Sean Hannity Show - One on One With Steve Bannon - 7.12

July 12, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:34:25

One on One With Steve Bannon - 7.12

Sean sits down for an important one on one interview with former White House Chief Strategist to better understand the inner workings of the Mueller investigation. Plus, what should be the future of NATO? 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.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	Wow, what an explosive, explosive news day.
	And we've got it all covered from London.
	Glad you are with us.
	Write down our toll-free telephone number.
	It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Well, Peter Strzzok, I've got to say, probably goes down in history as one of the single most arrogant, pompous, literally snobs.
	I don't know.
	I actually, in a way, half believe he's convinced himself that there's this cognitive dissonance going on in his brain, that he and he alone, maybe with the supporting cast of his girlfriend and maybe, you know, the supporting cast of the insurance policy, Andrew McCabe, that they're the super, super,
	super patriots and that we are the smelly people that go to Walmart and Target and Kmart and Costco.
	By the way, those are like four of my favorite stores in the entire world.
	They're the best.
	There's nothing like shopping at Costco because they give you free tasting food.
	Why don't they do that at the other stores?
	Why don't they give you free food as you walk along?
	Because every time they give free food, I said, I'm going to take that home.
	It's a great idea.
	It's a great sales pitch.
	But what, remember, he is the one that said, we are the smelly people.
	Just like we are the bitter people clinging to our God.
	I do believe in there is a God the Father that created the heavens and the earth and the little ants and then universes within universes within universes.
	And yeah, and that we cling to that God and our Bibles.
	And yeah, we believe in our Constitution and we believe in our Second Amendment.
	And yeah, I guess we're all irredeemable, deplorable people.
	You know, the people that get up every morning and we work hard and we play by the rules.
	We pay our taxes.
	You get up at six, you shovel a cup of coffee down your throat.
	You're getting your kids dressed.
	They don't want to eat breakfast.
	You're making them pancakes or Cheerios or whatever it happens to be, maybe eggs occasionally because it's too much cholesterol.
	The government tells us in an egg, you can't eat too many eggs.
	And then we send our kids to school and then we go work our 10, 12, 14 hours a day.
	We come home and we try to scramble together a little hamburger helper or macaroni and cheese and a vegetable or two.
	And we put our kids, we go do their homework and then we put them to bed and then turn on Hannity.
	That's our lives.
	Hopefully, please turn on Hannity every week at 9.
	By the way, Trey Gowdy will be appearing tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel from London.
	It takes my breath away that there is now irrefutable evidence that in fact, this effort was real of people that thought that they knew better the super patriot class, or in other words, what we have described on this program as the deep state.
	And they literally help rig an investigation into one candidate.
	Again, the heart of this, it is the biggest abuse of power, corruption, scandal in the history of the United States of America.
	This was designed.
	These are people that wanted to influence an election.
	Or to quote Peter Strzok, that it was 100, should be 100 million for Hillary votes and zero for Donald Trump.
	And this guy was in the middle of all of it.
	He wants you to suspend all God-given common sense that you were born with, and he wants you to take on a parsing that Bill Clinton couldn't actually accomplish.
	It all depends what the meaning of the word is.
	Well, me and Monica were alone, but we never really thought we were alone because, you know, we were alone a little bit.
	If you say specifically in that room, we were alone, but I was looking outside when we were kind of fooling around a little bit.
	There was this hot chick on a bike that was walking by, and I saw the hot chick.
	And if she's out there and there's other people in the world, you're never really alone because there's always somebody else in the world somewhere.
	We're not the only two people on the planet, you know.
	That is what you witness today.
	With a level of arrogance, a level of egomania, a level of narcissism, a level of superpatriotism.
	We don't measure, we smelly people don't measure up to who Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe are.
	And we are the mere smelly, irredeemable, deplorable people that believe in God and family and country.
	And actually, I think we believed that our constitutional republic worked.
	Let me tell you how severe this is.
	If we are to believe Strzok, if we are to suspend the common sense God gave us, if we are to put aside all the intelligence that we have in our brains, then what we are believing is the impossible because his explanations today are literally, it's a fantasy beyond any fantasies.
	I know people actually think that they are better than they are.
	I'll give you an example.
	I mean, everybody thinks to have a kid, they think that kid's the cutest kid on the planet.
	And the reality is, after a kid is born, they all look the same.
	Every kid kind of looks the same.
	They're adorable.
	They're cute.
	And you can't believe you're thankful to God that they have 10 fingers and 10 toes.
	And when it doesn't happen, it's sad.
	But, and, you know, we pray for our little children.
	Everybody does.
	I mean, it's just normal.
	But, and, and then for him to flip this into a political campaign with no evidence that house investigators are doing Putin's bidding, it is worse than I ever thought it could be.
	I want to play because I just think I just we pulled out the best cuts.
	We have pulled out the greatest moments.
	We literally, I think Trey Gowdy, who will join us on TV tonight, had one of his best days ever as a congressman.
	I do think there were certain things that were missed, but you know, this guy has been preparing for months and months and months to be slippery, but it's still, you just, if you just watch it, you know what happened.
	And I think Trey Gowdy absolutely was on his game.
	Let me play a couple of cuts of him, especially as he goes through the different biases that he had for Hillary versus Donald Trump and examples of Strzok's bias for Hillary and how Strzok may not see textbook bias, but the rest of us do.
	All of us, the smelly Walmart people.
	I love Walmart.
	Walmart has everything.
	I remember I lived in Huntsville, Alabama, Athens, Alabama, and there was a Super Walmart there.
	You know what I bought from the Super Walmart?
	Everything.
	My house furniture.
	I bought my sporting goods.
	I bought a basketball.
	I'd go shopping there.
	I did everything.
	It's the greatest place ever.
	Yeah, we smelly people.
	Listen to Trey Gowdy.
	About two weeks ago, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was interviewed for more than 10 hours.
	We learned that Agent Strzok has a most unusual and largely self-serving definition of bias.
	Agent Strzok, despite the plain language of his texts and emails, despite the Inspector General's report and despite common sense, doesn't think he was biased.
	He thinks calling someone destabilizing for the country isn't bias.
	He thinks promising to protect the country from someone he hasn't even begun to investigate isn't bias.
	He thinks promising to stop someone he is supposed to be fairly investigating from ever becoming president isn't bias.
	He thinks talking about an insurance policy to keep someone from becoming president isn't bias.
	That's for one of the folks he was investigating.
	He has a different set of rules for others that he's investigating.
	Agent Strzok thinks saying someone he is allegedly investigating should be elected president $100 million to zero before he ever interviews her.
	He doesn't think that's bias.
	Agent Strzok thinks pronouncing someone innocent before bothering to interview more than 30 different witnesses isn't bias.
	He thinks claiming you can smell the Trump supporters isn't bias, but he doesn't say a single solitary word about being able to smell the support of any other candidate.
	To him, that isn't bias.
	Agent Strzok struggled to define bias for the better part of 10 hours.
	For the rest of us, bias is the prejudging of a person, a group, or a thing.
	It usually has a negative connotation, but it is a preconceived position or a prejudgment.
	It is the making up of your mind ahead of time based on anything other than the facts, and that is exactly what he did.
	Bias is saying Hillary Clinton should win the presidency $100 million to zero when she was still under investigation, wasn't even the nominee, hadn't been interviewed, and 30 other witnesses had also not been interviewed.
	In March of 2016, Agent Strzok had Clinton winning $100 million to zero, even though the investigation was far from being over.
	That is the prejudging of someone's innocence before all the evidence is in.
	On the other hand, he said Trump would be destabilizing, called him an idiot, abysmal, bigoted nonsense, called him a disaster, said he should F himself.
	Strzzok promised to stop Trump from becoming president before the investigation even began.
	He talked longingly of Trump resigning two months after he was inaugurated and well before the special counsel investigation even began.
	Strzok even talked about impeachment the day special counsel was appointed.
	That is prejudging guilt.
	It is prejudging punishment, and it is textbook bias.
	We live in a 50-50 country and we accept that.
	But we're a 100% country when it comes to having law enforcement that doesn't prejudge innocence before investigations are over and doesn't prejudge guilt and punishment before an investigation even begins.
	Agent Strzok had Hillary Clinton winning the White House before he finished investigating her.
	Agent Strzok had Donald Trump impeached before he even started investigating him.
	That is bias.
	Agent Strzok may not see it, but the rest of the country does, and it's not what we want, expect, or deserve from any law enforcement officer, much less the FBI.
	A fair, bias-free investigation is not a Republican or Democrat issue.
	It's an American issue.
	Or at least it used to be.
	At least it used to be the very things we on this program on Hannity on Fox, all of these things that we have been pointing out.
	I honestly, because I mean, and Prostruck to literally go on and said, as he did today, there's no evidence of any bias.
	And there is Trey Gowdy outlining what I have been telling you this is.
	The single biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in history.
	Let me tell you how profound this is.
	The rule of law in this constitutional republic is it's founded on our Constitution and constitutional rights.
	And we're not even talking about, you know, unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment.
	And we see assaults on the Second Amendment and on the First Amendment and all sorts of examples.
	But if we're going to have corruption within the FBI and the people that have the, that we give the most powerful tools of intelligence to, and if they're going to try and steal a presidential election, and if this is not found out to be abuse of power and what he did with Hillary, which there is incontrovertible evidence of her obstruction and of her crimes.
	And we've outlined those, those 18, USC, 793.
	We've outlined every statute.
	We will no longer be the United States of America or we will be the United States of America in name only.
	We will really be Venezuela, a banana republic, the former Soviet Union.
	That means we will have a two-tier justice system, no equal justice under the law, no equal application of our laws.
	And if they can attempt this, God knows what else other people are capable of.
	Remember, if Hillary won, we would know none of this today.
	We've got a lot of ground to cover.
	We're going to do a full hour from London.
	He's in London.
	Steve Bannon is with us today.
	We have Sarah Carter, David Schoen, Greg Jarrett, all coming up.
	The best coverage.
	This was an incredible day in terms of beginning the process of exposing the truth.
	All right, as we continue, Sean Hannity Show, we're in London, 800-941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of the programming, I mean, we do have a lot of stars here that are emerging in the hearings today.
	Trey Gowdy, one of them.
	Bob Goodlatt, another one of them.
	Daryl Issa, another one of them.
	Jim Jordan, another one of them.
	I mean, and Louis Gomert, we're just pulling this tape now, the entire room, and I won't tell you why, because that's called a tease.
	And that means that I want to hold you through the half hour so you don't go anywhere.
	Our affiliates all across this great country, some 570 of them, they want you to stay as long as we can keep you to stay.
	But it literally took the air right out of the room with a collective.
	It was sort of like after 45 minutes when they said, Hannity's client number three.
	Well, I mean, I asked one legal question and I said, can I ask you a legal question?
	And I gave 10 bucks.
	It was kind of the same as that.
	But by the way, I'm watching, think about this.
	Paul Manafort, 23 hours a day in a jail cell, convicted of nothing.
	A 2005 tax case involving Ukraine dug up to put the screws to Trump.
	Why?
	Because they want Manafort to sing or compose so they can either impeach or prosecute Trump.
	Oh, yeah.
	And Donald Trump's attorney is home and his office raided.
	And you know what?
	Is this the United States?
	Will this remain the United States?
	That's what's up.
	That's what is in play.
	Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Steve Bannon in studio.
	Straight ahead.
	When you have text messages, Mr. Strzok, the way you do saying the things you did, you'd been better off coming in here and say, look, that was my bias.
	And you kind of get around to that a little bit when you say, hey, you know, everybody's got political views.
	Those are called biases.
	And we all have them.
	And you have come in here and said, I had no bias.
	And you do it with a straight face.
	And I watched in the private testimony you gave.
	And I told some of the other guys, he is really good.
	He's lying.
	He knows.
	We know he's lying.
	And he could probably pass a polygraph.
	It's amazing.
	Mr. Chairman.
	No, this is my paused.
	Point of order.
	The general state is point of order.
	A member of this committee just asserted that this witness who is under oath and a former agent of the FBI lied.
	There is no evidence that I ask him to withdraw it.
	I do not withdraw it.
	He is not a member of Congress.
	It's not a violation of the rule.
	And just as you have been expressing bias through your members about what a hero is.
	There is not a single person on this team who has ever characterized a witness.
	Gentlemen from Rhode Island, gentlemen, my time.
	That's a disgrace.
	Gentlemen from Rhode Island will suspect.
	No, the disgrace what this man has done. Is the disgrace.
	And it won't be recaptured anytime soon because of the damage you've done to the justice system.
	And I've talked to FBI agents around the country.
	You've embarrassed them.
	You've embarrassed yourself.
	And I can't help but wonder when I see you looking there with a little smirk.
	How many times did you look so innocent into your wife's eye and lie to her about Lisa?
	Mr. Chairman, this is outrageous.
	The credibility of a witness always.
	Mr. Chairman, please.
	Have you?
	Mr. Chairman, this is intolerable.
	Harassment of the witness.
	Wow.
	Pretty crazy exchange.
	That was Louis Gohmert.
	Some phenomenal exchanges.
	You know, rather than me just sit here, I want you to hear it all because we're going to have plenty of time for analysis as we move forward with the program today.
	And I'll be honest, I want to play one cut of Peter Strzok here.
	That he actually said there's no evidence of bias.
	Trump is lowsome.
	Hillary should win 100 to 1, 100, I'm sorry, 100 million to zero, that we will stop him, that we have an insurance policy, everything that, frankly, was articulated by Trey Gowdy earlier today.
	But this is Strzok literally saying that none of that represents any evidence at all.
	And again, if you watch him and you see him, which we will show you tonight, there is a pompous level of narcissistic arrogance that I don't think I have quite seen in my entire adult life.
	But here's him saying, you have to suspend all common sense that God gives you to believe what he says here.
	I understand that my sworn testimony will not be enough for some people.
	After all, Americans are skeptical of anything coming out of Washington.
	But the fact is, after months of investigations, there's simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions.
	There is, however, one extraordinarily important piece of evidence supporting my integrity, the integrity of the FBI, and our lack of bias.
	In the summer of 2016, I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign.
	This information had the potential to derail and quite possibly defeat Mr. Trump.
	But the thought of expressing that or exposing that information never crossed my mind.
	That's what FBI agents do every single day.
	And that's why I'm so proud of the Bureau.
	And I'm particularly proud of the work that I and many others did on the Clinton email investigation.
	Our charge was to investigate it competently, honestly, and independently.
	And that's exactly what happened.
	That's not exactly what happened.
	We have gone over again and again, and there's a certain level of vindication in all of this that we have on this program, on Hannity the TV program, and the group of people, and two of them, three of them will be with us today.
	And that's Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, his book debunks this thing and takes a chapter and verse, the Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary and frame Donald Trump.
	It is all true.
	And what we now have is everything we've been telling you now coming to fruition.
	But, you know, there's a part of me that is not, I'm not sure, I'm sort of half torn on this, was struck just, you know, lawyered up and coached with these absolutely spectacular fantasy, literally boring on, I remember Howell Heflin once famously said, I think it was in the Anita Hill, are you subject to fantasy?
	I remember that it was a big deal at the time.
	And it's like, I'm wondering, Peter Strzok, are you really that disconnected from truth?
	Are you really that disconnected from reality?
	Are you really believing that you're the super patriot and that you don't see any crime that Hillary Clinton committed?
	Do you really believe that was a fair and unbiased investigation when you think she should win 100 million votes to zero and all the horrific names you call Donald Trump and the fact that you said to your lover, we're going to stop him and the fact we've got an insurance policy and you don't see the fact that you and Comey were writing your exoneration in May of 2016 in early May and that you didn't interview her,
	which you were part of until July 2nd of 2016, 17 other key witnesses you did not interview.
	And then all of a sudden, three days later, the guy that you're writing the exoneration with before you ever investigated it, and of course you turned it from gross negligence, the legal standard, to extreme carelessness to specifically get her away from the legal standard that she violated the law, that you eliminated out of the original draft, the fact that multiple foreign agents and hostile nations had hacked into her email server,
	that it's a violation of the Espionage Act to have top secret classified and special access programming information on that server, and that she even sent memos to people in the State Department telling them not to do that, what she herself was doing, and you remove that part of it.
	Who knows who hacked into the DNC?
	Who knows who hacked into the server?
	We wouldn't know because it could have been Russia.
	It could have been China.
	It could have been Iran.
	It could have been North Korea or any other number of nations.
	And that means sources and methods, people that risked their lives were put in jeopardy.
	But our justice system in this country, it didn't have any problem taking a young man by the name of Christian Saussier and putting this guy in prison for a freaking year because he worked on a submarine.
	He took six pictures that he never shared with a soul, never posted on social media, that he only took because he was proud to work for his country.
	We're going to throw the book at him and we're going to put him in jail.
	And we're going to rip him away from his baby daughter.
	And we're going to rip him away from his mother who I interviewed.
	And by the way, President Trump, then candidate Trump saw Mrs. Saussier on my television show and has since pardoned him, but he's still already lost a year of his life.
	And then we're going to say Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong.
	You're going to say that if Sean Hannity or anybody in this vast audience of ours, if we get subpoenaed and that we defy a subpoena like your girlfriend did yesterday, Lisa Strzok, we'll see if she shows up tomorrow.
	If we defy a subpoena and we choose to delete subpoenaed emails, we just, nah, it's about yoga, a wedding, a funeral, and emails I have with my husband, Bill, who doesn't even email.
	That was her choice.
	33,000 emails about one wedding, one funeral, and yoga.
	That's what we are to believe here.
	And that she deletes them all.
	Whether we've ever gotten them all, we've never gotten a straight answer on that either.
	And just to make super, super, super duper sure that, in fact, that we don't get caught, we're going to introduce to the American people a program that's called Bleach Bit, which is the equivalent for you dumbasses in the media that actually say to me, Hannity says that Hillary acid washed her hard drive.
	I say, acid wash with bleach bit.
	It's the equivalent of acid washing.
	And you said, they actually fact-checked me.
	Hillary never acid washed her hard drive.
	Hannity lied.
	She never acid washed her hard drive.
	Okay, you people are so pathetically dumb and political and ideological.
	Okay, bleach bit is a program that wipes that sucker clean.
	You mean like with a cloth?
	No, not with a cloth, where the information that would have otherwise been stored that she tried to delete is super deleted.
	Okay?
	So that's all I've ever been saying.
	And then to make super duper sure, what do you do?
	Well, then we're going to have an aide bust up the BlackBerries and the iPhones and remove the SIM cards.
	That's why when I said on this program after Robert Mueller said, well, all the people that are coming before the committee, we want their cell phones.
	And I said, if, a big word, if, because I wouldn't do it, if I were to tell people that were told to turn over their phones to do the exact same thing Hillary did and delete the emails and yeah, acid wash with bleach bit.
	Just a note, acid washing with bleach bit is not officially an acid wash.
	It is not wiping the server clean with a cloth.
	It is a specific program designed to super delete everything that might be left on your hard drive.
	And then you do that.
	You delete the emails, you bleach bit the hard drive, you break up the devices, you remove the SIM cards, and imagine if you are stupid enough to go over to Robert Mueller and hand him the bitsy pieces, the itsy bitsy pieces of your phones and say, oh, I'm just doing what Hillary did, equal justice under the law.
	You're going to jail.
	And that's what they covered up.
	That, and because 100 million to zero is what Hillary should win by.
	And he took the power of the FBI.
	Remember, they ripped this out of the field offices of the FBI.
	They brought it in-house to keep it away from the rank and file, the people that protect us and serve us that are the most honorable people in the world.
	You know, I hate when Joe DeGenova says, dirty cop.
	I hate it.
	My whole family's full of law enforcement.
	My mother was a prison guard.
	For 25 years, she worked in a prison as a prison guard.
	By the way, it's a crappy job.
	And my father worked in family court probation.
	And I had multiple cousins that were in the NYPD.
	The best gift I got as a kid was a badge, a hat, and a billy club.
	And I still have the Billy Club, by the way, in case you're interested.
	And the two people in my family that made it to the FBI, which was my grandfather's brother's children, were viewed as deity in the family because they were the biggest, the ultimate success in our family because they made it to that great institution, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	That was the highest of the high.
	And then you got struck.
	So Christian Saussier goes to jail.
	He and his lover Paige are on record.
	The loathsome Trump can't win.
	We're going to stop him.
	We've got an insurance policy.
	Should be $100 million to zero.
	Fixes the investigation into Hillary and then moves on to begin the investigation into Trump.
	And there's texts that say, we're going to rush that investigation and get all this out before the election.
	So there's no chance in hell that Donald Trump becomes the president of the United States of America.
	This is the biggest soft coup attempt in the country's history.
	And if Hillary won, we'd never know any of it.
	And yet he and the arrogant James Comey, and by the way, the heroes of this story are going to be FBI rank and file.
	How do I know?
	Because I have sources.
	A part of being a talk show host is being a reporter.
	Part of it is using sources and digging for stories and talking to people and getting my sources.
	It's going to end up this way.
	But if we don't fix it and we don't get it right, you know, I don't know what this country becomes at that point because it won't be the United States anymore.
	It won't be equal justice under the law.
	It's not going to be a constitutional republic.
	It's not going to be equal application under the law.
	If we don't stop the unmasking and the spying and the spies in the campaign and every other thing that they did to destroy Trump, we're not going to have, we're not going to have the country.
	They tried to steal a presidential campaign.
	That's what this is all about.
	And in this arrogance, they think they're the super patriots in the story.
	They're not.
	When we come back, we're in London today.
	We're expecting big protests tomorrow.
	We're going to be joined for the full hour.
	We're not going to rush through this interview with Steve Bannon.
	He's here in London.
	And we've got Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, part of our team.
	Yeah, we've all been sticking our necks out on the line.
	And even though Rod Rosenstein hates us all by name and others hate us by name, but they watch every night.
	And if they could, I guess the deep state would come after us too.
	I'm going down fighting to the day I leave this earth.
	That's it.
	You know what?
	Too many others have sacrificed, bled, died, given limbs so that I can have this microphone.
	We're not stopping because the corruption is even.
	We're only at 15%.
	There's another 85% to come.
	We'll continue from London.
	You're saying you missed the perception.
	There are 13 Democrats on the special counsel probe, including one who went to what he hoped was a victory party.
	That's a perception problem, too.
	They weren't kicked off.
	You were.
	Why were you kicked off?
	Mr. Gowdy, I cannot speak to Special Counsel Mueller's.
	How long did you talk to him?
	How long did you talk to him when he let you go?
	We didn't just answer the question.
	We'll be afforded the opportunity.
	My recollection is a short meeting, somewhere between 15 to 30 minutes, probably around 15 minutes.
	And your testimony is Bob Mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your text.
	He kicked you off because of some appearance that he was worried about.
	My testimony, what you asked and what I responded to was that he kicked me off because of my bias.
	I'm stating to you, it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias, that it was done based on the appearance.
	If you want to represent what you said accurately, I'm happy to answer that question, but I don't appreciate what was originally said being changed.
	I don't give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzog.
	I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.
	All right, here we are as we continue the Sean Hannity show.
	We're in London, right down our toll-free telephone number.
	That remains the same while we're here.
	It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, joining us in studio.
	His name came up at the hearings today.
	And what, I mean, Trey Gowdy has never had a finer moment in his life and career.
	This is a prosecutor that never lost a single case in his life.
	And what we were hearing there is almost the most shockingly, it's like the most brazen example of arrogance.
	This is the deep state.
	The cognitive dissonance in the sense that Peter Strzok thinks he is the great super American patriot that knew better than you, than we, the American people, about who should or shouldn't be elected to the presidency.
	And in spite of all the obvious bias and the text messages, he defiantly sat there and literally said white was black, black was white, up was down, and down is up.
	And that is exactly what goes to the heart of this deep state that we have been telling you about and what is the biggest example of abuse of power and corruption in American history.
	Steve Bennon joins us in London.
	My friend, how are you?
	Well, first off, I'm the hottest get right now because I'm the hottest get in the world.
	How does Sean Hanny's production team track me down in the middle of London?
	How do you do this?
	I'm live in the studio.
	I'm the biggest get.
	I'm the biggest get in the world right now.
	Hold on.
	Just saying.
	Yeah, you are.
	But your production team, how did they track me down in the middle of London?
	I just, this is, well, maybe it was just meant to be because we booked you on this program last night.
	Serendipity.
	It was great to see you last night.
	You have one of the more fascinating brains of anybody I've ever gotten to know.
	And I know people view you as dark.
	I just view you as smart and strategic and tactical, which is very different the way we would want anybody if you're going to battle somebody or fight a war or be at information war, whatever.
	All right, let's start with the hearings.
	We're at war.
	It's a Cold War.
	And by the way, you said that.
	The one thing I'm going to disagree with you, and I know you guys have taken this to the next level and explained to the American people, it's not the deep state anymore.
	It's the in-your-face state.
	They are in your face.
	Look at this arrogance today.
	They are in your face every day, right?
	And they don't even try to hide it anymore.
	This is going what you've done on your radio and TV is going to lead, I keep saying this, to a new church commission.
	We're going to have a church commission in about six months to a year that's going to go through after special prosecutors and after crossfire hurricane, after everybody goes through it, right?
	They're going to have a commission like they had back in the early 70s to look at the CIA, to look at the FBI, to look at the counterterrorism, to look at all of this, because it is out of control.
	It's sort of like Greg Jarrett's book, The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
	That kind of sums it all up.
	I mean, look, we're going to have you for the hour because I just can't race through all of this with you.
	But when you get to the heart of it, what we have is a woman that was running for president that was guilty of numerous felonies, guilty of the clearest case of obstruction we've ever had.
	That we had, you can call them deep state actors in your face actors if you prefer, that literally they managed her case, wrote an exoneration before investigation.
	They allowed her to come up with a fairly important thing.
	They had to clear up the file, just like bureaucrats.
	In mid-July, had to clear up the file before they start the new file, right?
	Had to clear it up.
	100 million to one, Strzok said that she should be elected, although he wasn't favoring one candidate after another.
	But then it was an effort that it went so far as she gets away with things no American would get away with.
	And then they frame Donald Trump.
	They bring up a phony Russia collusion narrative.
	They even use lies to FISA judges to spy on Americans.
	Here's my take.
	If we don't fix this, Steve Bannon, we lose the United States.
	That's how profound this is to me.
	If you're not a fan of Donald Trump's, or you did not vote for Donald Trump, but you love your country, this is an important moment in American history because what happened is they tried to nullify a presidential election.
	They've tried to nullify a presidential election.
	If we let this happen, and I call on all the patriots out there that are not Trump supporters, right, that got to start paying attention to this.
	Just look at the facts and look at the details.
	Look at this hearing today.
	The American people have to come together and say, hey, we can't continue down this path.
	There's an apparatus that is built up.
	And by the way, both political parties have allowed it to happen.
	The permanent political class allowed this to be created over the last 30 or 40 years.
	And it is now out of control.
	And for the good of the country, Sean, I think we've got to come together and say, hey, you can't nullify.
	By the way, that's what I keep saying.
	This November, I have no problem with this being the first Trump re-elect in November 6th, right?
	His re-elect.
	It's up or down vote on the Trump program.
	Let's have a fair election, right?
	But you can't nullify a presidential election, and that's what they tried to do.
	Let me go.
	Your name was brought up in the hearing.
	We have the audio of this.
	Let's play the audio.
	Some Democrats want you to go now before the joint committees.
	And here's what went down earlier today.
	Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
	Will the committee also consider contempt for Mr. Bannon, who refused to answer Mr. Gowdy's questions when he was actually under subpoena?
	That is not a proper point of order in this hearing.
	Parliamentary inquiry.
	Mr. Gowdy, do you remember?
	Parliamentary inquiry.
	Parliamentary inquiry.
	A parliamentary inquiry is not in order.
	The gentleman from South Carolina controls.
	Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.
	I have a Rule 11 motion, Mr. Chairman.
	Clause 2.
	I move to subpoena Steve Bannon.
	Mr. Bannon was a witness in the House Intelligence Committee investigation.
	He was under subpoena.
	He refused to answer questions.
	Gentlemen, Mr. Gowdy.
	The gentleman is not recognized.
	The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. A motion is always in order, Mr. Chairman.
	It's Rule 11, clause 2.
	I'll yield to Ms. Slowo for one minute.
	Mr. Chairman, I move to subpoena Steve Bannon.
	In our House intelligence investigation, he was under subpoena.
	He refused a number of times to answer questions of Mr. Gowdy.
	Mr. Gowdy appears to have a sincere interest in getting to the bottom of what happened.
	And so I move under Rule 11 to bring Mr. Bannon to this committee.
	Also, Mr. Chairman is in receipt of Devin Nunes' letter to our committee recommending that the Judiciary Committee continue on the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russia and recommended witnesses.
	So I move now for consideration for Mr. Bannon to be subpoenaed.
	And if he refuses for contempt proceedings to occur.
	Okay.
	Yeah, let's start with the contempt hearings for Lisa Page.
	All right, Mr. Bannon, they want you to come down.
	You've already talked to a few people as it relates.
	You've been to Mueller's office.
	You know, I went to Mueller, I think, I don't know, two or three days.
	It's been publicly reported.
	I think it was 25 or 30 hours.
	You've got to remember, there's two different kind of things that went on.
	The president's lawyers, and this is how much Trump's cooperated, the president's lawyers, Ty Cobb and John Dowd, and John Dowd said the other day at the New York Times, it was a mistake, but what they talked to the president says, let's fully cooperate and give him everything.
	Over a million pages of documents.
	1.4 million.
	1.4 million pages of documents and access to everybody in the White House for all questions.
	They basically essentially waived executive privilege.
	General counsel actually testified.
	Don McGahn.
	The White House counsel, the chief of staff, Hope Picks, Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, myself, all of us.
	And we were told no executive privilege, go up there and talk about everything.
	So that was, you know, this was the strategy at the time.
	They're now, I think, with Emmett Flood and new counsel, Rudy, starting to think through.
	There's this controversy about General Kelly, what's going to happen there.
	But they've been more than cooperative.
	I mean, a million four.
	And they've taken this.
	And I never said not cooperative, Mueller.
	It was that there's a process that's been set up under Reagan.
	There's a process set up under Bush, a process under Clinton of how you deal with this.
	That's what Don McGahn basically kept about what's happening on Capitol Hill.
	And all I was doing was responding to what the White House guidance.
	Well, we'll see what happens here.
	It's just, yeah, you're right.
	You're the biggest get, and we had you booked ahead of time.
	What was it like to sit in front of, well, I've been very critical of the special counsel, 13 partisan Democrats, no Republicans, and you got a guy like Andrew Weissman, and I've been through his record.
	Tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs because of him and the Anderson accounting investigation, going back to Enron, and we had 9-0 Supreme Court overturn against him.
	We had four Merrill executives in jail for a year, and that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
	We've had two judges excoriate Andrew Weissman for withholding exculpatory evidence.
	Why would any investigation be considered fair, balanced, and objective if somebody with that track record is, as the New York Times calls him, the pit bull of Robert Mueller?
	Look, the White House, like I said, they waived executive privilege.
	White House counsel, Don McGahn, right?
	Who, by the way, in White House counsel in Nixon's White House was John Dean, just to bring a name up.
	And all I'm saying is that that's position, because it does not have attorney-client privilege with the president.
	White House counsel went up, chief of staff went up, I went up, I prepped, because you got to take it seriously.
	What's that like?
	Well, you got to, you sit there for, I sat there for a month in advance, and I realized I think the president has treated this with the level of gravitas, right, that he should have.
	And he told people, hey, you know, that, you know, listen to what these guys say.
	They waived executive privilege.
	I got great counsel.
	We went up there.
	I was a witness of fact, but I got to tell you, you've got to prepare.
	And it's a long and grueling thing.
	But I thought at the time it was professional in the fact that they go through everything.
	Now, I can't get into the specifics, but let me tell you, it's as close to a proctology exam as you're ever going to get.
	Here's the problem.
	There has been no evidence in spite of media hysteria about Trump-Russia collusion.
	The most exculpatory bit of evidence actually came from James Comey in James Comey's notes when the president, and he took these notes, said to James Comey, I didn't do anything with Russia, but if there's anybody around me that did, you need to get to the bottom of it.
	That does not sound like anybody that is obstructing justice.
	Of course, the Russians wanted to impact our elections.
	Devin Nunes warned about that in 2014.
	By the way, Barack Obama spent taxpayer money to try and unseat Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel.
	But there really was collusion with Russia in this sense.
	Didn't Hillary pay for that phony dossier with funneled money through Perkins Cooey that hired GPS, Fusion GPS, that hired a foreign national, Christopher Steele, that used Russian sources?
	Look, the Democratic Party and the progressive left is just right now embracing the totality of their defeat with the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Kavanaugh and understanding that 140 federal judges are going to come.
	Donald Trump is going to be in the life of the progressive left 30 or 40 years from now, as I said on your show last night.
	He is all the progressive left, and they're going through a meltdown right now.
	Okay, here's why.
	Hillary Clinton ran the single worst campaign in American presidential history.
	And by the way, the mainstream media propped her up all the way until 2.30 in the morning on November 9th when the AP said they had lost.
	The Morning Joe crowd, the New York Times, the Washington Post, you know, MSNBC, CNN.
	It was the greatest campaign in history.
	Robbie Mook and these guys were all geniuses.
	We were the islands of misfit toys.
	Donald Trump was a total bargain.
	Take a break.
	And he won.
	And he won.
	And by the way, they can't embrace that.
	You know, I want to, there's so much.
	They have to own this defeat.
	So here's my take.
	I'll tell you what.
	We'll take a break.
	Steve Bannon has agreed to be with us for the full hour.
	We're going to have also a full hour examination of Strzok's explosive testimony today and the beatdown more by Goodlatt and Trey Gowdy and others as we continue.
	We're in London.
	We're expecting massive anti-Trump protests here between tonight and tomorrow.
	We'll have full coverage on Hannity tonight.
	Trey Gowdy will be joining us tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel, 800-941-Sean.
	We'll take a break.
	We'll come back more with Steve Bannon, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, and more from London.
	It's the Sean Hannity show straight ahead.
	All right, as we continue the Sean Hannity show, we are in London today, and Steve Bannon is with us.
	He's agreed to stay for the full hour.
	Let me talk a little bit, get a headline, and we'll go into more detail in the next half hour about the president demanding that NATO step up and pay their fair share.
	The United States, I went through all these numbers earlier in the program and last night.
	We're paying over 70% of the bill.
	And meanwhile, Germany's Merkel is now signing billions and billions of dollars in energy deals, basically giving Vladimir Putin, the hostile regime of Russia, control over the life source of their economy, which is stupid and counterproductive.
	If you look at that breakfast meeting with Stoltenberg, the mainstream media melted down.
	Just watch it.
	It's a businessman being very general of NATO.
	And Trump is being a businessman, very pragmatic, very judicious, very prudent.
	And he's saying, hey, how can we have this problem with guys not paying 2% when you just did an energy deal that gave him 70% control of the industry?
	And Solomon says, well, we trade with him.
	And Trump very plainly goes, this is not trade.
	It's energy.
	Once you have energy, you have control.
	Right?
	And so the German thing has to be addressed.
	And I think he's done a terrific job.
	He has made this alliance stronger and more.
	It's not a protectorate, as I said on your show last night.
	It's an alliance.
	And Donald Trump has made this alliance better.
	All right.
	And we're going to pick it up there when we get back.
	Well, more with Steve Bannon, then Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, as we continue from London.
	An amazing show, Trey Gowdy on Hannity tonight at 9.
	Steve is so well shaven today.
	Now, I have seen and witnessed Steve Bannon when he's not well-shaven.
	He doesn't like to shave a lot.
	And it's notorious.
	It gives this image off that he's really tough.
	And kind of inside, I can tell you because I know him.
	He's actually a very nice guy, and he's very smart and humble, more than you would know.
	But we are all on the Sean Hannity show, members of the Dollar Shave Club.
	And the great thing is you will get these single best products so that you can look, feel, and smell your best.
	You name it, shampoo, body wash, conditioner, toothpaste, hair gel.
	You name it, they got it.
	On top of that, they have their six-plate executive, which is the best razor you've ever used.
	You'll never use shaving cream again.
	They have Dr. Carver's Shave Butter.
	Once you try it, you'll never go back.
	And by the way, you pay about a third of what you pay in a store.
	It is a superior product, and it's conveniently delivered.
	You don't have to chase down a woman at the CVS and say, can you please open the razor cabinet, please?
	I need the razor.
	Anyway, you're going to love the Dollar Shave Club.
	And by the way, you don't pay to be a member.
	And for five bucks, if you just want to try it, you'll get their daily essential starter kit.
	And it includes body cleanser, their world-famous Dr. Carver Shave Butter, the best razor, the six-plate executive.
	Go to dollarshaveclub.com/slash Hannity.
	Now, Bannon's no longer a member of government.
	I'm going to give him a free membership.
	It's dollarshaveclub.com/slash Hannity, and you will not regret it.
	Quick break from London.
	It's the Sean Hannity Show.
	Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back where they're delinquent, as far as I'm concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them.
	So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you'll just add it all up.
	It's massive amounts of money is owed.
	Germany is just paying a little bit over 1%, whereas the United States, in actual numbers, is paying 4.2% of a much larger GDP.
	So I think that's inappropriate also.
	You know, we're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting everybody, and yet we're paying a lot of money to protect.
	Now, this has been going on for decades.
	This has been brought up by other presidents, but other presidents never did anything about it because I don't think they understood it or they just didn't want to get involved.
	But I have to bring it up because I think it's very unfair to our country.
	It's very unfair to our taxpayer.
	And I think that these countries have to step it up, not over a 10-year period, they have to step it up immediately.
	I think it's very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia where you're supposed to be guarding against Russia and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia.
	So we're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting all of these countries.
	And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they're paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia.
	So we're supposed to protect you against Russia, but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia.
	And I think that's very inappropriate.
	And the former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the pipeline company that's supplying the gas.
	Ultimately, Germany will have almost 70% of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas.
	So you tell me, is that appropriate?
	I mean, we might been complaining about this from the time I got in.
	It should have never been allowed to have happened.
	But Germany is totally controlled by Russia because they were getting from 60 to 70% of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline.
	And you tell me if that's appropriate because I think it's not.
	And I think it's a very bad thing for NATO.
	And I don't think it should have happened.
	We are going to discuss many important issues at the summit.
	Among them is defense spending.
	And we all agree that we have to do more.
	I agree with you that we have to make sure that Allies are investing more.
	The good news is that the Allies have started to invest more in defense.
	After years of cutting defense purchase, they're starting to add billions to the defense purchase.
	And last year was the biggest increase in defense spending across Europe and Canada in a generation.
	Why was that last year?
	It's also because of your leadership.
	It's because your declared message.
	That was the Secretary General, the last comment you heard of NATO backing up President Trump.
	And the only reason they are paying more is because President Trump is demanding that they pay more.
	And by the way, the budget is significant.
	We're talking about NATO's massive budget.
	It's about a trillion dollars.
	Now, the president is asking Europe and our allies to pay their fair share.
	Right now, the United States, this is your money, your family's money, your taxpayer dollars.
	We are paying over $700 billion a year of that $1 trillion budget.
	We're paying almost all of it, over 70% of it.
	And by the way, the next highest contributor is the United Kingdom.
	That's $61.5 billion.
	Germany making billion-dollar deals, which is, you know, you have the former chancellor of Germany now profiting with these deals with Russia where Germany will become 70% dependent, the lifeblood of their economy, on Russian energy, which is so counterproductive to what the entire mission of NATO was and is supposed to be about today.
	That comes into play.
	Germany, $51 billion.
	Canada, $21 billion.
	And Belgium, only $5 billion, where NATO is headquartered.
	And the United States is now, we're paying 70% of the bill.
	If you break it down in terms of a percentage, remember they had a goal of 2% of GDP of all allying nations.
	Well, it turns out that there's only three, four that actually reached that 2% number.
	And the United States pays 3.57% of our massive GDP.
	And then Greece, 2.36%.
	The United Kingdom, 2.12%.
	Estonia, 2.08%.
	And Poland, by the way, 1.99%.
	So they're paying the 2%, but they're not willing to make any energy deals with Vladimir Putin and put the lifeblood of their economy into his hands.
	Steve Bannon, this is just wrong.
	If you look at all the meltdown on CNN, MSNBC, the Joe Scarber show, David Ignatius, Richard Haas, all of these guys that melted down over the last 48 hours, not one number or statistic comes out.
	It's on your show last night, your opening monologue, you walk the American people through more details than everybody else wants to have happy talk.
	President Trump is trying to make NATO work.
	You heard the Secretary General say the biggest increase we've ever had was last year because of your leadership to President Trump.
	President Trump has focused on this from day one.
	And here's what happened that was important yesterday.
	President Trump in the morning said, hey, you need to hit the 2%.
	Okay.
	You need to hit the 2%.
	And you can't wait till 2024.
	Needs to be today.
	And by the way, if you don't hit the 2%, it should be in arrears.
	I know you don't want to hear that, but this is why because every year we're up at 3.5%.
	We're spending, by the way, we're going to spend more and more and more.
	President Trump, I think, has increased defense banks.
	It's only like 10 or 12% already.
	More importantly, it was President Donald Trump that forced this readiness initiative that NATO had the afternoon meeting, supposed to be the long, boring meetings.
	He came out of those meetings.
	What did he say?
	Hey, you know what?
	I think it'll be 4%.
	This is because Donald Trump, and this is what galls me about the mainstream media attacking him being isolationist.
	In his comments, he said other presidents knew this, but they either didn't know the details or didn't want to force it.
	He knows the details like any businessman.
	He's done his due diligence.
	He knows these numbers better than anybody.
	And he sits there and goes, hey, to save this alliance and make it an alliance, not a protectorate.
	It's not the United States' responsibility.
	It's not the deplorables.
	It's on their shoulders as taxpayers, and their kids are the ones.
	The 38,000 combat troops in Germany are the sons and daughters of the deplorables.
	The people in the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan, the deplorables.
	In the South China Sea on those Navy vessels, the deplorables.
	Up at the 38th parallel, it's the deplorables.
	It's on their shoulders to bear the taxes and then have their kids do it.
	No, Donald Trump as America first is not isolationist.
	He's sitting there, knows the details, said, guys, here's what we need to do.
	You need to step up for 2%.
	You did it before I got here, said it, but you've been just meandering.
	It can't be 10 years now.
	It's got to be today.
	Then he goes into the readiness.
	The German I said in your show last night.
	German Air Force, 128 combat fighters, seven are ready for combat duty.
	There's a report the other day that Germany can actually field their entire thing as a brigade of combat troops.
	Okay?
	What he's saying is it can't go on like this.
	You have to be serious.
	If you're serious about your defense, I'm serious.
	The United States, his budget put forward is over $700 billion.
	Okay.
	The American people and the deplorables have shown their good faith.
	And Donald Trump, more than any president, and I say even including President Reagan, has been engaged in the nitty-gritty, under-the-hood, non-sexy stuff of NATO to make this work.
	And it galls me when the mainstream media and even some Republicans grandstand with all this high-falutin happy talk.
	Okay.
	You want to see American values?
	You're seeing it in the grit and determination of Donald Trump to get to a solution on this.
	Okay.
	And to tell these nations, here's what has to happen.
	We have to have readiness.
	We have to have equipment.
	We have to have interoperability.
	We have to be an alliance.
	Okay.
	The president, it's amazing because I'm looking at the comments of John Kerry.
	Donald Trump's disgraceful NATO speech and Ben Rhodes.
	You know, these are the same guys that dropped $150 billion in cash and other currency on the tarmac for the mullahs in Iran.
	I don't need lectures from them about American national security.
	The president today, interestingly, said, well, yeah, Vladimir Putin is looking out for Russia.
	I am looking out for the United States.
	I'm a statistics guy, and I'm a believer that I can't give statistics once.
	You have to repeat them or people don't remember.
	But we now have a report today of food stamp usage in the United States has dropped below $40 million for the first time in eight years.
	Manufacturing jobs are at the highest level in 10 years.
	Donald Trump's president, 14 states, record low unemployment, record low unemployment for women, Hispanic Americans, and African Americans.
	All of that is happening.
	Now, this is called economic nationalism.
	This is what economic nationalism is.
	It's bringing manufacturing jobs back.
	His immigration said we can't bring them back.
	He said we can't get those jobs back.
	They're coming back.
	The whole, by the way, the entire Wall Street and all the political elites said that.
	They said the inexorable rise of China.
	Those manufacturing jobs were gone and never coming back.
	Donald Trump is proving the manufacturing jobs are coming back.
	The economy is coming back.
	And here's the other thing: immigration policies.
	Historically low black unemployment.
	And now of the lowest seven or eight quarters in history, seven have happened on Donald Trump's watch of Hispanic, the black and Hispanic working class.
	And I continue to say this, and I don't care if it drives the progressives nuts.
	Martin Luther King will be proud of the economic policies Donald Trump has put in to look after the black and Hispanic working class.
	The wages are starting to increase.
	Unemployment is at all time low.
	They are the direct beneficiaries of Donald Trump's policies.
	And that's what he looks after working people in this country like nobody has.
	The beauty of what has happened here in Europe, what happened in Brussels yesterday to me is, and it's the most underreported asset that the United States of America has.
	And it's really simple.
	We have more natural gas.
	We have more oil.
	We have more coal.
	We have more energy.
	We have the ability to create more wealth, more prosperity, more high-paying career jobs.
	People in North Dakota that are driving trucks will be trained to drive a truck that I know because we had a program to put companies and people that need jobs together.
	They literally go from $30,000, $40,000 a year to $100,000, $120,000 a year.
	Now that the president has opened up ANWAR, now that he's building the pipelines, now that he's removing burdensome regulation, now that he saved the coal industry, not Joe Manchin or Obama in West Virginia, now that he's doing all these things, this is the biggest opportunity for the forgotten man and woman in this country to accumulate wealth and happiness and prosperity than we've ever experienced.
	And it's sitting there, and he's basically saying to Merkel, why are you giving these deals to Putin, who is a bad actor, when you could get it from us, the United States?
	Our energy dominance, what's coming, his policy was not energy independence, it's energy dominance, full spectrum dominance, okay?
	And you can actually export the value creation of wealth to other nations of the world.
	When he went last August to Poland and laid out, he said the defense of Western civilization is the central concept of our time.
	And he talked about right then, he was in Putin's face about gas then.
	And he said he offered up liquidified natural gas from the United States of America.
	If I'm Vladimir Putin, I'd be shaking in my boots in the lead up to the summit.
	I got to ask you the most important question.
	I can't believe the hour flies by.
	2018, to me, is the single most important midterm election in our lifetime.
	It's not a midterm.
	This is a presidential re-elect, okay?
	They had the nullification project, and they're going to get it on November 6th.
	This is an up or down vote.
	Donald Trump's on the ticket across the board, okay?
	In every congressional district, in every Senate race, it's about Trump's.
	None of your congressman that is a Republican or your senator is a rhino.
	You've got to put it aside.
	Suck it up.
	You know what?
	This is a vote about President Trump in the whole package.
	Economics, national security, immigration, deconstruction administrative state.
	You look across the board, the judges, you take the whole package.
	And by the way, put this to the country and go out to the country and show me who they got.
	They got Elizabeth Warren.
	They got Joe Biden.
	They got Corey Booker.
	Who are they going to bring?
	Camilla Harris, Kristen Gillibrand?
	Okay.
	You know what their agenda is?
	Their agenda is to impeach Trump, but don't say it.
	Their agenda is open borders, but don't say it.
	Their agenda is keep Obamacare, and they're even saying it.
	They want their crumbs back, and they don't want Donald Trump making Supreme Court appointments.
	There's not one positive piece of the agenda.
	Last word, we have 20 seconds.
	The deplorables, this is in November 6th of 2018.
	It's very simple.
	Deplorables, if you believe in this presidency, if you believe in this man, if you believe the direction he's taking the country and to take the world, you got to show up.
	All right, Steve Bennon, great to see you in London.
	Thank you for joining us.
	One more minute with Steve Bennett, and then we have Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, all coming up.
	All right, Sean Hannity Show, as we continue, we're in London.
	Oh, Trey Gowdy is on tonight.
	He's amazing.
	At the next hour, we're going to have Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett.
	We continue our final moments with Steve Bennett.
	Am I allowed to talk about this new project you're involved in?
	Well, we're doing something.
	By the way, I'm not impressed very easily.
	I'm really impressed with this.
	It's top secret right now.
	We'll be announcing it, and we're going to announce it on your show sometime in the near future, near future.
	We've got a project that I think is going to jack people up for 2018.
	This is all, people have got to get focused.
	The left is triggered, and I tip my hat to them.
	They're getting people out.
	Okay.
	This is democracy.
	Triggered by irrational hatred.
	Irrational, but they understand now Donald Trump's in their life for a long time.
	Okay.
	He's in their life.
	You got to impress him.
	He's in their lives for now 30 or 40 years.
	Oh, no.
	Because of what he's doing on the street.
	It's a transformational presidency that's unfolding before our eyes.
	I just want to go back because there are going to be people that I am so disgusted with the Republican Party with the exception of people like Cruz in the Senate and Ram Paul and Mark Meadows and guys like that.
	But the Freedom Caucus.
	The Freedom Caucus is it.
	That's the posse.
	Okay, but some people listening right now, they don't have those Freedom Caucus members.
	And you're saying, suck it up.
	This is too many.
	Doesn't matter.
	Because they want to impeach the president.
	The project is the re-elect of Donald Trump.
	The reason they won't talk about it and won't use the impeachment word now, they've done the polling, and they know that is the way to galvanize the Republican Party and the Trump deplorables to turn out in massive numbers in November, and that's what we've got to do.
	The opposition is working ground game all the time, and they're doing it smart.
	I tip my hat to them.
	We have to be tougher.
	We have to be better.
	The same way we won in 2016, the same way we're going to win here.
	Ground game.
	All right, Steve Bannon, looking forward to your new project.
	Great to see you in London.
	We'll take a break.
	We'll come back.
	Hannity, Trey Gowdy, who I think had his best day ever as a congressman, he's going to join us tonight.
	Nigel Farage will be stopping by tonight.
	Hannity on the Fox News channel, 9 Eastern from London.
	Big protests from here expected tomorrow.
	We'll be covering all that quick break from London.
	It's the Sean Hannity Show.
	Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
	I do know that decisions about when and whether to open investigations and when and whether to charge people with crimes aren't supposed to depend on who's sitting in the director's chair or on political decisions or on the political agendas of FBI agents and lawyers.
	So if a Trump-hating FBI agent and a Trump-hating FBI lawyer who have talked about effing Trump, stopping Trump, impeaching Trump, are within hours of President Trump firing their boss, if they start talking about opening an investigation now that Andy is acting and that some person needs to be locked in in a formal, chargeable way soon, I know as a former U.S. attorney that if in fact that's what happened,
	I know that whoever is the subject of that case that was opened now that Andy is acting and whoever you and Ms. Page talked about needing to be locked in soon in a formal, chargeable way, well, they would have had their civil liberties violated.
	They would have been deprived of due process.
	Page 400 of the Inspector General report, someone tells the Inspector General, quote, there is a bright line, a bright and inviolable line between what you think personally and belief and the conduct of your official business.
	Who said that?
	I believe I did, sir.
	You did say that.
	And I heard you say similar things last week.
	I heard you say similar things today.
	You said it very clearly.
	You said it very unequivocally in your opening remarks that you never crossed that inviolable line in 26 years.
	Earlier today, in response to a question, you said, I took my personal belief out of every official action.
	So you're asking us to believe that when you say things like F Trump and stop Trump and impeach Trump, that those are just personal beliefs.
	And that when you say those things, you never cross that line, that bright, inviolable line, and allow it to impact your official conduct.
	That's Really, what this comes down to that you're asking us to believe.
	And because of that, I'm almost embarrassed to ask you this question.
	Of the approximately 50,000 text messages that I've seen with your personal beliefs, like F Trump, stop Trump, impeach Trump.
	Go ahead and confirm on the record that none of that occurred on an official FBI device or on official FBI time.
	Go ahead and do that.
	Sir, no, they did.
	Many of them did.
	Oh, they did.
	Okay, so.
	2,000, sir.
	So, really?
	No, I'll give you a chance at the end.
	So, what you really meant to say was that when you said you never crossed that bright, inviolable line, what you meant to say was, except for 50,000 times, except for hundreds of times a day where I went back and forth expressing my personal opinions about effing Trump and stopping Trump and impeaching Trump on official FBI phones on official FBI time.
	Other than that, you never crossed that line.
	I'm sure there are 13,000 FBI agents out there that are beaming with pride at how clearly you've drawn that line.
	Agent Struck, are you starting to understand why some folks out there don't believe a word you say and why it's especially troubling that you, of all people, are at the center of the three highest profile investigations in recent times that involved President Trump and that you were in charge of an investigation investigating, gathering evidence against Donald Trump, a subject that you hated, that you wanted to F him, to stop him, to impeach him.
	And do you see why that might call into question everything you've touched on all of those investigations?
	You're saying it was the perception.
	There are 13 Democrats on the special counsel probe, including one who went to what he hoped was a victory party.
	That's a perception problem, too.
	They weren't kicked off.
	You were.
	Why were you kicked off?
	Mr. Gowdy, I cannot speak to Special Counsel Mueller's.
	How long did you talk to him?
	How long did you talk to him when he let you go?
	witness answer the question will be afforded the opportunity my recollection it was a short meeting somewhere between 15 to 30 minutes probably around 15 minutes And your testimony is Bob Mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your text.
	He kicked you off because of some appearance that he was worried about.
	I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.
	All right, that was John Ratcliffe earlier today talking about Peter Strzok jumping over the clear line of bias 50,000 times.
	But of course, he's so delusional, or maybe not so delusional.
	Maybe he just thinks that there should be a superclass in America that decides who should be president, not be president, and talking about how civil liberties were violated if you text what actually happened.
	And Peter Strzzok, of course, arguing with Trey Gowdy.
	Trey Gowdy will be with us tonight on Hannity on the Fox News channel.
	Anyway, glad you're with us.
	800-941.
	Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
	As we continue, we are in London today, expecting massive protests here as well into the night.
	And who tomorrow will have full coverage of Hannity tonight on the Fox News channel?
	Sarah Carter's on the ground with us in London.
	Greg Jarrett, the Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton, and yeah, frame Donald Trump.
	It's now less than two weeks away.
	Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
	Thank you both.
	Let me start back in New York with Greg.
	Greg, your thoughts?
	I never saw Trey Gowdy.
	I thought it was his finest moment as a congressman today.
	He was terrific.
	And he questioned Peter Strzok about the infamous text message to his lover, Lisa Page, will stop Donald Trump from becoming president.
	And amazingly, I mean, I had to laugh.
	I nearly fell out of my chair with laughter.
	Strzzok claimed, oh, I don't really recall composing that message.
	You know, it was kind of late at night.
	It was shorthand.
	Gowdy shot back.
	I don't care when it was written.
	I don't care if it was longhand or cursive.
	I don't care about that.
	I want to know what you meant by it, Agent Strzzok.
	And Strzok, you know, hemmed in hard and fumbled and mumbled and said, well, all I can tell you is I would never take any action to influence a word for it.
	Take my word for it that we'll stop him.
	He's loathsome.
	The vote should be $100 million to zero.
	Let's just take his word for it that we can't let this happen.
	We have an insurance policy.
	Just take his word for it.
	The level of arrogance is so breathtaking to me, and he must think we're all stupid, but I do think there's legal jeopardy now for him.
	What's your thoughts?
	Well, I think that there is some legal jeopardy for him because, and it was foolish, it seems to me, for him to testify and not invoke the fifth because there's so many documents out there, and they may well undermine what he is testifying under oath to today, and that would be perjury or misleading Congress.
	And there are other statutes he's looking at, abuse of power in the Pfizer warrant, obstruction of justice if he used his office to influence the investigation of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
	So he's looking at a load of potential legal jeopardy, and I was actually shocked that he decided to testify.
	Let me go to Sarah Carter, and this has been our big story.
	He is the key person.
	He was at the heart of everything.
	He was the one that interviewed General Flynn.
	Interestingly, we are told did not believe General Flynn lied.
	Neither did Comey, which means why did he agree to a deal?
	I would argue, well, now he's put his house up for sale.
	They probably threatened his kid, and it was a plea deal, and he had no other option because, unfortunately, they can bankrupt people.
	But he's also the one that was writing the exoneration of Hillary Clinton way before, back in early May of 2016, before he interviewed Hillary Clinton.
	And that was July 2nd of 2016, before Comey exonerated her on July 5th.
	None of the timing looks good.
	And then immediately thereafter, initiated this phony Russia-Trump witch hunt, which, by the way, we now believe started much earlier, and the fix was in on that earlier.
	Unconnected as well to Hillary Clinton, to her campaign, to the DNC, the dossier, even as early as January, Sean.
	I mean, they are looking so far back at this.
	It wasn't just July 31st or the opening of the investigation.
	Congress knows that there were other players involved, that this was just not the FBI, but that it was expanded beyond into other agencies.
	How were they cooperating with each other?
	Who was talking to who?
	And it wasn't just Peter Strzok.
	I mean, we have to look at McCabe, Andrew McCabe, former Director Comey, all of the people that were involved here and how they work together with other agencies like the CIA, like the NSA.
	Because I think we forget now, watching these hearings, that there were a number of unmaskings that people are still investigating this.
	I mean, did we forget about Samantha Power?
	We haven't forgotten any of it.
	I mean, this is the problem.
	I mean, we're focused on 10% of what's going on here.
	But, I mean, we still have a Uranium One scandal to deal with, you know, where America's uranium is handed over to the Russians and the monies that go back to the Clinton Foundation.
	All right, just stay right there.
	Let me bring in attorney, civil liberties attorney, criminal rights attorney David Schoen is also with us.
	We're going to have Greg, Sarah, and David now for the full hour.
	David, I want to get your initial thoughts on these hearings today.
	And I don't think Trey Gowdy had a finer hour.
	He'll be on TV tonight than he did today.
	I think Trey Gowdy had the line of the day when Strzok started to tell him he didn't appreciate his line of questioning.
	And Gowdy said, I don't give a damn what you appreciate.
	The unprecedented animus you've shown, et cetera.
	However, I have to tell you, I am sitting here seething.
	I think that both sides perform poorly today.
	There is so much ammunition on this guy and so many missed opportunities so far.
	Remember, Strzok is a walking, talking, living embarrassment to every single FBI agent who ever served.
	This is a guy who was having an extramarital affair on the job with a lawyer at the FBI, also extramarital affair.
	They lied, they cheated, they deceived, they betrayed.
	And now we're supposed to believe that he didn't mean what he said and he didn't say what he meant.
	He had three themes today.
	By the way, when I say they all dropped the ball, the Democrats on the committee were an absolute disgrace to the country to prop up a guy like this and to not reflect outrage from day one.
	Everyone in this country should be outraged to what Strzok did.
	It's not a Democratic or Republican issue.
	And these people tried to undermine the hearing from the start and they tried to prop up Strzok.
	That's wrong.
	But the Republicans were not well enough prepared and they didn't ask questions like cross-examiners must.
	They asked open questions.
	Let's go through the questions, direct questions.
	Although Gowdy did hold him to his feet to the fire, I agree there could have been more.
	Let's go to the direct questions that were missed today.
	Right.
	Well, first of all, I'd go to the topics that were missed.
	And not to let him, the point of cross-examination is control, not to let the witness get away with appearing to have controlled the dialogue and to be sort of the self-righteous guy this guy's trying to come across as.
	So, for example, when he says these were all just personal opinions, personal political opinions, and he goes on about being a patriotic American and the First Amendment right to political speech, absolute nonsense, but they should have stuck it to him with the text of the emails themselves.
	Nothing speaks stronger than them.
	For example, he says these were just personal opinions.
	They didn't in any way affect what he did.
	Really?
	Well, how about in the report the entire description of his discussion in McCabe's office with Paige about stopping Donald Trump as the agenda?
	This is 8-15-2016 text.
	We can't just risk that he won't win.
	We have an insurance policy.
	And he explains that that was the Russia.
	Isn't that obstruction of justice what you're describing here?
	They put the fix in for Hillary and they tried to frame Donald Trump.
	Basically, the title of Greg Jarrett's book.
	Of course, of course it is.
	But let me say this also.
	You want to know whether we should have confidence in the FBI having produced all the documents?
	Read the report again, as I know you've read very well.
	Page 433, note 203.
	When Paige said to him, Oh, no, Trump is never going to be president, right?
	Strzok responded, No, no, he's not.
	We'll stop it.
	Now, that's a major, major text.
	The FBI never produced that.
	Never produced it.
	Yeah, they'll stop it with the power of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
	We'll take a quick break.
	We're in London tonight, Trey Gowdy, among our guests, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, also joining us.
	We'll continue with David Schoen, Greg, and Sarah 800-941 Sean, expecting wide protest in London here tomorrow.
	Well, full coverage of that.
	And as we continue from London with David Schoen and Sarah Carter and Greg Jarrett, Greg's book out now in 10 days from now, Amazon.com, Hennedy.com.
	I want you to respond to what, in fact, David Schoen said, which was too many open-ended questions, but even still, the American people are smart, Greg.
	Nobody's going to believe that his bizarre, fantastical, if you will, interpretation of his own text.
	He knew darn well what he was talking about.
	Oh, he totally did.
	Nobody with an ounce of intelligence watching today is buying anything that Peter Strzzok is trying to sell, and neither did the Inspector General on page 497 of his report.
	He said that text message, we're going to stop Trump from being elected president and other messages are, quote, not only indicative of a biased state of mind, but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral process.
	What is that?
	In legal terms, that is obstruction of justice.
	These text messages reveal Inno Strzok's nefarious design, together with McCabe and Comey and Page and others.
	I mean, remember that just days before that Stop Trump text message, that Strzok is the guy who signed the official documents launching the FBI investigation of Trump over these specious allegations of colluding with Russia.
	We've got to take a break.
	I know, David, I promise we'll get back to you.
	Sarah, we'll get back to you.
	We're in London.
	Hannity tonight at 9, Trey Gowdy.
	Big protests here in London, right where we're staying, by the way.
	We'll be in the middle of all of it.
	Oh, gee, what's fun?
	I think I'm going to have to wear a disguise.
	Although, not that many people have recognized me so far, which is good.
	What's that?
	Wait, wait, it's my hat and glasses.
	It's your hat and glasses.
	Yeah, okay.
	But anyway, we'll come back.
	Explosive hearings.
	We've got it covered.
	The media, of course, lying and spitting.
	It's actually worse than what they did when Clinton was president.
	Quick break, right back.
	Sean Hannity Show from London.
	All right, as we continue, Sean Hannity Show.
	We're in London today.
	We'll get back to Greg and Sarah and David Schoen in a second.
	There's some amazing moments that we still haven't gotten to from the hearing.
	Bob Goodlatt pointing out that we don't want to read text messages dripping of bias or reading the FBI director's predetermined outcome of an investigation and telling Democrats to imagine if Hillary was the target of this biased investigation.
	And then you have this little exchange with Goodlatt, Nadler, and Sheila Jackson Lee arguing over Strzok exercising attorney-client privilege to not answer questions.
	Okay, once you start answering questions, you don't go back.
	One of the rules.
	Anyway, listen to this.
	This is precisely why our joint investigation is such an anomaly.
	We want the FBI and the Department of Justice to be off the front pages and to return to doing what they are best at, battling crime, terrorism, and espionage, and protecting all of us from harm.
	We don't want to read text message after text message, dripping with bias against one of the two presidential candidates.
	We don't enjoy finding compelling evidence that the FBI director had predetermined the outcome of the case months in advance.
	But that is, thus far, what we have found.
	And these are only small pieces of the larger puzzle.
	The more information we acquire, the more interviews we conduct, and the more sources we contact, the more we learn.
	It has unfortunately taken a great deal of effort to get our executive branch agencies to cooperate with our legitimate congressional oversight.
	But we have made substantial progress, and it is a credit to our investigative task force members and staff.
	For all those in this room who continue to disparage our investigation as mere conspiracy theory, and for all those who have chosen to ignore serious irregularities and potential crimes that we have uncovered, I say this.
	Imagine if you were under investigation and the investigator hated you, disparaged you in all manner of ways, and fraternized with another employee working on your case who also hated you, denigrated your supporters, and made crucial investigative decisions on how your case should be treated and eventually adjudicated.
	Would anyone sitting here today believe that this was an acceptable state of affairs, particularly at an agency whose motto is fidelity, bravery, and integrity?
	I think not.
	To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, please replace President Trump's name with your own name in a small sample of things Mr. Strzok has said.
	Envision how you would feel if you found out that the chief agent investigating you as a member of Congress was making these statements.
	F. Trump, Trump is a disaster.
	Just went to a Southern Virginia Walmart.
	I could smell the Trump support.
	Or perhaps most alarmingly and revealingly, we'll stop it, referring directly to Mr. Trump's candidacy for president.
	The United States Supreme Court has recognized that it is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.
	It is their unremitting obligation to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation.
	Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, you know, or we all know that if we were to ask a question of a witness about a military secret, if we were to ask him, how does the H-bomb work, he could not answer that question.
	This is the same thing.
	That is a classification issue, not an issue of whether or not this is a valid question for which I appeal the ruling of the chair.
	He's ruled that it's not a point of order.
	That is not a ruling.
	Mr. Strzzok?
	Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order and I insist on appealing the ruling of the chair.
	Mr. Trzok, knowing the advice that point of order, Mr. Chairman.
	Point of order.
	I believe there's a point of order that's been raised and you've ruled we have a right now to answer Mr. Nadler's.
	It is not a valid point of order.
	I can't request point of order, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Strzz.
	Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the chair that you have just made on that, on whether the you have not stated a valid point of order.
	And that is your ruling and I appeal it.
	That is not an appealable order.
	Point of order.
	Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
	Appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting.
	He's appealing it.
	That requires a vote to either sustain it or overrule it.
	The gentleman from New York has not cited a rule of the House that is being violated.
	Therefore, it is not a point of order.
	That's your ruling.
	Appeal that ruling of the chair.
	Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney-client privilege, which cannot be overridden and is a rule of the House to the extent that gentle women have the right to an attorney-client privilege in this House.
	And that is what this witness is asserting.
	Attorney-client privilege, and he has been advised not to answer the question.
	The gentleman will suspend.
	All right, pretty explosive hearings today, pretty amazing moments.
	By the way, Chairman Gowdy is going to be on Hannity tonight from London.
	Sarah Carter is on the ground.
	She's been watching and following this all day.
	David Schoen, Civil Liberties Criminal Defense Attorney.
	And Greg Jarrett, his book out in, what, nine days now.
	And it is the Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
	Let me go to Sarah.
	I honestly have never seen anything.
	I never thought this could happen in America.
	And I love law enforcement.
	I love the FBI.
	I love the rank and file.
	I still believe they're going to be the heroes in this story.
	But the highest levels of the FBI rigged an investigation to protect their favorite candidate.
	They overlooked the law.
	They covered the whole thing up.
	They rigged a whole investigation.
	And then they did attempt to frame Donald Trump.
	And the same people led by Peter Strzok at the heart of it all.
	You have to think, they must have been doing this for some time.
	This doesn't just evolve in this election.
	These are people that have been together in the FBI, have grown together, have built up their ranks together, have become a kind of club.
	And they went to the seventh floor.
	And you're absolutely right, Sean.
	The rank and file have nothing to do with this, but they did know what was going on at the seventh floor.
	I can tell you this because I talked to them.
	I talked to a lot of the guys that have worked at counterintelligence, people that have worked in the world.
	There are 30 of them begging to be subpoenaed because they want to tell the American people the truth about the corruption of these few at the top.
	There are members of the FBI, and I don't know the exact number now.
	I can tell you that there's more than two handfuls that I know of that would like to talk, that would like to go forward and tell their stories, but they don't necessarily have to do with just this particular story.
	They feel that there has been a corruption within the system, and not only within the FBI, within the Bureau, but throughout the system, within the NSA, within the CIA, an abuse of power that they say, and you know, I can tell you this, the church hearings that took place a long time ago, this is something that will come about again.
	Bannon said it earlier today.
	I mean, it's coming back.
	He's absolutely right because this is something that needs to be investigated.
	This was an abuse of the political system, a weaponization of our intelligence agencies.
	And this is the reason why this is so important.
	This is the reason why Americans, and look, Strzok was so smug today.
	Any American that watched this hearing and just looked at this guy's face and his smug smile and how he was going to get away with it should know this is exactly how all these guys have behaved.
	They're smug and they're arrogant, except for thank goodness McCabe was fired.
	Thank goodness Comey has been fired.
	Thank goodness the rest of those guys that worked with him have either been pushed out or they've retired out.
	So we're cleaning out the system, but we need to be willing to look at the truth.
	And that's the only way this is going to get fixed.
	You know, David Shon, let me go to the heart of this too, because I call it the biggest abuse of power scandal, biggest corruption scandal in history.
	The danger is, is that, you know, David, I know I talked to you at the time the day that I said if, not I would, if Robert Mueller was asking for everybody's cell phones that he was investigating, if I ever went on the air, which I wouldn't, and I said it would be bad advice and it wouldn't work out well, and literally the liberal media lit up.
	If I did the things that Hillary did and I deleted and I acid washed with bleach pit and I went ahead and smashed devices and pulled SIM cards, if I had classified information on a server and I not only mishandled it but destroyed it, I would be in jail.
	If I did what Lisa Page did yesterday, I don't think you and Greg combined and the best attorneys in the country could get me out of jail.
	I'd be Paul Manafort 23 hours a day behind bars.
	How do they get away with this?
	And if they do, doesn't it mean equal justice under the law, equal application under the laws?
	Doesn't it mean that our constitutional republic really isn't working and that we have our criminal justice system now is that the equivalent of Venezuela or the former Soviet Union or that of under Putin?
	Yes, yes, and yes to everything you've said.
	You'd be under the jail.
	Look, takes just the example of text messages and emails.
	Strzzok said today he didn't mean what he said.
	For example, very clear meaning, I would think, when he called Trump supporters ignorant hillbillies, he didn't mean that at all.
	He says, let me tell you something.
	Strzok and other FBI agents every day in this country use emails against criminal defendants, getting life sentences for those defendants, and convince the jury in every case that they meant exactly what was written in those emails.
	This guy's an FBI agent.
	He knows better.
	Let me tell you, Strzzok's lying today that should have just shut down everything.
	Strzzok said flat out he does not believe that bias was expressed in any of his emails.
	Now, that's an absolute joke, but he also said that the IG didn't find bias.
	And this is why I say I'm disappointed in the way the hearings were conducted, because you may look at Strzok and think he's a liar.
	You should hear from Strzok's own words, confronted with the text messages and confronted with report.
	That's not what the IG found.
	And specifically, with Strzok, the IG found in chapter 9 and page 149, note 120 of the report, that there was reason to believe that there was bias in Strzzok's decision to prioritize the Russian investigation and to bury the Wiener laptop thing.
	Look, he can't say they're just personal emails.
	He said specifically when Ted Cruz dropped out of the race, now I have to speed up the mid-year investigation.
	It's absolutely an abomination what this guy is saying.
	And I'd like to believe that people, you know, listen to what the various congresspeople say when they throw out their lines.
	We should hear it from this guy's own mouth.
	I would have paid money to be able to cross-examine someone like Peter Strzok under oath.
	This is a dream to confront him with his own texts word after word and not let him get away with things.
	Yeah, Greg, I mean, look, this is the heart and soul of your book.
	And I've had the pleasure of actually reading it.
	The amount of information, the depth and research is almost unprecedented for any book I've read.
	And it proves the case beyond any doubt.
	Where do we go from here?
	How do we get our constitutional republic, our system of justice back in order, considering the magnitude of trying to steal a presidential election and rig a presidential election?
	It has to be exposed fully and completely.
	As you and I were talking yesterday, I cited the famous quote from Justice Brandeis: Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
	There has to be full transparency because there was never any plausible evidence that Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency.
	The FBI had no legal basis to even initiate the investigation.
	They invented or exaggerated facts.
	They perverted laws or ignored them.
	And in essence, Sean, the law enforcers became the law breakers.
	The FBI appropriated this unverified dossier as a pretext for spying on the Trump campaign.
	They concealed evidence from judges.
	It was leaked to the press.
	And by the time Trump was sworn in as president, the mainstream media had its Russian hoax, its collusion tale.
	There was never any evidence of collusion, no legal case of obstruction.
	And all of this has been done simply to destroy Donald Trump for political reasons.
	Guys like Strzok and Lisa Page and James Comey and McCabe, they're the villains in all of this.
	And frankly, Trump is the victim.
	We've got to say goodbye.
	We're in London.
	Sarah Carter also will be on.
	Greg Jarrett is on.
	And if Doug Shones, David Shones, not booked, he needs to be booked.
	You are phenomenal.
	All of you will have Trey Gowdy on Hannity tonight.
	We're also expecting big protests in London, anti-Trump protests.
	We'll have all coverage of that.
	We'll probably be in the middle of it at some point tomorrow.
	Anyway, we'll have all of this in about three hours from now on Hannity, Trey Gowdy's exclusive interview tonight.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up from London, but let not your heart be troubled.
	Three hours from now, Hannity on the Fox News channel, the explosive hearings, and by the way, the take that the media will not have: Trey Gowdy, Mark Meadows, Matt Gates, Sarah Carter, Greg Garrett, Nigel Farage from London, and Danielle Hoffman.
	We'll see it in three hours, and we'll see you back here from London tomorrow.

▲