Best of Hannity: Always Fighting for America - 7.4
As the country celebrates Independence Day, The Best of Sean Hannity recaps the constant fight for America with interviews from Roger Stone and Michael Caputo. Plus, Sean's interview with President Trump in Singapore and a moving tribute to Charles Krauthammer. Here's to fighting the good fight for America! 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 MyPillow, and it's changed my life.
I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
And the good news, you can too.
Just go to mypillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
You get 50% off to MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows.
Now, MyPillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow tossing internee that's not working for you.
Just go to mypillow.com right now.
Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, and comfortable, and deep healing, and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Sean.
Michael Caputo contacted me and he said that he had been contacted by a man using an alias, as it turns out, Henry Greenberg, who had information that he said would be of great value to the Trump campaign.
Every congressman would take the call if they got that call.
Oh, we got info on your op research on your opponent.
I took the meeting, and Henry Greenberg turns out to be an FBI informant of Russian descent who's been admitted to the country nine times on informant visas, who is a violent felon who otherwise could not be in the country.
And then he tries to entrap me, but he gives away the game when he says he wants $2 million for negative information on Hillary.
When I tell him I don't have $2 million, he says it's not your money I want, it's Donald Trump's money.
I think it's the first known example of the Peter Stroke insurance policy.
I think it was an FBI plant seeking to compromise, to entrap me and to compromise Trump.
All right, our two Sean Hannity show, write down our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
That was Roger Stone.
He's got a brand new book out, by the way.
It's called Stone's Rules: How to Win It, Politics, and what else is it?
Politics.
General Life.
Politics, Business, and Style, right?
Yes, exactly.
All right.
Now, before we get to the issue at hand, that was you on our TV show.
So I read your book.
I actually read it.
It's by the way, it's a fun book.
It's a great read.
And you know what?
It has really entertaining Roger Stone-esque rules in there, which crack me up because everybody knows you're a character with a huge tattoo on your back that you love to show the TV cameras, which also makes me laugh.
So every other rule is about how to dress.
And I'm looking at it.
Well, I'm a total loser because I wear jeans and t-shirts and baseball hats on backwards.
And that's how I live my life.
And I'm like, I'm never going to pass the, I'm never going to be a success in life.
Actually, Sean, that's not true.
I've never seen you on TV once in which you didn't look sharp.
You have Greek taste in neckties.
A lot of them are Trump ties.
That's all true.
And I've been very upfront about it.
I do like, listen, way before he was president, just to let everyone calm their ass down.
You know, this is a fascinating story to me.
And I've been watching.
You actually believe Robert Mueller has a target on your back and that Robert Mueller may try to indict you.
And for what reason?
That's an excellent question.
All my political activities in 2016 towards electing Donald Trump are perfectly legal and fully disclosed.
I think I'm being persecuted because I'm a supporter of the president.
I'm a friend of Paul Manafort's.
And I think they would like to find some extraneous offense on which they could pressure me to give them something on Donald Trump.
That, Sean, is something that will never happen.
It's not a fun feeling, is it, to think that you have the power of a special counsel and unlimited resources and a team that I've talked an awful lot about, why the rest of the country doesn't seem concerned that the special counsel Robert Mueller has put together a team of only Democratic donors, no Republican donors, no independent donors.
And then Genie Ray, who was a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, that's part of his team.
We now know that there were three Trump-hating FBI guys that were a part of the team, including Peter Strzzok himself.
And we also know Andrew Weissman, who has the most atrocious ethical record of any lawyer I think I have ever heard of in the United States.
Well, he's the pit bull of Mr. Mueller, and that's troubling to me.
And my big question is, why doesn't anyone else in the country seem to feel or understand that that is an abusively biased group of people?
Well, not only that, but Sean, you're absolutely right.
Having federal prosecutors unfettered poking through every single molecule of your personal life, your business life, your political activities, asking intensely personal questions of my associates and former associates.
How did he get along with his wife?
How's his relationship with his children?
Does he drink a lot?
Does he use drugs?
Where's his money come from?
Who are his clients?
I thought this was about Russian collusion, but it's clearly not.
This is a hit squad.
This is a get-Trump squad, and their job is to undo the results of the last election.
Robert Mueller's record is atrocious.
This is a guy who arrested the wrong three guys in the anthrax matter.
The guy they did arrest dies mysteriously in custody, fails to investigate reports of the Sarasota Flight School, where five of nine 9-11 hijackers are training, who lies to leave four innocent guys in jail in Boston to protect mafia informants of the FBI, and who mules the uranium specimens to Moscow in the Uranium One matter.
When Lindsey Graham says he's widely, it's respected on a bipartisan basis.
What was he talking about?
I don't know.
I really, you know, here is, I think, a real big problem we have.
And go back to Judge Ellis and what I thought was one of the biggest judicial beatdowns from the bench I've ever seen.
And when Judge Ellis said about the special counsel, let me see, I think I understand this, that you go back to the Justice Department, you reopen a case from 2005 that has to do with tax fraud, has nothing to do with Russia.
You're supposedly investigating Russia collusion.
And you reopen that case, but it had to do with Ukraine.
And then what you want to do here is you want to put the screws, his words, not mine, to Paul Manafort.
So Paul Manafort begins to feel the heat and the pressure.
And then he begins to sing or even compose his words, meaning subhoran perjury is my interpretation.
And then, by the way, then you get to prosecute or impeach Donald Trump.
That seems to be the obvious case that's going on here.
And by the way, he said that with Andrew Weissman in the courtroom.
And it seems like that's what they're doing with everybody because they don't have any evidence on their own.
But their Achilles heel are the unconstitutional illegal FISA warrants that I believe were levied against Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and according to the New York Times on January 20th, 2017, Roger Stone.
Government in the Manafort case continues to insist that Manafort was never under surveillance at any time, even though the New York Times, the Washington Post, AP, Fox have all reported otherwise.
They don't want to talk about that illegal, politically based surveillance, which is why Manafort's sitting in jail.
That's why they're squeezing him to plead guilty because they don't want to go to trial and answer that question.
You know, it really is going to be very interesting because, look, I've not had a lot of experience with judges in my life, but I do know this.
You lie to a judge, you're going to be in deep trouble.
And we know on four separate occasions, the original FISA warrant application and three subsequent applications.
The final one, interestingly, signed by Rod Rosenstein, used Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies, many that have been debunked, that was funneled money to an op research group, then to a foreign national who I thought wasn't supposed to influence American elections, who himself, under an interrogatory in Great Britain, said that he didn't think any of the intelligence was verified or corroborated, and maybe it was 50-50.
And that becomes the basis of FISA warrants to spy on American citizens, Roger.
That's not the United States of America.
That's not constitutional.
And is it coincidental that even today, Rod Rosenstein is refusing to hand over information regarding those very FISA warrants to the Congress?
This is the cover-up.
This is their Achilles heel, and they know it.
A FISA warrant can only be issued against an American citizen if they are actively involved in espionage on behalf of a foreign power against the United States.
That clearly was not the case here.
This is much, much worse than Watergate.
This is the use of the power and the authority of the state to spy on Donald Trump's campaign for president.
No, it's even worse than that, though.
No, they literally put the fix in on Hillary Clinton, who did commit felonies and who did obstruct justice.
The case, there's never been a more clear case of either the violation, mishandling, destruction of classified information, violation of the Espionage Act, nor the obstruction of justice case, which is deleting subpoenaed emails, acid-washing your hard drive, and beating up your devices with hammers.
And why do I suspect if you did it, you would be handcuffed and you'd be in solitary confinement like Paul Manafort right now?
Well, and if we had an attorney general and an assistant attorney general committed to the rule of law, we might be prosecuting those crimes.
But instead, we're covering up an effort by the Obama Justice Department to rig the previous presidential election.
Let me ask you this.
You recently added an addendum to your testimony.
I think it was before the House Intel Committee and Devon Newness.
And in that, you said you wanted to add, apparently, Michael Caputo had asked you to meet with this particular guy that I guess he said was Russian.
He knew he was Russian.
I didn't know he was Russian until I met with him, and then it was pretty clear from his accent.
But yes, I simply just did not recall this.
It was a 20-minute meeting.
It was ludicrous, the idea that Trump would pay $2 million for documents.
But as I said earlier, I have no reason to dissemble or hide the meeting because I acted properly.
I rejected the effort.
And you met with this guy for 20 minutes, and it turns out it was an FBI informant who actually was from Russia, but was on a visa because I guess he had nine different visas given to be an FBI informant, even though he had committed violent felonies in Russia.
Yes, exactly.
So how does the guy who spent 10 years in prison in Russia for a gun crime enter the country?
Hopefully the House Intelligence Committee will get to the bottom of why he was in the country, or more importantly, how he was in the country in 2016.
CNN, by the way, reports this story today, never mentions, not once, that he was an FBI informant, as if they're not watching.
They're not listening.
It's extraordinary.
So what do you do?
I mean, and what does that mean that, you know, we have talked about the FISA abuse.
We've talked about the felonies Hillary committed.
We've talked about a rigged investigation, an exoneration written before an investigation.
We've talked about, and the IG report pointed out in unbelievable, shocking detail, the hatred and antipathy towards the president and the love of Hillary and how they went all in to help her and destroy him.
And when you put all of this together, and then you've got spies literally in the Trump campaign, and they had their, they used the lying dossier to get these FISA warrants.
How do you fix this abuse of power to this extent?
Because you're still living through it.
I mean, do you fear you might get indicted?
Do you fear they're going to bang in your door like they did Manafort in some early dawn raid with guns blazing?
Well, if I say yes, then MSNBC will report that Stone fears his criminal culpability in extraneous crimes.
It's entirely possible, but it would have to be contrived.
Let me go back to this addendum that you gave or addition you gave to your testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes' committee, and this meeting with this individual that wanted you to pay him $2 million for op research on Hillary.
And I think the first thing we've got to point out is op research and paying for op research is pretty much standard operating procedure in politics today, right?
Well, actually, you rarely pay for it, but it's offered to you, and most of it is garbage.
As a political professional, it would be irresponsible not to check it out and see if there's anything of value.
Well, that's my point.
And he never described it as emails.
He never told me what it was.
I just thought it was a con job at the time, just a shakedown for myself.
Why did you not remember it when you testified, considering this whole thing was about Trump-Russia collusion?
Because just knowing the media, they want to jump on anything that can.
And they're going to say, really?
Roger didn't remember?
Here's why.
Because it was May of 2016, and Hillary had not yet played the Russia card.
Russo-phobia had not yet become an issue.
People say, well, $2 million, that's not a lot of money.
I've found Donald Trump as a friend of his and a confidant of his and a consultant to him for 39 years.
He's a billionaire.
He had said publicly he would spend whatever it took.
I've seen people try to get millions out of him for years.
So the number was not jarring.
It was unrealistic because Trump was not paying for any opposition research.
He spent less than anybody.
I know.
So that's interesting.
So this was in May of 2016.
Russia wasn't on the radar in any way at that time.
And you're basically, you sit with this guy, you think he's a fraud, and you just see, okay, go get $2 million from someone else, and you just forget it and move on.
And then you never brought it to the president or anybody in his campaign.
Correct.
I never discussed it with Donald Trump as candidate or as president.
Never discussed it with anyone in the campaign because it was a ludicrous idea.
It was not until Caputo was interviewed by Robert Mueller's people, who, by the way, seemed to know all about this, interestingly enough, that it jarred his memory.
In other words, that would be an FBI informant, and you believe a setup.
A setup, in other words, for you.
Exactly.
About Russia, which is an interesting ⁇ it's interesting in terms of the timeline because nobody was thinking about Russia then.
But it is about the time that the Australian ambassador reaches out for Papadopoulos.
By the way, they didn't meet in a bar.
This was pre-scheduled.
And I believe that is the case.
Well, May was the month that Strzzok and Comey were writing the exoneration, but they wouldn't interview Hillary until July.
But yet that exoneration was being written with the term gross negligence in it and the fact that it was likely foreign entities had hacked into Hillary's email.
By the way, everybody hacked into that email server of hers.
Everybody, apparently.
Well, I believe that to be the case.
As I said on your TV show the other night, I believe this is the earliest manifestation of the Peter Strzok insurance policy.
This is very clearly an FBI sting, which fortunately I reject out of hand.
The whole thing was over in 20 minutes.
Good for you.
I bet you're glad you did.
I mean, even though...
The guy shows up at the meeting wearing a MAGA hat and a Trump t-shirt.
Why are we inviting...
Why are we inviting violent felons and sending them into political campaigns, but only one campaign?
It's a question we need an answer to.
Roger Stone, thank you for being with us.
Sean, thanks for having me.
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 $100 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?
He was present for the interview.
Huh.
I think the overarching point here is that this whole issue has got to come to resolution at some point.
Special Counsel Mueller and his team, I hope, will wrap up the investigation and clear the air one way or the other whether or not there was a collusion with the Russians.
This is a cloud that's hanging over the country and certainly hanging over this presidency.
And I do hope that happens.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, Trey Gowdy, yeah, rightly pointing out everything that we have been asking, questions now that we've had that go back for many, many months.
And it's interesting to me, very interesting to me, the Trump critic and, of course, CNN commentator, fake news commentator, James Clapper, is out there saying what he's saying.
I think he wants it to end.
I think it's wishful thinking because I suspect that he knows when they get to him and his work and handiwork, if you will, and that of Brennan and others and the unmasking scandal and the spies that were inside the Trump campaign, that it's going to get a little too hot in the kitchen for him.
And he probably wants this to go away, which it might eventually now happen.
Joining us now, his book is out in next month, early next month.
It's called The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Greg Jarrett is here.
You know, I guess the thing that is so amazing, I'm looking right now at the particular chapter where you actually have the text messages between Strzzok and Paige.
Right.
And Peter Strzok is the lead guy in the Clinton investigation, is there in the interview of Hillary Clinton, is there in the interview of General Flynn.
And he's also at the forefront.
He's the leader of the Russia investigation that we're now finding started way before the official start date because we know that Michael Caputo, who's going to join us in the next half hour, that he was approached by a Russian with a felony record through the Yazoo as an FBI informant and basically saying they had dirt on Hillary Clinton.
And then that's how the meeting with Roger Stone took place, but nothing ever happened or came of it.
You know, Peter Strzok is the guy who changed the language of the exoneration statement, which initially found that Hillary Clinton violated the law and committed crimes, grossly negligent.
He got on his computer June 6th and changed the words gross negligence to extremely careless.
And who was bending over his shoulder, helping him with that language?
His mistress, Lisa Page.
And then two other people were in the room helping, but they're concealed by the inspector general.
And nobody asked the IG, why are you hiding their names?
All we know about.
We know about one of them now.
Yes.
What is it, Gladstein?
Yes, but there's several.
One is called a lead analyst.
The other is called lawyer number one.
The other one's lawyer number two.
So we're not quite sure which is which.
I hear there may be as many as 25 other agents that are in the same boat as Struck and Page that also had involvement in a lot of this.
It may be.
You know, the interesting thing about the changing of the statement that found that she was guilty and then changed the language is that James Comey was asked about that and confronted with his initial statement in which he found her grossly negligent.
And he said, you know, I don't remember writing that.
I don't remember writing that.
How could you not remember the most important part of the entire investigation?
So the Hollywood reporter had a hit piece out on me today, and apparently they're upset with the use of the word acid wash when I talk about the hard drive.
Actually, the headline is, Sean Hannity can't stop repeating one of Trump's biggest lies.
And then they go through that I said, how many times I say acid wash.
I usually say delete, acid wash, bleach bit.
Right.
It's a term.
Do you see any difference between using a software program bleach bit that is designed to remove all forensics, meaning any ability for anybody to find old emails or anything on a computer?
Is there any difference?
Would it be an accurate description to say you're acid washing the hard drive clean?
They are functionally synonymous terms.
And if you ask the founder of Bleach Bit or the designer of it, he'd tell you that.
I've interviewed him.
And as a matter of fact, he has told us that.
Yes.
So they're identical terms, synonymous.
But this is typical media trying to pick apart small things because with no difference at all.
But here's how they say it: they don't deny my claim that it happened.
They write, the FBI, in a report released in September 2016, two days before Trump's first reference to acid washing, explained what happened.
This is their explanation.
An unnamed employee of the company that maintained Clinton's private server, they could have added illegal private server.
They could have said the one that was hacked by at least six foreign entities, including confidential top secret information.
They didn't put that in there.
Anyway, Platte Rivers Networks, they forgot to comply, forgot.
Yeah, you don't.
With a December 14 request from a Clinton aide to delete emails older than 60 days.
They forgot to comply then.
And then in late March of 2015, the employee realized the mistake and sometime between March 25th and 31st, 2015, deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the server and used BleachBit to delete the exported PST files that he had created on the server system containing Clinton's emails.
And then they write, BleachBit sounds like a chemical product, but it's actually a free online deletion service, or as the company puts it, it doesn't matter because at the time they deleted it, it had been subpoenaed.
That's right.
And they knew it had been subpoenaed, and they defied a subpoena, and they obstructed justice and should have been charged.
Instead, these guys were given immunity in exchange for nothing.
What prosecutor gives immunity for free?
That never happens.
Just like, look, we actually had Andrew Zeem.
He was on this program.
Let me play for you what he said to us.
It certainly is a sophisticated device.
Of course, a cloth can only wipe fingerprints, but Bleach Bit can wipe that information.
So as Trey Gowdy said, not even God can read it.
Yeah, so in other words, it really works.
Your technology.
In other words, for example, if I delete on my computer right now a bunch of emails, if I delete a bunch of whatever, it's still on my computer.
It would be recoverable by a computer forensic expert, by the FBI, for example.
They'd be able to find every single thing I did on my computer if I just deleted it the old-fashioned way.
The old-fashioned way, you're right, doesn't permanently delete information.
In the case of email, things are a lot more complicated, and that's why Hillary took a two-pronged approach, right?
Her aide smashed her mobile devices with a hammer because there's a copy of the emails on the mobile device.
And then the IT guy from Platte River Networks ran BleachBit on the server, and that deletes another copy of the emails that were on the server end.
So this was a would BleachBit or the use of Bleach Bit, if you found out I was under investigation by the FBI, and let's say I called you, you're the founder, you're the lead developer of Bleach Bit, and I call you and I say, Andrew, Andrew, it's Sean Hannity.
The FBI wants to look at my computer.
What do you think I ought to do?
And you tell me to use BleachBit.
And you'd say, if you really want to hide stuff, you want to erase stuff, Bleach Bit works.
You tell me that, right?
And you're confident in your product.
BleachBit can, yeah, definitely delete information so that people can't hide it.
Oh, sounds like acid washing to me.
I'm sticking with acid washing.
Well, then you called it a program.
And I've been with you repeatedly when you have referred to it as a program.
Let's go back to your book, and you put all of the comments of Struck and Paige.
Right.
And then you see that the very same people that it's obvious Hillary obstructed justice.
You have no doubt.
She obstructed justice and she mishandled classified documents and destroyed them.
Yes.
And those are all felonies.
All felonies.
And do you believe, as I do, that the fix was in which struck Paige McCabe?
Just a year before Comey cleared Hillary Clinton, he prosecuted Brian Nishimura, a naval reservist, for doing exactly what Hillary Clinton did on a smaller scale.
And in the FBI press release, it literally says he did it without intent and they prosecuted him under gross negligence.
How could Comey then a year later say there are no such cases in which a prosecutor has brought such a.
Are there statute of limitations or could Hillary still be charged for these.
She could still be charged.
Not all of them have run, but some have.
What could she be charged with now?
Well, if you backdate from now all the way to the later classified documents out of 110 of them, some of them have the statute has not run.
So she could be prosecuted on those.
But on the early ones, no.
So this guy, Brian Nishima.
Or in the case, Christian Saucy.
He was negligence and forced to plead guilty.
And he did what Hillary Clinton did.
So when Comey stood in front of cameras July 5th and said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case, his prosecutors and his FBI had brought such a case.
And all of this is in your book.
Sure.
So that is the scheme.
It's called the Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary.
All right, you explained the clear Hillary part and frame Donald Trump.
What's the framing Donald Trump part?
Everything that we've seen?
That and a whole lot more.
They began the investigation, a criminal investigation, without evidence of a crime, which violates FBI rules.
They then decided, let's make it a counterintelligence probe because we know we have no evidence of a crime, and yet they had no intelligence.
And Peter Strzok signed the documents on July 31st, officially launching the probe, but the FBI began it long before that, and they were using confidential informants.
Unbelievable.
So we have confidential informants.
We have Hillary bought and paid for Russian lies that have been debunked, put together by a foreign national, paid through funneled money through a law firm to an op research group to the foreign national.
Right.
She's not being investigated for using a foreign national.
Trump, which didn't use a foreign national through payments, is being investigated.
It's a pretty sick world we're living in.
Oh, it surely is.
It's a double-standard world.
Hillary Clinton can do anything she wants.
That's why we always talk about equal justice under the law, equal application under our laws.
And now, if we don't fix it, this is going to end very badly for the country.
We'll continue more.
Greg Jarrett, his new book, it's out just a couple of weeks now, The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
Guaranteed number one New York Times bestseller.
You can pre-order it on Barnes Noble or Amazon.
And Hannity.com.
Yes.
Hey, listen, it's the summer inventory clearance sale from our friends at Shamoni.
And right now, when you order Genucelle, remember they use natural peptides, plant stem cells, to get rid of bags and puffiness under your eyes, and it works in 12 hours, or you get your money back.
Order Genucelle.
You'll get the all-new Genucelle eyelid lift if you have droopy, saggy kind of eyelids.
And that works also for free.
Why would you go to a doctor and risk what doctors sometimes get wrong?
You want to do it the best natural way, and that's where Shamani products come in.
Claire from North Carolina writes, I've been using this product three days.
My husband already noticed the texture of my skin.
It looks so good.
It feels nice and smooth and lots of moisture.
And the bags under my eyes are now just minimal.
You guaranteed that it'll work for you in 12 hours or you get your money back.
No questions asked.
It's 800 Skin509.
800 Skin 509.
Ordered today.
You say goodbye to bags and puffiness tomorrow.
Right now, you get express shipping also free.
800 Skin509 genucelle.com.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
Fighting the Trump-hating liberal media one day at a time.
This is The Sean Hannity Show.
And as we continue, Greg Jarrett is in studio with us.
The Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton, frame Donald Trump.
And I'll be honest, I watched you write the whole book.
A lot of people sell books.
They don't write it all.
You wrote every word yourself.
You know, the tough part of it was all of the footnotes.
There are 700 footnotes because I wanted to source everything.
And I made the conscious decision, even though I have anonymous sources who are very well placed and very reliable, I chose not to use them for the book.
So everything in that book, all the laws, the case laws, the statutes, all of the facts are in the endnotes.
You know, I'll just want to give chapter titles because it's sort of like I watched you give birth to all of them and events were happening as you were writing the book, which is amazing.
And then so I'd go in, I'd say, well, you got to alter chapter six now because something had just happened that day.
But, you know, you first talk about the insidious abuse of power.
And this is the heart of our constitutional republic.
Are we going to be a country that is based on a rule of law predicated on a constitution?
It's either yes or no.
We're going to either have equal application of our laws or not.
You give the full rundown on a chapter on Hillary's email server, Comey contorting the law to basically rig the investigation, how the fix is in there.
You do have one chapter on Clinton greed and Uranium 1, which we're going to get back to eventually.
Then you talk about the fraudulent case against Donald Trump, the fabricated dossier used against Trump, the government abuse of surveillance, and, of course, FISA meeting with Russians is not a crime, which nobody wants to hear.
And then, of course, firing Flynn, Sessions' recusal, and obstruction of justice, and the illegitimate appointment of Mueller.
It's a full, comprehensive, I'm going to call this the Bible for those of us that care about the biggest abuse of power scandal in our history.
We will refer to this book for years to come.
You know, I think it is a thorough and complete examination to date of all of the evidence that the FBI decided for political reasons to absolve Hillary Clinton in the face of obvious clear-cut crimes.
And then, on the very day that Hillary Clinton was cleared, the FBI first met with the British spy who had compiled this completely laughable, phony dossier.
And they never told four FISA court judges the truth.
That's right.
They never verified, and it turned out to be false information.
Even Comey himself says it's unverified.
Unverified.
And the only reference.
That's the bulk of applications.
That's right.
The only reference they make to it is buried in two footnotes, and you would have to be able, you'd have to be clairvoyant to discern what it meant.
So the FISA judges were left in the dark.
It's called The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
It's just a couple of weeks now from its debut.
Greg Jarrett, who's been all over this, it will be a book we refer to a lot as people get indicted in the next year to come.
All right, we'll take a quick break when we come back.
Michael Caputo, well, it appears that an FBI informant tried to set him and Roger Stone up according to their story.
They'll tell us all about it next.
Is what's right with America.
You're listening to the Sean Hannity Show.
Michael Caputo contacted me and he said that he had been contacted by a man using an alias, as it turns out, Henry Greenberg, who had information that he said would be of great value to the Trump campaign.
And Henry Greenberg turns out to be an FBI informant of Russian descent who's been admitted to the country nine times on informant visas, who is a violent felon who otherwise could not be in the country.
And then he tries to entrap me, but he gives away the game when he says he wants $2 million for negative information on Hillary.
When I tell him I don't have $2 million, he says it's not your money I want.
It's Donald Trump's money.
I think it was an FBI plant seeking to entrap me and to compromise Trump.
Michael Caputo set up the meeting for Roger Stone.
Both of them were interviewed in the summer and fall of 2017.
They were interviewed a long time after we first requested to interview with them, meaning that a letter was sent to both of them.
It laid out the scope of what we wanted to talk to them about, which was primarily Russian contacts that they had.
And they had a long time to prepare with their lawyers.
They both came in with lawyers.
So based on my experience of examining witnesses, I concluded that they had prepared and they knew what we were going to ask.
And so to say that there was a failure of memory by both individuals to recall this meeting, I just don't buy it.
I think they just lied through their teeth to protect the fact that they were willing and eager to take a meeting with Russians who were offering dirt.
Do you think that Roger Stone perjured himself in his testimony?
Or Michael Caputo?
Except when you are testifying in this Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, which will not turn over the transcripts to Bob Mueller or to the public.
So they are shielded by Republicans who will not allow Mueller's team to see the transcripts.
Did Mueller ask for that testimony?
You know, I can't go into that.
I can just tell you that we have requested, Mr. Schiff has requested to Devin Nunes that we be able to send over to special counsel some of the crimes that we believe were committed through failure to recall or just straight up deception that we saw.
And the Nunes team has refused to cooperate with us on that and at least send him over to Mueller.
So yes, I do believe that both Caputo and Stone, that special counsel should be able to look at that for perjury.
All right, there you have, well, predictable Democratic, let's continue the phishing expedition no matter how far it goes and how deep it's found.
Listening to what Roger Stone and Michael Caputo both said, there was no there there.
You know, this is a dirty little secret fact, and that is that Democrats, they take meetings all the time when it's about op research on their opponents.
It is standard operating procedure.
You mean to say that if somebody calls over to a Senate campaign or somebody calls over to a congressional campaign, oh, I've got all the dirt on your opponents, you're not going to sit and listen as long as nothing happened.
And by the way, it's not illegal, especially if it would be the truth.
In the case of everything that was presented before the FISA court judge, remember that was all bought and paid for lies.
Anyway, Michael Caputo is with us, Republican strategist.
He's been targeted by the left for his associations with the president.
You know, one of the scariest things you said to me is after you had a meeting with, I guess, Mueller's team, you came out of the meeting, but the last thing they said to you, and we will be watching.
Meaning, how did you interpret it?
Because I know how I interpret it.
It was a very chilling statement.
Thanks for having me on, by the way, Sean.
When the prosecutor said that to me, he said, you know, Mr. Caputo, we know that you're having problems paying for your legal fees.
You know, that's why we agreed to pay for your airplane fare and your hotel for this interview.
But we're watching you on television.
We want to make, you know, make sure you know that.
It was very, it was, you know, it was very easy math for me to understand that two plus two equals four.
And that was them telling me, watch what you say.
And, you know, up until that point, Sean, I was really concerned about being brought in because, as you know, I was up to over $100,000 in legal fees.
And I live in a little village outside of Buffalo, New York.
I don't make Washington or New York City money.
My wife and I were very concerned about how we were going to pay our legal fees.
But, you know, after these meetings with Mahler, our GoFundMe ended up raising enough money to pay for our legal fees and more.
And I'm not really concerned about the fact that they're listening to your show right now and taking notes on what I'm saying because I know a fact that I was approached via telephone while I was in Trump Tower by an FBI informant, someone who attested under oath himself that he was an FBI informant for 17 years.
And I know that that actually shifts the timeline from July to May, two months.
Now, this is important when you say shift the timeline, meaning the beginnings of the Russia investigation.
Right, exactly.
So this guy that's a felon and an FBI informant, it turns out he's an FBI informant.
You didn't know it at the time, did you?
No, I didn't.
He called me up on the telephone, said his name was Henry Greenberg.
That doesn't really raise to mind any particular Russian fascination.
And at the time, as you remember, in May of 2016, nobody was even talking about Russia.
It wasn't part of the Democrat mantra yet.
And Hillary Clinton had yet to distribute her first press release accusing Russian contacts within the Trump campaign.
Our antenna weren't even up.
But I'll tell you, after I really, you know, when they asked me, were you approached by any Russians with any information about Hillary, I disclosed this Greenberg contact.
He claimed to be named Henry Greenberg.
He's actually got it in the beginning.
Absolutely.
And then you're going to be able to do that.
And when did he first approach you?
In late May 2016 via telephone.
So this is way before the Papadopoulos Downer meeting, and then, of course, Peter Strzok and Company, the lead investigator, flying to London and working through diplomatic channels to get the approval to interview the diplomat from Australia, Downer, a guy who also donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, correct?
Correct.
And there's all this activity going on in May, and the Department of Justice says our full investigation started in July.
But here's the important part.
And I learned this from Mark Wauk, who is a retired FBI agent, and a piece he wrote for American Thinker called A Guide to Spygate.
Just came out, I think, on Friday.
You know, they're telling the truth.
The full investigation started in July.
But according to FBI parlance, the full investigation must be predicated by a preliminary investigation.
And the preliminary investigation must be predicated by an official assessment.
All three are investigations.
And Sean, in all three of those phases, they can use FBI informants.
So they've been carefully using their language when they talk about when the investigation began.
What they're going to admit to now with these documents they're so shy about with Congress, these documents are going to show that the preliminary investigation was going on in May, and they were sending FBI informants to me and Roger Stone and Papadopoulos and others.
It's pretty unbelievable.
All right.
So this guy approaches you and he said he wanted to meet Roger?
He approached, specifically approached my business partner at an art exhibition our company was sponsoring.
When you met him, did you think he had a Russian accent?
I met him on the telephone only, and I initially thought he had a Russian accent or an Israeli accent.
I knew he wasn't.
I assumed, as I told the Mueller people, that he was an American citizen of Russian origin.
And that really set them off at my Mueller interview.
They said he's not an American citizen.
He's a Russian citizen.
And I thought, how do you know this guy?
And so I hired, because of the funding through my GoFundMe fundraising, I was able to hire private investigators in the United States and Russia.
And while we were running this private investigation, we discovered absolute, incontrovertible, irrefutable proof that he was an FBI informant for 17 years.
In fact, he filed a 2015 document, a signed affidavit under oath, swearing that he was an FBI informant for 17 years.
He did that in 2015.
And in that document, Sean, he showed the paperwork behind every single one of his FBI informant visas.
So he's only here on FBI informant visas, and that's why he's still here today.
Unbelievable.
Now, the issue, and this is a guy that committed violent crimes, isn't it?
No doubt.
He was arrested in Los Angeles for assault with a deadly weapon, a gun crime, and the FBI deported him in 2000.
But then they brought him back at least nine times, right?
They brought him back from Russian prison.
He was found guilty when they deported him to Russia.
The FBI told the Russian authorities that he was coming under a new name, and he actually, this is a man, you have a warrant on it.
The Russians arrested him after he got back and put him in prison, and he disappeared and reappeared in the United States working for the FBI.
This is all, you can see all of this at Democratdossier.org.
That's the results of our entire private investigation, Democratdosier.org.
This man, it's not whether it's unquestionable that he's an FBI informant.
The question is, was he on lunch break when he decided to meet with Roger Stone?
Did he take his own time and do that?
No, he was doing it on behalf of the FBI, obviously, right?
And so that puts their, number one, it puts another spy inside the Trump campaign.
And Sept, this spy is actively seeking out, actively seeking out with no reason to, a type of investigation.
Obviously, it had to be signed off by high-ranking people in the FBI and DOJ.
And almost, it sounds like a trap to me.
Sounds like you guys were set up to me.
We were, I believe, as well.
Roger and I are certain of it.
We believe that the House Republicans are going to find out what kind of visa he was on.
But the more I've learned about this from my investigators and others and from Mark Wauk's article in American Thinker, you know, he was given what they call an S-visa, which is the FBI informant visa.
They call it a public benefit visa, which can be done fairly quickly.
And I understand now that the Russian lawyer who met with Don Jr., Veselnitskaya, she also got an FBI informant visa to come in the country to do the meeting in Trump Tower.
Isn't that amazing?
It's unbelievable.
I mean, the whole thing.
It's coming apart at the seams.
All right, hang in there one second.
Michael Caputo is with how many times have you been to Robert Mueller's office for little coffee chats?
Well, just once, but I think I'm going to get frequent flyer miles out of this one, I think.
Oh, you think you've revealed this?
You think you're going back again?
Well, you know, I don't think you can out an FBI informant without having some consequences, but I'm really not all that worried because I found out that Trump supporters are there behind me.
Well, you were going to lose your house, and I guess you put a GoFundMe page up, and people saved your house from having to be sold, right?
They did.
And by the way, Sean, without their funding, I wouldn't have been able to find out this guy is an FBI informant.
The MAGA people, the people who are in the United States.
Wow.
They found it out.
All right.
Stay there, Michael Caputo, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
Listen, I love my friends over at Liberty Safe.
They make literally the best safe on the planet, and they make it so simple and easy to own one.
And we all have valuables, we all have important papers we've got to protect and we all have firearms.
We want to be uh, responsible gun owners.
Right now, from Liberty SAFE, you can get 12 months interest-free payments, zero down, zero apr, and they even offer safes for as low as 20 bucks a month.
20 bucks a month, that's it now.
The reason I bought several Liberty safes years ago was they're the best in price, the best in feature, the best in service.
They have a lifetime warranty and they offer in-home delivery, which you kind of need.
And when you buy, you may want to buy bigger.
And their handgun safes literally are fingerprint opened and they're incredible and they work really well.
So now's the time.
Get your Liberty safe, 12 months interest-free payments, as low as 20 bucks a month, approved credit and that gives you the peace of mind that your valuables, your important papers and, of course, your firearms are protected libertysafe.com.
Libertysafe.com, where your valuables are always protected libertysafe.com.
Final hour roundup is next.
do not want to miss it.
And stay tuned for the final hour free for all on the Sean Hannity Show.
Michael Caputo is with us.
I've got to imagine and I maybe I can imagine is that when you have Robert Mueller and his team Andrew Weissman is Pit Bull and he appoints Genie Rae, who once worked with the Clinton Foundation uh, knowing the extent to which they have been willing to go to pretty much, you know, get anything they possibly can on Trump.
Or listening to judge Ellis say, yeah, the only reason you're going back to a 2005 tax case of Paul Manafort having nothing to do with Russia is because you want to put the screws to him and you want to make him sing and you want to make him perhaps even compose, and that means uh, that's all for really getting Donald Trump so you can prosecute him or impeach him.
Do you agree with the judge's statement there?
I do, I do.
I just wish that that that would drive the judge's decision.
Unfortunately I I, i'm i'm hopeful that it'll help him.
You know view uh, develop his perspective on what's happening with Paul.
But you know, you the, the it.
If it appears to me, the Department OF Justice and our whole judicial system has been weaponized against those people who were trying to elect the president of the United States.
I think that's what it's all about.
They're out to destroy the president, destroy his family, destroy his businesses, and destroy those of us who count him as a friend so that no billionaire ever stands up again and says, Hey, you know, honey, my country screwed up and I can fix it.
That'll never happen again.
It's really scary when you have the power of the government using these tools as they are and literally now setting up innocent people apparently for no reason.
Did you ever go to Russia before in your life?
Oh, of course.
I mean, that's why I was in the jackpot here because I lived in Russia for seven years.
Why did you live in Russia?
I lived there in the 90s.
I was sent there by the Clinton administration to meddle in their election.
Oh, wait a minute.
I thought we didn't do that.
I thought that was wrong.
I know, it's funny, but I worked there with the Republican Institute and the Democratic Institute to try and work in elections there.
I married a Russian.
I have a Russian daughter.
Many of my friends are Russian.
One thing I see in each one of these hearings, Sean, is abject McCarthyism.
And it's so strange to me to see the people who were out defending the Soviet Union for a generation are now pointing at every Russian.
By the way, the Russians who live here in America want to be here in America.
I got to run, but it's like living under Putin.
It's interesting for people to understand how people's lives are turned upside down and altered because of this obsession of getting Trump.
We'll take a quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue on the other side.
News Roundup: Information Overload.
Pam Bondi, literally thrown out of a restaurant or out of a movie herself.
She'll join us and tell her story straight ahead.
Contacted me and he said that he had been contacted by a man using an alias, as it turns out, Henry Greenberg, who had information that he said would be of great value to the Trump campaign.
Every congresswoman would take the call if they got that call.
Oh, we got info on your op research on your opponent.
I took the meeting, and Henry Greenberg turns out to be an FBI informant of Russian descent who's been admitted to the country nine times on informant visas, who is a violent felon who otherwise could not be in the country.
And then he tries to entrap me, but he gives away the game when he says he wants $2 million for negative information on Hillary.
When I tell him I don't have $2 million, he says it's not your money I want.
It's Donald Trump's money.
I think it's the first known example of the Peter Stroke insurance policy.
I think it was an FBI plant seeking to compromise, to entrap me and to compromise Trump.
All right, our two Sean Hannity show, write down our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
That was Roger Stone.
He's got a brand new book out, by the way.
It's called Stone's Rules: How to Win It, Politics, and what else is it?
Politics.
General Life.
Politics, Business, and Style, right?
Yes, exactly.
All right.
Now, before we get to the issue at hand, that was you on our TV show.
So I read your book.
I actually read it.
It's, by the way, it's a fun book.
It's a great read.
And you know what?
It has really entertaining Roger Stone-esque rules in there, which crack me up because everybody knows you're a character with a huge tattoo on your back that you love to show the TV cameras, which also makes me laugh.
So every other rule is about how to dress.
And I'm looking at it.
Well, I'm a total loser because I wear jeans and t-shirts and baseball hats on backwards.
And that's how I live my life.
And I'm like, I'm never going to pass that.
I'm never going to be a success in life.
Actually, Sean, that's not true.
I've never seen you on TV once in which you didn't look sharp.
You have Greek taste in neckties.
A lot of them are Trump ties.
That's all true, and I've been very upfront about it.
I do like, listen, way before he was president, just to let everyone calm their ass down.
You know, this is a fascinating story to me.
And I've been watching.
You actually believe Robert Mueller has a target on your back and that Robert Mueller may try to indict you.
And for what reason?
That's an excellent question.
All my political activities in 2016 towards electing Donald Trump are perfectly legal and fully disclosed.
I think I'm being persecuted because I'm a supporter of the president.
I'm a friend of Paul Manafort's.
And I think they would like to find some extraneous offense on which they could pressure me to give them something on Donald Trump.
That, Sean, is something that will never happen.
It's not a fun feeling, is it, to think that you have the power of a special counsel and unlimited resources and a team that I've talked an awful lot about.
Why the rest of the country doesn't seem concerned that the special counsel Robert Mueller has put together a team of only Democratic donors, no Republican donors, no independent donors, and then Genie Ray, who was a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, that's part of his team.
We now know that there were three Trump-hating FBI guys that were a part of the team, including Peter Strzok himself.
And we also know Andrew Weissman, who has the most atrocious ethical record of any lawyer I think I have ever heard of in the United States.
Well, he's the pit bull of Mr. Mueller, and that's troubling to me.
And my big question is: why doesn't anyone else in the country seem to feel or understand that that is an abusively biased group of people?
Well, not only that, but Sean, you're absolutely right.
Having federal prosecutors unfettered poking through every single molecule of your personal life, your business life, your political activities, asking intensely personal questions of my associates and former associates.
How did he get along with his wife?
How's his relationship with his children?
Does he drink a lot?
Does he use drugs?
Where's his money come from?
Who are his clients?
I thought this was about Russian collusion, but it's clearly not.
This is a hit squad.
This is a get-Trump squad, and their job is to undo the results of the last election.
Robert Mueller's record is atrocious.
This is a guy who arrested the wrong three guys in the anthrax matter.
The guy they did arrest dies mysteriously in custody, fails to investigate reports of the Sarasota Flight School, where five of nine 9-11 hijackers are training, who lies to leave four innocent guys in jail in Boston to protect mafia informants of the FBI, and who mules the uranium specimens to Moscow in the Uranium One matter.
When Lindsey Graham says he's widely respected on a bipartisan basis, what was he talking about?
I don't know.
I really, you know, here is, I think, a real big problem we have.
And go back to Judge Ellis and what I thought was one of the biggest judicial beatdowns from the bench I've ever seen.
And when Judge Ellis said about the special counsel, let me see, I think I understand this, that you go back to the Justice Department, you reopen a case from 2005 that has to do with tax fraud, has nothing to do with Russia.
You're supposedly investigating Russia collusion.
And you reopen that case, but it had to do with Ukraine.
And then what you want to do here is you want to put the screws, his words, not mine, to Paul Manafort.
So Paul Manafort begins to feel the heat and the pressure, and then he begins to sing or even compose his words, meaning subworn perjury is my interpretation.
And then, by the way, then you get to prosecute or impeach Donald Trump.
That seems to be the obvious case that's going on here.
And by the way, he said that with Andrew Weissman in the courtroom.
And it seems like that's what they're doing with everybody because they don't have any evidence on their own.
But their Achilles heel are the unconstitutional illegal FISA warrants that I believe were levied against Paul Manafort, Carter Page.
And according to the New York Times on January 20th, 2017, Roger Stone, the government in the Manafort case continues to insist that Manafort was never under surveillance at any time, even though the New York Times, the Washington Post, AP, Fox have all reported otherwise.
They don't want to talk about that illegal politically based surveillance, which is why Manafort's sitting in jail.
That's why they're squeezing him to plead guilty because they don't want to go to trial and answer that question.
You know, it really is going to be very interesting because, look, I've not had a lot of experience with judges in my life, but I do know this.
You lie to a judge, you're going to be in deep trouble.
And we know on four separate occasions, the original FISA warrant application and three subsequent applications, the final one, interestingly, signed by Rod Rosenstein, used Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies, many that have been debunked, that was funneled money to an op research group, then to a foreign national who I thought wasn't supposed to influence American elections, who himself, under an interrogatory in Great Britain,
said that he didn't think any of the intelligence was verified or corroborated, and maybe it was 50-50.
And that becomes the basis of FISA warrants to spy on American citizens, Roger.
That's not the United States of America.
That's not constitutional.
And is it coincidental that even today, Rod Rosenstein is refusing to hand over information regarding those very FISA warrants to the Congress?
This is the cover-up.
This is their Achilles heel, and they know it.
A FISA warrant can only be issued against an American citizen if they are actively involved in espionage on behalf of a foreign power against the United States.
That clearly was not the case here.
This is much, much worse than Watergate.
This is the use of the power and the authority of the state to spy on Donald Trump's campaign for president.
No, it's even worse than that, though.
No, they literally put the fix in on Hillary Clinton, who did commit felonies and who did obstruct justice.
The case, there's never been a more clear case of either the violation, mishandling, destruction of classified information, violation of the Espionage Act, nor the obstruction of justice case, which is deleting subpoenaed emails, acid-washing your hard drive, and beating up your devices with hammers.
And why do I suspect if you did it, you would be handcuffed and you'd be in solitary confinement like Paul Manafort right now?
Well, and if we had an attorney general and an assistant attorney general committed to the rule of law, we might be prosecuting those crimes.
But instead, we're covering up an effort by the Obama Justice Department to rig the previous presidential election.
Let me ask you this.
Well, you recently added an addendum to your testimony.
I think it was before the House Intel Committee and Devin Newton.
And in that, you said you wanted to add, apparently, Michael Caputo had asked you to meet with this particular guy that I guess he said was Russian.
He knew he was Russian.
I didn't know he was Russian until I met with him, and then it was pretty clear from his accent.
But yes, I simply just, I simply did not recall this.
It was a 20-minute meeting that was ludicrous, the idea that Trump would pay $2 million for documents.
But as I said earlier, I have no reason to dissemble or hide the meeting because I acted properly.
I rejected the effort.
And You met with this guy for 20 minutes, and it turns out it was an FBI informant who actually was from Russia, but was on a visa because I guess he had nine different visas given to be an FBI informant, even though he had committed violent felonies in Russia.
Yes, exactly.
So, how does a guy who spent 10 years in prison in Russia for a gun crime enter the country?
Hopefully, the House Intelligence Committee will get to the bottom of why he was in the country, or more importantly, how he was in the country in 2016.
CNN, by the way, reports this story today, never mentions, not once, that he was an FBI informant, as if they're not watching, they're not listening.
It's extraordinary.
So, what do you do?
I mean, and what does that mean that, you know, we have talked about the FISA abuse.
We've talked about the felonies Hillary committed.
We've talked about a rigged investigation, an exoneration written before an investigation.
We've talked about, and the IG report pointed out in unbelievable, shocking detail, the hatred and antipathy towards the president and the love of Hillary and how they went all in to help her and destroy him.
And when you put all of this together, and then you've got spies literally in the Trump campaign, and they had their, they used the lying dossier to get these FISA warrants.
How do you fix this abuse of power to this extent?
Because you're still living through it.
I mean, do you fear you might get indicted?
Do you fear they're going to bang in your door like they did Manafort in some early dawn raid with guns blazing?
Well, if I say yes, then MSNBC will report that Stone fears his criminal culpability in extraneous crimes.
It's entirely possible, but it would have to be contrived.
Let me go back to this addendum that you gave or addition you gave to your testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes' committee, and this meeting with this individual that wanted you to pay him $2 million for op research on Hillary.
And I think the first thing we've got to point out is op research and paying for op research is pretty much standard operating procedure in politics today, right?
Well, actually, you rarely pay for it, but it's offered to you, and most of it is garbage.
As a political professional, it would be irresponsible not to check it out and see if there's anything of value.
Well, that's my point.
And he never described it as emails.
He never told me what it was.
I just thought it was a con job at the time, just a shakedown for money.
Why did you not remember it when you testified, considering this whole thing was about Trump-Russia collusion?
Because just knowing the media, they want to jump on anything that can.
I say, really?
Roger didn't remember?
Here's why.
Because it was May of 2016, and Hillary had not yet played the Russia card.
Russo-phobia had not yet become an issue.
People say, well, $2 million, that's not a lot of money.
I found Donald Trump as a friend of his and a confidant of his and a consultant to him for 39 years.
He's a billionaire.
He had said publicly he would spend whatever it took.
I've seen people try to get millions out of him for years.
So the number was not jarring.
It was unrealistic because Trump was not paying for any opposition research.
He spent less than anybody.
I know.
So it's interesting.
So this was in May of 2016.
Russia wasn't on the radar in any way at that time.
And you're basically, you sit with this guy, you think he's a fraud, and you just, yeah, okay, go get $2 million from someone else, and you just forget it and move on.
And then you never brought it to the president or anybody in his campaign.
Correct.
I never discussed it with Donald Trump as candidate or as president.
Never discussed it with anyone in the campaign because it was a ludicrous idea.
It was not until Caputo was interviewed by Robert Mueller's people, who, by the way, seem to know all about this, interestingly enough, that it jarred his memory.
In other words, that would be an FBI informant, and you believe a setup.
A setup, in other words, for you.
Exactly.
About Russia, which is an interesting, it's interesting in terms of the timeline because nobody was thinking about Russia then.
But it is about the time that the Australian ambassador reaches out for Papadopoulos.
By the way, they didn't meet in a bar.
This was pre-scheduled.
And I believe that is the case.
Well, May was the month that Strzzok and Comey were writing the exoneration, but they wouldn't interview Hillary until July.
But yet that exoneration was being written with the term gross negligence in it and the fact that it was likely foreign entities had hacked into Hillary's email.
By the way, everybody hacked into that email server of hers.
Everybody, apparently.
Well, I believe that to be the case.
As I said on your TV show the other night, I believe this is the earliest manifestation of the Peter Strzok insurance policy.
This is very clearly an FBI sting, which fortunately I reject out of hand.
The whole thing was over in 20 minutes.
Good for you.
I bet you're glad you did.
I mean, even though...
The guy shows up at the meeting wearing a MAGA hat and a Trump t-shirt.
Why are we inviting...
Why are we inviting violent felons and sending them into political campaigns, but only one campaign?
It's a question we need an answer to.
Roger Stone, thank you for being with us.
Sean, thanks for having me.
I just want to take a moment.
And Charles Krauthammer passed away.
And, you know, it's funny.
We didn't agree on every political issue, but we had a great relationship.
And the relationship really took on a very personal side.
And this is a personal story that I have with him.
And it gave Charles Krauthammer great joy to tell the story at dinners that he was attending, to tell the story in speeches that he gave, to tell the story in the book that he wrote.
And then eventually, after the book, he came on Hannity, the TV show.
And then he literally told the story on air.
And to me, it's a story that reflects and defines profile and courage.
Now, look, if you really, I think it's very hard.
I think we all live in our own little bubble worlds because we have to survive and we're busy and we're raising our kids and we're working hard and it's government's taking more and it's tough and you're grinding it out day by day by day.
And I don't think anybody in life particularly has it that easy.
And yeah, I think money can help, but I don't think money defines happiness.
It's not a cliche.
It's a reality.
And I've lived in both worlds, having none and having some.
And I definitely prefer the latter.
But there was something about if you have the ability to just see the life others live and have any sense of human compassion and empathy, you can look at somebody like Charles Krauthammer and just think of the average day for him.
He was 68 years old and he became a doctor and he's in his 20s and he has a horrific car accident.
And now for the rest of his life, he's paralyzed pretty much from the neck down.
And long story short, and I think this defines it, but every day of his life, getting up, waking up, eating breakfast, getting dressed, taking a shower, getting to a car, every single thing that we do without thinking is a huge, massive ordeal for him.
I never really saw him without, you know, he was impeccably dressed constantly and looking his best always.
And all the years that I had read his columns and interviewed him, I didn't know he was in a wheelchair.
I did not know his life story.
Now, he was always in Washington, D.C., and I'm sort of my headquarters is in New York City.
And but for whatever reason, I always just, when I'm interviewing somebody, I think I've gotten better at being an interviewer because I try to listen to what people say now, and I don't go in with a million prepared questions because I'm prepared.
I have it in front of me.
I did all my research.
But if you don't listen, you can't have a real conversation and ask the natural follow-up question if you're just thinking about what the next question is.
And I want to be the best I can be at what I do.
And over the years, I mean, the people that have taught me to be a better host are frankly you, this audience, because I read feedback about what you say about me and what you say about the show and what you prefer.
And I listen.
It's one of the reasons I kind of gave up the debate format in so many ways because people can't stand people shouting over each other.
And so I just try to listen.
I try to be my best.
Anyway, so when I first met Charles, it was in Washington, D.C.
I don't remember the exact date or time.
And I hadn't known he was in a wheelchair.
And I said, Charles, I just never knew.
And I'm embarrassed.
I should have known this.
I should have, you know, know more about your life and about your background.
And he just laughed and he laughed it off.
And I apologized to him.
And then he laughed harder.
And I'm like, okay, I'm feeling pretty stupid here, but if it makes you laugh, I'm cool with it.
That's okay.
Anyway, it turns out that that story became a real source of pride for him because I came to know later.
A lot of people didn't know.
And he told me, he goes, you have no idea.
After I told that story, so many people wrote me.
So many people called me.
So many people told me they didn't know either.
And he absolutely loved it.
And the reason he loved it is because in spite of trials and tribulations that we all don't have to go through every day, and I see this with a lot of military guys that have had their legs blown off and their arms blown off and their faces disfigured, I ask every one of them, how do you deal with it?
I mean, emotionally, it's the toughest thing that you now, your life has changed forever.
It's been altered.
And Charles, a friend of mine wrote me a story, worked with him years ago when I guess he was at the New Republic and said, Charles Krauthammer used to take a pencil and put it in his mouth and on an old computer before they have these dictation programs that are now available that are phenomenal.
Technology is phenomenal for people that have any kind of disability or handicap.
I mean, it's so great that people can invent things that make other people's lives easier.
I just love inventions.
Used to go to the invention convention.
So anyway, that's how hard he worked.
Now, imagine you have to get out of bed and that's hard.
You have to take a shower, that's hard.
You have to eat, that's hard.
You have to get to the car.
That's hard.
You have to get out of the car.
That's hard.
Everything's complicated.
Nothing is easy anymore.
And it's an ordeal.
So Charles then took that story and he ended up putting it on his book, but it also at dinner parties because word got back to me and in speeches and word got back to me.
And it became between the two of us something that kind of defined our relationship.
And it was me learning about a man that absolutely refused to be defined by one of the toughest physical challenges anybody can have.
Now, I know a lot of us think we have problems.
I know I do.
I whine.
I complain.
Look at Linda.
She's shaking her head.
Yep, you do.
Yep.
All right, stop.
Why are you making fun of me?
I never make fun of you.
I always support you.
All right, but true, right?
I mean, we all think we have problems.
And then you look at what Charles Krauthammer had to do every day to get to his job.
And then he's got to type out a column, you know, with a pencil and then typing it into a computer.
Imagine you misspell a word.
It's like, oh, now you got to go hit the backspace.
Then you got to do it.
And then, I mean, it's so hard.
But he did it all and he pushed through.
And I just loved that about him.
And it was, to me, the embodiment of a profile in courage.
His entire life became a profile of courage, of what you can do in spite of the massive obstacles that you're clearly and obviously facing every day.
And the fact that that story helped him, it sort of validated for him that people didn't see him as a guy in a wheelchair, that it, that people saw him for his heart, his incredibly brilliant and keen intellect, and for the great patriot that he is.
He loved this country, and he did move the debate.
And we didn't always agree.
Sometimes he frustrated me.
Other times I'm like, that's genius.
That wasn't what our relationship was based on.
And I then, when his book finally came out and he told the story in the book, I'm like, really?
I said, you're making a living off this story.
And it totally humiliates me.
And he loved it.
And that's why I chose this clip to air on TV last night.
I'm going to play the audio here.
And by the way, I love the fact that you gave a speech one day and you told the story about me and all the years that we had known each other.
Go ahead.
You can mock me on national TV.
I don't mock you.
He's laughing right now.
I'm always surprised that you're upset by that.
I am.
I think it's the most charming story.
And as you know, I told it again on the special that Brett Baer did.
He prompted me.
He was sort of the provocateur there.
I said, you know, Sean doesn't really like it, but it's a wonderful story.
And it just shows.
I mean, I like it because it shows how, you know, I haven't made this fact that I'm in a wheelchair sort of the center of my life.
And the fact that you weren't even aware of it, I thought was lovely.
So it was a way to compliment you.
No, listen, it's a friendly story that we have between the two of us.
And, you know, but the story is really inspiring.
The special was fantastic, by the way.
And it reminds all of us that think we have problems sometimes that people are, everybody has problems.
And some people are struggling with some really incredible things.
And your ability to overcome, I found inspiring.
So thank you.
And I'm just, you know, I don't know.
I mean, I don't understand death.
I've been fascinated in my life that the human mind, if we really just stand back and put our problems and clear our minds and just look, and you look at, you know, a blade of grass and the tiniest ant, and then you build it into the minds of human beings, everything in the animal kingdom, everything in nature.
Then you look to the clouds and the sun and the stars and gravity, and then you think of a massive, huge universe, and now we've discovered universes within universes within universes.
And then, you know, people have near-death experiences, and they describe a peace and a serenity and something that we can't even comprehend on this earth.
And the Bible tells us that every hair of our head is counted.
And you just, you know, my faith, my belief in God, and I'm a Christian and Jesus, it just tells me that, you know, that's a time when we're made whole.
And I pray that for Charles Krauthammer.
I really loved this guy as a man.
He was a profile in courage.
And he taught me a lot.
And it's not something he ever knew that he really taught me.
And he taught me courage.
And he taught me, you know what, this life is hard.
Deal with it.
Because he showed us every day.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
It's, well, let's see here, 25 to 6 a.m. here, top of the hour, a.m. in Singapore.
Anyway, we're still in Singapore.
We have to stay so we can get the IG report to you tomorrow and full and comprehensive coverage of all of that, which we will be bringing you on radio and TV.
We will have Hannity tonight live, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
And I had the interview and the opportunity to sit down with the president after he had this historic meeting with Kim Jong-un.
We now have an update.
Kim Jong-un, according to North Korean press, has accepted the president's invitation.
He will be coming to the United States, which is a good sign.
And so I want to play the interview that I had in the exact room where they first sat down and met.
And this is me talking to the president right after this all took place.
It's present.
Great to see you.
Thank you very much.
Historic day.
Well, it's just, I think most people like me want to know what was going on in that room one-on-one.
Well, the big thing is this is now my 25th hour of being up and negotiating, and we've been negotiating very hard.
This is about the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the entire peninsula.
So without that, we could not have had a deal.
I mean, one thing we want to denuke the entire peninsula.
We want to denuke that whole situation.
That is a hotbed.
And you know what's been happening for years, and nobody did anything about it.
And you have to.
We have no choice.
We had to.
The relationship was really good.
You know, it built.
And I talked about early on in the relationship and the feeling, well, we had a very good feel right from the beginning.
And we were able to get something very important done.
And actually, some things happened after that was signed, Sean, where we're getting rid of certain missile research areas, certain missile testing sites.
They're getting rid of a lot.
You know, in the lead up to this, and this was pretty amazing because obviously I'm a pretty strong critic of our news media in the country.
But a lot had happened.
He had dismantled the nuclear test site.
He crossed over the DMZ.
Three hostages were released.
The missile stopped being fired.
He was willing.
You wouldn't have come here if he did not, if he was not willing to talk about denuclearization.
That's right.
So all of that happened before you walked in, and I don't remember that you sent cargo planes of cash or gave anything really before the lead up.
Why do you think he's interested in doing this after spending that time with us?
It was sort of interesting because I noticed some of the press, and I'm not even knocking him, because honestly, they've been treating me very good on the subject.
What's to treat badly?
But some of the press would say he's meeting with them and therefore he has a major loss.
I said, since when?
And, you know, others wanted to, it never worked out.
It probably never could have worked out.
But we really have gotten a lot.
You haven't seen missiles going up in seven or eight months.
You haven't seen research.
You haven't seen nuclear tests, very importantly.
Japan is very happy because they were being encircled.
I mean, there was a period of time when they were going right over the middle of Japan.
And we got our hostages back.
And you're right.
We didn't pay for that.
But I think, I don't say that in a bregadocious way at all, because he did such a smart thing, because that was such a good thing to do.
And I feel so badly about Otto Warmir.
That was the one thing.
And Otto did not die in vain.
I actually believe, and I've gotten very friendly with Otto's parents.
They're incredible people.
Devastated, as they, you know, as you would think, great parents.
He was a great young man.
But I think without Otto, this whole thing wouldn't have happened because it crystallized when he came back in the condition.
It crystallized so much to so many people, maybe even to the other side, frankly.
But I think that Otto truly did not die in vain.
I've known you for a lot of years, and I think one trait that I could say is brutal honesty.
In the room alone, and then the subsequent talks with your team and their team.
How honest?
How brutal?
What was said?
Try and bring people into the room.
So we got along very well.
We got along from the beginning.
We started off, he and myself and two interpreters.
And from the beginning, we got along.
You know, I've made the statement, and I've said it before.
I've said it about a lot of different kinds of relationships.
You can almost tell right at the beginning.
There are a lot of people, critics, quickly saying, when you said little rocket man, or fire and fury, or, you know, when he said, oh, I've got a red button on my desk, he said, well, mine's bigger, and it works better than yours.
How did it evolve from that to this?
Because he did say at the very beginning, we're going to basically start over.
But that has been building behind the scenes.
Well, I think without the rhetoric, we wouldn't have been here.
I really believe that.
You know, we did sanctions and all of the things that you would do.
But I think without the rhetoric, you know, other administrations, I don't want to get specific on that, but they had a policy of silence.
If they said something very bad, very threatening and horrible, just don't answer.
That's not the answer.
That's not what you have to do.
So I think the rhetoric, I hated to do it.
Sometimes I felt foolish doing it.
But we had no choice.
So strategically you were doing it.
Well, yeah, I mean, and I think he gained respect.
You know, he's a strong guy.
Hey, people were saying, what's he like?
He's got a very good personality.
He's funny, and he's very, very smart.
He's a great negotiator.
And he's a very strategic kind of a guy.
One of the points that I think surprised everybody, I think every American should be very happy about this, is the Korean War, which has gone on for so long.
More importantly, there are still American remains there, and they will be repatriated.
The remains are coming back.
And we got that at the end.
In fact, we have some things that you don't even have in the report.
We put out what we signed.
Yeah, missile sites that they use for the launching of missiles and missile research areas.
That's going to be gone.
We made a lot of progress, tremendous amount of progress.
One of the things that I'm very happy about, we're not going to play the war games anymore, which you know how expensive that is?
We'll find this massive bombers in for practice from Guam.
I said, how far is Guam?
Six and a half hours, sir.
I said, that's a long way for a big bomber times, you know, 20.
And lots of other planes coming in.
So we're not going to be doing the war games as long as we're negotiating in good faith.
that's good for a number of reasons, in addition to which we save a tremendous amount of money.
You know, those things, they cost me.
I hate to sound like a pure businessman, but I kept saying, what's this costing?
I would look at them coming in from the sea and bombs exploding.
I said, what does this cost?
I don't even want to tell you, but it's a lot.
So we're not going to be doing that.
As long as we're negotiating in good faith, which I think we will be.
You managed expectations, I think, pretty well.
You didn't think coming in here you were going to sign an agreement, and you said maybe it takes two, three, four, five meetings.
But you were open to going as fast or slow as he wanted.
We got along better than I would have assumed right from the beginning.
We got a lot more done today than I ever thought possible.
And he's going back.
He's now headed back.
And I think he's going back to get this done.
He wants to get it done.
You know, you hear the whole thing about his father and other administrations or his grandfather.
The fact is that he, and he brings that up.
But they weren't dealing with me.
They were dealing with different people.
Nobody's ever come close to it.
Did he talk about the difference between past administrations and yours?
Yes, but I can't say that because I don't want to be the one saying it.
At some point, I'm sure he'll say it.
But they never got it done.
And they were never this close either.
I mean, it was never to a point where they were like we are.
Is there a history lesson to learn here?
I think in one sense we could talk about past administrations.
Reagan, Evil Empire, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
His own advisors wanted to take those words out of that speech.
And you compare Bill Clinton gave Kim Jong-un's father $3 billion in energy subsidies.
Tremendous amount of money.
The Mullahs in Iran, you have said the worst deal in the history of mankind.
That's probably the worst deal I've ever seen.
Worse than NAFTA, and I think NAFTA is pretty bad.
Worse than the WTO, the World Trade Organization, which frankly built China in addition to the money that we gave them all the time.
You know, I mean, these were terrible deals, but I would say that the Iran deal was one of the worst I've ever seen.
I will say, speaking of the Iran deal, since we got out of that deal, and we could do it very easily because they never had it approved by Congress.
It was just presidential.
This must be approved by Congress.
I want it to be approved by Congress because otherwise it really doesn't mean very much.
I would think anybody would want it approved by Congress.
But since we took out of that deal, we got out of that deal, I think Iran is a much different place.
I don't think they're looking so much to the Mediterranean and Syria and Yemen.
They're starting to pull people out of Yemen.
They're starting to pull people out of Syria.
You know, it's a whole different thing.
Now, I did it for nuclear.
But one of the side benefits is you take a look, a serious look, and Iran is not the country that it was three or four months ago when they were much more emboldened.
Well, certainly sanctions played a big part.
Big part.
The strike forces that you sent into the region off the coast.
And I think at a certain point, honestly, I know the Iranian people.
I know many people from Iran.
These are great people.
I really believe at some point they're going to come back and want to negotiate a deal.
Did reunification come up?
Did humanitarian issues come up in the meeting?
Yes, it did.
And one of the things I will tell you that I'm most happy about, and that, as you know, is a big sticking point, is bringing back the remains of thousands of soldiers that were killed.
This came up last minute.
This wasn't.
This was sort of last minute, yeah.
I said, would it be possible?
Because I get letters all the time from families who lost a son, lost a brother, lost a father in Korea.
That was a rough fight.
And they were buried along the roadways.
They were buried as, you know, soldiers going back and forth into battle, and they were burying them along roadways.
And they're saying, please, please, could you do it?
I get so many letters from people who lost a loved one in North Korea, essentially, in North Korea.
And I would say, I'm going to try.
And I brought it up, and I'll tell you what, it was almost immediate.
Now, in the past, you couldn't even talk about it, but it was really a nice response.
How quickly, did you talk about a trip to the United States?
Did you talk about it?
I think at the right time, he'll absolutely be coming to the White House.
Yeah, look, it's been a very intense relationship.
It's been short and very intense.
And of course, before that, it was pretty rhetorical.
It was, you know, not a pretty thing.
People were very worried.
But without that, I don't think we would have been here today.
He wants to get something done.
I want to get something done.
I think we'll get it done.
And we started off by really a very strong document.
I think people are surprised to see it.
They're shocked to see it.
And then add some more things that we got after that was signed.
And so can you give us maybe a glimpse into what you keep sort of referring a little bit to things that will be coming that?
So I just think that we are now going to start the process of denuclearization of North Korea.
And I believe that he's going back and we'll start it virtually immediately.
And he's already indicated that.
And you look at what he's done.
So we got our hostages back, but they've blown up one of their sites, one of their testing sites, their primary testing site.
In fact, some people say their only testing site.
They're getting rid of a missile, which isn't in the document that was done afterwards.
They're getting rid of a missile testing site.
They're doing so much now.
So it's a process, and it's really moving rapidly.
Last question, because I know you have a lot to do.
Obviously, he wants something on his end.
Certainly, he wants the world community.
He wants sanctions lifted.
He wants economic opportunity, and his people need it desperately.
There are people starving there.
What he wants is security, and I understand that, and he'll get that.
And he wants to see if they can make that incredible location, because it's incredible.
It's between China and South Korea.
Think of it.
I'm in the real estate business.
Think of that.
It's processing.
How good a location is that?
You have China and you have South Korea.
He's got right in the middle of both of them, surrounded by water.
That's called like there be anything better than that.
And it's also beautiful land.
It's incredible land.
I know you have a lot to do.
Mr. President, thanks for being so generous with your time.
