Sean briefs 'Hannity" listeners on the secret battle brewing in Washington. "The Department of Justice had promised to provide access to documents and they've since reneged on that commitment," began Hannity, "Are we going to release this on a summer Friday, that's burying bad news." Plus, Sean reacts to the Singapore summit set for next week. The entire world is watching. 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.
Hey guys, unfortunately, almost half you men out there over 40 need to listen up.
And we know this is uncomfortable to talk about, but it's common and not weird, and there's something you can do about it.
ED, not being able to perform your best.
Now, thanks to science, it can be optional.
Forhymns.com is a one-stop shop for hair loss, skin care, and sexual wellness for men.
Hymns connects you with real doctors and medical grade solutions to treat ED.
Prescription solutions backed by science.
One ED pill starting with a V just came off patent on December 11th.
And that's a game changer.
Being your best means performing your best.
And now you can do it with no waiting room, no trip to the pharmacy, just a simple online medical consultation and direct shipment to your door.
Try HIMS for a month today for just five dollars.
We'll get you started for just five bucks while supplies last.
See website for full details.
This would cost hundreds if you went to the doctor or a pharmacy.
So go to fourhymns.com slash big.
That's F O R H I M S dot com slash big.
For hims.com slash big.
All right.
Hang wait, wait, well, I'm not ready yet.
I need to smash this some more.
Hang on.
I'm almost done.
Go ahead.
Hang on.
Ah!
Ah.
All right.
That takes care of the last Blackberry that I've ever had in my life.
I'm not a who has a Blackberry at this time in life.
Nobody will use a BlackBerry that I know.
Glad you're with us.
Write down on toll-free number.
It's 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, ho ho ho.
There's a massive, massive, huge fight that is now going on in DC as it relates to the Department of Justice and they're obstructing Congress and the documents they've subpoenaed.
And it's getting ugly.
I I I honestly think by the end of today, this could take a tremendous turn as it relates to events.
We'll get to that.
Sarah Carter just came out with an article literally moments ago, and uh she has been on it.
I've been on it since this morning.
She's been on it all morning, and I talked to a lot of the people I know there that are involved in this on all sides of it, and we'll give you the lowdown of everything that's happening.
I I have to start with something that is just it is it is breathtaking to me how stupid that your media can be.
How absolutely idiotic they actually are.
Now we already know they're overpaid, they're lazy, we know they're sheep.
We know it's one big left-wing liberal echo chamber.
We can see that as it relates to Trump Russia collusion and their breathless, hysterical reporting that they have been wrong and lying to you for over a year and hoping and praying that Donald Trump, the one that they thought never could win, is somehow going to be impeached and somehow gonna be taken out, somehow charged with a crime, and uh they've been wrong.
And meanwhile, they've missed the biggest story of their career, which is the biggest abuse of power scandal in the history of the country.
You know, think of the title, and Greg will join us, Greg Jarrett, at the top of the next hour.
This book is coming out next what next month.
The title captures it all.
The Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton to frame Donald Trump.
Now, Greg is two offices down from me at Fox News, and you know, we talk a lot, and I watched him literally bang out this book every day and night now as this whole thing's been unfolding.
And uh he it's it's so ironic.
It really, in a way, everything that the Inspector General reports supposed to show, he has, except for whatever there might be that we didn't know about, but we know what happened.
We know the crimes were committed.
We know that Hillary broke the law.
We know she committed multiple felonies.
I've given you this, you know, I remember Rudy Juliet, 17 separate statutes where she could be charged with crimes.
You know, not the least of which is the espionage act.
Uh 18 USC 793.
I mean, those numbers mean nothing to anybody, But these are real crimes.
The mishandling of classified information is a felony.
The destruction of such is a felony.
We know that she put classified top secret special access programming information on a server at Platts River Networks in a bathroom closet on a server there because she wanted to avoid congressional oversight.
We know that she deleted 33,000 emails that had been subpoenaed.
We know that Hillary Clinton acid washed her hard drive using something called bleach pit.
We know what, like with a cloth or something?
We know that Hillary Clinton in every capacity was obstructing justice when Annate is busting up BlackBerries with hammers.
Now here's the irony.
Your corrupt news media in this country, they've had the same information.
They never touch it.
They never ever go near it.
They're too busy being wrong about Trump Russia collusion for them to do it.
Even their, oh my gosh, Paul Manafort.
Paul Manafort was indicted today, whatever day he was.
Hysteria.
He worked on the Trump campaign.
And he did a very good job, actually.
He was the one that you know brought all the delegates together.
Remember, there was going to be a big potential delegate blowout fight at the convention.
Paul Manafort's the one that handled that for then candidate Donald Trump.
And he also worked, I believe, for Reagan.
I think he worked for the Bushes.
Paul Manafort's, you know, no pro.
So Paul Manafort gets indicted.
Did it have anything to do with Trump Russia collusion?
Nothing.
Zero.
They went back to a 2005 to 2007 case.
They got to go all the way back to 2005, a tax fraud issue as it relates to monies he may or may have made with the Ukraine.
Who knows what's true or not true at this point?
All I know is that Judge Ellis, one of the judges in his cases, absolutely nailed it.
And that is that they're tightening the screws on Manafort for one reason.
They want Paul Manafort.
They don't care about Paul Manafort.
They don't care about a 2005 tax charge that had probably been adjudicated and put in a file and put away forever.
And they dragged, they were literally dragging it back up for one purpose to put the screws to Manafort.
So Manafort will sing, or as Judge Ellis eloquently said, compose, and that basically means support and perjury and make up a story because if they said, well, you could spend 30 years in jail, unless you tell us this about Donald Trump.
You know, that prosecutorial tactic has to end.
It has to end because it incentivizes people to lie about other people.
So they can get off the hook.
And human nature being what it is, a lot of human beings lie.
Especially when it's about self-preservation.
They could be prone to lie.
And you think about that, and then you think the judge goes further and says it's for the purpose of getting him to sing or compose after putting the screws on him so that they could either charge or prosecute Donald Trump or impeach Donald Trump.
That's what it's all about.
What do you think is going on with General Flynn?
Let's see, Struck who interviewed Flynn.
Struck who hates Trump.
Struck who was writing the exoneration of Hillary before they ever interviewed her or 17 other key witnesses.
Yeah, well, he Strzok didn't think that General Flynn was lying, nor did Comey, as he said in his testimony.
How did he get charged with lying to the FBI?
I can tell you exactly what I think happened, and we'll find out over time, is that the screws were put to Paul to General Flynn.
And General Flynn was probably, well, your son works in the business with you.
He's had a business that deals with foreign countries.
Going to Singapore and being on a plane for two 22 straight hours is not exactly my uh definition of a fun day.
But that's what we're doing to cover next week's summit.
So my point is this.
We know Hillary committed these crimes.
We know there's an abuse of power as it relates to everything with Struck and Paige and McCabe and Comey and Redalynch and Orr and Bruce and Nelly and Fusion GPS and Pfizer abuse, lying to judges, all the things I told you.
So I say the following, both on radio and TV last night, different versions of it.
Pay close attention to the adjectives that I use because words actually matter and mean things.
And you know, so I say if, if, if, let me repeat, if I advised, and I'm not, if I advise that I never have, if I advise the people, because the story yesterday was that Robert Mueller wants the phones of everybody that he's investigating.
I said, if I advise them, and then I went through a list of everything Hillary Clinton did.
And then I said, when you take it after you bust it up with hammers into little itsy bitsy pace pieces and bleach bit it and remove the SIM card and exactly what Hillary did and hand it over to Robert Mueller and say, Oh, this is equal justice under the law.
Hillary Clinton did it, she got away with it.
Now I even said that I'm kidding.
My advice to them, not really, kidding, bad advice.
I say those words.
Words mean something.
So I'm gonna play it for you, but as you hear it, I have a stack of stupid, idiotic liberal reporting that went on all day yesterday and all night last night.
Hannity's appears to encourage obstruction of justice in Mueller case.
Hannity suggests witnesses in Mueller investigation to destroy evidence, and it goes on from there.
Hannity, Sean Hannity, knows exactly what he's doing with his jokes about destroying evidence.
Sean Hannity recommends White House staffers commit a felony for Trump.
Sean Hannity suggests Mueller witnesses bash their phone to pieces.
Acid wash emails, Sean Hannity urges Russian witnesses to destroy evidence live on Fox News.
Delete all your emails, acid washer hard drives.
Sean Hannity suggests Muller probe witnesses should destroy their evidence.
Hannity tells Mueller witnesses bash your phone to little itsy bitsy pieces.
That was Huff Poe.
Sean Hannity to witnesses and Mueller probe, bash your phone into pieces.
Sean Hannity's advice to Muller witnesses bash your phones with a hammer.
Next one.
AOL, delete all your emails, acid washer hard drives.
Sean Hannity suggests Muller probe witnesses should destroy their evidence.
Here's what I said.
If maybe Muller's witnesses, I don't know.
If I advise him to follow Hillary Clinton's lead, delete all your email.
If I followed her lead and then acid wash the emails and the hard drives on the on the phones, then take your phones and bash them with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces, use bleach pit, remove the sim cards, and then take the pieces and hand it over to Robert Mueller and say, Hillary Rodham Quentin, Clinton, this is equal justice under the law.
How do you think that would work out for everybody who Muller's demanding their phones?
How would it work out?
Mueller wants everyone's cell phones.
My advice to them, not really, keeping it.
Not really, kidding.
Bad advice.
Follow Hillary's, you know, lead.
Well, he delete them.
Acid wash them, bust them up, take out the SIM cards and say, here, little pieces, here, Mr. Muller, here.
I'm following Hillary's lead.
Okay.
Now here's my point.
So I'm watching all this insanity unfold.
Because it is utter insanity.
I've told you journalism is dead.
These people are lazy, they are overpaid, they are ideological, they don't break news, they have an agenda, they're nothing but an extension of the Democratic Party, and they are abusively biased this news media.
But here's the point.
If they're so outraged that I might have, that I would have, when I didn't, obviously didn't and wouldn't.
Give that advice, and I said, bad advice, don't do it, blah, blah, blah.
Not gonna work out well for you.
If I said follow the Hillary Clinton model.
But if they're so outraged over the idea, the idea that I would encourage that, which I did not and would not, why aren't they mad?
She did it all.
She did all of it.
And she's not been held accountable.
That's called checkmate.
You know, I'd love to talk more about this.
I'll deal with it, I guess, a little bit more later in the show or tonight.
There's so much.
There is a battle going on in Washington that not a lot of people yet really know about.
I've been on it since, well, honestly, since like about 12 midnight last night, till maybe one, two in the morning, and then I was back on it at 7 a.m. and working as many sources as I have.
And I knew that Sarah Carter was on it, and she was working on it.
I think I texted her, and we were just comparing notes at about 7 a.m.
So the Department of Justice had promised to provide access to documents to congressional lawmakers by this morning.
They reneged on that commitment.
It was supposed to happen early this morning.
And then they issued a press release.
This was late last night, suggesting they will meet with quote the gang of eight to discuss the matter, the which by the way is the same day that the North Korean summit opens in Singapore.
This was what I've been saying about the timing of the release of the IG report, which has been 18 long months in the in the making.
And I said, okay, what are we going to do?
We're going to release it on a summer Friday, heading into what is the biggest summit, what, since Reykjavik or whenever.
Okay, that's that's burying the lead or burying bad news.
Look, they even have a term for it.
It's called the Summer Friday dump.
You got bad news, you're in politics, even people's personal lives.
Dump it late on a Friday afternoon in the summer.
And the hope is that fewer people are paying attention to the news because they're out with their families, barbecuing in the backyard, going out to dinner, having a good time, and so on and so forth.
There's a reason why people bury bad news on Fridays, especially summer Fridays, because people are a little less engaged between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
And then you've got what is the biggest summit.
You got Kim Jong-un, you got Donald Trump, and all the events that have led up to the Singapore summit, including the temporary cancellation, and the world is watching.
And frankly, I think the world is hopeful that maybe some good is going to come out of this and what denuclearization would mean for the Korean peninsula.
And yet, we're really gonna dump the documents the day of the summit.
That's what the Department of Justice is gonna do.
That sounds like they're trying.
No.
That's what they're doing is burying what is gonna be bad news for them.
Why won't they just hand over the documents?
I'll give you more details of this fight that took place earlier today in DC.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show, toll-free, our numbers 800-941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
I I just I know all of you got a kick out of it.
Why didn't you you said you saw this before I did, and you didn't want to tell me why not?
I think this is I don't think it's so much I didn't want to tell you.
I just think you have more important things to do in your life.
No, but you know something?
This is a moment where literally the media has just opened themselves wide open.
So here I am, if, which I never would, if I told people that were uh asked by Robert Mueller to turn over their cell phones to follow the Hillary Clinton model, the acid wash, the lesions, the bleach bit, the hammer breaking of devices, etc.
If I told them, I said, well, it would be really bad advice, just joking, it wouldn't work out well for you, But if I told them, and they are so outraged in this media that I said, if, that I put all those caveats in there.
And I said, if, if I ever did that, first of all, you'd be an idiot.
And it points out, and they're so outraged, and all these crazy headlines about me, they expose the underlying politicizing here of pretty much everything.
And I am telling you, if they're more outraged at the thought that I would do something that I obviously didn't and wouldn't do, why are they not as outraged that she did it all?
She did every bit of what I've said.
And what's even more amazing, you know, I've got a challenge every day on radio and TV.
I'm looking with you, my audience, because you make this show and TV possible.
Here's my challenge.
Some of you understand this as well as I do.
This entire abuse of power, corruption, boomerang narrative that we have been unfolding.
Remember, it was March 7th, 2017, and people were laughing at us, and people were calling us conspiracy theorists.
When in fact we reported Sarah Carter, John Solomon that, yeah, a Pfizer warrant was issued on Trump Tower.
Slight deviation wasn't quite polished, but it happened.
And it happened.
Now we now know with Hillary Clinton bought and paid for, put together by a foreign national, which I always thought was bad, only if Obama is campaigning and sending our money over to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu, then it's fine to have foreign influence of elections.
Nobody ever talks about that part.
And the fact that Christopher Steele, you know, gets Russian sources, dubious Russian sources.
The stories end up being debunked, and yet it was the basis of applications, an original application, three subsequent applications to Pfizer court judges to get a warrant to spy on a campaign associate in the Trump campaign.
And we're finding out that it started a lot earlier than they said.
And we're finding out there were spies in the campaign.
What all of it means is crimes at the highest level of the deep state were committed.
Let me let me tell you, let me say it this way.
If everybody pay close attention.
Okay, this would be a really bad idea.
I don't recommend it to children or adults in the United States of America because you might end up in jail.
If I said to you, you know what?
I know you support this one candidate.
I know you're like this candidate.
Here's what you're gonna do.
You're gonna go to a judge and you're gonna lie to the judge.
You're gonna hand the judge unverified, uncorroborated information from Russian sources that was paid for with money funneled through a law firm to an op research group, hiring a foreign national who once was an MI6 member who has Russian sources, and he never verified any of it either.
And then we're gonna give it to the court, even though the law says you've got to verify it, and we're gonna present it as fact, and then just to be extra cute, we're gonna have the main source, Christopher Steele, feed the story to one reporter named Michael Lizakoff, and it'll look like they're two separate and independent sources, but it's really the same source, and then the judges are gonna take it that it was verified and corroborated.
You're gonna put an asterisk at the end of the application that says, well, it might have a slight political taint to it, but you knew that Hillary Clinton bought and paid for it.
You knew it all.
And it's the hardest warrant to get.
Now, if I were to tell you to do that to a judge, to lie to a judge and purposeful crucial information to a judge, let me tell you something.
I would be giving you bad, bad, bad advice.
This all happened too.
I'm trying to put together here.
And I know it's been slow for some of you.
And back to my challenge that I have every day.
Some of you know every detail of this, and you could call the show and you could walk along with me the layers of the onion that we've peeled together.
That's what investigative reporting is about.
And while the media's tried to pull you in one direction, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Stormy, stormy, stormy in another direction.
They've not focused on this.
And this is the irony when they're so upset.
Hannity appears to encourage obstruction of justice in the Mueller case.
Hannity urging Russian witnesses, destroy evidence live on the Fox News channel.
Hannity, delete all your emails, acid washer hard drives, suggesting Muller probe witnesses, destroy your evidence.
Hannity, bash your phone into pieces.
Hannity tells witnesses in Muller Probe.
Sean Hannity's advice to Muller witnesses, bash your phones with a hammer.
Okay.
That never happened.
And I can't believe that they're more outraged over the fact, a simple fact, that I'm obviously.
I said, if I said, don't, it's bad advice.
I said, you know, this is jokingly, I don't know what else I can do.
But you could get so outraged over that and then not be outraged that Hillary did it all.
Everything that I said about Pfizer judges happened.
Everything that we've learned about McCabe, Comey, Nelly, Bruce, or Strzok, Page, Loretta Lynch, and the stuff we're learning about, you know, James Clapper.
You know, was on uh who's whose show was he on?
He was on Hugh Hewitt today.
How come James Clapper got went on Hugh Hewitt and won't come on our show?
And by the way, I love Hugh Hewitt is a great guy.
And Hugh Hewitt is a wonderful human being.
I love I like all those Salem guys.
They're all good guys.
And well, one hates me, but the rest of them are good.
I don't understand this stupid competitive thing among people.
You know what?
This isn't a zero-sum game.
We can all be my success or failure is not contingent on somebody else's success or failure.
And there are some people that I actually think do great work, but hate me.
I'm like, okay, whatever.
My ego's not involved in this.
I love my country too much.
This is too important.
James Clapper said, well, the salacious parts of the steel dossier were never validated.
Then how was the bulk of the dossier, Mr. Clapper, used, the bulk used in the application for the Pfizer warrants and the subsequent applications?
And then he said, I don't know who financed this.
I didn't know who financed the Steele dossier until after I left government.
That's convenient.
You're the director of national intelligence.
You knew a Pfizer warrant was based on it.
You better know who paid for it.
James Clapp, Christopher Steele was considered a credible source.
You fired the well, the FBI fired the guy.
How credible can you be if you're fired?
At no time while at the DNI did I see unmasking abuse from December 5th, 2016 to the inauguration.
And really, I'm going to play this later, but I don't have time now.
How does Samantha Power, a UN ambassador?
How did she unmask a person a day?
How did that happen?
How did we have this was also part of our reporting?
There's so much we got to get back to.
You know, about unmasking, about surveillance, about all of these things, about uranium one, the Clinton Foundation.
You know, there is an ongoing investigation in Arkansas, FBI field agents and the Clinton Foundation.
That's still going on.
What do you mean you didn't see unmasking?
What does he mean by that?
And then he went on to say, yeah, I unmasked a lot of people in my life, and You know what Clapper's not doing?
He's not, he's not taking my advice that I gave to Comey.
Mr. Clapper, you have the you have the right to remain silent.
If I was you, I'd shut up.
And the same thing.
I told Comey, I wouldn't come out with that book.
James Comey is in massive legal jeopardy.
If he would have listened to me, he would have been a lot better off than he is now.
But it, you know, why would he listen to dopey radio host, TV host?
He said, I don't know how Samantha Powers was unmasking, how the unmasking power was usurped.
I made unmasking requests every couple of weeks.
You know what unmasking is?
Unmasking is we have a constitution.
In our constitution, we have a Fourth Amendment.
Fourth Amendment protects you, the American people, against unreasonable search and seizure.
That's why what you have to show probable cause to get a warrant.
And we have checks and balances and judges weigh in.
And Pfizer courts in particular are secret.
Because if you're going to unmask somebody, you're going to surveil an American citizen, you better have a good reason.
And the only reason we've had that in place is since 9-11 was because we don't we want to be able to surveil people if there's enough evidence, probable cause to think that they might be involved in efforts to undermine the safety and security of the American people.
Those are the reasons.
Now, Comey and company had the option in the spring of 2016 to go to Donald Trump candidate Trump and say, Mr. Trump, just so you know, this guy who to this day he never met, Carter Page is going to Russia.
And Carter Page is given a commencement exercise, uh speech there of some kind.
And he's been there before, and we've actually used him as a source.
In other words, he's gone on foreign trips for business, and he's come back and he's we have debriefed him.
So our intelligence services have used Carter Page.
I think Donald Trump would say, oh, wow, I'm going to keep an eye on that guy.
That's what Donald Trump's reaction would have been.
No, they'd never did that.
So with all of these things happening and the media not covering it all, and it's now unfolding.
Now we're having a fight to get to the evidence.
But anyway, back to your Fourth Amendment rights.
That's why the FISA law specifically mandates that you have verified, corroborated information if you're gonna present it in a Pfizer application or FISA judge.
Well, Rod Rosenstein signed off on the fourth warrant because it had to be renewed every 90 days.
And by that time, everybody knew the bulk of information was the, as the Grassley Grand Memo said, was the dossier put together by Christopher Steele.
So now we've got Congress trying to do their job constitutionally.
They have a they have a duty, a moral constitutional duty of oversight.
We have checks and balances, co-equal branches of government.
You learn this all in, you know, in kindergarten for crying out loud.
Unless you went to a public school, the odds are you probably didn't learn it at all, ever, and this is all new material to you.
Kidd, joking.
It's a joke.
Sorry, I'm just saying a lot of schools suck.
That's all.
I'm sorry.
They really suck.
Anyway, the Department of Justice was supposed to hand this stuff over to Morrow.
We've been waiting a year.
And then they had a big fight, and they promised to release it this morning and they didn't.
Now they're saying they're gonna do it next week.
That's why the inspector general was never a good idea.
Can't have a grand jury, can't subpoena.
I know in the case of Andrew McCabe, we got we got the IG report, then we got the criminal referral.
Why don't we get the special counsel that has the right to subpoena?
Do you see the danger to our country here?
Do you see the danger to our rule of law?
As Hillary, one system of laws.
Hillary has, you know, we we don't have equal justice under the law, equal application under the law.
We don't have a constitution if you spy on one campaign and not another.
We don't have a country if the deep state takes the powerful tools of intelligence to spy on presidential campaigns and Americans through surveillance not minimizing as the law requires, and certainly unmasking of American citizens, General Flynn, and leaking raw intelligence.
Our constitutional order dies.
It's that serious.
And some of those were corroborated in our report from completely different and valid sources.
Others material in there, notably the salacious material, could not be, as far as I know, never was validated.
So some of it was valid, but some of we could some of it couldn't be.
And the and the big hang up was we could not attest to the veracity of the second and third order sources that were drawn on to compile it.
For my part, and I I know this is true of John Brennan, uh I don't I can't speak specifically on behalf of Jim Comey, but John and I certainly did not know what the financing pedigree of the audossier was.
Um I was more concerned about the fact that it existed, that it was widely held that by many media outlets, and that the president should know about it.
Uh the business about how it was financed first by Republicans and later the DNC.
I didn't learn that until well after I left the government.
Former Director Comey did know about it.
Ought he to have told the president about it.
Well, uh again, I don't know uh that uh he knew that himself.
Uh but uh because uh Christopher Steele, uh the compiler, was you know, considered a credible source.
Uh and the FBI had used him before, and he was a professional intelligence officer in MI6 and uh and a Russian specialist.
So he for his part was considered uh credible.
Um but I I don't I can't speak for Jim one way or the other.
Yeah, yeah, sure, it would have been useful had uh had he known, but I don't think it would have uh and and told the president elect, but I I I don't think that would detract from its existence was the main point we wanted to get across to uh then president elect Trump.
I can assure you, as a reader of these reports, it's very difficult to understand the uh context unless you know who those U.S. persons are.
The only way you can uh make an unmasking request is if you have authorized access to uh the report in question in the first place.
So I I don't know how that's quite how that uh uh would work.
Uh I also tell you that it was not a requirement that that people who asked for unmaskings go through me for approval.
Uh the approving authority would be the originate uh uh original collecting agency, which normally would be uh NSA.
And so the concern is a lot of unmasking happened that you might not have known about.
I actually I take you completely at your word here.
And by the way how often would you have unmasked as your six years as DNI?
How often did it?
Well, uh it it would vary depending on the reporting, but I would say uh maybe once every couple weeks, something like that over the six and a half years.
Uh I come across reports that uh uh and I felt you know that it was my duty to understand my obligation uh as the director of national intelligence to understand the uh the uh these interactions when U.S. persons were interacting with uh valid foreign intelligence targets, particularly Russians, our adversary.
All right, that was James Clapper on with a good friend of mine on the radio, and I can't believe Hugh Hewitt actually got the interview.
Uh that and our other breaking news today, uh, we have Sarah Carter telling us in a report she's just put out about a huge battle that's going on behind the scenes as it relates to the release of the documents that we have, or Congress officially has been now requesting for well over a year, and of course, the obstructing, the slow walking, the redactions in name in the name of national security that turn out to be false and everything else.
And she joins us now, Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, also Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst.
His book is out next month.
You don't want to miss this book, The Russian Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
It's up on Hannity.com.
David Schones, civil liberty and criminal attorney, is with us.
Sarah, let's first go to your breaking news and uh because there's a lot to basically on peel as it relates to the onion today in the battle that's going on between the DOJ and Congress.
Yes, boy, has there been a battle going on even uh you know all week and even since uh last month for these specific documents being requested by the House Intelligence Committee, Sean, they are asking for specific documents of a classified nature.
They asked for them on April 24th.
But remember, these are part of the documents that they have been asking for for more than a year, and the DOJ is refusing over and over to give them to the members of Congress, specifically to the people conducting the investigation uh into the alleged Russia Trump collusion and how the FBI handled this from the very beginning.
What we know now is that the DOJ made a commitment to deliver those documents to Congress by this morning.
Like by eight very early this morning, like seven or eight o'clock, correct?
Absolutely, absolutely.
So congressional members were waiting on these documents.
Uh, but what happened was uh late last night, after midnight, after midnight, the Department of Justice sends out uh basically a press release to specific reporters, not to all reporters, sends out a press release after midnight stating that they will not be meeting with the congressional members or turning over any documents uh until next week.
And they even had other stipulations in there.
They said they were going to give them only to the gang of eight members, and remember those are the eight leaders uh that come in Congress that are uh briefed on classified material and intelligence matters, and and not only that, they are not really making the commitment to provide all the documents.
They're only gonna provide some of those documents, and uh many lawmakers are highly suspicious right now.
They believe that these documents uh will be highly redacted and that they'll have to go into a battle next week.
And what's next week?
Why did the Korea summit?
Okay, now I was saying that all week long that they were gonna try and bury the IG report, which may even happen.
I mean, if it comes out between now and any time next week, as far as I'm concerned, it's an effort to bury the IG, the eighteen month IG report.
Now, I did talk to sources over at the Department of Justice today.
They said the IG is responsible solely for the timing.
That's not what I had understood before.
Who's right?
This is gonna be interesting.
I, you know, he may be responsible solely for the timing, but he's also under an extreme amount of pressure from people that are reviewing these documents, um, that being the FBI and the Department of Justice officials, particularly Rod Rosenstein, and uh and remember the people that are now being represented by uh attorneys uh who are in the uh report that Horowitz is going to release.
That's Comey, McCabe, Peter Strzok, and others uh that are going to be in this report, possibly other members of the DOJ like Bruce Orr, uh Loretta Lynch.
So he is under an enormous amount of pressure by these people.
Um I believe that Horowitz will do the right thing, but we don't know.
We really bring Greg Jarrett in, and this has been our fear.
They've had it now for two weeks.
This has been eighteen months in in the making, and they have an opportunity now to offer, suggest, pressure the IG to make changes, redactions, uh add their comments, which they're allowed to do.
And I will tell you it's not, you know, Rod Rosenstein's name on this.
It's it's Michael Horowitz, and I will hold Michael Horowitz responsible because we know what happened here.
We know that Hillary violated the law as it relates to the email server.
We know she obstructed justice.
You know, it's so laughable all the coverage about me today.
Hannity's encouraging obstruction of justice at Muller probe.
I said, if I advise people to do what Hillary did.
And I'm like, yeah, well it's not gonna work out well for you, only for Clinton, because we have a dual justice system.
Well, you're absolutely right.
It's obstruction of justice to destroy evidence or alter documents, unless you're Hillary Clinton, then it's okay.
Because it's a two-tiered standard of justice system in America.
She was protected to clear her path to the presidency.
At the same time, there was a an effort within the Obama administration, top officials at the FBI and others at the DOJ, who you know, set up Donald Trump with phony evidence, largely initially based on the dossier to try to frame him for crimes he didn't commit.
Uh collusion, which doesn't exist except in antitrust law.
But what's going on on Capitol Heel here is that this is obstruction of Congress and they should pursue it as well.
You know, let me let me bring in another attorney and David Schoen, you're a great attorney.
You understand these issues.
Uh Congress has now begged and pleaded and hemming and hawing, etc.
etc.
But they're not listening.
They're doing what they want.
What should Congress do now?
What what legal recourse do they have to do their what is their constitutional duty and their constitutional authority as it relates to oversight?
Their power of contempt.
Um it's just about the only tool at this point, I suppose.
I'm not confident that they'll err they will ever get the full set of documents, quite frankly, based on what we've seen from the Justice Department.
Uh not just a slow uh motion game, but uh withholding of evidence, frankly, and uh providing misleading evidence, as we saw with the Pfizer applications, very serious uh settings.
We've seen conduct that does not befit our government.
I mean, it's so outrageous.
Now, here I've spoken to a lot of my sources today, and I know you've been working the phone since seven A.M., Sarah, because uh I was up and I I think I got my first text from you at seven o'clock.
And uh now it raises the question what's Paul Ryan's role in this?
What is uh Trey Gowdy's role in all of this?
Uh, especially after both of them, you know, sort of poo-pooed the idea of their spies in the Trump campaign.
That's not true.
Uh what they said, it did there were spies, in other words.
No, it's it's it's it's absolutely not true, and it's very interesting because neither Ryan nor Gowdy has seen the documents.
Uh I know that the DOJ basically on the meeting on May twenty-fourth, when uh they were attending both Nunes and Gowdy, that meeting with FBI Christopher Ray and some DOJ officials, they did bring documents into that meeting.
They pleaded with the members that were in that meeting to not talk about those documents, to not tell anyone that those documents were at the meeting.
But by the way, none of them did see those documents because there was such a back and forth battle inside that meeting between the members and the DOJ that nobody had an opportunity to actually view the documents.
They picked up the documents and walked away.
They basically said, only you can see these.
Uh, we don't want to allow any other members to see them, uh, and particularly no investigators involved in the investigation.
So that's very interesting because those are the people that would know what to look for.
Those are the people that would understand the documents the most.
Uh so they walked away from that meeting without seeing the documents.
Now, the DOJ then came out with this uh press release after midnight last night, and they themselves outed that they had brought documents to the meeting, and this is after they had pleaded the city.
I heard I heard what happened in that meeting.
There was a huge fight that went on for like an hour, and then there was a briefing that went on for another hour, and I don't think anybody, as far as they know, were told those specific documents were there.
That's right.
They had they knew the documents were there, but nobody was actually told that those were the specific documents.
You're absolutely right about that.
But because the there was that battle, there was that fight, the same thing you heard, I heard, uh, because there was that fight, and they didn't agree to who could see the documents, that means extended beyond Dowdy and Nunes and the other folks that were in that meeting, uh, they walked away from that meeting with nothing.
Uh so now the DOJ is turning around and saying, Oh, look, we gave you the opportunity to look at those documents, and you guys never took the opportunity to look at them.
But they're not telling the American public the whole truth.
And this is how they uh obfuscate, this is how they delay tactics, this is how they stonewall, and now they're going to do it again.
So next week, when are they gonna do it?
Monday or Tuesday.
Remember the North Korea summit opens on Tuesday.
So if they do it on Tuesday, they're hoping to bury it.
And once again, lawmaker lawmakers are really suspicious, Sean.
They really believe that these documents are going to be redacted and that they're gonna have to fight with them again in order to get the right people to see them.
The gang of eight, the gang of eight, once they show these documents to the gang of eight, it will restrict the gang of eight.
We'll come back, we'll get legal analysis to Sarah's uh comments and and her reporting today.
More with David Schoen, Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter, 800 941 Shawn is on number at the bottom of the half hour.
Freedom Caucus uh Congressman Jim Jordan weighs in on this.
He's been involved in this battle all day.
All right, as we continue, investigative reporter Sarah Carter, also criminal defense civil liberties attorney, David Schoen, Greg Jarrett, his book is out in July, The Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
We just were talking about the role of Gowdy and and Ryan and you know the fact that DOJ says, Well, the documents were there, Greg, and meanwhile, uh the people in the room are telling me uh they never pointed to those documents.
This is just a pattern of cover-ups by the DOJ and the FBI that has been going on for years because they believe that since they are the law, they are above the law and are accountable to nobody, including Congress.
I'll give you an example of it.
A couple of days ago, the most recently released text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, They admit in one text that they are deliberately withholding from Congress several quote unquote inflammatory 302 reports in the Clinton email case.
Inflammatory, by the way, means incriminating.
It's a code name.
I've got construck in the text, F them referring to Congress.
They think they don't have to answer to the United States.
That's true.
That's such a good point.
And David will give you the last word.
Fine.
Summing up.
I'm very worried about Mr. Gowdy, his comments.
He's the same person who said don't act guilty by questioning the Mueller thing.
Um spy in the camp.
They keep on saying this isn't a spy in the camp.
This is spy in the camp.
This is exactly what the case law, Messiah, Weatherford versus Burcy, is just putting someone in who's reporting on what's happening in a campaign.
That's spy in the camp.
Final point.
Uh Sarah's there, the American people we don't know what the American people are going to be told.
That's the key.
Um no one can have any confidence in what's going on here because uh especially when they say it was appropriate to send the FBI in.
You had a cabal of four, three or four people in the Justice Department who decided not to consult with their superiors, who decided to send a spy into the opposing candidates' election campaign, and you have a committee appointed by Mr. Muller of people, all of whom have the same agenda, a political agenda that is handled.
I want to thank you all for being with us.
Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter, David Schoen, 800-941 Sean, toll free number, Congressman, House Freedom Caucus uh Congressman, and uh well, general leader all around, Jim Jordan is next.
I think defensive briefings are done a lot, and why the Comey FBI didn't do it, um, I don't know.
But Chris Ray and Rod Rothensign have at least made it clear to us.
Donald Trump was never the target of the investigation.
He's not the current target in the investigation.
Now, keep in mind, that can all change depending on what a witness says.
But as of now, I think Chris Ray and Rod Rosenstein are stunned whenever people think Trump is the target of their investigation.
I'll leave it up to them how to brief the president or how to brief his own.
The point of view that you're talking about right now, was that strengthened when you went into this briefing last week?
Yes.
I I am I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got, and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
You should be furious because whether it's spying on the Trump campaign or the Bernie Sanders campaign or any presidential campaign, it's wrong.
And what we do have is a growing body of edit evidence that would suggest just the opposite of what my good friend Trey Gowdy said is indeed the FBI and DOJ did do things improperly.
We know that indeed that there was informants within the Trump campaign prior to the FBI opening opening an investigation.
So we've got to make sure that we get to the bottom of it.
Why not tell the Trump campaign?
Why not tell the candidate himself?
Why not tell the guy who's now president of the United States?
Hey, we think Russians are trying to infiltrate your campaign, work with people on the periphery.
Why not give them a briefing, a defensive briefing?
That didn't take place.
So that that to me is the fundamental reason.
And And to say he doesn't like the term spy, what else can you call it?
It wasn't an informant.
It wasn't inside.
It was someone from the outside contacting people associated with the Trump campaign to try to get information.
If that's not a spy, I don't know what is.
All right, that was Freedom Caucus members, Mark Meadows from North Carolina.
Jim Jordan, you just heard there last.
He, of course, is with the Freedom Caucus and it appears might be running for speaker.
And Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan is with us.
How are you?
I'm fine, Sean.
Good to be with you, buddy.
I know you probably are in a foul mood, and the reason is is because I know everything that's been going on today.
You and others were promised certain documents by the DOJ uh early this morning and they weren't forthcoming.
And now they're telling you, well, maybe next week.
Well, of course, next week the news cycle we know is going to be all Korea all the time, as the president's having a summit.
Yep.
No, you're exactly right.
This is par for the course for these guys.
I mean, we're now at the point where you just can't trust them.
I mean, uh, Sean, you we've talked about it on your show.
We we know they tried to hide information from us.
We caught them trying to hide information from us.
Uh the conversation that Struck and Page had about Peter Strzok's relationship with one of the Pfizer judges, the federal judge Rudy Contreras, who heard the flint case, they tried to redact that and hide that from us.
We had to go digging over DOJ to find it.
They've tried to hide other things from us.
They went to the FISA court and didn't tell the court important facts, material facts, and now we're supposed to say, oh, but you can trust us now.
We gave we gave some members of Congress a briefing.
You can trust the FBI when it comes to this spy issue.
I'm just not buying it.
Show us the information so we can see for ourselves.
You know, I gotta tell you something.
This is very frustrating because this is now gone on forever.
In other words, that Devin Nunes and Freedom Caucus members and others that have been trying to get to the truth.
We know crimes were committed.
We know there's been abuse of power.
The evidence is incontrovertible.
It's not in doubt anymore.
Hillary, in fact, committed crimes, and foreign agencies and intel agencies got a hold of her emails.
As many as six in the original draft Comey and Struck had put together.
Then she obstructed when she deleted subpoenaed documents, acid wash or hard drive, and and broke up into little pieces, had an aid breakup for BlackBerries and other devices, and the one device they handed over to the FBI didn't have its SIM card.
And I'm on the TV and radio yesterday saying if I advise people to do that, follow the Clinton model.
And there's a thousand articles today saying Sean Hannity is encouraging people to obstruct justice.
I said, No, if you did it, you're not going to get the same result as Hillary.
How stupid are these people?
Yeah, well, no, no, that's right.
The American people understand we now have two standards.
One set of rules for Sean Hannity, Jim Jordan, and everyone else in the country.
But the difference that if you're part of the politically connected establishment class in this town, and it is not supposed to work that way.
Also, Sean, the ones they did finally decide that they were going to turn over, they got to sort all those emails on the front end.
Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, David Kendall sorted them and said, Okay, here's the 30,000 we're going to give back to you.
The other 30,000 we're going to keep and they're going to do to those things what you just described.
So that compare that treatment to what Cohen got, to what Manafort got getting their door kicked in at five in the morning.
I mean, that's the problem here.
And now, when the DOJ says, Well, we can't give you what we said we were going to give you.
We can't give you the documents you subpoenaed.
We're going to wait till next week, and we're going to give them to the gang.
And all this all the this plays out after we've caught them hiding information from us, we just don't believe them.
Let's say, let's say this.
Let's say the briefing that was given a week ago by the Department of Justice and the FBI to some members of Congress.
Let's say they were telling the truth.
No one would believe them because of the track.
It's like the boy who cried Wolf.
We can't believe you now, even if you were telling the truth.
I don't think they necessarily were, but even if you were, you couldn't believe him.
So that's why we got to get the information.
Unbelievable.
All right.
Let me go back to the IG report.
And I don't know if you've been paying any attention to my shows this week, but you know what?
When we didn't get the IG report, which now has been 18 long months in the making.
And we didn't get it.
We didn't get it as promised in what?
Late February, March, April, May.
We're now in June.
And the idea that they're going to dump this on a summer Friday when everybody's out at barbecues, restaurants, and and people on Fridays in the summer don't pay as much attention to news.
It's just a fact.
It's called a Friday document dump.
And even as its own term.
Or they're going to release it either Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday of next week when all the news and all the world is going to be focused on Singapore and the president and Kim Jong-un, that too would be an attempt to bury it.
I'd rather see it the week after at this point.
Yeah, and and look, how long do they have right now what's going on is folks at the Department of Justice and the FBI are reviewing what Mr. Horowitz put together.
How long is that gonna take?
What kind of editing process is going on here?
I mean, we know that the same thing happened with the IRS when the inspector general certain people at the at the IRS got to see that report before we did as as members of Congress and before more importantly, the American people did.
How long is this gonna take?
So I hope we get this soon, like you.
I was hoping for it weeks ago.
I hope it's early next week or as soon as possible now, but you may be right, in light of the big events coming up, maybe it's better now if we wait a few weeks.
Yeah, well, I don't even want to wait a few weeks.
How about a week from this coming Monday?
Now, here's the I don't know who has the power to make the decision to release it.
And now that 18 months has passed, and now that the DOJ, which we know has been obstructing Congress and ignoring subpoenas and lying about redactions in the name of national security, um, they've now had this document for two weeks.
And I'm assuming that the same people that have been obstructing Congress are probably now harassing the inspector general to make changes uh for redactions, uh pleading their case, modifications, and I've got to suspect I d I I now I don't know what Horowitz is gonna do.
Is he gonna capitulate?
Is he gonna water down his own report for 18 months?
Well, I hope not.
And and you know, I will tell you this, Michael Horowitz, I've always thought has done a uh a good job in his role as inspector general.
I I really believe that.
So we'll we'll see.
But I think you're right.
My guess is Rod Rosenstein's reviewing some of this stuff.
My my my guess is some of the folks, the key people at the Department of uh or excuse me, the FBI are reviewing some of this stuff.
I don't know.
Is Peter Strzok allowed to look at it?
What's what's it gonna say about him?
I think he's the central figure throughout this the Clinton investigation and the Trump Russia investigation.
So I don't know.
All I know is sooner is better.
Let's get the information so the American people can actually see what happened.
Well, I would like that to happen, but they don't obviously want it to happen.
What's going on with Ryan?
What's going on with Trey Gowdy?
I I again, with the track record at the FBI, I mean when you have an organization who took a dossier, dressed it up like it, made it look like it was legitimate intelligence, took it to the court and didn't tell the court two things, who paid for it and didn't tell the court the guy who wrote it had been fired by the FBI, and now we're supposed to believe you when you give us a briefing.
The same group that said we're gonna redact the fact that struck and Judge Contreras were friends, and we're not gonna let Congress see that.
Now we're supposed to believe them, and they and they just accept what the briefing told them that without seeing the document, they didn't get to see anything in that briefing.
So we're and when we're supposed to believe, oh, the FBI said this was all above board.
Really?
Uh working with some foreigner, some spy to who's uh talking to folks associated loosely with the Trump campaign, and we're supposed to believe that was all above board in light of all the other things we now know about the FBI.
I don't buy it.
I don't think the American people buy it.
I don't think they do either.
Um I want to know what happens next.
Now, a lot of people maybe think, oh, the inspector general report took eighteen months and this is gonna put an end to everything.
No, this is only step one.
And uh yeah, and now we have the whole FISA abuse issue and uh the lies I think we now have been told and spying on the Trump campaign, as you have rightly pointed out, and I have pointed out and others have pointed out, you know, the fact that they had spies in the Trump campaign, they lied to Pfizer court judges, not one but four times.
They used what even Christopher Steele, the foreign national that put together the Russian sources to create the dossier.
He even said, Well, uh, in an inter interrogatory when it was facing possibility of perjury.
Uh, I don't know if any of this is true.
This is raw intelligence.
I guess fifty-fifty.
Well, if it's fifty fifty, how do you get a warrant to spy on an American four times?
Yeah.
I mean, and Sean, the one campaign who used a foreign national who communicated with Russians to get information on the other campaign, the one campaign who did all that was the Clinton campaign for goodness sake.
We have all this all this focused on for a year now, nothing, no bit of evidence that there was coordination Between the Trump campaign and Russia to impact the election.
That that is the part that is is so frustrating.
And this you've got to view the spy issue in the full context.
This is the same FBI who did what they did with the dossier.
This is the same FBI who hid information from the Congress and therefore the American people.
You gotta view it all in context.
So for them to say, oh, everything's fine with this spy issue, It does not does not pass the smell test in any way.
It doesn't pass the smell test in any way.
All right.
You don't really have in Congress many more options, do you?
There's basically a contempt, and that's it.
What happens or impeachment?
Yeah, there's contempt and impeachment.
And frankly, again, if if this if they don't give the document, uh, and frankly, it should have been this morning at seven o'clock, is what we were told yesterday that was going to happen.
If they don't do that, if we get the if we get more run around next week, then I think all these things are on the table.
Well, how do they get away with pushing it to next week?
How did they get away with that?
They they just they just say it and they just do it, and until Congress stands up and says we're not going to tolerate it.
And the part that is so frustrating.
Rod Rosenstein's never had his name on a ballot.
The people who are the that that are most accountable to the voters are the ones who actually run for the job and get elected.
And to have some unelected person saying we're not going to show an elected body, a separate equal branch of government, the information they need to do their oversight job that is required by the Constitution of the United States for them to do that.
This goes to the fundamentals.
And when you have this kind of abuse on the on the fundamental issue of that that unelected people are telling elected people we're not going to let you do your job, that's a problem.
Well, I gotta tell you, it's so it's so predictable on every level.
All right, let me switch to politics for just a minute here.
Um there's over a hundred House members now that have signed a petition urging you to run for speaker.
I've already given you my endorsement, although you probably don't even want it.
Well, you're probably thinking that hurts you.
No, it certainly doesn't hurt.
And you know, I I've been very clear.
What if and when there's a race, um I plan on being part of that discussion.
Right now, the focus has got to be on doing the right policy, doing what we told the American people we were going to do.
Because frankly, more important than what happens next year in the speaker's race is what we do now.
And if we don't do the right things now, it could be a race for a minority leader, not speaker.
So I am focused on let's make sure we do immigration policy right that's consistent with the mandate of the election and consistent with what President Trump campaigned on.
Let's make sure we reform welfare.
Let's make sure we get to the bottom of this crazy FBI scandal.
That's what I'm focused on doing.
Uh if and when the race comes, uh, we'll deal with it then.
All right, I think we're gonna see you on TV tonight because there's so much uh happening.
We really appreciate your time.
You bet.
Uh that's Jim Jordan, potentially the next speaker of the House.
We hope so.
That would be good.
800-941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
So by the way, I want to give a one quick programming uh note here.
We are going to be in Singapore for this historic uh summit doing both radio and TV next week.
The radio show will be at 3 a.m. local time, Singapore time, TV at 9 a.m.
Don't worry, I'm not gonna change my clock.
That's how I think I'm gonna pull this off.
Uh yeah, you're gonna be on the trip.
Sweet baby's gonna be on the trip.
We got all our TV people on the trip.
And uh, but thankfully you're on a different flight.
Because the last time you went to Israel with us.
Did you just say that out loud on the air?
What's wrong with you?
You you talk to a woman that you know America's not gonna like you anymore if you're mean to me.
Okay, I'm not being mean.
You talk to a total stranger for seven.
You talk to total strangers every day for seven You get paid to do that for seven hours while others are trying to sleep, and finally First of all, first of all, nothing else was fine.
Did you ever talk to that lady again?
Yes, of course.
Okay, and it got louder as the trip went longer.
No one got louder.
I'm sorry, was it you who was throwing bread products?
No, no, I was passing I was I was gently passing over a is that how gently passing hits people on the head?
Is that how that is?
I can't help but you can't catch.
You're a problem.
I can't you didn't learn how to play baseball.
I think we should talk about what I packed.
Can I just ask one last question?
No.
Okay.
So you talk to the and as you drank more wine, it did get louder.
First of all, I wasn't drinking wine.
Okay, whatever was in that glass you were drinking made you talk louder.
I might have had a glass.
A little okay, that's a lie.
You know it, and I know it.
Okay, so uh what did you want to ask me?
What did you want to say you're bringing?
I think that everyone should know that I have packed special treats For who?
For me and my team, so that we can do the show at three in the morning.
What it?
Oh, you brought your candy.
That's right.
Yeah.
Dark chocolate galore.
All right, just keep it away from me.
That's all I ask.
All right, we'll take a quick break.
We'll come back.
A lot more to get to.
News Roundup Information Overload and your calls coming up as we continue the Sean Hannity Show.
Hi, news Roundup Information Overload, Sean Hannity Show.
Toll-free, our numbers 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
So I'm on this program yesterday.
And I go through, and it's amazing what finally will get the media's attention.
So I go through every single thing that I have been discussing now for a long time about the crimes that Hillary Clinton committed.
How she put her top secret, private, confidential, uh special access programming information on a mom and pop shop server that was stored in a bathroom closet.
Platt River Networks is the place, which is illegal if you mishandle classified information.
That's a felony.
If you destroy classified information, it's a felony.
In the original draft of the Comey struck exoneration of Hillary, they said six foreign intelligence services had hacked into Hillary's email server.
She did it to avoid congressional oversight.
She lied about having top secret classified special access programming information on it, and she also destroyed such.
Those are all crimes.
Then when it was subpoenaed, she deleted 33,000 emails.
She acid washed her hard drive with bleach bit.
She had an aid bust up her devices with hammers, and to the one Blackberry that she did hand over to the FBI, well, that had uh no SIM card in it.
A lot of good that is.
So I said if big if here, if I said to people that have been going before Robert Muller, if you go ahead and follow the Clinton model, go ahead.
It's not gonna work out any well uh uh very well.
And I even said I'm joking at one point.
Your media, these are the headlines.
Hannity appears to encourage obstruction of justice in Mueller probe.
Hannity's phone smashing rhetoric heads in a different direction.
Hannity suggests witnesses in Mueller investigation destroy evidence.
I'm and by the way, I'm not making up one of these headlines.
Sean Hannity knows exactly what he's doing with quote jokes and about destroying evidence.
You can't make I can't I'm not making these up.
Sean Hannity recommends White House staffers commit a felony for Trump.
That was Vice News.
Acid wash the emails.
Hannity urges Russia witnesses to destroy evidence live on Fox News.
Delete all your emails, then acid washer hard drive.
Sean Hannity suggests Muller probe witnesses should destroy their evidence.
Hannity tells Muller witnesses bash your phones to little itsy bitsy pieces.
Sean Hannity to witnesses in Mullerphone, bash your phones into pieces.
Sean Hannity's advice to Muller witnesses bash your phones with a hammer.
Delete all your emails, acid washer hard drives.
Sean Hannity suggests Muller probe witnesses should destroy their evidence.
Here's what we said.
Listen closely to the if.
Now maybe Muller's witnesses.
I don't know.
If I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton's lead, delete all your emails.
If and then acid wash the emails and hard drives on the on the phones, then take your phones and bash them with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces.
Use bleach bit, remove the sim cards, and then take the pieces and hand it over to Robert Mueller and say, Hillary Rodham Quentin, Clinton, this is equal justice under the law.
How do you think that would work out for everybody who Muller's demanding their phones in tonight?
How would it work out?
My advice to them, not really.
Not really bad advice.
Bad advice.
Oh, Hillary's, you know, lead.
Well, he delete them.
Acid wash them, bust them up, take out the SIM cards and say, here, little pieces.
Here, Mr. Muller, here.
I'm following Hillary's lead.
Now, Danielle McLaughlin is a constitutional attorney and a liberal.
Jonathan Gillam, author of the best selling book, Sheep No More.
Danielle, am I should I expect my home to be rated like Paul Manafort's and uh Michael Cohn's.
Hi, Sean.
No, I don't think so.
Uh, it's really nice to be in studio today and actually I hate when you do this.
You start out nice.
I can't be mean to you when you always start out nice.
It's all part of the strategy.
You understand this, don't you?
I get the strategy of it.
Yes, I do.
Well, It goes back a long way.
No, I mean, this is ridiculous.
I have respect for a lot of these journalists, but this is totally ridiculous, and it's really nice to agree with you for once, can I just say?
Because it doesn't happen very often.
I just beyond them being stupid.
I mean, there's a level of stupidity here.
You do agree.
Well, you know, you that you're not necessarily the most favorite people of some of these people, so you know they're going after you.
How could they not know that my tongue is firmly placed in my cheek?
But the but here's the irony of it.
If they're so outraged over me saying if I offered that advice, if there's a why are they not outraged that Hillary did all of it?
Well, you know I'm gonna disagree with your with your findings on Hillary Clinton, but you know, i you actually pose a great question.
But what I will say is that this is ridiculous.
Let's just begin with the smashing.
The smashing happened long before a subpoena, number one.
So it was not any way of obstruction of justice.
So let's just start there.
So wait a minute.
I think there were some that were actually bashed afterwards.
Number one, number two, the emails were subpoenaed.
The acid wash took place after, and uh if that's not obstruction of justice, you telling me and my audience that if we did it, we get away with that.
I'm not saying that.
Would you recommend that to any client?
No, I absolutely would not.
And they there was a mistake.
Do you think it's possible to have thirty-three thousand emails on yoga, one yoga, one wedding, one funeral, and emails to your husband who does an email.
Do you think thirty-three thousand, you think it's possible?
Well, you know what?
There was also a wedding in there.
Did you mention the wedding?
The winning, I mean, there's a have you you've been married, you're married.
I said one wedding, one funeral, and I said yoga and Bill Clinton does an email.
You've never been mother of the bride, Sean.
Okay.
Number two.
But the but then they found Jonathan Gillum, which is the sad part.
Then in fact, they got some of those back, and what did we find out?
Yeah, in spite of what she said, they were Mark classified.
They were top secret, and yeah, they did have special access programming on it.
And so she lied about that.
So I'm gonna throw some massive strategy at Danielle.
I think that was the word that she used.
Hey John Hulk.
So here's the thing.
You know, look at all the stuff that you guys are talking about, and then when you talk about the blackberries that were crushed and the one that was actually given back the SIM card was taken out of it.
The information that's on the SIM card itself is also considered government property because it was in uh a government piece of equipment.
That SIM card is also a piece of government equipment.
And here's the problem that people are uh they're missing the whole uh totality of these circumstances.
Each single one of these events is calculated, and the way you can determine that is by looking at the process in which they went about destroying the information, uh obstructing the collection of that information, and destroying these pieces of government equipment.
Now, the way that information was transferred through the servers in the Clinton's homes, the way that uh Strunk and Page and these people tried to use their blackberries instead of official emails to do work, the way that Comey used a professor to leak information so that he could cause somehow cause this special investigation in the way that Mueller himself has used leaks.
These are all examples of strategic movements, not to find guilt or innocence, but to protect those that are a part of their ideology and to crush the then candidate and now President Trump.
And that's clear to anybody who's got any type of investigative sense whatsoever.
Danielle.
You know what?
I uh spent the last couple of days looking at the five hundred uh pages of emails, so I don't know, ten thousand excuse me, text messages between Stock and Page.
And I have to tell you, there's nothing there.
You know, I I understand that people are annoyed that they were critical of Trump.
So here's one part of this sort of deep steep state conspiracy, right?
Stock and page.
They talked about meetings, they talked about coffee.
They didn't talk about how they were gonna get Trump.
They didn't talk about how they were gonna protect Clinton.
So, you know, these were text messages that they thought no one would ever see That they thought were completely safe.
So honestly, if I'm an investigator, that's where I'm going to find evidence of bad conduct and of bad intent.
I saw nothing.
I guess you missed I guess you missed all of the stuff about the insurance policy, about the meetings.
You I guess you missed the taking that stuff along with uh Strokes actually his involvement in the investigation about uh all the other different aspects of how they maneuvered uh this source called uh Steele who put together a dossier who was a paid informant for the FBI at one point.
When you look at all of these things, and then you look at the text messages, then you see something there.
Hey, Jonathan, I you're you're making all the point.
What do you think of the idea that people in the media are so stupid to for to take what I said about her?
They're more outrage that I said it if I offered this advice if, and I'm laughing about it, and I said it would be bad advice.
I said all of that.
And I'm and they're they're so outraged about that in the media, but they're not outraged, she did it.
She's not outraged, she did it all.
That's the point.
Well, here's the thing.
They're not outraged at all about this, Sean.
They're using that as propaganda.
What no, they're outraged at me, said, you know, look at the headlines, the blaring headlines today.
I mean, I might have to hire Danielle.
Okay.
No, the the liberals are outraged at you, but the media is using these things in a tactical manner to blame you for doing things that they've already done.
That's that's called Intel 101.
That's what they're doing.
It's propaganda.
They will blame you for the same things that they have done as direction.
Well, the point is if you're outraged that I might have suggested such stupidity, and the fact that she did do it all, and Danielle is good a lawyer as she is, you know, says it all when you say, I'd never advised my client to do any of that.
No, sure.
I mean, of course I would not.
And speaking to this piece about media outrage, there were multiple, multiple, multiple opiates across national and international media condemning this.
She said herself it was stupid.
I'm a supporter.
I think she's done extraordinary things to this country.
I know many listeners don't agree with me.
That was stupid.
It was a stupid, dumb thing to do, and I won't defend it.
But I will say, having looked at what the FBI did, having read James Comey's book, have you read it?
By the way, I I think I want them to call me in.
Because I want to, you know what, I want to meet Andrew Weissman and ask him about the tens of thousands of people that lost their jobs at Anderson uh accounting.
I want to ask him how he feels about losing 9-0 in the Supreme Court.
Would you ever would you feel good about that as an attorney?
No, I wouldn't have to be able to do that.
If you put it if you put four guys if you put four guys in jail for a year and that's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, if a judge on two occasions blasts you for withholding exculpatory evidence, do you think such a man should be on Mueller's team?
Well, what I will say is withholding exculpatory evidence is never, ever okay.
Should that guy with that record be on Mueller's team?
It's a problem.
It's a problem.
It's just a little problem.
Well, not a little problem.
It's a problem.
It's uh would you want that person investigating anybody you're defending?
No, absolutely not.
Do you think there's ethical questions associated with that?
With one person, possibly.
But this is one man in a chance.
What about Jeannie Ray, who worked for the Clinton Foundation?
Is that a conflict?
Genie Ray, who I mean, no.
Honestly, you could go through every single member of this team and you can ask them about the political beliefs.
You can ask them what they had the breakfast.
You're gonna find something if you're lucky.
Excuse me, looking.
She worked for the Clinton Foundation.
She's gonna be involved in the Trump case.
Now, here's the other point.
It's a charity.
It's a charity that helps people with AIDS around the world.
I mean, uh-huh.
So what else is a limiting factor?
I mean it's called the conflict of interest.
Uh if Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself.
I mean, what about you know, when you look at all of these people in total?
That's the point.
All Democratic donors, all of them.
What is it about if uh like say a mob figure is on trial and he has the prosecutor in his pocket that that's called a crime, but when uh the prosecutor, uh like Mueller has all these different attorneys uh from the other side, from the side that uh is making all these accusations and they're in his pocket, how is that not a crime?
How is it not a crime when we're showing over and over again that they are maneuvering to uh to build a case on an innocent American, whether or not he's our president, he's an innocent American, they are maneuvering to build a case using information that was falsely created, not found.
It was created by them uh using all kinds of setups and meetings that were orchestrated by them.
How is this not entrapment?
How is this not a crime?
I think I think what you're trying to say is you're talking about the dossier.
Am I right, Jonathan?
I'm talking about the whole thing, the dossier, the sources that were inputted into the campaign by the FBI, by the upper echelon of the FBI, by the leaking of Comey to make this entire thing go forward.
All of this, if this was done in a regular case, it's the same as Danielle as if we took that sailor who was punished for those six photographs.
Bingo.
All right, stay right there, John.
I don't mean to cut you off.
We'll get right back to Christian Saucier on the other side.
Uh Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillam.
Uh we'll get to your calls next half hour, 800 941 Sean is on number.
All right, as we continue, Danielle McLaughlin, constitutional attorney.
Uh Jonathan Gillam, author of the book Sheep No More.
Jonathan, as we were going to a break, you made a a really good point about Christian Saucier uh as compared to Hillary Clinton.
He was punished.
He was put in jail for a year.
Look, I agree with that punishment, actually.
I think what he did was wrong, and he knew the the the uh circumstances.
But it I heard on the radio today somebody said, What are we gonna charge the Clintons with?
How about charging them with the same thing that you would charge anybody else for doing what they did?
I don't get how we allow these these senior executive service members that are have no overwatch, when they do something wrong, there's no penalty for what they do, but yet they turn around and build a case on a fake dossier and meetings that were orchestrated by the FBI themselves without evidence that something was going wrong up on upon a an innocent American.
That's called entrapment.
This is sick to me.
So to to you two points, all right.
Number one, the camera case and even Petraeus.
What Clinton did was retain classified information.
She didn't transmit it to anybody who didn't have a classified uh clearance, who didn't have a clearance for this kind of information.
If you got to take photos on a camera and you take it off that submarine, that's a transmission.
You were taking it off-premises away from a classified space to people who don't have that kind of clearance.
Jonathan, real quick, we're wrapping up.
She took the equipment out of and and used it in her own home.
That's that's not in a skip.
That's no different than taking pictures out.
Big b I I it's I think Jonathan's right.
But Danielle, you would be a good attorney for some liberal audio, I just don't know.
Uh anyway, we'll take a break.
We'll come back more.
Oh, your calls are straight ahead as we continue.
For all of our lifetimes, any president of any party who treated threats of nuclear war in any way in a cavalier way.
We've not seen that really from Republicans or Democrats.
Anybody who treated this cavalierly would be roundly condemned by all serious people in both parties.
He is not merely being cavalier with a threat about nuclear war.
He's being cavalier in a way that makes him seem demented and deranged and makes no serious uh of our serious allies or adversaries around the world think that he's a serious person talking in this way about the most serious threat that the world ever faces.
You know, when President Trump was inaugurated last January, some writers, some columnists like Andre Sullivan started right away to raise concerns about the president's mental health, about his fitness for office.
In the months that followed, we saw Republican senators like Jeff Flake bring these issues up, try to ask about his fitness for office, Bob Corker, another name that comes to mind.
I think we could apply a test to his 16 tweets today.
The test would be if this were the leader of sh this were the leader of Germany or China or Brazil, what would we say?
How would we cover these tweets?
We would say these are the messages from a person who is not well, from a leader who is not fit for office.
This is the president of the United States issuing a threat to use nuclear weapons and then turning around and glibly chastising the media.
These tweets coming on the same day that President Trump also suggested that a former Hillary Clinton aide who has been charged with no crime should be jailed.
And said the former FBI director, who was in a witness, who is a witness in the investigation into the Trump campaign, should be investigated himself.
And also said that his own Justice Department is part of a conspiracy known as the quote, deep state.
None of this normal, none of this acceptable, none of this frankly stable behavior.
A lot of people are wondering where the first lady is these days.
She dropped out of sight several uh weeks ago.
I I they're saying uh we haven't seen her since the 10th.
Uh and everyone has their questions about where is she?
The last time we caught a glimpse of her was on Mar May 10th.
Uh 24 days, more than three weeks.
There's been a lot of questions uh about her surgery, her time at Walter Reed, and now her uh invisibility.
How long does she have to be out of sight to make this a legitimate media story?
First ladies get media coverage.
Uh I don't care what your political ideology is when a first lady disappears from the public scene 24 days after being in a hospital.
Of course, reporters are going to raise questions.
As of the time we're taping this show right now, the first lady has not been seen in public for 25 days.
Well, I'm not surprised.
It took that Shaw Shank guy years to tunnel out.
Ivanka Trump, who works at the White House, chose to post the second most oblivious tweet we've seen this week.
You know, if I that's a beautiful photo of you and your child, but let me just say, one mother to another.
Do something about your dad's immigration practices, you feckless.
He listens to you.
Put on something tight and low-cut and tell your father to stop it.
Tell him it was an Obama thing and see how it goes, okay?
We'll be right back.
People were offended and angry that I used an epithet to describe the president's daughter and advisor last week.
It is a word I have used on the show many times, hoping to reclaim it.
This time I used it as an insult.
I crossed the line, I regret it, and I do apologize for that.
The problem is that many women have heard that word at the worst moments of their lives.
A lot of them don't want that word reclaimed.
They want it gone.
And I don't blame them.
I don't want to inflict more pain on them.
I want this show to be challenging and I want it to be honest, but I never intended it to hurt anyone except Ted Cruz.
Many men were also offended by my use of the word.
I do not care about that.
I hate that this distracted from more important issues.
I hate that I did something to contribute to the nightmare of 24-hour news cycles that were all white knuckling.
I should have known that a potty-mouthed insult would be inherently more interesting to them than juvenile immigration policy.
I would do anything to help those kids.
I hate that this distracted from them, so to them I am also sorry.
And look, if you are worried about the death of civility, don't sweat it.
I'm a comedian.
People who hone their voices in basement bars while yelling back at drunk hecklers are definitely not paragons of civility.
I am.
I'm really sorry that I said that word, but you know what?
Civility is just nice words.
Maybe we should all worry a little bit more about the niceness of our actions.
Okay.
Thanks for listening.
I'm Samantha B. Sorry for breaking America.
She's like the least funny person.
Well, whatever.
You want to watch Samantha B go right ahead.
You have had it.
Uh glad you're with us.
20 uh 4 now till the top of the hour.
As promised, we're gonna hit our phones.
Toll-free, it's 800 941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
Uh Jeff in Pittsburgh, PA Rose Tenantland, we call it.
What's up?
Uh Jeff, how are you?
Glad you called.
Oh, thank you, Sean.
How are you doing today?
I'm good, sir.
Uh looking forward to uh getting on the road next week.
We'll be in Singapore.
We'll be doing radio and TV from there.
Uh just be patient if we have a few technical difficulties.
You know, it's like a 22-hour flight.
No.
Yeah.
Hope we got some leg room.
Yeah, we'll be doing the show three o'clock in the morning, Singapore time.
This radio show.
Oh, well, I'll be listening.
Well, thank you.
That's okay.
Uh the reason I was calling it says uh 30 to 35 FBI agents are sitting around waiting for subpoenas.
They don't, it's not whistleblowers.
There were federal crimes being committed right in front of them.
They did nothing.
And now a year after we see all everything sort of, all of a sudden now you want to be big men and oh I have information.
It's not whistleblower.
It's current in their federal law enforcement.
You know, uh I say this fundamentally.
This is why to me, the inspector general's report, and I don't want to be a broken record, but sometimes you have to be a broken record to make sure everybody understands it.
It understands it.
It kind of goes off into how stupid I I talked about it earlier in the program today.
The media, you know, Hannity's phone smashing rhetoric heads in a different direction.
Hannity advises witnesses in Russia investigation to destroy evidence.
No, I just told people, you know, you you you might want to, you know, I s I actually use the words i if I said, if I advise people to follow Hillary's if if if it means I wasn't.
And then I said, but just take your phone if it was subpoenaed by Robert Mueller, and I want you to delete all the emails, delete all your text and acid wash the hard drive, and then bash it up into little pieces and use bleach bit and then take out the SIM card and hand up hand over the it'sy bitsy pieces to Robert Mueller.
Now, obviously I'm making a point.
And I actually think the reason they're so mad is it's a good point.
Um, you know, imagine what would happen to you, Jeff in Pittsburgh PA if you did that to subpoenaed documents or information.
Oh I'd be sitting behind bars right now.
Right now.
You know what?
And if it and if I did it, I'd be behind bars yesterday.
And I would and my life would be ruined.
And you know, and I think that's why it was such an effective point.
These are crimes.
You're right.
You said it, they're crimes.
Yep.
And those guys were sitting around in the federal agents and they said nothing.
For now, again, now it's sort of not it's not looking real good for 'em.
But now they're all look at me, I'll I'll I'll be testifying.
I'm a whistleblower.
Yeah.
And it just they should be charged too.
If they didn't do their job or fired or whatever.
Anyway, I appreciate you uh calling Jeff, and my advice is in real life, don't follow the Hillary example because there's a dual justice system in America.
There's a system for Hillary, and then there's a system for the rest of us.
And that's the whole point of it.
That's the whole point I was trying to make.
Anyway, 800-941 Sean, toll-free telephone number, you want to be a part of the program.
All right, Peter is uh believe it or not, in Ontario in Canada.
Peter, hi, how are you?
And uh welcome to the program.
Sean, you and your you and your uh your staff are always in our prayers.
Sean, listen, great, great uh I for 20 years I lived uh about 11 blocks from Constitutional Hall in downtown Philadelphia.
I always admired the Constitution, and I always admired the the the positions that were held like attorney general, and how respected and important that position is.
And when we see that that Jeff Sessions, uh, you know, sure he's on the campaign trail, that's fine and good.
So, you know, Trump gets him up there as A.G. automatically recuses himself in the biggest case in American history, and then we see Rod Rosenstein, who's conflicted come in, and you know as well as I do that this is absolutely so outrageous, Sean.
I don't see why every congressional member on the Republican sided senator isn't screaming from Mount Everest to change this today.
I agree with you.
And the only thing I can tell you is there there are a lot of good people in Congress.
Well, I take that back.
There are enough fighters in Congress that were apoplectic today at what it was that the Department of Justice did here.
And they're like, Well, we have the we had the documents in front of you.
Why didn't you read them?
Because they were fighting and screaming at each other for an hour, and then they were briefed for another hour, and there was no highlighting, as I have been told, of that these were the requested documents.
Well, we'll give them to you next week in the middle of the summit.
Well, that's an attempt to bury the information.
And that's exactly what I've been sc I that that's been my point all week.
Everything that I said and predicted, except for the IG report is now happening as it relates to the documents.
I mean, you know, Peter, I gotta tell you something.
And this is where I you know, I go back to what I was just talking to Jeff about who called in, and the fact that the media is so stupid, they're so colossally stupid that they didn't get the reference I was making to Hillary.
He might have been be he might have been trying to be sarcastic, um, but we're not sure.
Was he advising people to smash their cell phones and destroy evidence?
I mean, the point that that would so outrage them, but not about Hillary that did it.
It's it's an incredible double standard.
And I, you know, I'll be honest, I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the point.
I was just trying to be a little glib.
And um, but certainly we've struck a nerve, and I um I couldn't be happier we did.
It makes my point.
Anyway.
You know what?
I'd love to just see one of those those people that are called in to have their phone looked at, just to hand it to them with no SIM card, Sean, all crushed up.
No, yeah, and little itsy bitsy pieces.
And you know what they would do?
They probably handcuff you on the spot.
Well, it's the same as that gentleman that that was taking pictures to show his mom on an old nuke sub, okay, that now he's taking out a lawsuit.
I guess against I, you know, uh the the powers to be, and he has every bloody right to.
Absolutely.
All right, 800 941 Sean is a toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
All right, my buddy Joe in Ellija.
I've known Joe for 20 years.
Joe, what's going on, my friend?
Sean, great talking to you.
I just want to say that the book by Donald Trump called Trump's America is the best book I've ever read, and you you you you promote it.
And I think if we can get the American people to read this book, it will it's just incredible.
And I tell you what, I'm excited about the midterms.
I think you're the best friend of Donald Trump.
I think we're gonna maintain control of the House and Senate.
I think Trump's gonna win with the biggest margin in history.
And I tell you though, with this book by Newt Gingrich, I know he's your good friend called Trump's America is one of the best books I've ever read.
It tells about how we need to maintain our sovereignty and protect American interests, and it is just incredible.
And I think this book will help the Republicans not only maintain control of both the House and Senate, but increase their majority in both bodies.
So I'm very excited about that.
And of course, I think this will lead to Donald Trump being reelected by the biggest margin in history.
So I am really fired up, Sean, and Sean, you are the best friend by far of Donald Trump.
And uh when he's re-elected in 2020, he owes you a great debt of gratitude, and so do all the Republican members of the House and Senate.
But this book by Gingrich, I know he's a great friend of yours.
It is really super.
It tells that we uh we need to protect our sovereignty, put the taxpayers first, and it tells about how the media, the left wing media is totally against Trump, but how he's uh how he's uh taking them on, which is he's he's the only president that's ever really taken on the media.
And so uh I admire him tremendously for that, but I think he's the best president in world history, but I think this book by Newt will really do more to energize the Republican base and even a lot of independence than anything that's been written in the last 25 or 30 years.
So boy, I'm fired up, I'm energized, and Sean, thank you for all you do.
You're the best friend of the American taxpayers, and I want to urge everybody again to go get this great book by Newt Gingrich called Trump's America.
Fantastic book, and uh Sean, you keep up the great work.
You're the best friend of the American taxpayers and the best friends, the best friend of John and Don John Trump.
Thank you very much.
All right, Joe and El Jay.
I've known Joe wow since all my Atlanta years.
Oh, about 22 years ago.
Uh and yeah, Newt's book is amazing.
You can get it on Amazon.com, Hannity.com, bookstores everywhere, and guaranteed bestseller.
It is great, really defines the Trump success story.
All right, so this now breaking June 18th.
The inspector general goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Well, hopefully now the inspector general got the message.
Maybe you don't dump it, maybe you don't bury it on a Friday in the summer or during a big summit.
Let's hope he did.
Alan Dershowitz, Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter.
We have Freedom Caucus member, Representative DeSantis.
Uh, we have Corka Hoffman, Bongino, and much more.
What a show we have tonight.
Oh, by the way, and I have a message for all my friends in the media that think that I was suggesting that people do what Hillary did.
