Sean reacts to the continued criticism of the Trump Administration's immigration policy. "What the left wants is open borders," explained Sean, "Nobody wants to come to the table, they want open borders." "Families were separated by President Barack Obama," continued Sean. "Nobody wants kids taken from their parents," Sean made very clear, "But we need to solve the problem the way it ultimately should be solved." Sean is joined by Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations for Judicial Watch and attorney Francisco Hernandez to discuss the latest on this important issue. 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.
Forhims.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 forhyms.com/slash big.
That's F O R H I M S.com slash big.
For hims.com slash big.
All right, glad you're with us.
Wow, what a day this has uh been.
If you watched any of the hearings or if you didn't, it doesn't matter.
We'll get you up to speed.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800 941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, uh we have uh Lindsay Graham, who was pretty amazing yesterday, uh, as it relates to the hearings that took place in the Senate, and House Freedom Caucus member Jim Jordan, who was uh literally part of the sham hearings for the inspector general and the FBI director.
But there is this one thing that you need to take away from this on top of everything else is you again, everything is a process.
It's so hard for people.
Okay, the IG report is out.
Now what?
Well, the now what is beginning to happen, and that is okay, now the IG, who I thought looked pretty silly at moments today during the hearing.
Now he is going to give his testimony.
Then we're gonna hear from hopefully Struck and Page and Comey and all these other people.
And then the criminal referrals likely that haven't been made will be made.
We know that there are at least five referrals.
We don't know exactly what they were as part of the release of the IG report, so we're gonna watch all of that closely.
Um, it was good to see Trey Bowdy uh Gowdy back in his old form uh during his opening statement at the hearings today, scorching Jim Comey, what was a blistering opening statement at this hearing, declaring we can't survive with a justice system we don't trust.
You know, the only one bit of comfort that I take out of watching all of this is that those of you in this audience are deeply familiar with every aspect of what they're talking about, is because we have been on the front lines talking about this and exposing this while the rest of the media has been,
you know, pretty much numb and quiet and in the camp of doing all they can do to protect Hillary Clinton, and also not call attention to the fact is that they have not done their job, as always.
And so I'm glad that a lot of it's familiar to you because it's all true.
We've not been wrong.
We've been proven right every step of the way.
And Gowdy then goes on to accuse Comey of watering down his initial statement on the investigation's findings, which he did.
Highly likely they hacked into Hillary's emails, then taking that out, watering it down, beginning the process in early May of 2016, interviewing Hillary on July 2nd, 17 other key witnesses, and then wrapping it up three days later because it was all predetermined, even though the violations of law are incontrovertible, the facts are irrefutable, and anybody else would be in jail over all of this.
And also pointing down that, you know, the findings in question why he didn't seek a special counsel as he did so passionately by leaking, well, documents that might also be getting him in trouble, as we now know Gaudi uh uh Comey is now being investigated for the document leak of himself.
He might have violated ironically the same exact law that Hillary Clinton had violated as relates to the espionage act.
Now, instead, he appointed himself, Gowdy goes on, the FBI director, attorney general, special counsel, lead investigator, and the general arbiter of what is good and right in the world, according to him.
And Gowdy said Horowitz's report, which was released last Thursday, should conjure anger, disappointment, and sadness in anybody who reads it.
And then he says that in the wake of the IG report, there were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to prejudge the outcome of the Clinton case.
We know why, because they had this hatred and bias that was full and complete towards Donald Trump, and Hillary was their favored candidate.
If they applied the law as it should have been applied, then Hillary Clinton would have been indicted.
And then the whole election electoral process for the Democrats, yeah, it would have been put into some chaos, but it would have been the right thing to do.
It would have been what the law required them to do.
And he says these exact FBI agents and attorney prejudge the outcome of the Russia investigation before that even began.
It's the same players.
That's why, if we're talking about the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation, it starts out with the most anti-Trump, pro Hillary, abusively biased agents at the upper echelons of the FBI.
And you can't have a system of justice that rolls this way.
Now the FBI urged the IG to investigate James Comey.
This was interesting that Michael Horowitz revealed he's now investigating Comey based on a referral that urged them to do so.
But uh the bigger news is the identity of the source that used uh that issued the investigative referral.
It turns out it was Comey's own FBI urging Horowitz to investigate Comey's misconduct.
What did I tell you?
A little nugget that nobody seems to pay any attention to.
At the end of the day, the hero here are going to be rank and file FBI agents.
That's why you can't have, you know, this the broad sweeping generalizations if you have a few bad cops, actions of a few bad cops should not reflect on the actions of others.
It don't they do not reflect on the actions of others.
And in the case of FBI agents, they have a very hard time telling their stories.
They have to be subpoenaed before they can ever talk about what it is many of them now are lining up to talk about.
Anyway, specifically under investigation for his handling of the memos that he wrote about his interactions with President Trump while the FBI director and Grassley asked Horowitz yesterday, are you investigating the handling of his memo?
And does that include the classification issues?
And should Comey expect a report when it's complete.
And anyway, Horowitz responded, we received a referral on that from the FBI.
We're handling that referral, and we'll issue a report when the matter is complete, consistent with the law and the rules that are a report that's consistent that takes into account, he said.
Now, one other thing here is as all of this is going on.
Remember, there is a battle and a war that is now beginning to bubble over.
It's been percolating now for a while, and it has to do with Rod Rosenstein and the lack of cooperation, frankly, obstruction of Congress's investigations into all of these matters.
Because as you know, they have they they have constitutional oversight.
We have a system of checks and balances, co-equal branches of government.
Congress is empowered, and it is their job to conduct oversight for the purposes that people don't abuse their power.
This is what?
This whole scandal is about abuse of power and corruption.
And uh now it's it's going to probably result sometime tomorrow in impeachment articles now going to be filed against Rod Rosenstein.
These guys have stonewalled, they have obstructed, they have refused congressional subpoenas, they have lied, they have redacted in the name of national security when there are no national security issues.
In other words, the very same things that if you did in your life, if you got a subpoena, would probably land you in jail.
Bill McGurn, writing in the Wall Street Journal today, leading member of their editorial board is calling for the House to actually impeach the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and maybe even the FBI director, Christopher Ray.
Anyway, writing in the journal, McGurn says impeachment is the only way to end the FBI and DOJ's continued stonewalling over key documents.
He said on Sunday on Fox News with Maria Barritoromo, Devin Nunes, the House Intel Committee Chairman, made it clear his patience has run out.
Now, last Friday, there was a meeting, and he and other House chairmen at this meeting, Bob Goodlad of Judiciary and Trey Gowdy of government reform, fully backed in their demands by Speaker Ryan.
Speaker Ryan did ask people to hold back a week before they file these impeachment issues.
Anyway, Ryan sent Rosenstein and Ray an unambiguous message.
Comply with Congress's order this week.
Anyway, um Ryan was on a radio uh interview in Milwaukee on WISN and said the new leadership at justice and the FBI has to decide whether it will be part of the cleanup crew or the cover-up team.
If justice and the FBI don't comply within the timeline that he laid out, we're gonna have to take action.
And the obstruction of justice and the FBI appears rooted in the mistaken idea that they are somehow above the elected representatives of the American people.
And while Mr. Rosenstein has referred to congressional talk of impeachment as extortion, Mr. Ray, in his statement to a press conference outlining steps to fix the FBI, conspicuously made no mention of better cooperation with Congress.
An impeachment that removed either Rod Rosenstein or Christopher Ray, or a contempt finding that sent one of them to the congressional pokey for a spell, could send a good message to all federal bureaucrats inclined to be dismissive of congressional subpoenas.
Then again, if either man thought he was in real or imminent danger of being impeached or held in contempt, Congress would likely find him instantly cooperative.
Of course, that's not exactly why Congress has these powers.
Uh not so much to punish, but to encourage the accommodation and the respect.
But if Rosenstein and Ray don't cooperate, if the stonewalling starts again, the House ought to impeach or jail until it gets satisfaction.
Because a congressional power Congress is too timid to invoke is worse than a hollow threat.
It becomes a sign that Congress need not be taken seriously.
And that's interesting.
Now, Jeff Sessions, by the way, ducked a question last night about Rod Rosenstein's obvious conflict of interest in an interview with Laura Ingram.
Are you involved in all the discussions about a possible recusal of Rosenstein from overseeing Mueller given the fact that he did sign one of those Pfizer warrants?
And that's a big controversy in the case.
Sessions said, Well, I'm not involved in that.
He's the acting attorney general for that matter, and he has to make his own decision, as I had to make my decision.
Well, that kind of seems like he's taking the easy way out.
All right, let's go to Trey Gowdy from earlier today.
Now, this is Trey literally tearing into there were FBI agents and attorneys who, you know, predetermined the Hillary Clinton email case and the Russian case.
And he calls it what it is textbook bias.
Listen.
There were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to prejudge the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case before the investigation ended.
I want you to let that sink in for a second.
They prejudged the outcome of the Hillary Clinton investigation before the investigation ended, and these exact same FBI agents and attorneys prejudged the outcome of the Russian investigation before it even began.
If prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it begins, is not evidence of outcome determinative bias for the life of me.
I don't know what would be.
That is textbook bias.
It is quite literally the definition of bias.
Allowing something other than the facts to determine your decision.
These agents were calling her president before she was even interviewed.
They were calling for the end of the Trump campaign before the investigation even began.
They were calling for impeachment simply because he happened to be elected.
That is bias.
It's amazing how long it has taken all these people to get caught up to where we have been.
You know, it reminds me of my friends in music radio.
By the time a DJ is getting sick of a song, it's just about the time that the audience is beginning to recognize what a great song it is.
I know that sounds bizarre, but it's on the one hand, it's satisfying, but it's also frustrating.
We should be well beyond this point.
But for the obstruction that's been going on.
All right, we got a lot to get to.
Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan.
Uh we'll have the latest on this uh immigration debate.
Clearly, the 2018 midterm uh elections have begun.
This is where the Democrats want to take it.
A lot of it's predictable, and we'll give you facts you're not getting elsewhere in the media.
Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote, No, no, he's not.
We'll stop it.
Now I think this is the same Peter Strck who worked on the Clinton email investigation.
Do I have that right?
Uh that's correct.
St. Peter Strzok, who not only worked on the Russia investigation when it began, but was one of the lead investigators at the inception of the Russia pro.
Do I have the right Peter Strzok?
That's my understanding.
Now, is it the same Peter Strzok who was put on the Mueller special counsel team?
Yes.
All right.
St. Peter Strzok.
And this is not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his phone either.
This is the same Peter Strzok who said Trump is an idiot.
Hillary should win 100 million to zero.
Now, Mr. Inspector General, that one is interesting to me because he's supposed to be investigating her for violations of the espionage act at the time he wrote that in March of 2016.
He's supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act, and he can't think of a single solitary American that wouldn't vote for her for president.
I mean, can you see our skepticism?
This senior FBI agent not only had her running, he had her winning a hundred million to nothing.
So what if they'd found evidence sufficient to indict her?
What if they had indicted her?
Is this the same Peter?
He wasn't part of the interview of Secretary Clinton, was he?
Uh he was present for the interview.
Huh.
He's a part of everything.
I mean, that's just this is only a small sample.
But when Trey Gowdy is on his game, there's nobody better.
That's why it was so frustrating without information that he went out on the spy issue before I'm I'm guessing he probably regrets it.
He was part of the meeting that took place on Friday with Speaker Ryan and Deba Nunes and Bob Goodlad, and they basically told Ray and Rosenstein that either you guys start cooperating and stop obstructing, or we're just gonna have to now hold you in contempt and bring impeachment charges against you.
Because that's what's gonna happen.
I think it's probably gonna happen as early as tomorrow, because they've not turned over the documents.
Documents that have been subpoenaed now for many, many, many months.
The most fascinating part of all of this is that Hillary did it all, and the FBI agents caught hating Trump and loving Hillary, then began.
They were at the inception, the origin, the beginnings of the Russia phony investigation.
And they used the sledgehammer there, and then of course the soft glove treatment for Hillary.
That's not equal application under the law, equal justice under the law.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800 941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
Explosive hearings in the House today, joint committees with uh Director Ray and Michael Horowitz, the inspector general.
Uh, let me go back, cut three.
This is Trey Gowdy talking uh to Michael Horowitz talking about the two FBI agents, one attorney, uh showing their bias against Trump and how impactful this ought to be in the minds of the inspector general.
Listen.
So I want to go back to the no, no, he's not gonna be president, we'll stop it.
What do you think the it is in that phrase will stop it?
Oh, I think it's clear from the context, it's we're gonna stop um him from becoming president.
That's what I thought, too.
Now, I wonder who the we is and the we'll stop it.
Who you think the we is?
Well, I think that's probably subject to multiple interpretations.
We'll see if we can go to a couple of or the broader or a broader group beyond that.
I mean, it's hard to fathom a definition of weed that doesn't include him.
So we know he's part of we.
You could assume that the person he's talking with is FBI attorney who also happens to be working on the Russian investigation.
She may be part of the we.
But I wonder, Inspector General, did you find any other FBI agents or FBI attorneys who manifest any animus or bias against President Trump?
Uh we did.
How many?
Uh we have found three additional FBI agents, as we detail in the report.
And were any of them working on the Russian investigation or let me just write two agents and one attorney?
Two other agents, one other attorney, were they working on either the Russian investigation or the Mueller probe?
I believe two of the three were, but I'd have to just double check on that.
Okay.
So you have five of the 15 top people looking into the Hillary matter have a hostility towards Donald Trump and a love of Hillary Clinton.
Even going as far as referring to her as president before she's ever before they even conclude the investigation.
See why when I say writing an exoneration before the investigation, why that's so pivotal?
And when you see that the very same people that literally gave her every consideration, this even you can't even make the case that this is about prosecutorial discretion, because it's not.
What she did is so egregious.
The violation of the espionage act so clear.
And you just need maybe bring in to that committee in that hearing, Christian Saucier, six little pictures on the cell phone, never shared them, never put them on social media, never did anything with them, except he was proud of the fact that he worked in a submarine.
He got a year in jail.
Then, of course, the obstruction issue.
There's never been a more clear-cut case for obstruction of justice.
And of the 15 key lead investigators, at least five of them are on record having this horrible hatred towards Donald Trump and bias in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Anyway, Gowdy goes on as Karowitz what Peter Strzok meant in a text saying that he'd finish it.
Let's listen in.
Peter Strzok is back on his phone texting some more.
For me and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business.
I unleashed it with the Clinton email investigation.
Now I need to fix it and finish it.
Fix what?
Well, there is outlined in the report what Mr. Strzok's explanation for.
Oh, I know what he was.
I'm asking our viewers.
I'm asking the guy who had a distinguished career in the Southern District of New York and had a distinguished career at the Department of Justice.
Do you rather cross-examine Peter Strzok on that explanation, or would you rather direct the examination on that explanation?
Probably cross-examine.
That's what I thought.
How about finish it?
When he said, I unleashed it, now I need to fix it and finish it.
What do you think he meant by finish it?
I think in the context of the emails that occurred in August and the prior August that you outlined, I think a reasonable explanation of it or a reasonable inference of that is uh that he uh believed he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action.
But this is 24 hours into him being put on the Mueller probe.
There's no way he possibly could have prejudged the outcome of the investigation twenty.
Maybe he did.
Maybe that's the outcome determinative bias that my Democrat friends have such a hard time finding.
Now that was the the whole thing that, well, we can't find that political bias was involved, even though then Horowitz goes on to give example After example after example, what he said is he didn't have a smoking gun.
And you know, if you're putting a case together, you know, oftentimes you're not going to get a criminal that says, Yes, I pulled the trigger and shot an innocent woman in the vestibule and I killed her.
What you have to do is you take the evidence, forensic evidence, otherwise, and you put it together in some cases circumstantial evidence, and with all this hatred geared towards Donald Trump and all of these specific comments about we'll stop him and all the people that were involved, though the same guy that's involved in interviewing Hillary, same guy that's involved in writing the exoneration in early May, the same guy that is then at the heart in the beginnings of the Russia investigation.
Yeah, he's got a bias.
Now, Chairman Bob Goodlat at one point asked Michael Horowitz about the struck tech saying that he's gonna stop him and whether or not it shows political bias.
This should put an end to what the left is saying in this regard, that there doesn't show any political bias.
Yeah, baloney.
Listen.
However, each institution has engaged in repeated stonewalling of Congress's constitutionally mandated oversight.
The infamous text from Peter Strzok saying we will stop President Trump from taking office, which we received on the day of your report's release, is a prime example.
This text was revealed to you late in your interview as well, as I understand.
Do you believe this text shows political bias?
I think as we found it clearly shows a biased state of mind.
And if so, do you believe the political bias shown by this text had an effect on the initiation of the Russia investigation?
I think as you know, uh, Mr. Chairman, that's a matter we've got under review and are looking at right now.
More more to be determined on that.
More to be determined.
But the uh the time proximity, as Mr. Gowdy pointed out, is significant.
Correct.
Correct.
And in fact, there are these other text messages in a roughly the same time period.
No, yeah.
It's pretty obvious it's political.
What else could it be but political?
What else could it possibly be?
Madam President.
Oops, of course, Hillary's gonna win.
Now we've got Jim Jordan who's gonna join us uh in the next hour.
Lindsey Graham will also join us in the next hour.
But Jim Jordan uh was on fire today asking Horowitz about Strzok's bias and Trump hating.
Let's play that.
Mr. Horowitz, does Peter Strzok like the president?
Um I can only speak to what his text messages say, and they're obviously not positive comments about the president.
February, March of 2016, Peter Strzok said Trump's abysmal, Trump's an idiot, he's a bleeping idiot.
Hillary should win a hundred million to zero.
Sounds to me like he hates the president.
His text messages would certainly leave that as the implication.
Your report says Strzok ran the Clinton investigation on a daily basis.
Is that accurate?
Uh, that's correct.
And Peter Strck in your report, uh, he was the lead investigator on the Russian investigation.
Is that true?
That's my understanding for the time period he was on.
So the guy he ran the Clinton investigation, he runs the Russian investigation, and he hates the president, but your report says while his bias cast a cloud, it didn't impact final decisions.
Is that accurate?
It didn't impact the prosecutor's final decision.
Right.
Let's look at a few other things Peter Strzok had to say.
On May 4th, 2016, the day after President Trump secures the Republican nomination, Mr. Strzok says, now the pressure really starts to finish the Clinton investigation.
Not sure why the pressure would be more or less the day after.
It seems to me you want to just do the investigation.
On July 31st, as is mentioned earlier, the FBI opens the Russian investigation.
One week later, Peter Strzok says I can protect my country on many levels.
Two days after that, he says we will stop Trump.
One week after that, he says, no way he gets elected.
It's like an insurance policy.
So think about this, Mr. Horowitz.
Peter Strzok opens the FBI opens the Russia investigation on July 31st, 2016.
Peter Strzok is the lead investigator.
Within the next 15 days, he says I can protect my country on many levels.
No way he gets elected.
We will stop him.
We have an insurance policy.
Now that seems like at least I think a lot of regular folks would interpret that as more than just casting a cloud on what the FBI ultimately did.
All right, that was Jim Jordan, and yeah, that's true.
Now, one other note in all of this is sort of a follow-up to that, Horowitz confirming today that he's investigating whether Strzok's anti-Trump bias factored into the launch of the Bureau's Russia probe.
Well, it of course it had to play a part.
Number one, and we now know that this was going on a lot earlier.
Now we also know that there were spies in it.
Now we know why there was a willingness.
Everybody knew the FBI protocol and FISA law mandates that you verify and corroborate any information that you're going to present before a FISA judge.
They never did it on four separate occasions.
And then the DOJ gets them a Sally Yates signed off on one.
Rod Rosenstein signed off on the last one.
They lied to four Pfizer court judges.
I can't wait to one day get them under oath and see how they feel about being lied to.
I've yet to meet a judge in my life that likes being lied to.
It's usually, yes, Your Honor, no, Your Honor, yes, ma'am, no, ma'am, yes, sir, no, sir.
That's how that usually goes.
But anyway, so earlier today, Horowitz testifying that his office is now reviewing all of these anti-Trump text messages as part of a separate probe related to the Russia investigation, because as it was just revealed with Jim Jordan and others, that it clearly shows a biased state of mind.
And Horowitz corroborated that, referring to the text messages.
And that's both biased in favor of Hillary and not being serious about doing a real investigation into the felonies that she did commit.
Nobody's asking yet what should happen to Hillary.
How does she get to skate in all of this, knowing that these crimes were committed?
And then it goes on.
Goodladd asking Horowitz on whether the bias influenced the initiation of the investigation into the Russian interference, et cetera, et cetera, and potential collusion.
That's a matter we've got under review.
We're looking at right now, Horowitz said.
Goodlatt then pressed Horowitz over the politically charged text messages, which the report described as hostile and noted how several were sent near the start of the Russia probe.
Correct, Horowitz said.
In fact, there were these other text messages in roughly the same time period.
Then the exchange coming minutes after Trey Gowdy outlined the curious timing of the text messages between Strzok and Page, just as the Russia probe, which Strzok was involved in initiating, was at its beginnings, its origins, although we do believe it actually started earlier now.
And three weeks after Clinton was exonerated by Comey and Strzok, well, they're now leading the investigation into Russia in coordination with the Trump campaign.
This matters because this matters.
That's pretty interesting.
Now this matters.
This is just after the Russia probe begins in July of 2016.
Timeline's simple.
Hillary's exoneration, written by Strzok and Comey in early May 2016.
Hillary, 17 other key witnesses, don't get interviewed till early July, July 2nd in the case of Hillary.
And she's exonerated after a long laundry list of crimes that were committed, all of which we've gone over on this program many, many times.
And Gowdy lays out that timeline.
July 5th, Comey goes out there, taking on a role he had no business taking on, saying no criminal charges against Hillary.
And from that point to July 28th, when the FBI officially initiated their counterintelligence investigation into the Russia issue.
And three weeks after Hillary's exonerated by Comey, Strzok, who helped write the exoneration before investigation, is leading the investigation into Russia and so-called coordination with the Trump campaign.
You know, because this matters, he said.
You know, this matters as he's texting back and forth with Lisa Page.
Well, you know, it sounds like they went through the motions.
She gets the, you know, soft glove treatment in her case, and Trump gets the sledgehammer because of all this political bias.
You can't say this bias, this hatred of Trump didn't play a part in this.
It did.
Imagine presenting any of this information to a jury and what their reaction would be.
The case comes down to this.
Yeah, I noticed the attorney for Peter Strzok came out with a ridiculous piece.
I think it was in USA Today today.
My guy's a patriot, and he played by the rules, and he could have leaked about the Russia investigation, but he didn't.
Um, okay.
I understand that he's in a bad spot, and uh, but just It just it doesn't pass the smell test on any level.
The reason you need to be concerned about this is because Hillary got away with things you would never get away with.
And she got away with it because people in power, the highest levels of power decided they liked her, favored her over Trump who they hated, and they went with the the soft club treatment, all things Hillary, and they put the fix in, and then they put the sledgehammer to Trump on an issue that was non existent.
That's what happened.
How many people were involved in the Clinton interview on July the second?
Uh there were um, I believe six or eight people present, but two agents conducting the interview.
So as I understand it, there were two agents and two prosecutors.
Correct.
Okay.
Now this was an email sent in February 2016 from Paige to McCabe.
Hey, you've surely already considered this, but in my view, our best reason to hold the line at two and two, two agents and two prosecutors, is she might be our next president.
How did you feel about that?
We were concerned about it, and we lay it out, lay out here why we were concerned about.
Okay, let's keep talking about this interview.
One of the FBI agents in the interview said on election day to another FBI agent, you should know that I'm with her.
Now her was Clinton, right?
Correct.
How do you feel about that?
Very concerned.
Okay.
Eventually, very concerned gets to be enough already.
This is struck to page on October 20th.
Trump is an effing idiot.
The bottom line is I'm glad you found what you found, Mr. Horritz.
I'm not buying that the Clinton email investigation was on the up and up.
And the reason I'm not buying it is because the two people intimately involved, one, the guy, the lead investigator, clearly did not want to see Donald Trump become president of the United States.
Finally, do you agree with me that finding her liable criminally would be inconsistent with stopping Donald Trump?
If they found Hillary Clinton was criminally liable, that paves the way for Donald Trump.
Can you put those two things together?
I guess it would depend when, but yes, I could see conceivably it could.
Oh, clear it clearly could conceivably.
Well, not only clearly conceivably, that's exactly what's happening here, folks.
You cannot hold her criminally liable and stop him.
No, you can't.
That was Lindsay Cram at the Senate hearing yesterday.
House hearing has been going on today, and uh Trey Gowdy just really lit it up earlier uh today as Lindsay Graham did yesterday, who joins us on our newsmaker line.
How are you?
Good.
You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out.
You know, you're so annoying when I disagree with you, but when you are right on something, you're so right on something.
And so I have to give you your credit.
Well, it's true.
I mean, you know I'm not shy about being critical when I disagree with you, but I definitely know that.
But you did a great job yesterday, and I give you a lot of credit for it.
The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
Let's stay with the fundamentals if we can, Senator, for a minute, that Hillary Clinton violated the espionage act and obstructed justice.
Do you have any doubt?
No, uh here's what I would say.
Um here's what's important.
The original statement uh that Tommy was going to read on July the 5th, exonerating her, said that she was grossly negligent.
The reason they changed that term to extremely careless is under 18 USC, 7973 F. Grossly negligent uh creates uh criminal liability.
So what I want to know is who changed the term grossly negligent, extremely careless, because when you find out how that happened, you'll realize that.
Don't we know the answer?
Because they we know the following.
We know that both Strck and Comey were writing and they began writing their exoneration in early May.
They had yet to interview Hillary or 17 other key witnesses.
That Hillary's interview took place July 2nd of 2016.
Right.
And Comey usurped the power of the attorney general and pretty much everyone else and exonerated her publicly on July 5th, and not long thereafter, the same people that that put the exoneration in or the fix in before the investigation then started the Trump Russia probe.
Yeah, but what I yeah, you're everything is dead 100% right.
But what I want to know is I want to, is there any email traffic?
Is there any conversation about changing the words?
Somebody put down grossly negligent and they suddenly realized, wait a minute, if you say that, she's criminally liable.
We can't say that and stop Trump.
The the August the eighth uh text becomes so important.
That's when Paige says to Strzok, Trump's never going to become president, right?
Right?
Strzok responded, no, no, he's not.
We'll stop it.
So now you know that they wanted to stop President Trump from being president.
How can you stop him if you find her criminally responsible for mishandling classified information?
That to me is the key here.
Who changed those words and when did they change it?
Was it Comey?
Was it Strzok?
How did it happen?
No, I uh you know, you're dead right on this.
One other this we keep getting these nuggets as we read through this report again and again.
You're right.
You see, but and this goes to the heart of it, and that is that Horowitz and the Democrats jumped all over well, he said that he's not going to second guess prosecutorial discretion.
But then on the other side of it, he lays out the single most compelling case of abuse and bias in the justice system amongst the highest investigators within the FBI that I've ever seen in my life.
It's stunning, but but you skipped over something that Crapo did, Mike Crabo did a wonderful job, and I don't I I didn't have time to bring this up, but it's brilliant.
Who decided to prosecute uh to give her to let her off the hook?
It wasn't a prosecutor, it was the FBI.
So this was an unusual case.
There was no professional prosecutor that uh uh over oversaw the FBI investigation in terms there's no case here.
The same crew that basically was in the tank for Clinton decided not to prosecute Clinton.
Loretta Lynch didn't make this decision, Comey did, the guy in charge of the FBI.
So there was no independent filter here.
There was no outside group looking at the FBI's work product, saying, Yeah, you're right, there's no case.
The FBI decided not to prosecute, not the Department of Justice.
Well, we also know that of the 15 lead prosecutors.
I never know that to happen in my life.
Well, of course I've never heard of an exoneration uh written before you ever do the investigation of a case.
Have you ever heard of that?
By the investigator Yeah, by Comey and the investigator.
It was struck and comey that were writing the exoneration.
This is not even a month before.
Yeah.
Months before.
So the bottom line is they knew Trump was going to be the presumptive nominee on July the fifth.
The convention was uh July the 18th through the 21st.
So if you wanted to stop him, if that's your goal, and it's in writing in August, they wanted to stop Trump, there's no way you could find her criminally responsible, and no prosecutor decided not to prosecute her.
It was the FBI, the same people who uh basically were completely in the tank for her, decided not to prosecute.
People got to understand there was no filter here.
There was no overseeing the FBI.
Well, that also was because the Attorney General Lynch was compromised based on her Tom Tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton and Phoenix.
Well, you can't make it up, but here's the problem.
The problem is is the same people now, five of the fifteen lead investigators that were involved in this case, then immediately, if the timeline is July 5th, 2016, James Comey takes it upon himself.
It's not his role, it's not his duty, takes it upon himself to exonerate Hillary, and again makes the shifts and changes that you point out as it relates to the legal standard, gross negligence, and also took out something else that's important that that it was likely that foreign intelligence services had hacked into Hillary's email that was in the mom and pop shop bathroom closet.
Well, then those same people that are abusively biased and hate Trump, then are at the initial uh start of the Trump Russia investigation.
Doesn't that render that illegitimate?
Oh, I think well, that's why I think Mueller fired these people, and the question is what effect did it have?
So let's look at the August 15th text from Strock to Page.
Now, this is a week after uh uh Strock said, no, no, we'll stop it.
Here's what they said on August fifteenth.
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected, but I'm afraid we can't take that risk.
It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.
So I asked the question who is Andy?
Andy McCabe.
So here's what's so important about this.
Did in fact the number two guy at the FBI sit down with the lead investigator, the Clinton email investigation, and now the Russia Trump investigation and conspired to create an insurance policy regarding the election.
That is J. Edgar Hoover, that is Watergate.
So here's what Stralk and Paige say.
They've said to multiple committees we met with Andy McCabe and we talked about creating an insurance policy regarding Trump's campaign in election.
McCabe says he doesn't recall that meeting all I can say is how many meetings did you have with FBI agents trying to figure out how to fix an election this to me is the most damning thing about the Russian investigation and how deep the FBI was involved in trying to undercut the election.
If it's true that the number two guy at the FBI sit down in his office to talk with the lead investigator of the Trump investigation about an insurance policy to make sure he didn't win that is stunning that is earth shattering and that destroys how do they still have jobs at the FBI knowing what we know.
I I don't know how you would keep somebody on the government payroll who clearly is trying to fix an election.
You know I mean why you slow down fix an election this is the United election yeah let's tell you how you fix an election you take the guy that you hate and make sure his opponent who is guilty is sin is never charged.
Right.
You start an investigation on the guy you hate to create an insurance policy to make sure that the outcome is what you would like for the country that to me is fixing an election and I don't say these things lightly if Andy McCabe in fact met with uh Paige and Strzok and they did have a conversation about taking an insurance policy out regarding the 2016 election then that to me is stunning J. Edgar Hoover stuff Watergate.
And doesn't it well I think it's Watergate and it's worse than Watergate but and doesn't it doesn't it then make sense that if you have at the beginning the very beginnings of the Russian investigation the same players and the same prejudice and the same bias and hostility towards one candidate it puts everything it taints as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in the law.
But are we seeing the same thing if you look at Jeannie Ray how did Jeannie Ray who once worked for the Clinton Foundation get on Mueller's team how does a guy like Andrew Weisman who because of his actions in the Anderson accounting case tens of thousands of Americans lost their job that was overturned nine zero in the Supreme Court then he put four Merrill executives in jail for a year.
That's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on uh multiple occasions he was excoriated by judges for withholding exculpatory evidence.
Now and everyone else that Muller appoints is a Democratic donor they couldn't find an independent anybody anybody separate and apart with a better track record than Andrew Weissman or background than Jeannie Ray?
Well what it does it puts in question everything that that flowed after that meeting with Andy McCabe.
So the bottom line here is that what would have been kind of innocuous conflicts now become you know very serious and we haven't even talked about the FISA warrant yet.
So the second report coming out is how did the Department of Justice uh use the dossier prepared uh by a foreign agent paid for by a political party and a candidate for office to get a warrant on an American citizen how did the system fail there now that really goes to the heart and soul of the early part of the Russian investigation.
What at this point have you seen that gives you any indication that there was any type of nefarious activities on the part of anybody in the in the Trump campaign because I haven't seen any okay the only thing I can you know just trying to be as honest with you the the interaction is that what you're saying go ahead.
Okay.
Well, no.
But the interaction in Trump Tower with these kind of weird Russians, you know, talking about, yeah, great summer would be better.
I haven't seen anything come from that.
But here's what I have seen.
I've seen absolutely no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign, any Russian intelligence service.
I have seen uh a counterintelligence operation that was never they never notified Trump.
What they should have told President Trump, candidate Trump, hey, we got a problem in Matterport.
Hey, we got a problem with Carter Page.
Hey, we got a car a problem with Papadopoulos.
The reason I'm really suspicious of the government's intent here is a counterintelligence operation is designed to protect the country.
So if you've got if you got some information on somebody that a campaign is interacting with, you know, you have a duty to tell the campaign.
Carter Page and the President never met, never spoke.
And the most exculpatory thing in the Comey notes was Comey saying that he met with Trump and Trump said, Look, I didn't do anything, but if anyone on my team did, you need to do your job.
Can I tell you something even more escalpatory than that?
Yeah.
Let's try to say you're smarter than me.
Go ahead.
Well, no, I'm not saying I'm smarter than you.
I'm just saying I thought of something you didn't.
Okay.
A confidential informant in a counterintelligence operation.
Let's say there was one.
Let's say that that confidential informant interacted with three members of the Trump campaign.
Let's say it was Papadoplis, Carter Page, and Clovis.
Mm-hmm.
What did they find?
Nothing.
Clovis is walking around eating dinner somewhere.
Carter Page is still being wacky somewhere.
And Papadopoulos uh pled guilty to something completely unrelated to interacting with the Russians.
So here's what I would suggest to the folks in the Trump world.
If there was a counterintelligence uh uh uh uh uh an informant, a confidential informant, that person didn't sign anything because none of the confidential informants' information was ever used to get a warrant.
I've got to say this.
I want to hear from those FISA judges that were lied to with unverified, uncorroborated, Hillary Bought and paid for, foreign national put together that even he said was fifty-fifty.
How did those judges get lied to?
How did those judges how come that we haven't heard from them?
Well, this is a Rosenstein becomes important here.
Rosenstein was in the chain of events.
Well, you know, in terms of recertifying for the warrant.
Oh no, he signed the fourth warrant.
In other words, they should have known by then.
Yeah.
Well, yes, right.
So so you had a guy still that you'd used in the past.
You didn't provide any scrutiny, and he's screaming, die heaven did he hates Trump.
One of the reasons he gave the dossier to the press is because he is mad at the FBI for reopening the October investigation on Clinton.
I've got to run, but you're right on target.
Uh Lindsay Graham, Senator South Carolina, thank you, sir.
When we come back, Jim Jordan, Freedom Caucus.
All right, Jim Jordan was on fire today.
He joins us at the bottom of the hour.
Uh uh, you have an immigration debate after let me tell you one thing on immigration.
Twenty eighteen elections have started, and I'll explain that in the in our final hour.
Free for all.
Jim Jordan was uh on fire before the I. G. Horowitz and Director Ray today.
We'll play that next, and he joins us next as we continue the best coverage on your radio dial.
Has Mr. Comey been fired?
Yes.
Has Mr. McCabe been fired?
Yes.
Did Mr. McCabe lie under oath according to your report?
In our view, yes.
Yeah, is there a criminal referral for Mr. McCabe?
I'm not going to comment on that.
Has Mr. Rabicki left the FBI?
Yes.
Has General Counsel Jim Baker left the FBI?
Uh yes.
Was he removed from his position prior to leaving the FBI?
Um I'm not sure of that.
Has Lisa Page left the FBI?
Uh yes.
Was she reassigned prior to leaving the FBI?
I believe so.
And has Peter Strzok been removed from his position as deputy head of counterintelligence?
Uh yes.
Mr. Horwitz, you've been in the DOJ for ten years.
You've been inspector general for six years.
You're chief of all the inspector generals.
Have you ever seen anything like this at any other federal agency in your time in the federal government?
Six of the top people fired, demoted, reassigned, or left.
Um I obviously can't speak broadly to other areas that I haven't known before.
But yes, this is I've been in the I've been in this town and a half years.
I've never seen anything like this.
Even the IRS scandal didn't come close.
Never seen this and again, this is not in any type of reflection on the rank and file agents who I know you respect, we all respect and do a great job.
But these were the six key people.
I have never seen anything like this in my time in government.
My guess is there's not a person on this diocese who has as well.
All right.
That was Jim Jordan at the hearings earlier today doing a uh phenomenal job.
Uh I see this is breaking on other news networks.
I have not seen it yet on Fox that uh CNN among them reporting Peter Strzok is still employed but was escorted out of the FBI building last Friday.
Joining us now, uh House Freedom Caucus member, former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Jim Jordan, who may be running for speaker of the House, and I've supported you, although but probably is going to hurt you if I do.
Um not at all.
Not at all.
Um I have not heard that about Strzok.
Uh so that that did happen Friday, Sean.
Apparently, well, you know, I I hate to cite CNN fake news.
I got five TVs in front of me.
But you know, take it with a grain of salt, then uh you know, we're watching, we'll look for our own corroboration here, but that's what they're reporting.
Wow.
Um you are on fire.
The the facts in this case remain, I think, and you got to go back to the fundamentals here.
And the fundamentals are very clear is that Hillary did violate the espionage act, just to ask Christian Saucier, and that she mishandled and destroyed classified top secret information, and James Comey even admitted that July 5th, 2016.
And then I don't think there's ever been a bigger case for obstruction to justice by the leading subpoenaed emails, asset washing the hard drive with bleach bit, and then of course having an aid bust up devices with hammers.
Uh and handing over to the FBI uh a device without a SIM card.
That to me is obstruction.
Do you agree?
Well, and and and remember what we just went through.
The top six people who've all left been fired, some one faces criminal referral, they were all demoted before they left as well.
Those top six people are the ones who ran the investigation you just cited.
They're also the ones who then launched the Russian investigation.
So that that's why this all when you say the fundamentals, those are the fundamentals.
Um that's why it's so critical.
And and frankly, Sean, the other thing we learned today is the other guy, and in addition to those six people, the FBI, the other guy's Rod Rosenstein.
The one, you know, the one text message that we didn't have.
We had thousands, tens of thousands that we were that that went back and forth between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
The one we didn't get until last Thursday just happens to be the most explosive one, which says we will stop Trump.
Rod Rosenstein's office had that a month ago, and they didn't give it to us until last week.
Why did they keep why did they try to hide that from us?
That's another important question you got at the answer to.
Let me digress for a second because the showdown has now come to a head.
And last Friday, uh uh, it's my understanding that Bob Goodlad and Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes and Paul Ryan met with Rod Rosenstein and with Director Ray.
And they were told in no uncertain terms that if they continue to obstruct and they continue to withhold subpoenaed documents and and use phony redactions in the name of national security, etc., that this is now going to come to a head, meaning contempt and possible impeachment of Rod Rosenstein.
Is it come to that?
Yes, it certainly has.
Actually, there's going to be three steps.
The speaker was very clear last week with him.
I uh Mr. Gotti guy talked to him over the weekend.
He said the speaker was strong in that meeting.
He said, if you don't give us what we're entitled to have as a separate equal branch of government to do our job, if you're not going to give that to us, there's going to be three steps.
First step will be the resolution Mr. Meadows and I filed, and others filed a week and a half ago, which says the House will go on record.
Mr. The Speaker said he will bring that to the floor and say you got seven days to do it.
If in fact he doesn't do it then, then we move to contempt and then you move to impeachment.
That is the that is the logical progression of progression.
The House to go on record saying we deserve this information, give it to us as a full body.
If you won't do it then, then you move to contempt.
Then you move to impeachment.
What would happen to the progression and where the speaker's at?
What would happen to uh uh average Joe citizen Sean Hannity if if you guys subpoenaed information from me and I pulled the stunts that Rod Rosenstein's pulling?
You know what would happen, and that's what kicks Americans off is this double standard.
There's one set of rules for Sean Hannity, Jim Jordan, and regular folks around the country.
There's a different set if your name is Clinton, Comey Lynch, Lerner McCabe, Scott Page.
If you're name if you're if you're name one of those and you're part of the swamp, you get a different set of rules.
And frankly, Rod Rosenstein should know that, and he should be giving us what we've been asking for, but he doesn't.
I hear there are very specific.
I hear there are very specific papers, evidence, if you will, information that implicates Rod Rosenstein.
have you heard the saying?
Uh Chairman Nunes is asking for specific information.
I don't know what the that specific information is, but yes, he has said he wants he wants certain information and he wants Mr. Rosenstein's Department of Justice to turn that over.
I do not know what that is.
Um, but the chairman has been, I think, pretty clear about he wants information from Mr. Rosenstein, he should turn that over.
All right.
So if it's not forthcoming, by what day will you begin this three-step process?
Well, I think it has to happen this week.
I think the understanding from the meeting with the speaker and the leader uh and the chairman and and the head of the FBI Justice Department was it has to happen this week.
And if it doesn't, I think you will see us move to the resolution, and then whatever next steps we need to take.
I'll be honest, I was very underwhelmed with the performance of uh director Ray.
And while he had every right to defend the good men and women in the FBI, which I do as well, uh those that that do their job every day, and I've even predicted that at the end of the story that in fact it's going to be the rank and file that the heroes here.
But uh while he did that, he was not strong enough in my view in understanding the urgency and severity of what's gone on.
What did you feel?
Yeah, I felt the same.
I I I will say this.
I think the inspector general has conducted himself very well uh today in the in the hearing that we had um with the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committee.
But um, I would like to see Mr. Ray be a little uh understand, like you say, the gravity of this.
The uh the fact that Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and FBI lawyer number two, all three on the Clinton investigation, all three on the Russian investigation, key players on the Russian investigation.
Peter Strzok was the lead agent, and all three of those individuals also went on Mueller's special counsel team, and then to act like this is not you know, the big news that frankly it is, and the big issue that it is, I think uh, like you said, is is a little bit of a concern we have with the presentation.
Considering the very people that are on record hating Donald Trump, hating him with a with an animus and antipathy second to none that the very people then also uh violated every standard investigative procedure and threy needle to basically put the fix in and rig an investigation for Hillary.
They're the same people that initiated this investigation into so-called Trump Russia collusion, and here we are a year and a half later, and there's nothing to be found.
It seems to me that from the get-go that that would render that whole investigation illegitimate.
And if you add to that, the people that Robert Muller has appointed under the conditions Muller was appointed with Comey leaking documents uh the way he did, and for the purpose of getting a special counsel, then Rod Rosenstein, look at his team.
R Genie Ray, who worked on the Clinton Foundation and Andrew Weisman.
Uh I I how can you trust any special counsel if Andrew Weissman with his trust atrocious record is is on that team?
Yeah, here's and here's the good news.
Next week, uh uh I believe we will have in front of the oversight and judiciary committees in the House, Mr. Strck, uh, Mr. Ray, and Mr. Rosenstein.
That is the plan.
That's what the chairman's pushing for.
Um, so that is something I'm looking for because there's a set of questions that we need to ask these individuals again to get the answers that the American people deserve.
Uh specifically, I want to know we've talked about this before, Sean.
Why is we can't see the August 2nd memo, what we call the scope memo, which changed the parameters of the special counsel investigation.
The May 17th uh memorandum that's a very important thing.
Well, that was August 2nd, but that was remember the the dates are important here because July 22nd was the raid on Manafort's home.
You know, guns drawn, dark of night, early morning, pre-dawn raid.
Um, and then they changed the the original mandate, if you will, you know, post-date it to August 2nd after that took place.
Doesn't that seem like it's out of order to you?
Yeah, it sure does.
And and that memo is in some way altered or modified the scope of the investigation.
The American people have a right to know the parameters of an investigation of the individual they elect the president.
And Ron Rosenstein won't show us that.
That's something we need to ask him about.
And that's something, frankly, we need to see.
And I think more importantly, you folks in the media need to see, and the American people need to see.
Do you have any doubt that they rigged the question?
They rigged the investigation to prevent Hillary from being indicted because I am a hundred percent certain.
Well, I mean, it sure looks that way.
The day after President Trump is nominated as as you know, the presumptive nominee in the Republican Party, the very next day, uh Peter Strzok says this.
Now the pressure really starts to finish the Clinton investigation.
Now, why is it?
Why was there pressure to finish the ex uh examination, the investigation, just because Trump got the nomination Republican Party?
And then all the other things that he said uh that that show that they think about this, Sean.
They launched the Russian investigation on July 31st, 2016.
One week later, Peter Strzok says I can protect my country on many levels.
Two days after that he says we will stop Trump.
One week after that, he says no way he gets elected, we got an insurance policy.
So within 15 days after they've launched the Russian investigation, Peter Strzok's the lead agent.
He says Trump's not going to get elected.
I can protect my country and we will stop the president because we got an insurance policy.
That's unbelievable.
You know, it's one thing to say Trump's a bad guy, Trump's awful.
It's another thing to say we got an insurance policy and we're gonna stop him, especially when you make those statements within days after you've launched the Russian investigation and just closed the Clinton investigation.
And that's what we tried to highlight in today's hearing.
I think the American people see this and they understand it, and they know that Peter Strzok should not still be working at the FBI, and they know that Rod Rosenstein has some questions answered.
What happens to Hillary now?
Does she get off scot-free doing things that put other Americans in jail?
I mean, obstructing justice clearly.
I mean, you know, I don't know if you saw the controversy, but with the Robert Mueller is demanding everybody that he's been interviewing and investigating that they have to turn over their phones.
So I go on the air and I said, Well, if I were to advise them, big word there, if, because I wouldn't.
And then I even said at one point it's a bad idea.
It's not going to work out well for you, and I'm only kidding.
But I said, if I told you to do everything Hillary did, and that is delete acid wash and bust up with hammers and into ity bitsy pieces and hand them over to Mueller and say, uh equal justice under the law.
This is the Hillary treatment.
Uh what do you think?
Everybody wanted to put me in jail, and even though I said it was a bad idea.
Yeah, and she did all those things.
So she got off scot-free here.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I don't know.
Uh uh what I do know is this uh Inspector General Horowitz is looking into whether Mr. Comey uh was there was classified information that he leaked.
Uh Inspector General uh uh Horowitz is looking into all the leaks that took place at the end of the day.
Are there statutes and limitations now that we're up against?
Well, I don't know.
It we I have to see.
I don't think so necessarily there, because it's only been, you know, we're talking we're talking about the last couple years, and then I think the real the real investigation that I'm I'm focused on that Inspector General Horowitz is working on is potential FISA uh uh abuse of the Pfizer process.
Yeah, when are we gonna hear from the Pfizer judges?
Well, I asked him, he said he's working on it, he's gonna do it as quick as possible.
But I said, look, look, you know, we we we can't wait 18 months for that investigation like we waited for this one.
And his and his reply was he said, yeah, but on this one, if we'd have turned this, if we'd have completed this investigation on the Clinton investigation, uh we'd have done this in January, we'd have missed so many important things.
So I understand that.
I just tried to impress that we want that as quickly as well.
Well, let me ask this considering that the origins of the Russia investigation began with at least a number of the members that that helped rig the Hillary investigation and had antipathy towards Donald Trump, and that's the origins of it.
And then Muller puts together a team of only Democratic donors and Genie Ray, who worked at the Clinton Foundation and Andrew Weissman, his pit bull with his uh frankly despicable and atrocious track record.
Um, is it time to now say that this is illegitimate from the get-go?
I I think a lot of people are thinking that.
Um, and and it wasn't just most, Sean, it was basically the exact same team at the FBI.
I mean, it was McCabe's FBI lawyer number two, was Paige, it was the almost the exact same team.
Mr. Rabicke uh was Comey's chief of staff was involved in both.
So it's almost Peter Strzok ran the Clinton investigation on a daily basis, and he was the lead investigator on the Russian investigation.
That's according to Mr. Horowitz.
So you know, the same team, and like you point out, three of those key players, FBI lawyer too, Paige, and Strzok all go on Mueller's team.
So, you know, and they they substance get kicked off for some anti, you know, anti-Trump bias and animus towards the president and pro Clinton.
But uh, frankly, just about everyone on Mueller.
If you kicked everyone off of Muller's team who was biased against the president, there wouldn't be anyone left on Mueller's feet.
Well, that's my point.
I mean, we're gonna be back here two years asking ourselves, well, why did we have such a biased team in the special counsel's office?
Yeah.
Um, uh Jim Jordan, thank you.
We're gonna watch very closely what the showdown with uh Rosenstein and others.
Uh 800 941 Shauna's on number.
We'll get into the immigration issue at the top of the next hour.
So the Democrats' agenda, what have I told you it is for 2018?
This is what they're running on.
Impeaching Trump, but shh, don't tell anybody.
It's a secret.
They'll just say it afterwards.
We'll do it afterwards.
What else?
Keeping Obamacare.
They want open borders, uh, obviously, and uh they're ignoring, oh, yeah, Obama did the same thing that the Trump administration is doing.
And by the way, it's their law.
They can change the law.
The president offered a deal DACA for funding the wall, and they wouldn't take it.
Why?
Because they want to run on it.
So that's pretty much the Democratic agenda for 2018.
And of course, lie, which they always do.
We'll get into that next straight ahead.
All right, news roundup and information overload hour.
Sean Hannity Show, toll-free, numbers 800-941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
We'll get to your calls at the bottom of this half hour.
Elijah Cummings, a congressman accusing the Trump administration of setting up child internment camps.
More Nazi comparisons than I think I've seen in one lifetime, and then started crying while talking about the topic.
And so I asked the question, and it is a simple question.
Are we really going to sit here?
70 members of the Congress of the United States of America in 2018 and have a hearing that just repeats the hearings the Senate had yesterday on Hillary Clinton's email.
We sent letter after letter, letter after letter, asking these committees to investigate the Trump administration's policy, which is now resulting in child interment camps.
That's what I said.
Child internment camps.
But we have gotten no response.
Look, even if you believe people entered our country illegally, even if you believe they have no valid asylum claims in their own country, even if you believe immigration should be halted entirely, we all should be able to agree that in the United States of America, we will not intentionally separate children from their parents.
We will not do that.
We are better than that.
We are so much better.
We should be able to agree that we will not keep kids in child internment camps indefinitely and hidden away from public view.
What country is that?
All right, there are facts that actually go along with the emotion of this argument.
The one thing you can conclude is the 2018 midterm elections are in full force.
And over the many years we've done this program, we have chronicled how in election years it's predictable.
Republic, the race card is going to be used.
Republicans are racist.
You know, if you 1998, Missouri radio ad if you elect Republicans, black churches are gonna burn.
Al Gore, Republicans talking to a predominantly black audience, don't even want to count you in the census.
They want to poison the air, poison the water, and kill more children.
If they support a reduction of the rate of increase, in other words, a net increase of 7% for Medicare, they are trying to kill old people and granny.
And this is what we hear every two, every four years that they're racist, that they're sexist, that they're homophobic, xenophobic, uh, that they're Islamophobic, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, there are facts here that go along with this uh narrative that the media is not telling you.
This is the law as it currently exists.
In other words, well, yeah, you can have discretion and remember Barack Obama said he didn't of his own have the pres I can I can't with a wave of a pen, you know, through executive orders, do these things because it's unconstitutional.
It's not the way our system works.
He ended up doing it anyway.
But the rule of law is the rule of law, and if you want to fix the issue permanently, there is a solution.
And the president has put on the table a DACA fix as part of a comprehensive package that would include solving the problem forever as it relates to the southern border, and that's building a wall.
But it is the it is compliance and enforcement of the law.
People may not like the enforcement of the law, but that's what it is.
And at the end of the day, a lot of people don't want to hear this fact either.
You know, there is, you know, if American citizens breaks the law and is put into the justice system, they're separated from their family and children.
And in that sense, what the left wants here is open borders.
They want this as a campaign issue.
If they wanted to solve the issue, it's been on the table now for a long time, and none of them want to come to the table and solve the issue because they don't want the wall built, period.
They want open borders.
And you know, as it relates to everything else, oh, excuse me, this is not the first time that this has happened.
Yeah, it happened under Barack Obama.
And yeah, families were separated, illegal immigrant families were separated under him.
And when they crossed over the borders, they were put in a criminal justice system.
Families were indeed separated.
So, you know, that's the point.
Anyway, joining us to discuss and debate all of this is Chris Farrell.
He is the director of investigations for Judicial Watch, Francisco Hernandez, an immigration attorney based out of Texas.
And by the way, he agrees with me that we should build the wall and fund the wall.
And when you uh when you heard the president talk about being willing to give up uh make the DACA fix that you want in exchange for building the wall, you said you'd take that deal in a heartbeat.
I I told you I would, because we're gonna have to legalize a hundred thousand Mexico to build it.
But why don't we have to wait for an agreement with the Democrats?
Republicans have a majority, and the Republicans are afraid of a filibuster.
Throw it up for a vote and let them figure it out.
It's not about it's not that they're afraid of the filibuster.
It's that you know and I know that there are motivations.
And Republicans, some of them have their motivations on these issues too.
You know, there are some there are some appealing to corporate interests.
Hang on, some appealing to corporate interests that want inexpensive labor in this country.
And then you have uh a group of democrats, well, they're looking at this selfishly, also thinking, well, well, that that could be the next potential voting base for our party.
But but at least you have a count of who voted for it and against it.
Put it up for a vote, and he doesn't even think he can carry his own party.
But at least we're not gonna be able to do that.
Well, that's not that's not why it's happening at all.
I mean, if you can't get it to a vote in the Senate, if you don't reach the magic number sixty, and Mitch McConnell refuses to give up on cloture.
But but you don't need sixty to take it.
Well, then let him filibuster it.
But that's the point.
Chris Chris Farrell, what are your thoughts?
Listen, here's the other point.
Nobody wants children separated from their families.
But the bottom line is nobody wants that.
Francisco, you've known me forever.
I I'm I I don't believe in that I don't I don't want families separated, the kids separated from their parents.
Um, and it has happened and it has gone on because these guys won't do their job and and put the permanent fix in place that literally legislatively, in other words, legally, solves the problem the way it should ultimately be solved.
Chris.
And what is this is uh the attention wrapped around this event is manufactured.
We've had this problem for years.
There's an entire facility outside of Yume, Arizona dedicated to nothing but families and unaccompanied minors who are who cross the border.
This is not some new phenomenon.
You we've seen an uptick in the numbers, certainly, but you've also seen corresponding both encouragement from south of the border to make a run for it, basically, and get into the United States, but the the word travels back just as fast saying, hey, look, the Americans are doing enforcement, knock it off, don't come here unless you want to lose your kid, which leaves you with two questions.
What what what responsible parent would put their child in that position to begin with?
And then secondly, the large numbers of children that are appearing at the border who are either unaccompanied or accompanied by someone other than their parents, in which case you're getting into really trafficking children.
There's the dirty underside of it that nobody wants to talk about.
None of this is all the all the attention about around this is a manufactured hysteria.
It's a propaganda stunt.
No, it's it's for real.
It is human trafficking, and there are criminal smuggling gangs that are at the root of all this.
They're not going on in the federal fifteen years at a at a at a commercial level of trafficking.
Suddenly, suddenly there's a desire to pay attention to it.
Why wasn't this a screaming headline a month ago?
It wasn't.
It's a deliberate attempt to grab headline and attention for political purposes.
The problem has gone on forever.
There's a facility in New Arizona, in particular that I've been to.
This crisis has been percolating for the last ten years, especially with respect to unaccompanied minors.
But there's an effort to generate a crisis and use it as sort of a wedge or leverage issue.
And so suddenly Now everyone wants to pay attention to something that's been going on forever.
Oh, but but come on.
President Trump and the attorney general jumped on it for the exact same motives, that same reasons, all of a sudden enforcing the uh the policy of criminal prosecution.
Of course, let me remind you of the remarks of President Obama.
Elections have consequences.
And so if there's if there's laws on the book, and we imagine this, we actually enforce the laws.
That is that whole equal justice under the law motto on front of on the top of the uh the Supreme Court.
So when you apply the law and follow the law, suddenly everyone gets all upset and excited.
Instead, we're not going to be able to do that.
Secretary Nielsen pointed it out, the massive increase in the last three months that they've seen.
Also, they've been able to uh observe large criminal organizations like MS thirteen have gained a foothold.
And if in fact you you put in the exceptions or the loopholes or the discretion that everybody seems to want to put in in the case of children, that all the that ostensibly means you have a functionally open border.
And this is all a result, and it did it all did happen in the Obama years, Francisco.
So this isn't new.
I agree.
Which which means this this is all tainted by politics.
But if we really care about the kids, the best thing that we could do for them is have the have the border wall up and make it function have that functionally working with the door that the president talks about so people so people so people come in legally.
It's not gonna get built, even if you could get it built starting today, you're not gonna solve any crisis for at least ten years, even if you think the wall will fix it.
The problem is that the what the problem is is what is causing these folks to flee their country, and that's the elephant in the room, Mr. Hannity.
Nobody wants to talk about why these people are willing to risk their lives and lose their children.
In fact, I bet most mothers would be able to do that.
Well, why do you think that is from their well that's a good thing?
Because that's already been documented by Secretary Nielsen yesterday.
The asylum claims are largely fraudulent.
These same people are also transiting Mexico, and Mexico does not pose a threat to them and their individual liberty or their rights.
So what they should be doing is staying in Mexico closer to their ho uh their country of origin instead of all making a dash for the border.
Hopefully the message will get out, as it has before.
You're not welcome unless you come here lawfully.
So don't bother coming or you're gonna suffer the consequences.
Well then change the asylum laws right now.
Put that legislation right now.
We all agree they're antiquated and they're it they're impractical in its application.
So we're just trying to put Scotch tape on the on the leak.
It's not gonna fix it.
You know, looks and even you and I have agreed on a bill.
I mean, you you the president offered DACA in exchange for the money, the financing to build the wall with with a couple of other chain migration and uh merit-based migration.
Put it up for put it up for a vote.
Well, I'm I and uh but here's the problem.
Your your friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, they don't want a solution to this.
They want to they want to politali politicize this and they want to use it as a wedge for 2018, which is what they're doing.
You can pass it in the house, and if you're afraid of the filibuster, then let the Democrats filibuster.
Let them do it.
Why are you afraid?
It's a Republican majority.
Put the put the proposal on the table and voted up or down.
At least we know where everybody stands.
You gotta stand on the case.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Uh we'll take a break.
We'll come back more with Chris Farrell's Francisco Hernandez 800-941 Sean.
Toll-free telephone number, you want to be a part of the program.
Your call's coming up at the bottom of the hour.
As we continue our debate over immigration, Francisco Hernandez is with us, immigration attorney based out of Texas, Chris Farrell is the director of investigations for judicial watch.
Um, we also have a s uh systemic abuse of our asylum system.
And you know, people come in and they say they're seeking asylum, and really all they want is entry into the United States.
I'm not sure how you ever get to the bottom of all of that.
I think the end of the day, it's really going to come down to America has to control its borders, Francisco.
And once we control the borders, then those people that are in true need of asylum, those people that that you know, for the number of people that we can allow into the country, we will we will create a better process, certainly for that.
We should certainly expedite that process.
Nobody wants families separated.
But we have but In many ways, in many ways, we're not going to be able to do any of this until the wall's built.
The wall the wall's not going to keep people from coming.
We got to address the thing that the source.
By the time these folks make it to the border, each one of them has already paid a smuggler about $10,000 each horrible.
There is no turning back.
And it is.
It is a criminal element.
We know who's smuggling him.
We know we know how Mexico treats illegal immigrants from El Salvador and Central America, Nicaragua, and uh they don't treat them well.
What do they do, Chris?
They throw them out of the country or they put them in jail.
Guess what happens when you subsidize something?
When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
So if you're gonna pour uh all sorts of blood, sweat and tears, taxpayer dollars into keeping this uh this loophole open and encouraging people to exploit children as uh border crossing bargaining chips, and and that that's what they're minimized and trivialized to by these criminal gangs.
They use these children as a as a chip as a as a as a a way to get into the border.
When you subsidize that, when you promote it, guess what you get more of?
And so the idea that oh well, we'll just be nice for now, uh, is actually a really soft form of cruelty that further exploits children.
You can't you can't say, Oh, well, give them a break, knowing it's gonna encourage more of it, and then it's a simultaneously c simultaneously claim that you're trying to protect children and families.
It doesn't work that way.
You are killing me.
Fuck me.
You don't like the asylum law?
Don't call them loopholes, change the law.
It's the law.
It just but there's still judges in all the time.
This is political gamesmanship and double talk.
The reality is trying to cross the border whose wives are in danger.
And talking about a uh uh a Capitol Hill process mired in money from the American Chamber of Commerce and from all sorts of other folks who who want cheap labor.
That's a political process that is separate and apart from the actual exploitation day by day of young children and families who use the kids as a chip, as a as a as a token.
These interests, these private interests have every Republican vote in their pocket or enough to kill any legislation.
Is that what you're telling us?
That all the Republicans are pocketing.
They want to figure out what happens in the end.
I mean, this is there.
Uh thank you both for being with us, Francisco Hernandez, Chris Farrell, 800 941 Sean, or toll-free telephone number when we come back.
Wide open phones, final half hour.
Uh, as we continue on a Tuesday, we have an amazing Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Tell you about that in the next half hour.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
Toll-free, number 800 941 Sean, if you want to join us.
Um many of you have asked on this program, well, where's Jamie Dupree?
And we've explained it a number of times, but I know that people aren't listening the full three hours of every day, and we need to take more attendance, uh, obviously.
Uh Jamie has been a reporter on this program, is is a big part of our team here on the show, and he is on the ground in Washington doing his thing every single day and digging up all the stories, news information, newsmakers, and he just sends it email now because Jamie had uh, as I've described in the past, he lost his voice, which for a guy on radio is a very hard, painful and difficult thing to go through.
He has been through countless doctors and specialists.
I mean, they have tried basically everything they can possibly try, and um even Botox, believe it or not, on his vocal cords at one particular point, that was giving him some hope.
He has a condition, it's diagnosed as tongue protrusion uh dystonia.
It's extraordinarily rare, and Jamie just never gave up working.
He just wasn't able to do his reports live and his voice on our many Cox Media Group stations and markets like Atlanta and Orlando and Jacksonville and Tulson, Dayton, and he's always been such a good friend.
We saw Jamie all throughout the the primaries and into the general election.
Anyway, for a long time now, they've been working on a way to try and help Jamie get his voice back, if you will.
And anyway, Cox Media Group has been working with him the entire time.
They found a a company in Scotland and they've been working on a project to actually bring Jamie's voice back for short news reports.
And what they have developed, developed, if you will, is a prosthetic voice that he's going to be able to use again and file news for radio.
And the voice will become become known as sort of like Jamie Dupree 2.0.
Anyway, it made its uh debut, I believe was it Monday, yesterday, on our affiliate in Atlanta, WSP.
Um, and then and and we just have a sampling of it.
You can go to Jamie's blog, Jamie Dupree uh blog, uh, and find out more about it yourself.
But I'm just supposed to play a little bit of this Jamie 2.0.
I'm Jamie DuPree in Washington.
This will not be uh just a photo of his president Donald Trump gets ready for this historic summit meeting.
I think I'm very well prepared.
The president says his goal is simple.
They have to denuke.
If they don't denuclearize uh that will not be acceptable for more.
Go to my blog at WSBradio.com.
I mean, it is I've known one other person in radio that has gone through this.
And when you do radio and you lose your voice, it is usually a career death sentence.
But let me tell you why this is not the case with Jamie Dupree.
Number one, he's one of the hardest working men in radio.
He's one of the great reporters in DC, and he amazed it just every single person that ever has come into contact with this man loves this guy.
Everybody has wanted and been cheering on the sidelines and hoping that they would be able to get that voice back and fix the condition.
And for him personally, it's been really, really tough.
I'd I'd see him and I'd ask him, and how you doing, and and it's it's just been a very long road for him.
And it's just as a tribute to the people that he works for at Cox Radio and Media Group.
And uh we've just love him here on this program, and we just wanted to give a shout out to him and uh wish him all the best now as he begins this new voice of his.
It's what we're calling it Jamie Dupree 2.0, and uh now he's gonna be doing reports that way on our affiliate stations, as I said, in Atlanta and Jacksonville and Dayton and Tulsa and and elsewhere.
Um and it's just we couldn't be happier for him or prouder of him and the hard work that he's continued to do and the contributions he continues to make on this show every day, uh, even though I'd I've kind of miss given him the hard time that I used to give him by calling him out and trying to sway him one way politically or another.
And he just had this incredible way about him where he would be able to navigate and thread the needle and get the report out and shut me up at the same time.
But uh Jamie is is back, it's Jamie 2.0.
You can read more about it on his blog.
We'll link it to my website, Hannity.com, it's Jamie Dupree dot blog.
If you uh want to go there and learn more about this incredible process and this long, courageous journey that he's taken.
All right, as promised, we're gonna get to the phones as we start here with Mike is in Santa Barbara, California.
My old stomping grounds when I was totally poor and bankrupt.
What's up, Mike?
How are you?
Yeah, yes, and we we miss you.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
I just have a couple of things.
By the way, you remember a guy named Adrian Vance, who used to be a big radio guy and caller, and then did a show in in Santa Barbara for a time.
Remember him?
Yes.
I recently got in touch with him.
He's still very good friends with Barry Farber, and we've been communicating again, although now he lives in Northern California.
Wow.
Wow.
Yeah, I haven't heard him down here for a while.
So I figured he had moved on.
So what's going on?
Well, I had a couple quick points I wanted to make.
Uh uh, the second one about the dossier and what I think is the real reason it was made up.
But the first is I think you've been a little too generous with the media in regard to the busted up uh blackberries and the bleach bit advice.
I don't think that was an oversight.
I don't think that was a mistake they made.
I think that was intentionally done to try to number one get you off the air, and number two, get you mixed up with the mower investigation.
Oh no, that no, you're right a thousand percent that them could you in other words, you're saying that they're not stupid.
They knew that I was they knew that I wasn't giving the advice.
They knew it was parody, satire, they knew that I will said it's not gonna work out for you.
It's a bad idea and that I wouldn't do it.
And you know, haha, kidding.
And uh, if I were to tell them, I I use my words very carefully, and you're saying they understood completely, but they wanted to get me, they wanted to use it as an opportunity to attack me.
Yeah, but the but they still expose themselves, Mike, in the process, because if they're all outraged at the idea that I jokingly, sarcastically would tell people, you know, that Robert Mueller wants their phones, and I said this.
Now, maybe Muller's witnesses, I don't know.
If I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton's lead, delete all your emails, and then acid wash the emails and hard drives on the on your 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 of tonight and all they want everyone's cell phones?
My advice to them, not really kidding, bad advice, would be 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.
Now, I think you're right, but I think it's both.
I think some were stupid.
I think some of these people are that dumb.
Um, because let me play some of the media reaction to it, but it's very revealing that they would be upset at the idea.
I said it was a bad idea.
Pay close attention, words matter.
And uh the idea that I would have ever suggested that to anybody that Robert Mueller had demanded their phones of would threw them over the top, and they're forgetting she did it all.
She did every bit of it.
It's incontrovertible, evidence overwhelming.
It's not in dispute, it's irrefutable.
Here's the reaction.
Sean Hannity is now literally telling potential witnesses and subjects in the Mueller probe to destroy the evidence and hammer their phones into pieces.
Hannity's defenders may call that sarcasm or poetic license.
But words are words.
Sean Hannity lives off his words, and we all know they have a huge impact.
If anyone actually does what Sean Hannity says there, they'd be committing a crime.
What Sean Hannity admitted to and actually was enticing people to do and asking them to do was to destroy evidence, which is a violation of the witness tampering statute.
No responsible person on television, no responsible so-called journalist should be advocating for people to destroy evidence in a serious federal investigation.
I don't think that we'll see him uh prosecuted.
Federal prosecutors give people a very wide berth on First Amendment related conduct.
And so, unless there's something more specific to to link it up, I think that this will be what we often categorize as awful but lawful conduct.
Listen, if he's out there advocating for Mueller's witnesses to obstruct justice, then maybe the Mueller should speak to him and ask him where the idea come from.
Have you spoken to the president about this?
Did the president tell you to say this?
Knowing Mueller, I think he's not going to light that fire under someone who uh who gets free airtime every day.
But but what angle, one angle would be to say, yeah, yeah, look, I'm going to I'm going to a judge and I'm going to have you see I'm going to have you cease and desist this activity on national television.
Secondly, I want to talk to you and see if if Trump has gotten this idea from you or vice versa.
Now, number one, look at the words they use here, Mike.
They said I would be advocating people to commit a crime.
That I'm telling people to destroy evidence in a serious federal investigation.
It's it's awful, but maybe lawful.
And then uh they go on to say, you know, maybe Muller needs to ask him, where did he get the idea from?
Well, I got the idea from me.
It was all my idea, and no, I didn't tell the president about it at all at any point.
Uh I don't even know if he heard about it.
But the point is simple is that they thought this was a crime, destroying evidence in a serious federal investigation.
All happened.
Hillary did it all.
So I did I think there's a level of stupidity On their part and gullibility on their part.
But yeah, is there a part they want me off the air?
Uh Mike, you have no idea how badly they want me off the air.
They're spending millions to destroy this show.
Millions.
Yeah, I I think I think they definitely knew that you were kidding.
And they just wanted to make trouble for you.
But uh anyway, I had a second point about the dossier and why that came about, I believe.
Because here's the thing.
They made the dossier, but the de but the thing is this.
They thought they had the election in the bag.
They didn't need that dossier for the election by any stretch of the imagination.
They figured, number one, they didn't like Trump and his crowds chanting lock her up.
And they figured that once the election was over, and they won, they were going to use that dossier to arrest Trump.
And because they had control over the Justice Department and the FBI, no one would be the wiser.
Look, I I can tell you that everybody thought they were getting away with this.
You know, all this too goes into another crime that she committed, and that is, you know, uh if if Russia collusion is part of it, um look at where the money came from, Hillary and the DNC controlled Hillary.
She Hillary controlled their finances.
They funnel the money through a law firm.
Law firm then uses the money, so they're hiding it in terms of reporting, uses the money to then hire Fusion GPS.
Fusion GPS hires a foreign national.
A foreign national then uses Russian sources, even government sources, and puts together a dossier.
Then, of course, Fusion GPS pedals it to the gullible news media.
Nobody verifies, nobody corroborates it.
And then Christopher Steele has to, under threat of perjury, admit that he never corroborated it, that maybe it's 5050 true.
Who knows?
5050.
I don't know.
Uh, because he was facing a possible perjury charge if he said otherwise.
And then, of course, we lie to a Pfizer court.
We didn't pres we we presented it as gospel truth.
They used two uh person authentic uh authentification here by using Michael Izakoff, whose same source was Christopher Steele, and they presented it as they were independent sources.
And then the judges were never told Hilly or he paid for it, and they were never told the FBI didn't verify or corroborate it.
You know, all of this happened.
All of these things are outrageous and far worse than anything that's even ever been alleged as it relates to Trump.
And your news media's been filling uh feeding you a diet of lies now for going on 18 months.
You know, why do you think another reason why they're all focused on immigration is because they don't want to dare go near the inspector general report because that proves they were wrong from the beginning on Hillary, and that they never ever did their journalistic work in terms of following that story.
So why would they want to highlight that?
All right, Mike, thank you for a good call, my friend.
We appreciate it.
Uh 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Gary is in Sacramento.
What's up, Gary?
How are you?
How are you doing?
My Irish American brother from the United States.
What's up, my friend?
How are you?
Uh back on wee bit of the Irish and you I can tell.
Oh, just 25 years I've been out of Ireland, actually.
But I brush up every weekend talking to the family.
I believe it.
But yeah, I think President Trump is an absolute genius.
I think President Trump is just doing an absolute fantastic job.
Keep going 100% the way he's going.
Don't stop.
All right.
Well, we're gonna try, I promise, and you know, we're trying to get to the truth, unpeel the onion, and we've gotten far.
But this is really only the beginning of the process, as I've been saying.
And now we're gonna corroborate all this.
Now we're gonna now the people that have come have have shown this bias, abuse their power, been involved in the corruption.
Now they've got to answer questions and potentially be facing some legal jeopardy themselves.
Interesting that uh the way they treat Hillary, she gets the kid glove treatment, and meanwhile, Trump gets the sledgehammer treatment every day over nothing.
All right, Hannity, tonight uh we have an amazing show.
Uh explosive hearings.
I know probably most of you working, you didn't get a chance to see it.
We'll highlight all of it tonight at nine.
We'll show you Trey Gowdy and Jim Jordan and Bob Goodlat and others.
Uh we get reaction.
We have uh Rudy Giuliani is on tonight.
Andrew McCarthy, Sarah Carter.
Uh also Greg Jarrett joins us tonight, and uh, we'll debate immigration and this set you DVR, Hannity 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
