While Sean takes a breather, Guest Host Gregg Jarrett fills in and hits the ground running as he discusses the ongoing debate over border security and immigration. Chris Cabrera, Spokesman for the National Border Patrol Council and Andrew Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies share some of the real difficult truths about life on the border. 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.
If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what?
That's not fun.
You know, I tried everything.
I couldn't get a good night's sleep.
And this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
That's right.
It is my pillow.
Mike Lindell invented it, and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and it's changed my life.
I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
And the good news, you can too.
Just go to my pillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
You get 50% off to my pillow premium pillows to go anywhere pillows.
Now, my pillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money back guarantee, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow, tossing internal that's not working for you.
Just go to MyPillow.com right now.
Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two Go Anywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
MyPillow.com, promo code Sean.
And welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean.
He has the day off today, richly deserved.
He's the hardest working guy I know.
For those who don't know me, I'm a Fox News legal analyst.
I spent about 15 years as an anchor at Fox News.
I've been a journalist for about three decades.
Early in my career.
But last December, I began writing a book.
Sean encouraged me to do this.
He has supported it all along the way.
And the book comes out in just a couple of weeks.
It's called The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
HarperCollins is the publisher.
You can pre-order it on Barnes Noble.com.
You can go to Amazon.
You could go to Hannity.com.
There's a link there where you can purchase the book.
You can check it out on my Twitter account at Greg Jarrett on Twitter.
But the title, I must say, really gives you a very good idea of what the book is about.
I lay out the case of how top figures at the FBI, the Department of Justice, deliberately used and abuse their positions of power to subvert our system of justice to undermine the democratic process.
They twisted the law.
They contorted it to absolve Hillary Clinton of violating felony statutes, which she did flagrantly in the mishandling of classified documents.
We're not talking about one document or five or ten or twenty.
No, 110 classified documents.
They were classified when they were sent and received by Hillary Clinton.
And she knew it.
And then these top officials decided they were going to weaponize other laws and regulations to launch a dilating investigation of Donald Trump without any legal justification.
Why?
Well, they did it in an effort to destroy Trump.
They used this phony and obviously fabricated anti-Trump dossier to wiretap his associates and collect records, unbeknownst to Donald Trump or the Trump campaign.
They never went to him and said, we have some concerns about Russians and maybe uh talking to people in the in the Trump campaign.
No, they didn't do that.
What they also did was they employed undercover confidential agents to insinuate themselves into the Trump campaign surreptitiously.
It was a sub Rosa operation to spy, to gather incriminating evidence.
And in doing all this and so much more, these government officials compromised our essential American principles, and they damaged The nation's trust.
And I would love to hear from you.
We're going to be taking calls on this.
Give us a call at and I'll answer your questions or I'll listen to your statements and opinions.
Our number is 800-941-7326.
That's 800-941, S E-A-N.
So give us a call.
I look forward to hearing from you.
I so rarely have the opportunity to have a discourse with the public, the listeners on television, the viewers.
So I'm looking forward to this.
Pick up the phone and give us a call.
But the book makes the following argument.
There was never any plausible or credible evidence that Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency.
Indeed, the FBI had no legal basis to initiate the investigation.
There was no evidence of crime to justify a criminal investigation, which is required, by the way, in the FBI and Department of Justice manual.
You cannot launch an official investigation without some evidence of a crime.
It literally says in the dialogue as it's known.
That's the FBI manual.
There have to be articulable facts that would demonstrate that a crime has taken place or could take place.
They never had that.
So James Comey and Peter Strck, the lead investigator at the FBI, they were very clever.
They said, oh, let's make it a counterintelligence probe.
Ah, that'll give us a little bit more latitude.
And importantly, because it involves intelligence, we don't have to tell anybody about it.
We can do it secretly.
So as I say, the FBI had no legal basis to investigate Trump or his campaign.
So they invented facts, they exaggerated other ones.
Laws were perverted, they were ignored.
And when you get right down to it, the law enforcers became the law breakers.
And of course, when James Comey was finally canned as FBI director for breaking rules and violating policy and usurping the power of the attorney general and engaging in rampant and egregious acts of insubordination.
And that's not my finding, although it's in the book.
That's the inspector general's recent report.
Comey then he hatched this devious scheme of retribution, vengeance to trigger the appointment of his longtime friend, partner, and ally, Robert Muller as special counsel.
As I say this has to go down in history as one of the most devious maneuvers by an unscrupulous man who is out there now peddling his book to make millions.
And by the way, he moved up the publication of his book because he knew that the inspector general was going to leave his Comey's reputation and integrity in tatters, and who would want to buy the book after the inspector general's report came out.
So Comey, to cash in on his uh self-anointed fame, uh decided that he was going to move up the publication of that book.
Of course, he insinuated during his testimony before Congress that the president obstructed justice.
That's legally absurd.
And of course, the liberal media became witting accessories.
They all but convinced uh convicted Trump in the court of public opinion.
Did you ever hear any reporter ask the fundamental question?
How is collusion a crime?
Where is that written In the criminal codes.
Well, it's not.
They never bothered to look it up.
Talking with a Russian or any foreign national during a campaign is not a crime.
I'll tell you what is a crime.
Payments to a foreign national during the course of a campaign.
And the great irony is that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did.
She and her campaign paid a former British spy to contact Russians in order to conjure dirt on Donald Trump.
Now, I ask you, is there a special counsel investigating Hillary Clinton?
Of course not.
I must say the last couple of weeks have been revealing in a blistering denunciation of James Comey.
The inspector made it abundantly clear that Comey deserved to be fired.
But he also found severe and pervasive bias in Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page.
Strzok was the lead investigator in three different cases.
The Clinton email case, in which he helped that she be cleared.
The Trump Russia investigation, he signed the papers launching it.
And then, of course, he jumped to the early stages of the special counsel probe.
And the inspector general said this of Peter Strzok, quote, he had a willingness to take official action to impact Trump's electoral prospects.
Whether Struck and others launched the Trump investigation wrongfully, that will be the subject of the Inspector General's next report, which is forthcoming.
So, you know, stay tuned to that.
Strzok was deposed this week behind closed doors, and his public testimony is supposed to take place very soon.
And then yesterday, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, was on the hot seat in the congressional hearing.
We're going to be talking about it today.
Andrew McCarthy of National Review, former federal prosecutor, who is a guy who knows as much about this case as anybody is going to be joining us.
We'll get his thoughts on what took place yesterday.
But give us a call because I'm anxious to hear from you.
Our number is 800-941-7326.
That's 800-941.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity.
I want to focus in just a moment on what Trey Gowdy said yesterday when this entire cross-examination of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, was taking place.
And before we take a break, I'll leave you with what he said.
He said, finish it the hell up, meaning the special counsel probe over which Rod Rosenstein presides.
He said, if you have evidence of obstruction of justice, if you have evidence of collusion, present it for God's sakes to a grand jury.
Present it to the American people.
Otherwise, shut the damn thing down already.
In his words, finish it the hell up.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity today.
On the Sean Hannity Show, we'll be right back.
So I'm going to say this to you, Mr. Ray, Mr. Rosenstein.
I realize that neither one of you were there when this happened, but you're both there now.
Russia attacked this country.
They should be the target, but Russia isn't being hurt by this investigation right now.
We are.
This country is being hurt by it.
We are being divided.
We've seen the bias.
We've seen the bias.
We need to see the evidence.
If you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Trump panic campaign, present it to the damn grand jury.
If you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the American people.
I think right now all of us are being denied.
Whatever you got, finish it the hell up.
Because this country is being torn apart.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean Hannity.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
That was uh Trey Gowdy yesterday.
And that was the most, in my judgment, memorable moment uh in yesterday's hearing in which the FBI director, Christopher Ray, but mostly Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, were on the hot seat.
And you know, Rosenstein repeatedly weasled his way around answering some of the most critical questions, claiming he couldn't or wouldn't respond because the inspector general's investigation is still pending, or the Mueller probe is still pending, or because information is classified.
You know what?
It was the typical Washington two step offering up vacuous excuses to avoid and deflect and cover up.
Let's go to one of our callers, Kevin calls in from Memphis, Tennessee.
Kevin, how are you?
Good, Greg.
How are you?
I'm well, thank you.
What do you think?
Well, listen, uh, one, uh, as far as Rosenstein yesterday, uh, his smugness really got under my skin.
As does all their smugness.
But I have a quick question as to why does President Trump not just say, look at hand over all the all the papers to Congress, do it now so that we can speed this up.
What is there some kind of legal problem for him to do that?
I'm glad you said it.
I I mentioned this two nights ago on Sean's television show.
I said the president is in charge of the executive branch, he's in charge of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
He had already ordered them to comply with all subpoenas.
He needs to, in writing, order the Department of Justice and specifically Rod Rosenstein, comply with this outstanding lawful subpoena by Congress, turn over these documents related to the FISA warrant applications related to these undercover confidential informants.
They were spies, let's just call them what they are.
And if they if Rosenstein doesn't uh comply, then the president of the United States should fire Rod Rosenstein.
Uh and in the alternative, the president could order that the documents being sought be handed over by the Department of Justice to the White House counsel who can then give it to the congressional committees that issued the subpoenas.
So Kevin, it's a great point you make.
I'm glad you made it.
Let's go to one more quick call our John in in Mobile Alabama.
John, you there?
Hey, Mr. Jed, how are you doing?
I'm well, thank you.
Call me Greg.
Well, okay.
Uh every meet you, I will.
Um, one of the things that we've been hearing is about the Pfizer court judges and how they were lied to.
And to me, the more I thought about this, if you had all this bias in the FBI, which we know about, why couldn't there be bias in these sizes court judges?
They, you know, struck and page knew some of these judges.
I'm convinced that.
Oh, they did know.
They in fact they knew one of the judges quite well.
And John, uh, hang on.
We're gonna get to it in just a moment.
We'll be right back.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean Hannity today.
I've got a book coming out in a couple of weeks.
It's called The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
And the title pretty much tells the story, except when you buy the book, if you buy the book, and I hope you do, um, you can read the details.
I lay out in excruciating detail with 700 footnotes.
Uh, everything is sourced, no anonymous sources, everything is sourced.
Uh, what went on as the FBI and the Department of Justice cleared Hillary Clinton by twisting the law, even though she had clearly Committed numerous felonies.
And then they went about, by the way, on the very same day she was cleared, they began in earnest the investigation of Donald Trump for crimes he did not commit.
And so you can go to Barnes Noble.com or Amazon and pre-order it.
Go to Hannity.com.
There's a link there, and you can pre-order the book.
Um, or go to my uh Twitter account at Greg Jarrett on Twitter.
We were talking a moment ago with John uh from Mobile, Alabama, uh, and he posed a very good question.
And John, I think you're still there.
You said, is it possible that Strzok and others at the FBI knew uh which FISA court judges were going to be presiding over the the fabricated FISA warrant?
And the answer is yes.
It can be found in Peter Strzok's text messages with his lover Lisa Page, who is an FBI lawyer, in which she says to him, Did you know that Judge Rudolph Contreras is a FISA judge?
And he says, Yes, I've talked to him.
I know him.
I need to talk to him some more.
And then the two of them devised a scheme to throw a dinner party.
Now remember, they're married to two other separate people.
Yep.
But they're carrying on this affair.
And so they put together, apparently, a dinner party and invited Judge Contreras to attend the dinner party.
And, you know, Strzok makes it clear that Contreras knows he's the head of counterintelligence at the FBI.
And, you know, and he Peter Strzok is obviously involved as the lead investigator in the Trump Russia case, which sought from FISA judges uh a warrant to wiretap.
And so the answer is yes.
They knew at least one of the FISA judges.
So John, great question.
Thanks for for asking.
Let me go to Scott in Colorado.
Scott, you're on the air.
Thanks for being with us.
Uh, Mr. Greg, this is quite an honor, man.
We we in the oil fields up here after after like a Hannity and you're on.
We compare notes, and we I've just been such a fan of all the hard work you've done.
I so appreciate it, and I can't wait to get your book and and hopefully you go on a tour so I can have you sign it someday.
That's just appreciate everything you've done, man.
Well, it's very nice of you.
And and again, the name of the book is The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
And I've never written a book before.
Um, and I never really wanted to.
I wrote I I've written over the last couple of years two or three hundred columns.
A lot of them were on this subject.
And you know, I was on Sean's show quite frequently, and he said, you know, you ought to write a book on this.
And somebody needs to lay out the evidence and the facts.
Uh, and so I decided to write this book.
I started writing in December.
I wrote every word of every page of this book, no ghostwriter, no co-writer.
Um, and you know, it was a difficult task because it is so vast.
And I, you know, read through thousands and thousands of transcript uh pages of testimony and poured through thousands of government documents, and a lot of this stuff was not easy to dig up.
Uh, even uh some of the documents in a British court involving the defamation claims uh that are being made against the former British spy uh who Christopher Steele, who you know, came up with this dossier, anti-Trump dossier.
I invite you to actually read the dossier.
You can find it online.
It is good for a laugh.
I mean, on its face, it is utterly preposterous, uh, claiming you know, Trump Russian collusion, that that Putin and Trump were colluding as far back as eight years ago, as if Donald Trump, you know, somehow was clairvoyant and uh and knew he was going to be president, much less Vladimir Putin.
I mean, it's just it's preposterous.
And and so I have re I have read it, and it it reads like uh a very horrible author or two or whatever.
They don't uh it it's unintelligible, but I just wanted to thank you because for us oil field guys, when you lay out an argument, you're clear, you're concise, and we can understand it without legal ease.
Well, thank you so much, Matt.
I mean, look, there's uh there's a lot of the law in the book, but I tried to make it really simple and straightforward so that non-lawyers could easily digest what it is I'm saying.
And I worked very hard with a publisher.
We went through several edits, which gotta simplify.
I mean, I submitted more than a hundred thousand words, I think we pared it down to about eighty-five thousand words or more than a thousand footnotes, and we got it down to about seven hundred.
So we tried to simplify this thing down to its core, its very essence.
Scott, if I'm in Colorado, I hope I see you.
Thanks very much for calling.
Let's go to uh another caller, Steve joins us from Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Hey, Steve.
Hey, Greg, I look forward to getting your book.
Thank you.
You know, we all know about the whole thing going on in the justice and FBI, and it's all in the executive branch.
And you gotta wonder how in the world is what's being done and what's not being done happening.
And I think I have the answer, and I want your opinion.
All right.
I think I think the original mole in the Trump campaign was Jeff Sessions.
And everything else is a shiny object.
And if you if you put Jeff Sessions as the original mole, you get every answer to every question you have.
Well, you know, um it's not a bad notion, but it assumes one thing that Jeff Sessions was smart enough to be a mole.
Um, I well, he does not strike me.
It answers every question, Jeff or Greg.
It answers every single one.
Well, it would.
It would, because it would have to be somebody who was uh intimately involved in the campaign.
And of course, Jeff Sessions was at uh Trump's side in many of the campaign events.
Um and so it's uh, you know, I mean, it's not a bad notion.
I I will say this about Jeff Sessions, he has to go down as one of the most feckless, ineffective, clueless, oblivious attorney generals in American history, and that's saying a lot because there've been some attorney generals in the United States that were just downright awful, and a couple of them that were as dumb as a bucket of hair.
Uh, but uh Jeff Sessions is the biggest mistake Donald Trump ever made uh since he was elected president.
He'll tell you that.
He'll be the first guy to tell you that.
And, you know, why Jeff Sessions hasn't just you know held a news conference and said, you know what, I'm in over my head.
I don't know what I'm doing, you know.
Uh I really am doing a disservice to the United States of America being the attorney general.
I've recused myself from an important case.
I deceived the president.
I knew I was likely going to recuse myself.
I didn't alert him.
I should have.
It was a deep betrayal.
My bad, I'm resigning.
Uh, but but you know, Jeff Sessions, you know, I'm told by the people I talk to at the Department of Justice is they, you know, he comes to work every day and they hide him in a closet.
I mean, he he he's left out of everything.
Decisions are principally made by Rod Rosenstein.
Uh, and you know, Jeff Sessions is, you know, I don't know what he's doing in his office, twiddling his thumbs.
Maybe, you know, he's watching Barney.
I don't know.
But um thank you for your call.
I appreciate it.
Let's go to our uh next caller, Doug in Daytona Beach joins us.
Doug, how are you?
Greg, I'm doing fine.
Great to talk to you.
Got a a question for you from your legal standpoint that doesn't necessarily relate to today, but it goes way, way back.
How in the world, and I think a lot of American citizens want to know this.
How in the world does Hillary Clinton continue to engage in felonious and criminal activity and continue to escape any kind of prosecution charges, anything.
We're going all the way back to insider trading with Whitewater.
She had 900 files in the in the residential area of the White House, FBI files on American citizens in the in the residents of the White House and had her fingerprints all over it.
I mean, you just go step after step after step.
Right.
And she never gets charge.
This woman's got Teflon.
I mean, she is super Teflon.
She continued to avoid that.
Well, look, during I I devote an entire chapter, chapter four is entitled Clinton Greed and Uranium One.
Um and the reason I included that particular chapter is because it really does explain why she used a private secret server for all of her communications.
Because I theorize that she was hiding the for sale sign that she had on the door of her office as Secretary of State.
And that's why she had a private server.
She didn't want people to find out what was really going on behind the scenes, that she was exploiting her position uh for financial gain for her foundation and for her husband, the former president of the United States.
That's my theory, and I devote a chapter to it.
And uh the book again is called The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
You can get it for pre-sale at Barnes Noble.com and Amazon, and go to Hannity.com.
You there's a link there and you can buy it.
It will be out on store shelves in a couple of weeks.
I uh have one of the copies uh here in front of me.
Uh and no, I did not put my uh picture on the front of the book.
Instead, it's got a picture of Robert Mueller, Hillary Clinton, and James Comey.
Um, but thank you for the phone call.
Uh, how did Hillary Clinton manage to escape all of this during the Obama administration?
She was protected by President Obama and protected by Eric Holder and protected by Loretta Lynch.
Uh and when the Whitewater stuff came up, she was largely protected by the Bill Clinton Department of Justice as well.
Yes, there was a special counsel um Ken Starr, but he went off on a tangent and Monica Lewinsky and so forth, and she was never really held accountable for many of the things that she did.
Let's go to Gary in Virginia.
Gary?
Gary, you're on the air.
You do a fantastic job when you're on with Sean, and I just want to just acknowledge that.
Got some little theory I want to run by you, and I'm not sure if you address it in your book.
She was going to win.
Hillary was going to win this thing.
And my question is, was this all about putting Trump in jail, perk walking him and you know, doing all that after the election to just make the statement that don't ever challenge the swamp again?
Remember, she was going to win.
And they started this investigation way before.
Um, you know, way before the election results were were started.
Yeah, well, I'll tell you what the answer is.
It was an insurance policy.
And how do we know that?
Because that's Peter Strzok's infamous uh message that uh, you know, we have an insurance policy.
It's what we discussed in Andy's office, Andy being Andrew McCabe, who is the uh second in command at the FBI.
It's a great point, and I'm glad you brought it up.
We're gonna pause, take a quick break on Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jared in for Sean Hannity.
Did you see Rod Rosenstein on the hot seat yesterday in front of Congress?
He denied withholding documents.
Really?
Your own letters prove your withholding documents and you have until July 6th, or you'll be held in contempt.
That Was the congressional resolution.
And then he was asked, Did you threaten staffers on the House Intelligence Committee, threatened to subpoena their calls and emails?
He said, No, media reports are mistaken.
Guess what?
The media report was me.
I first reported it on February 2nd on Hannity on Fox News Channel, and I had spoken to two people who were in that meeting in which Rosenstein threatened to subpoena their calls, their emails, and their texts.
So was Rod Rosenstein yesterday lying.
Did he commit perjury?
It's one of the uh questions that we have as we go through Rosenstein's testimony yesterday.
You know, we're going to talk about it with Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor.
He's going to be joining us in just a moment.
He's a columnist uh for the National Review.
He writes excellent columns, and we're going to be talking to him about two of his most recent columns in just a moment.
I'm Greg Jarrett, in for Sean Hannity.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity.
I'm a Fox News legal analyst.
Uh, and often on Sean's radio show and television show, and I've got a book coming out, The Russia Hoax.
It's out in a couple of weeks.
The subtitle, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
You could pre-order it if you want.
Just go to uh Barnes Noble.com or Amazon or go to Hannity.com and there's there's a link there where you can order it.
Um but it'll be out on store shelves in a uh couple of weeks.
You can also uh go to at Greg Jarrett on my Twitter account, so I invite you to do that.
Uh one of the people that I quote in the book uh two or three times, maybe four times, is the great Andrew McCarthy.
And I call him great because this guy uh is a veteran, former federal prosecutor.
He's a brilliant writer.
You may have read his columns uh on National Review, but uh, you know, Andy is really one of the people that you can always learn something interesting and revealing whenever you read his columns, especially on this subject, the Russia hoax.
Uh and so he joins us now, and Andy, thanks for being with us.
Are you there?
Greg, how are you?
I I chased you around Fox all day yesterday, so I figured um I'd call in too to harass him.
Yes, you know, um, and I'm glad you're on because you know, we do talk from time to time, but one of the things I wanted to ask you about.
My book went to print before the Inspector General Report came out, and there's really there's only a couple of things that uh I wish uh were in the book that are in the inspector general's report.
One really doesn't need to be, and that's you know, the now infamous and notorious text message from uh Strck and Page in which he says we're gonna stop Trump, but you know, that's now so famous, everybody knows it, and it doesn't really need to be in my book.
But the other thing was when and who made the critical change in James Comey's statement, uh in which he exonerates Hillary Clinton.
Now, in the month of May, and this part is in my book, Comey writes a statement uh in which he finds that Hillary Clinton is grossly negligent.
And again, this is in my book as well, but but some of the details aren't.
So grossly negligent is obviously a crime in the handling of classified documents.
It's 18 USC 793 uh Section F. And so I always wanted to know the details of why it was changed, from grossly negligent to extremely careless.
And on June 6, 2016, a month after Comey changed the language.
Uh a month after Comey wrote grossly negligent, Peter Strzok sits down at his computer and Lisa Page, his girlfriend mistress, is is standing nearby, and together with two other people who are not identified, they change the language from grossly negligent to extremely careless.
Did you read that as page 193, I think, in the Inspector General's report, Andy.
Yeah, I did see that, Greg, and it's always been uh you know it's been something that's intrigued me for a couple of reasons.
I I remember when this first arose as an issue, I think it was uh Judge Mucesey, who I had the honor of of trying the blind shake in front of those years ago, um, who who later was served as uh with distinction as attorney general, was a longtime judge in New York.
Um, but it was he who I uh I think made the key point here, which is that if a judge was actually going to give the jury instructions at the end of a case about what uh gross negligence means, what the judge would tell him is that it means extreme carelessness.
It does.
So yeah, so the so the the two things are interchangeable, and it's clear that the reason that they removed it is because this was supposed to be an exoneration, and if you leave the language of the statute that they're accused of or they're being investigated for violating and you say they did it, it reads more like an indictment than an exoneration.
Right.
But the the thing that's always um intrigued me about this is I I I really think and I still think that the um the gross negligence slash extreme carelessness thing is almost ingenious on the part of the FBI and and Comey and the Justice Department in particular,
because I think if you look at this with all of the intent proof that you could marshal, including the thing that the FBI left out of its calculation and that the uh the the inspector general didn't uh didn't seek to second guess them on, namely that she set up this offline system, making it thereby inevitable, given the nature of her job that there would be classified information transiting through the system.
I I think that this would have been a pretty straightforward, straight intent case.
And if I had been a prosecutor designing a prosecution on it, I would have argued it as an intent case and made gross negligence my even-if fallback position.
Like even if you don't believe our mountain of evidence that she intentionally willfully did this, you can still convict her if you find that she was grossly negligent.
Right.
So I I I just think they did a big head fake here to try to get us to talk about this as if she didn't do this willfully and intentionally.
Well, and there's another statute, 1924, in which they could have brought uh uh a case against her.
And and one of the revealing things in the Inspector General's report uh is that you know, Comey hangs his hat on us, she didn't intend to violate the law or jeopardize national security.
And so they Inspector General asked him uh, well, where do you get intent under the gross negligence statute?
They seem incongruous.
And Comey replies, well, it was my understanding that the gross negligence statute requires some intent.
And he said he got that from the legislative history.
Well, I've I looked at the legislative history because originally when the Espionage Act was passed by Congress, it didn't have the gross negligence provision.
That was added in the late 1940s.
And as a Supreme Court uh opinion explained later on, that was because Congress wanted to present a lesser uh provision so that it wasn't just intent, but it could be gross negligence.
And yet Comey says uh the legislative intent, you know, was to have uh uh intent in the gross negligent statute.
That's just not true.
Yeah.
You know, uh another reason this is uh offensive, Greg, is every single day in courtrooms throughout the United States, federal prosecu federal prosecutors go into court and tell federal judges you are not at liberty to rewrite statutes by looking at the legislative history.
There's a lot of instances of courts trying to add or change the things, the essential elements that a that a prosecutor has to establish beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict someone.
And the Justice Department's standard response to that is your job, Judge, with all due respect, is to enforce the statute that Congress has written, not to go through the voodoo of going through legislative history, which is Justice Scalia said, uh, is kind of like you know, looking at a cr at a crowd and only picking out your friends, right?
You can parse through legislative history and rewrite statutes uh willy-nilly easily.
Um what we're supposed to do, especially when a statute presents an unambiguous set of charging language, is you're supposed to apply the statute as it's written.
And you're quite right that the espionage act as written by Congress is basically a sliding scale of about six different levels of conduct ranging from what you would think of as traditional espionage at the top,
that is uh people who commit offenses with an intent to harm the United States, to in in the middle, these kind of willful offenses where you may not have to intend to harm the United States, but you have to act knowingly, knowing that you're putting uh classified information at risk.
And then at the very bottom, you have these gross negligence offenses, and Comey was wrong to say that this is not a predicate for criminal liability traditionally.
Every state in the country criminalizes negligent homicide, for example.
And in this instance, what we're talking about is not a generally applicable law uh where you're applying negligence to everybody in a criminal context.
You're taking a very special class of people, namely government officials who have been indoctrinated in the handling of classified information and who are trusted to handle it in a responsible way, uh and punishing them, but not until they've been indoctrinated and you're and you can prove that they knew what they were doing and they were authorized.
Yeah.
If if it wasn't Hillary Clinton, but Jane Smith or you know, John Taylor, would with a hundred and ten classified documents on a private email server.
Uh sent or received is classified.
Would that person have been indicted?
I don't think there's any question, and I think if you look at the military justice system, you'll see just those kind of cases.
Brian Nishimura in particular really stands out at me.
This is a naval reservist.
Who even the FBI in their press release said um he did not have malicious intent.
And yet they charged him and forced him to plead guilty to it for the very same thing that Hillary Clinton did, except on a much smaller scale.
So uh was it uh pure sophistry for Comey to claim in his televised statement that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Oh, I think I think this was a predetermined outcome.
Um you know, as somebody who who knew and admired Comey for many years, um I'm sorry to see him participate in this, but I think the f you know the fact of the matter is the Obama Justice Department was never going to authorize charges against Mrs. Clinton.
President Obama essentially said as much publicly uh in April of twenty sixteen when he when he said that he didn't want her charged, and he laid out this theory that they this bogus theory of the espionage act that they ended up using.
Sure.
He said I think the FBI just went with the flow.
It was a conversation he had with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, and you're correct about the date of that.
And that was the Claring Call.
That was the signal by Obama, she's careless, uh but not grossly negligent.
And that is exactly the language that Comey then used.
But nobody accused President Obama of an attempt to obstruct justice in unduly influencing a pending investigation and potential prosecution, unlike the allegations against President Trump.
Well, of course not, right?
Because this is justice we're talking about now.
Can I keep you over?
I want to take a quick break, and if you can hang in here for just a couple of minutes, we're going to be back with Andrew McCarthy.
He's quoted in my book, uh, which comes out in a couple of weeks, The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Go to Barnes Noble.com and pre ordered or Amazon.
We'll be right back.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity.
We're talking about the Russia hoax.
In the summer of 2001, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and the whole gang over at the FBI launched an investigation into Trump.
There was never a whiff of credible evidence to legally justify the probe.
So, in a deception that I think is worthy of a solid street hustle, Comey labeled it a counterintelligence matter.
It was a clever feint that allowed for a covert criminal investigation in search of a crime.
Isn't that reversing the legal process?
Let's ask uh Andrew McCarthy who rejoins this former federal prosecutor.
He's a columnist uh unmatched, really, on uh national review, and and thanks for being with us again.
Didn't labeling it a counterintelligence matter allow for a criminal investigation in search of a crime, really sort of reversing and bastardizing the legal process, Andy.
Yeah, Greg, it's actually the thing that they were worried about in the 1990s when they erected the infamous wall, which in the pre-9-11 days prevented the intelligence side of the FBI's house from cooperating and sharing information with the criminal investigative side.
And the reason I I mean I think the wall regulations, as we as we saw had catastrophic results, and it was uh at at the time we all thought it was uh it was over regulation.
Um but the idea behind it was sound.
The idea was that you didn't want under circumstances where investigators did not have adequate evidence to proceed with a criminal investigation.
You didn't want them to exploit national security powers as a pretext in order to do that.
I used to say back then that's ridiculous.
No one would ever do that.
So you know, mark that down as yet another thing I would say.
But they did it.
They did it here because Comey felt it would it would give him greater latitude and also he uh greater ability to hide what it was he was doing.
And that's the story of the Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
It's the title of my new book comes out in a couple of weeks.
You can buy it online in advance, Barnes and Noble.com, Amazon.
Andrew McCarthy, many, many thanks for being with us.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
I think there's no question that we've got to critically reexamine ICE and its role and the way that it is being administered and the work it is doing.
And we need to probably think about starting from scratch.
I think we need to abolish ICE.
That seems really clear.
They have strayed so far from the interests of the American people and the interests of humanity.
Uh we need to we need to abolish it.
Eliminating ICE, for instance.
And President Trump ICE isn't doing what it was created to do.
It's being used as his own personal uh police force, and in those actions, it's actually making us uh less safe.
And I think you should reimagine ICE under a new agency with a very different mission and take those two missions out.
And so we believe That we should protect families that need our help, and that is not what ICE is doing today.
And that's why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works.
Well, those are just some of the people that are calling for the abolishment of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.
You know, these are the people that go out and arrest felons, drug dealers, drug peddlers, rapists, uh people who commit all kinds of aberrant behavior and crimes.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show on Greg Jarrett in for Sean Hannity who has the day off.
Uh it's really quite astonishing that people like New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand, Mayor Bill DeBlasio are now adding their support to this cause that is gaining currency in the last 24 hours to get rid of ICE.
Joining me now with their reaction, Chris Cabrera, who is spokesman for the National Border Patrol Council.
Andrew Arthur joins us, resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Um Andrew, let me start with you.
What's your reaction to this?
This is just a political stunt.
Um these are, you know, when you're talking about elected officials, what they're really complaining about, or what they're really saying is they don't want any any enforcement of the immigration laws in the interior of the United States.
Well, they're in a unique position as it relates to their fellow citizens, they actually get to vote on legislation to change the laws.
They know that they don't have the ability to do that because they know they don't have the votes or even the support of the American people.
So instead they come up with a a stunt proposal to abolish ICE.
I mean, that's the first thing, and two.
The unintended consequences of it are astounding.
The immigration laws exist for a reason.
That's to protect the wages and working conditions of Americans, both uh U.S. citizens and lawful Department of Residents.
And, you know, ICE does so many other things, foreign corruption investigations, firearms smuggling.
I mean, you we want to do away with that.
Quite frankly, I like having an agency that uh prevents firearms and explosive smuggling and uh terrorism investigations in the United States as well.
Chris, what do you I mean, when you hear people like Senator Gillibrand and uh Mayor de Blasio and others saying, get rid of ICE entirely, aren't they really saying let's just have open borders, criminals come on in, have at it.
Uh we'll be a sanctuary nation for all, in c including hardcore criminals.
Yeah, you know, I think they're just trying to uh to deflect from the fact that they're not actually doing their job or or getting it done.
I mean, uh ICE is doing exactly what it was designed for, which is enforce the laws that that Congress puts out there.
Uh, you know, these congreg the people in Congress don't want to actually uh repeal these these laws that they don't like.
Instead, they're trying to abolish an entire federal agency, and that's just ridiculous.
Yeah, now, Chris, I uh you were recently talking uh on another network about some of the terrible things that you have witnessed while working at the border.
D describe that.
You know, I think that was just the uh the tip of the iceberg.
You know, what we see out there is as far as um unaccompanied children, um we don't mean uh, you know, uh kids that are coming in in groups with other people.
There are kids that are, you know, as long as uh as young as two, three, four years old that are out there traveling alone.
Um we found uh kids, uh, you know, 11-year-old boy a couple years ago that that died of exposure in the in the brush, and she had a little Pokemon belt on and that kind of stuff really hits home when you have to when you see young ones in the river that you have to pull out that that didn't quite make it.
Um it's you know, I I think what people are missing, the point there that they're missing is these laws are a deterrent.
The these uh these prosecutions are a deterrent for people coming in this way because too many people fall victim to these smugglers on the way here.
Um how do you feel about a border wall?
Andrew, let me uh let me put that to you.
Andrew, how do you feel about a border wall to pre prevent to help ICE and border patrol agents?
I think that uh the putting uh barriers in place where we need barriers in order to prevent you know large scale uh movement of people in order to prevent vehicles that might be carrying drugs or other contraband across the border is important.
But as long as we have the the bad laws on the books, the current iteration of the credible fear law, the uh TV PRA that you know requires all unaccompanied alien children to be sent to HHS within 72 hours.
All the walls in the world aren't going to stop uh the flow of individuals who are exploiting the loopholes in the laws in order to come to the United States.
I think that Chris, you know, makes a very good point.
You know, the fact is we are encouraging uh these children to come to the United States.
You know, we're in we we basically are putting a big uh you know lollipop at the border to encourage people to come illegally with these bad laws.
There were, you know, we just saw two bills.
You know, they had their flaws, but they actually addressed those uh those loopholes, and quite frankly, I hope that they bring those provisions up as uh standalone legislation.
Let's get those passed, and you know, let's that'll help us get control of the border as well.
Is it disappointing, Andrew, that that congressional leaders like Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, cannot seem to get the remedies passed through legislation?
Well, you you know, we actually saw uh a large number of uh votes in favor of the Good Lat Bill.
I think it was 192 votes, which contained e-verify.
Chris will tell you, you know, if you have a mandatory e-verify in the uh the United States, that's gonna make his job and the job of all of our border patrol agents a lot easier because people aren't going to come here for jobs they can't get.
When I was an immigration judge, the fact is probably 98% of the people that I saw came to the United States to work.
And if they can't work, they're not coming.
Yeah, you know, Chris, it's i it's a great point that Andrew makes that you know, not everybody that comes to the United States is is a criminal or has designed to commit crimes within our our borders.
Great many people just want to come here for a better life.
But the problem is, you know, they don't wait in line.
They're they they don't apply legally and instead they slip across our border and they're looking for jobs.
And that does a disservice to all of those people who tried to do it legally and properly by applying to come to the United States.
Um isn't e-verify really a solution if it is mandatory.
Yeah, you know, I think it is um it is one of the uh different things that we need in there.
And you hit the nail right on the head.
You know, if if the first thing you do in our country is illegal, what hope do we have of you following any other laws?
Um you know, as far as people hiring you and and it's just exploiting that they're exploiting these people.
These these people that that hire the illegals, they're exploiting them.
They're using them as cheap labor and their disposable labor, and you don't know how many times we've seen uh somebody call us out there and say that they needed to report some some illegals, and those illegals happen to be working for them, they just didn't want to pay them.
Uh it happens all the time.
And and you know, there's a lot of people that say they mean well, and at the same time, they they really don't.
They have their own agenda, and and chief labor is one of those uh one of those cons.
You know, Andrew, um Congress has plenary power over immigration, and yet, and they've passed you know, laws that you know makes it illegal to be here illegally.
Uh and if you commit a crime, uh, you know, that changes the equation dramatically.
And yet, you have states and cities and counties that have passed their own ordinances and laws, making them sanctuaries.
How much of an attraction is that to people coming to the United States illegally, knowing they can go to San Francisco or other places in California and essentially be protected.
That's exactly the point.
I mean, sanctuary cities are another magnet that draw people to enter the United States illegally.
They know that they can they can you know go on American media, find these cities, go there, and they know that they'll be perfectly safe because they're look, we have thousands of ICE agents, but the fact is we're a country of 330 million people.
Finding any individual alien is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
That's why we have, you know, hundreds of thousands of aliens who have who are under final orders of removal.
They've been they've received due process.
They've completed their their cases.
There's nothing more they can do.
They're under final orders and yet they're still in the United States because we can't locate them.
Can you imagine if we can't locate the people who have already been ordered deported, what it's going to take to find people that we don't even that we haven't even identified.
Yeah, sanctuary cities are a bad idea.
There's one immigration law in the United States and that is the immigration law that's been set by the United States Congress.
San Francisco doesn't get its own immigration policy.
California doesn't get its own and to to think otherwise is ridiculous.
Because quite frankly you're not going to keep that person in California.
They can go anywhere in the Union and you know that they their downstream effects are significant.
Right.
And it's in the Constitution by the way the supremacy clause so you know you can't pass a law in a city, state or a county that contravenes federal law, especially when Congress has plenary power over all immigration matters.
I want to say thanks to Arthur Andrew Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Chris Cabrera, spokesman for the National Border Patrol Council.
Guys, thanks for being with us.
Looking forward to your phone calls.
Give us a call on this subject 800 nine four one seven three two six that's 800 nine four one S E A N. Sean's not here today.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in we'll be right back with more of your calls.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity who has the day off.
So we've been talking about um New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio joining others on Capitol Hill who are calling for abolishing ICE, the U.S. Immigration and customs enforcement agency so what do you do about uh you know all of those people who are thousands and thousands that they arrest who uh have committed crimes and
many of them violent crimes.
Do we just let those people uh go free, continue committing crimes?
Let's go to our uh telephone lines.
John joins us in North Carolina.
Hi John, what do you think?
Hi Greg.
Continuing on the border, uh we have a uh sovereign nation with borders and so does Mexico.
Why not sanction Mexico and and stop all trade with them if they allow illegals through our borders.
Make them protect the border or no trade.
Then they'll have something to lose and on the other hand if they cooperate then give them a better fair trade deal.
You know, I think that's a great idea.
I mean, the downside, obviously, is that we do get a great many products from Mexico that are less expensive because of their cheaper labor, and that would hurt American consumers.
But there have to be ways that we can threaten to punish Mexico without hurting the American consumer to get them to protect the egress from their borders immediately.
into the United States.
John I think it's a great idea.
Let's go to Bill in Arizona.
Hey, Bill, what do you think?
Hey, Greg.
Thanks for taking my call.
I enjoy watching you, listening to you frequently on Hannity.
Thank you.
On the TV show.
One of the things that occurred to me here recently is, once again, highlighting the hypocrisy of the left.
You know, you have all these people calling for the abolition of ICE because they have overstepped their bounds and all this other jazz.
But, you know, it seems a little odd to me that the FBI seems to have overstepped their bounds a little bit.
But I don't hear anybody on the left wanting to...
to get rid of the FBI um find that a little hypocritical you know that's a great point well look hypocrisy is endemic in Washington DC it's a way of life among politicians and uh you know if they're moving their lips they're probably lying um except for the guy we're gonna have on next which is Louis Gohmert uh congressman from uh Texas who has always been a straight shooter and I've known him for a great many years.
He was a judge before he was a captain in the U.S. Army and he's a great American and he's gonna be joining us in just a few minutes to talk about his questioning of Rod uh Rosenstein, but you're absolutely right, uh Bill from Arizona when you know you bring up the point if we're gonna revamp ice and fix problems there, and I frankly don't think that there are any problems with ICE.
I think they do a hell of a great job.
But uh the people who aren't doing a hell of a great job are uh the top officials at the FBI.
Uh the rank and file of the FBI, the hardworking agents, the tens of thousands of them, they're great Americans.
They don't break the law.
They don't abuse their positions, but people like James Comey and Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and that whole gang of uh individuals who appear to have committed corrupt acts those people and those like them that needs to change.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean Hannity, this is the Sean Hannity Show.
You said earlier Bruce Orr was not working on the Russia investigation.
Let me ask you my knowledge to your knowledge did you not know that Bruce Orr was meeting with Christopher Steele getting the information about the the dossier and supplying that information to the FBI at the same time his wife Nellie was working for fusion GPS that was helping Hillary Clinton.
Did you not know he was doing that for the FBI?
Correct.
You did not know that correct okay so he officed a couple of doors down but you had no idea that he was actually the go-between to get that information welcome to the Sean Hannity show I'm Greg Jared and for Sean Hannity.
The voice you heard there was Congressman Louis Gomer during yesterday's congressional hearing questioning the deputy attorney general the ever clueless Rod Rosenstein and we're very pleased to have with us Congressman Louie Gomert who you should know before he became a Congressman was a very fine district court judge in the state of Texas.
And Congressman thank you for being with us today.
Well it's my pleasure Greg and I can't wait uh for your book to come out and I am thrilled you're the guy that has put uh all this stuff together uh because it you know it really ought to go in the novel section because it's just so unbelievable that all of these things that we now know are true uh actually are true.
It's just unbelievable.
But we're living through it.
And I couldn't believe Rosenstein would feign the kind of ignorance he did.
He didn't know Bruce Orr was the one that was getting the information from Christopher Steele and supplying it to the FBI.
Oh, my gosh.
And I don't know if you saw, but at the end, I was trying to pin him down on whether he actually read that final application for warrant that was that where they got a warrant extended again from the FISA court.
And he played ridiculous word games, I'd say.
So you read it and approved it.
I approved it.
So you took out the word Reddit.
You didn't read it.
I didn't say that.
No, no.
I mean, what incredible word games.
But he is not as good as, say, Strzok.
Strzok is very good.
He he can lie and he knows it.
He knows, you know it.
And he could probably pass a polygraph.
And I can't go into what what what he said or testified to a couple of days ago.
I was there for a number of hours.
But I sat there going, wow.
He knows that's not true.
He knows that we know it's not true, but shows no sign.
This guy is really good at telling lies and controlling his emotions.
And I realized, oh, he must have been practicing all those months, year, whatever it was on his wife when she would ask, what about your relationship with Lisa Page?
You know, he got good over.
over all those many months uh oh it's nothing oh no this just wondering about how many lies, how he controlled his emotion.
But uh now this country is still in trouble with these guys in control uh of the reins of justice because it is not justice we're seeing play out here.
Well, I think you're absolutely right, and guys uh who tend to cheat on their wives are pretty adept at lying, and so and that would uh certainly include Peter Strzok, who I devote a good deal of the book uh my book that's coming out in a couple of weeks on Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, uh James Comey, uh Robert Muller, Hillary Clinton, certainly.
The name of the book is The Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump comes out in the bookstores in a couple of weeks, but you can order it now on uh Barnes and Noble.com or Amazon.
Uh and and you know, I I'm always tempted to call you judge because that's how I used to know you.
Uh but now you're you're a congressman.
Well, you were with Court TV first time I met you, and you covered a murder trial that uh we had had to move to Dallas on a change of venue, and uh, you know, it was like nine or ten weeks that uh I got to uh hear you, and I'm going, this guy knows his stuff.
This guy really knows what he's doing.
So that's one of the reasons I was so pleased that you were putting all these facts together in in this book.
But uh Greg, if I could mention one thing, and I tried to mention it at the end of my question.
But every you know, the Democrats have touted over and over, but but Horowitz, the inspector general, found that there was no evidence uh of any bias affecting the outcome.
But at page nine of his summary, he says uh under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision, and that's very important, it was Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russian investigation over following up on the mid-year-related investigation,
which means the Hillary Clinton investigation, uh, to follow up on the um emails discovered on the Wiener laptop was free from bias.
So he wasn't confident uh that Strzok's decision, because it was his decision to make to end the Hillary Clinton investigation and move to the Trump investigation.
They're not confident that that was affected by bias.
But Greg, that is one of the most outrageous comments that they weren't sure that his decision to end investigating Hillary and concentrate on him uh in investigating Trump was affected, was not affected by bias.
I mean, that whole thing was affected by bias.
It could not have helped but been affected by vias.
So Horowitz, uh he's bound to have had some of his democratic friends over there get to him and get him to water that down, and I knew that had to be going on when it was taking so long.
This is the watering down phase.
He's got the evidence, hundreds of pages of it, and now he's gonna water down the conclusions so that he can still be friends with all the Democrats who love him.
Peter Strzok's bias time.
Peter Strzok's bias was so overt and explicit and severe and pervasive that it defies common sense that it did not influence the decisions he was making.
And I devote many, many pages in the book in an in two different chapters, actually, about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages, what they mean, and of course, the ultimate text which came out just recently in the Inspector General report was, you know, will stop Donald Trump from becoming president.
I mean Congressman, that really that says it all, doesn't it?
It does say it all and explains exactly why he would uh shut down the Hillary Clinton investigation he was in charge of and that really light up and go after the Trump investigation, because he has just said He is going to stop Trump.
And you know, you you know well, you've been a practicing lawyer, you've seen so many trials yourself, you know, that people don't come forward and say, now I'm specifically stating for the record that I intend to have this result.
No, but you can look at what they're doing.
And when he says, now I'm gonna stop Trump, and he charges forward on the Trump investigation and drops the Hillary investigation, that is evidence of bias affecting the decisions.
And I I don't it's just incredible that both Horwitz and uh uh current powers that be would allow that to stand as an official statement.
Well, and it was such a it was such an evasion or prevarication when the inspector general said essentially I can't prove with documents or testimony that uh their bias influenced the decisions that they made.
Well, of course not, as you point out.
I mean, criminals, you know, a bank robber doesn't put in writing I robbed a bank, or won't you know, on questioning by police admit, yeah, I I just robbed the Bank of America.
I mean, they don't do that.
So you don't do that.
You can show what they did and that itself in conjunction with things, other things that were said, those are proof.
Just like uh, you know, when uh uh the president, well, President Obama said, you know, I don't believe she intended uh any uh violation, any crime.
Right, he just set the tone, he just transmitted to his buddies that uh, okay, let's here's the word.
Right.
We're saying she didn't have intent.
And uh that word was again used uh in in our hearing uh that we don't think there was any intent.
Well, as you know, intent was not an issue, but if you want evidence of an intent, actually one of the Clinton's dear close personal friends that got Bill Clinton elected president uh gave us an indication of her intent when he said uh, well, I would imagine Hillary had this separate server because she didn't want Louis Gulmert rifling through her emails.
Well, yeah, I think that's right.
And actually that uh is an indication that her one of her close friends or political friends knew her intent was to prevent Congress from providing oversight.
Sure.
Clearly, even James Carble knew that's why she did it.
She did not want oversight of what she was doing.
It was criminal.
You don't even have to prove intent in that case.
Uh but I I tell you, I still am just uh in disbelief that we're not getting a more thorough investigation into the Awan brothers.
Here you uh had Mran who spent three to nine months, according to Luth Grossiak did great research on it, three to nine months in Pakistan, and he was doing the security and IT work on the Democratic National Committee's computer.
Sure.
Um Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Exactly.
And uh in fact, we know from emails, you know, that oh, we need Debbie's password.
Well, you know, Imran has all of those.
And from what uh we had learned um uh one of the comments uh that have been discovered was that he would work uh sometimes three days a week at the DNC.
We know the DNC wasn't paying him, right?
He was being paid by the congressional fund, but he was doing like three days a week, many weeks at the DNC doing their work there.
That's right.
And that's why I've said before there's actually more evidence that uh Imran and Pakistan uh hacked instead of the Russians.
The Russians may have got it from the Pakistan.
Well, and Enron was uploading this stuff to the cloud for goodness sakes.
Uh and and in fact they oh yeah, and they they uploaded uh uh over 40 different members of Congress's information to Biseras, uh now the attorney general of California to his uh server uh and so that you could access any one of these dozens of Democratic members of Congress's uh emails,
calendars, and in fact we know from the IG, and by the way, the FBI continues to tell their superiors, include including Jeff Sessions, and uh look, we keep investigating this a one thing, and there is absolutely no evidence.
There's no evidence.
Well, I know, and I can tell you as a fact, the inspector general, she was amazing, uh, and she's no indications at all that she has any Republican leadings.
I understood she'd been Democrat, but um she is also president of an international cybersecurity organization, and she, as at the time was Inspector General for the House of Representatives, she started investigating this as soon as she got wind of the wands dealings and and uh all the the improprieties and she has a massive amount of evidence.
Yeah, I'd like to see that evidence.
Congressman, I I'm up against a break.
Uh, let me ask you to stand by for just a moment.
We're talking with uh Congressman Louis Gomert, uh, who was there yesterday questioning Rod Rosenstein.
I do want to ask him about Rosenstein's refusal to recuse himself.
We'll be right back with more of the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, In for Sean.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean Hannity.
Yesterday, Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, said if it were appropriate for me to recuse myself, I would be more than happy to do so.
We're talking with Congressman Louis Gohmert, who used to be a judge.
And Congressman, put your judge hat on if you would for just a moment.
Rosenstein was interviewed by the special counsel as a key witness a year ago this month.
You can't be a witness, an investigator, a prosecutor, and a judge all ruled into one, can you?
No, you cannot.
He is one of the most recusable people in the whole group.
He's if he had had an ounce of ethics and morality, he would never have accepted the responsibility.
He was involved in the original Russian investigation to Russia trying to get U.S. uranium, and they squelched that as way it looks to me, in order that the sale could go through so that Hillary could get 145 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
Like you say, he's a a witness.
He wrote the letter that that got Comey fired.
He has all kinds of reasons that he's recusable, and the fact that he still continues to recuse himself tells you this is not a moral ethical leader that is handling this stuff.
It seems pretty clear to me.
Congressman Louie Goner Gomer, many, many thanks for being with us this Friday.
Uh, we always appreciate it.
Uh I'm sending you my book, The Russia Hoax.
Uh, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
I hope you'll read it.
Well, that I guarantee you I will, but that's one of the very few things we can accept.
We can accept a book.
But anyway, thanks so much, Greg.
Thanks for all your great work.
Congressman, thank you very much.
All right.
Uh we're gonna pause and take a quick break in just a moment.
Uh, but give us a call.
Our number is 800-941-7326, 800-941.
Want to talk to you about my book, The Russia Hoax.
You can go to Barnes Noble.com or Amazon and pre order it.
It'll be on store shelves in a week.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean Hennedy today.
Uh we've been talking about a variety of subjects, including immigration, a movement by Democrats to abolish ICE, the immigration and custom enforcement agency.
Gee, that's a great idea.
Not.
Uh, we've also been talking about uh the Russia hoax, which is the title of my book, which comes out in a couple of weeks.
And speaking of which, uh there's some breaking news uh reported by Fox News.
The headline is Michael Flynn's sentencing delayed by Mueller team for the third Time for those of you who haven't been following it all that closely, Michael Flynn, who's been accused of uh um giving false and misleading statements to the FBI when he was interviewed by two agents, one of which was the infamous Peter Strzok.
Um it turns out that Peter Strzok and the other agent who interviewed Flynn came away from the conversation and told James Comey and then Attorney General Sally Yates that uh Flynn was telling the truth.
And yet Robert Muller, the special counsel, knows better than the agents who were actually there and interviewed Flynn and accused uh Flynn and charged him with lying.
Even though the agents who interviewed him said he was telling the truth, he was not lying.
Well, the information from those agents is what's known as exculpatory evidence.
And under the law, exculpatory evidence has to be turned over to Flynn and his lawyers, and apparently it was not.
Is that the reason that Muller has now voluntarily delayed the sentencing of Michael Flynn?
And you know, if you're the judge on this case, wouldn't you be saying to Mr. Muller, wait a minute, you didn't hand over exculpatory evidence?
Uh why should this man plead guilty?
I'm gonna set aside the plea and dismiss any potential charges against him.
That's a possibility.
Any rate, we don't know, but uh Flynn wasn't sentenced today.
Uh and I suspect I know the reason why.
Let's go to our telephone callers.
Tim joins us from Enterprise Alabama.
Tim, we were talking about immigration with a couple of uh experts on the subject.
What are your thoughts?
Well, when are these open border folks gonna realize that our sovereign borders are akin to the walls of our house?
The vetting process is just like looking through the peephole.
Are you going to invite somebody over to your house that is not gonna abide by your house rules?
If Uncle Joe comes over and he's just a slob and just destroys your house, are you gonna let him just hang around and say, Hey, thanks, Uncle Joe?
It's nice to see you.
All these people that are so uh well off affluent, I'll bet you they live behind controlled borders.
They live in controlled doorman high-rises.
Um do you think some of these actors and actresses would like me to go out to their uh walled-in enclaves and say, hey, your house is nicer than my house.
I'm just gonna move in.
And while I'm here, why don't you do my laundry?
Why don't you feed me?
I get it.
I get it.
Let me just say that not all immigrants are slobs.
Um, so I'm uh sure you didn't mean to imply that.
Um but look, um, you know, the the analogy is an apt one that we have gated communities, we have uh walls in our home to protect ourselves.
Um why aren't we protecting the border as well?
So it's it's a good point.
Let me go to Benjamin in Phoenix, Arizona.
Um Benjamin, thanks very much for being with us.
What are your thoughts?
Uh hey, Greg.
Can't wait for your book, all that kind of stuff, but I want to get to what I'm gonna say.
Uh I'm a uh former Navy SEAL, um, and I wanted to just offer my thoughts.
I got back from overseas service in right about when Obama was coming in, and I saw I think what was going on for what it's worth.
And I think where we're at right now is we are in a cold civil war.
And this is part of the just a phase of what has been against us for arguably the past 100 years, which is socialism, communism, uh Nazism, which is basically good versus evil, if it's your classic.
But um, I'm just gonna just hit a couple points on this.
You know, in the beginning, they came out with World War I, Woodrow Wilson with uh progressivism, Lenin with the Russian Revolution, and with that, the concept of concentration camps came from the gulag, which is communism.
Socialism, uh the Nazis came around after communism and just copied them.
And then World War II happened.
Right.
And they won whether on both sides, whether the Nazis won or we won as the allies, communism, socialism survived and became solidified.
So draw the point together for me, will you?
Yeah.
Then the Cold War.
I mean, if we actually think we won the Cold War, I think we're just coming out of an occupation by socialism with this cold civil war.
We're turning the tide back right now.
And everybody listening uh over the past decade has been involved in this, whether they want to or not.
You know, they're trying to put their policies, the taxes, the uh getting rid of the bill of rights.
That's what this is all about.
All right, Benjamin in Phoenix, Arizona, thank you for your thoughts.
We appreciate it.
Let me go to uh James in California um who has a pretty good question, I think, about abuse of power.
James, thanks for being with us.
Yeah, no, my pleasure.
You guys are awesome.
And it seems to me that these guys are so arrogant that they've done this before, so coy, it's so evident by the testimony and how they answer the questions that this was not the first uh time that they abuse their power, right?
Be it in a political situation or otherwise.
Um so what's your feeling on that?
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right.
This is the arrogance of power, and power tends to corrupt.
Uh, and as the old saying goes, uh uh absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Uh and I think this is what has happened as the Department of Justice and the FBI have evolved over the years.
They view themselves uh as above the law, and that they are accountable to nobody, that they operate in their own world and you know I blame Congress to some extent because until recently they have never held the Department of Justice and the FBI accountable through oversight, which is their constitutional uh duty and right.
And so for too long, the you know, when the Department of Justice and the FBI is faced with questions by Congress, the Oversight Committee or Judiciary Committee or the Intelligence Committee, they obstruct.
They uh they conceal evidence and hide information, and they conjure up some fake excuse.
Oh, it's classified, or you know, it's an ongoing and we can't answer, it's an ongoing investigation, which are utter canards.
Uh especially since um all the members on the Intelligence Committee have security clearance for classified information.
But but because Congress didn't press them, they got away with it.
And so they became accustomed to feeling as though we can do anything we want, we can abuse the law, we can abuse our positions, we can subvert the rule of law, and in this particular case, which is the theme of my book, The Russia Hoax, they can undermine uh democratic uh politics and an electoral uh uh democracy.
That's what they were trying to do.
They were trying James Comey knew better than those dumb Americans, he thought, and I'm gonna save the nation.
I'm gonna clear Hillary Clinton so she can be president, and I'm going to sabotage Donald Trump with a fabricated phony uh theory.
I'm gonna frame Donald Trump, which is again the subtitle of of my book is The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
It is an abuse of power, uh, and we've seen abuse of power periodically throughout American history.
The most recent uh before this uh was was certainly Watergate.
Uh but this may Watergate may pale in comparison to what is occurring now.
Let's go to our next caller.
Uh Tom joins us.
Tom in San Diego, which is a beautiful town.
My cousins live there.
Um, thank you very much for being with us.
What are your thoughts?
Oh, hi.
Um the question I have is why did Hillary set up this illegal email system?
She risked so much given what she knew about uh the laws regarding uh using clo or sending classified information on something like this.
Why did she do it?
Well, I uh devoted a chapter of that into my in my book, chapter four.
And uh I believe she did it so that she could uh hide uh all of her activities, some of which were likely illegal, uh, that she was using her government position to uh in exchange for uh remuneration from foreign governments to the benefit of her foundation and her husband,
she was using her position of power uh to influence um uh the American government uh for the benefit of foreign countries.
And you know, she didn't want to be subject to a FOIA request.
And isn't it interesting that she got away with it for four years?
She managed to avoid all FOIA requests for the course of four years.
Every time somebody submitted a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department said we don't have those documents.
We don't have any documents responsive to and why?
Because it was nothing on her account.
Her account didn't exist.
And it wasn't until the Benghazi Committee uh began to uh subpoena records that finally Hillary Clinton and her lawyers and the State Department coughed up the truth that she had everything on her private email server, including a hundred and ten classified documents, classified center received at the time, um, which is arguably a hundred and ten felonies by Hillary Clinton.
And so I think the reason is clear.
She thought she could get away with it.
She almost did, but for Benghazi, we may not have known even now that she had all of her documents on a private server.
Let's go to our next caller, uh Steve in Montana.
Steve.
Hi, Greg.
Uh I know you can probably have the answer to this in your book, but I don't want to wait the two weeks.
Uh there's two questions.
One is why is it it was okay for Hillary to use views and GPS to find dirt Russian dirt on Donald Trump?
But the Democrats are so incensed about uh Donald Trump supposedly getting any dirt on Hillary.
And the second question is remembering that Russian lawyer uh Natalia Novoskosha or whatever her name was.
Right.
Who had the meeting with Donald Trump Jr.
Uh she met with Fusion GPS before and after that meeting.
She's never been in this uh uh interviewed by the Muller team.
When you couple that with the stone uh uh approach, uh I'm looking at this are these attempts at entrapment and how many entrapments do you have to do that fail before you start saying this isn't working?
Well, Robert Mueller is in the business of entrapment, and so is the FBI.
Uh as for why the Russian lawyer as of a couple of months ago hadn't been in interviewed uh by the special counsel, I think it's because the special counsel realizes that her meeting in Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. and others isn't a violation of any law.
Uh if you look at the Federal Campaign Election Act, it says foreign nationals can participate in campaigns.
They can attend meetings, they can provide ideas, they can open their mouths and talks talk.
It's not a crime to talk to a Russian.
That was, you know, one of the great myths perpetuated by Democrats in the media.
Oh, this is collusion.
Really?
What is collusion is Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying money to a foreign national, a British spy, to talk to Russians to gather information uh to be used in a political campaign.
That is a crime under the Federal Campaign Election Act, and yet there's no special counsel investigating Hillary Clinton and the Democrats for that.
Uh, we're gonna pause and uh take a quick break here.
We're gonna be back with more of your phone calls.
Our number is 800-941-7326.
I'm Greg Jarrett sending in for Sean Hannity.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
And welcome back to the Hun Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean, who richly deserves the day off today.
It's been a great opportunity to be here for three hours to talk about my upcoming book, The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
It'll be out in bookstores in a couple of weeks, but you can pre-order it on BarnesandNoble.com and Amazon.com, and you can go to Hannity.com.
There's a link there, or go to my at Greg Jarrett on Twitter.
But the title tells you what it's about.
I lay out the case of how top figures at the FBI and the Department of Justice deliberately used and abused their position of power to subvert our system of justice and undermine the democratic process.
They twisted and contorted the law to absolve Hillary Clinton, and then they went after Donald Trump without legal justification to frame him for crimes he did not commit.
Thank you for joining us.
It's been a great three hours.
I'm Greg Jarrett, in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
