simple, but patterns are what they are.
And off-year elections, midterm elections, you don't usually get the enthusiasm as you would during a presidential year.
So everything's up in the air right now, and we'll see what happens.
Let's go to Nick is in Miami, Florida, W-I-O-D.
What's up, Nick?
How are you?
Hi, Hannity.
I'm a huge fan.
I'm honored to be on your show.
What's happening, sir?
A couple things.
First of all, in reference to what you were just saying, I think it's more than that.
I think we need to get people that also care out the vote.
I think if we go out to vote, that's great.
But if we don't get other people to care, to care, to get out and vote for the president, it may not be enough.
And we really have to put all our resources and all our communities together and work together to go out there and vote.
Can I say something that I don't think is hyperbole in relation to your point?
I think this could be the most important midterm election by far in our lifetime.
That's how serious it is.
So you're right.
So what else is on your mind?
I wanted to make two points.
Yesterday, you were speaking with the Terry family, and it was a very, very sad loss that they experienced, and many other people experienced due to the Fast and Furious scandal.
And I wanted to bring up two points about that.
Point number one, you know, you mentioned a couple of times that it was a government funded operation, but really there is no such thing as government-funded.
It's all taxpayer-funded.
It's our tax dollars that we worked so hard for that ended up funding that operation and many of the other mistakes that are made in government.
And I think as taxpayers, we need to be aware of that and we need to be accountable for that.
And that's, again, why we need to go and vote if we don't like what the government does with our money.
The second piece is Sessions really needs to move on this.
He needs to release the docs and get something going here.
That's what the DeSantis, Meadows, and Jordan letter was all about.
That's why we're pushing it hard.
And, you know, I hope the president does, in fact, do that very thing.
And if he does, it's good for the country.
Look, one way or another, we're going to get those documents.
The slow walking, I'll tell you what the slow walking is about.
It's about your original point, which is the election.
They're hoping if Nancy Pelosi gets control of the House, all of these investigations go away.
All of the documents don't get released unless the president forces their hand.
It needs to be done sooner than later.
The more informed, I believe, that the American people are, the better it's going to be in terms of knowing, you know, let's see what Michael Horowitz comes up with.
Let's see if he concludes Hillary did in fact commit crimes and that those crimes were covered up and that the investigation was in fact rigged.
I believe any objective, discerning individual would have to come to that conclusion.
Let's see how far he goes into this.
Let's see what names he names in this.
But the bottom line is that's only a phase one, believe it or not, because phase two then is we get to see the documents to the extent that's possible.
And then we'll see if Horowitz made the right conclusions.
We'll be able to make our own conclusions.
And all of this does need to happen.
I mean, it seems like a long time away, but we're going to blink our eyes and November's going to be here.
