Sean is joined by Judge Jeanine Pirro who made headlines today when Whoopi Goldberg attacked her on "The View" for being a "Trump Defender." Listen as Judge Pirro joins Sean to explain the confrontation and just why the media is so angry at President Trump. 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.
Unfortunately, almost half you men out there over 40 need to listen up.
And we know this is uncomfortable to talk about, but it's common and not weird, and there's something you can do about it.
ED, not being able to perform your best.
Now, thanks to science, it can be optional.
4hymns.com is a one-stop shop for hair loss, skincare, and sexual wellness for men.
HIMS connects you with real doctors and medical-grade solutions to treat ED, prescription solutions backed by science.
One ED pill starting with a V just came off patent on December 11th, and that's a game changer.
Being your best means performing your best.
And now you can do it with no waiting room, no trip to the pharmacy, just a simple online medical consultation and direct shipping to your door.
Try HIMS for a month today for just $5.
We'll get you started for just five bucks while supplies last.
See website for full details.
This would cost hundreds if you went to the doctor or a pharmacy.
So go to 4hymns.com slash big.
That's F-O-R-H-I-M-S.com slash big.
4hymns.com slash big.
All right, glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
We'd love to have you be a part of the program 800-941 Sean, if you want to join us.
You know, there's one thing that I know never works during elections, and that is having no vision to make the lives of the American people better or safer.
Peace and prosperity drive elections.
That's just a fact.
And if I'm right in pointing out that 2018 is the single most important election in our lifetime, if I'm right about that, then you got to look with great glee at what the Democrats are offering and what they're doing and the games they're playing and the things they obsess on.
Because the last thing that they focus on is the American people.
They should be scared to death at the success of the president.
They should be coming up with a better vision for the future, but that doesn't appear to be in the cards.
I mean, I can tell you what's going on in Washington right now.
Senate Democrats today are literally turning a meeting on President Trump's nominee to lead the IRS into a referendum on Trump's behavior towards Russia, Russia, Russia.
And I'm sure it'll be stormy, stormy, stormy will be the afternoon session.
And shh, whole, you know, which is what they sound like every five seconds anyway.
And the Senate, you know, is trying to use the nomination as leverage over Trump.
The nominee, Chuck Redig, was cruising towards gaining a bipartisan approval from the panel and a vote that was scheduled from the Senate Finance Committee today.
Democrats who acknowledge that he's qualified for the job, they sought to stop the progress based on several of this week's developments related to Russia and their influence in the U.S. Does anybody stop to remind them or tell them that all of this happened on their watch?
This was Barack Obama's 2016 election.
He's the guy that said no serious person would ever think they could rig our elections.
So metal and fire.
There's no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections.
In part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.
There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.
And so I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.
And of course, it happened as it had happened in 08 and 2012.
And as Devin Nunes warned in 2014, it happened again.
So today, the tipping point, according to Democrats, was the Treasury's decision to allow some political nonprofit groups to disclose less information about donors to the IRS.
That action Democrats argued would allow foreign dark money into politics.
I'm like, okay.
This is the Clintons.
This is, you know, you want to talk about the biggest mistake with Russia in the Obama years.
That would be giving 20% of the foundational material for nuclear weapons, that would be uranium, over to Russia, even though guys like Mueller and others in the FBI, because he was the FBI director at the time, and yet all these agencies, including Hillary Clinton's agency, signing off on a deal that allowed this Russian company to then get control of 20% of our uranium.
And even though our FBI knew, because we had an FBI spy within the Putin ring that was inside America, even though they knew that bribery, extortion, and money laundering and racketeering was going on inside America by Vladimir Putin's thugs.
So the question is, why didn't anyone bring that up as a big deal?
So that's kind of dark money.
That ended up with 20% of the foundational material for nuclear weapons now being controlled, American uranium being controlled by Vladimir.
Nobody seems to really want to pick up on that.
I'm seeing an interesting piece via the Politico today about Robert Mueller.
Remember, the president brought up at the press conference in Helsinki earlier this week.
He repeatedly has pointed out whatever happened to that DNC server.
Remember, the FBI wanted to look at the DNC server to find out who hacked into the DNC server.
They wanted possession of it so that they can do their forensic work.
Well, anyway, because it allegedly been hacked.
But the DNC wouldn't allow the FBI into their server.
First of all, why didn't the FBI just go in and take it?
The idea that you say, no, you can't have our server.
You're investigating a crime.
We're not going to give it to you.
We're going to hire our own outside company.
Well, that prevented the FBI from conducting their own independent forensic investigation, determining who actually did the hacking.
I still would like to see the server handed over.
I have to imagine in this day and age of Hillary that it was acid washed with bleach pit by this time.
Anyway, the fake fraud media now has swept that little bombshell under the rug since it first became known in 2016.
Now that Trump has turned the spotlight on this, little inconvenient detail, considering that's the evidence that would have given us answers a long time ago, the media knows they kind of now begin to have a problem on their hands because nobody's going to believe that the Russia hack investigation has any credibility when the FBI never examined the most critical piece of evidence in the entire case.
Where is that server?
By the way, did we ever recover the 33,000 emails that were deleted after they'd been subpoenaed on Hillary Clinton's server in the mom-and-pop bathroom closet where six foreign intelligence services had easy access to it?
Anyway, so now the press has to come up with an alternative version of these events.
And according to a new cover story, the DNC supplied the FBI with photos, not the server, but with photos of the hacked servers as they were being checked out by their own bought and paid for cybersecurity firm.
So instead of giving the FBI the computers, they gave them a photograph of the server.
That's what they did.
And the press is now claiming that giving the FBI the photos is even better than allowing them to analyze the actual evidence.
You can't make this up.
This is from Politico today, their version of the story.
CrowdStrike, the company the DNC brought in to initially investigate and remediate the hack, actually shared images of the DNC servers with the FBI.
For the purposes of an investigation of this type, images are much more useful than handing over metal and hardware because they are bit-by-bit copies of a crime scene taken while the crime was going on.
Well, what if they're altering what it is that they're finding?
What if they're only taking the selective pictures of what they're doing?
What if certain things weren't found because they're not capable, but the FBI and their forensics experts would be able?
Anyway, live hard drive and memory snapshots of blinking powered on machines in a network reveal significantly more forensic data than some powered off-server removed from a network.
It's the difference between watching a house over time, carefully, noting down who comes and goes, when and how, versus handing over a key to a lonely boarded-up building by physically handing over the server to the FBI, as Trump suggested, the DNC would, in fact, have destroyed the evidence.
That's not true because they handed it over to this other group.
How did the evidence not get destroyed that way?
Who do you trust more?
A bought and paid-for company for the DNC that would have to honor the requests of the people that are paying them or the FBI that's supposed to do a fair and free investigation.
So then why is it that every time the FBI raids somebody else's home or office, how come the first thing they do is cart off people's computers and laptops?
Why do they immediately confiscate, for example, Michael Cohn's computers and laptops?
Why didn't they just hang around and conduct the investigation on site?
Or maybe they could have allowed Michael Cohn to hire an outside group the way the DNC did.
Let's see how well that worked out for the FBI.
Or better yet, why didn't the DNC turn over both the photos and the actual servers?
That would have given the FBI the ability to verify CrowdStrike's work.
And it wouldn't look like the DNC was trying to hide something.
You know, photos can easily be faked.
You can just selectively take a photo of this, but don't take a photo of that.
You know, that would have given the FBI the ability to verify all of this.
Various hacking scenarios can easily be staged.
Plus, the DNC was paying CrowdStrike, which right from the get-go compromises any independence they could otherwise have.
And just so you know, you know, that's the new excuse for why the FBI never examined the most important piece of evidence in the whole Russiagate case, the hack DNC servers.
The DNC gave them photos of the servers, which we're supposed to believe actually are better than being able to examine the actual servers.
That's how dumb I guess they think we smelly Walmart people are.
We irredeemable deplorables are.
We bitter people that cling to God and guns and our Bibles and our religion.
They must think we're pretty stupid.
But I think the FBI, the question to them is, why, in fact, didn't they demand and insist on this?
Why don't they insist on it now?
Where are those servers?
It's absolutely ridiculous.
We have some other news as it relates to the deep state today.
And I think this is getting more interesting by the hour, and it has to do with Lisa Page and her testimony versus that of Peter Strzok.
And as I'm watching this whole thing unfold here, I'm beginning to think that they've got a problem down in Dodge for the deep state players because it looks like Lisa Page is given a very different story than her former boyfriend.
And that story is now, I think, about to explode.
Now, John Solomon has a piece out in the Hill today with new information about Page's closed-door testimony the other day.
According to Solomon, Page told House investigators that even her boyfriend, Peter Strzok, didn't really believe there was any real evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians.
And Solomon headlines his column in the Hill, the one FBI text message in the Russia probe that should alarm every American.
He goes on to write, it's no longer in dispute that Strzok and Page held an animus for Donald Trump, who was the subject of the Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using their powers of their office to stop Trump from becoming president.
The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.
I think it's pretty obvious all of them were.
Now, the Justice Department Inspector General is endeavoring to answer that question.
For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words among the thousands of suggestive texts that Page and Strzzok exchanged that you should read.
The passage transmitted May 19th, 2017.
There's no big there there, Strzok texting.
Now, that date is significant because it's two days after the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named the special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee the investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.
And since that text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to evidence against the Trump campaign.
Now, this month they finally got the chance to ask.
Strzok declined to say, but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, in fact, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message, in fact, referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.
Well, that admission is deeply consequential because it means Rosenstein then unleashed the single abuse of power, the awesome powers of the special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI investigator driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand didn't think existed.
Well, that's problematic for everybody involved.
All right, 800-941, Sean is on number.
We got a lot of other news.
Greg and Sarah today, Jonathan Gillum and Danielle McLaughlin.
And, oh, Judge Janine Pirro.
Woof.
It got ugly at the view today.
She's going to join us and tell us all about it.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show 800-941, Sean.
So as you get to the 2018 elections, you've got to ask yourself, what is it that is inspiring you except this hatred of all things Donald Trump?
They just don't like him.
They're never going to acknowledge the success or the promises kept.
Promises, whether you like it or not, he did make promises on the Supreme Court, people with a judicial philosophy that people like Hillary don't share.
He doesn't want to appoint judicial activists.
He made promises on foreign policy about Jerusalem and pulling out of the Iranian deal.
He said he didn't want foreign conflicts.
And yes, so now he's met with little rocket man who's not firing missiles over Japan.
It was announced yesterday that the remains of about 55 soldiers from the Korean War will be coming back next week.
That's on top of the other concessions that have been made.
The hostages released.
No more missiles have been fired.
One missile site has been dismantled, and he's willing to talk about denuclearization of the entire peninsula.
President saying today he thought the summit with Putin talking about radical Islamic terrorism in Syria and Iran and nuclear proliferation went really well in spite of what the media said.
Polls show the American people they get it.
They're happy with the fact that the president met him on the foreign stage.
President clarified that, yeah, he supports the Intel community.
He didn't support the Intel community of Obama.
Well, we all know they were active in trying to undermine him every step of the way during his electoral process.
And that others in the FBI were helping Hillary Clinton stay in the race, stay in the game, even though she had committed multiple felonies.
So hopefully we'll get to the bottom of all of this.
Anyway, 800-941, Sean, that's our number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Judge Janine Piro joins us.
She was literally verbally assaulted, kicked off the show on The View today.
And behind the scenes, I hear it even got worse.
She'll tell us the story.
She'll break it here.
Greg Jarrett and Sarah Carter are going to be checking in.
We'll talk about these latest developments we mentioned.
Jonathan Gillum, Danielle McLaughlin, and your call.
Straight ahead.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
2018 is going to matter a lot more than you think.
And it's really because of the stated agenda of the Democrats.
They're serious.
They're looking.
They're saying it.
They're whispering it.
Some are doing it publicly and chanting it, like Maxine Waters, although she obviously is being told by leadership to stop.
A few others have done it as well, impeach 45, impeach 45.
But then the agenda is very simple.
You see what they're doing.
They're trying to occupy the offices of ICE and eliminate ICE, law enforcement that is designed to protect American borders because they want open borders.
Democrats have always believed open borders is good for them because it's a constituency they believe that would likely vote Democratic and would help them in future elections.
So that's what they want.
Then you have some Republicans that have always liked the idea of cheaper labor.
And so they've got, you know, both sides are guilty in that sense in not solving the nation's border crisis.
The president was happy with $5 billion being offered for the border today.
There was some conservative protesters that descended down on Maxine Waters' own office this week, and she hit the panic button.
Anyway, warning supporters this week to stay away from her district office in Los Angeles, explaining that she had received word that the Oath Keepers, which is a 35,000-member national organization made up of former military law enforcement officers, is planning demonstrations against her.
I am requesting those individuals and groups planning a counter-protest to not be baited into confronting the Oath Keepers with any demonstrations in opposition.
Such an occurrence would only exacerbate tensions and increase the potential for conflict, she said late Wednesday in a statement that she published on Facebook.
And so Maxine Waters doesn't want to exacerbate tensions and increase the potential for conflict.
I didn't notice if she stood up for Secretary Nielsen or Pam Bondi or Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
I thought the silence by most Democrats was pretty deafening.
Anyway, I don't who do we know who this group Oath Keepers is?
I don't recall ever hearing them or hearing of them or whatever this call to action is.
Anyway, they're going to be hanging around Los Angeles.
You know, it is getting dangerous.
I'll tell you the type of person I am.
I'm not the type of person to ever go to a protest.
I don't know how people find time in their busy days to go to protests.
It just doesn't actually fit into my thinking.
Oh, let me go.
I have a day off.
Let me go protest.
Or why go to work when I can go protesting today?
Let's go have a party protest.
When we were in the middle of the protests in London, the one thing that was abundantly clear is a lot of people weren't there for any political reason at all, except it was one big party.
You could smell a lot of weed in the crowd, a lot of people smoking pot.
And when I was interviewing people, there wasn't a single person except the little girl that I interviewed that didn't have, to me, alcohol on their breath.
Why are you here today?
I'm here to protest.
What specifically don't you like about Trump?
I don't like his policies.
What policy?
All of them.
Tell Trump to go home.
He's not welcome here.
We don't want him in the UK.
We hope that he takes this seriously.
But of course he won't.
We'll just ignore it.
It said it hasn't happened.
La la la.
This seems like a party.
It doesn't seem too serious.
No, no, everyone's just here for the good time.
Just to spread a message of love.
Don't you love America?
We're not going to engage in anything.
Got it.
Please make your wind.
Got it.
We disagree in a long way.
You're very welcome to be here.
Thank you, Anne.
I saw some people giving you trouble.
There's no need for that.
I think America is divided like Britain.
I think part of America is deeply, deeply ashamed.
And I think part of America's been hoodwinked.
Do you think that the NATO alliance that the United States of America is a fair if they pay 70% of the bill?
What are you protesting?
Are you here to just here to have a party, be honest?
I can't believe this is soon, man.
I'm here because of all the hate that Trump exudes.
I wasn't going to come out initially just because Trump said.
And why are you here?
To protest against the Trump administration and everything else.
And what about them?
I'm okay not being interviewed.
It's a nightmare.
He must be stopped.
America, wake up.
Vote him out.
It's been hot this summer for a reason.
You know what I mean?
Is it Donald Trump's fault that's hot?
No, but I think he's promoting.
Donald is not welcome.
And Free Melania.
I detest Trump.
Because of his policies, because of his racism and homophobia and misogyny.
And because he's just two-faced and duplicative.
We respect human rights in this country and we'd like him to see that the way that he acts and the way that he speaks, we profoundly, profoundly reject it in a polite way.
The lies that he's told, not to mention the human rights abuses that he's committed in his own country.
We don't think he has any place over here.
I think a lot of British people are more intelligent than the Americans are when it comes to voting.
I'm quite angry.
Even though I don't look angry, I am quite angry.
Because what I think, I think that he represents everything that's toxic about Western culture and Western history.
And I'm furious.
Well, that was a fun day.
Investors Business Daily raised an important question today.
Democrats insisting the Russia plot to hack the DNC email servers is the equivalent of Pearl Harbor and 9-11 and all these horrific events.
So how come they don't seem to care that a foreign entity, maybe it was China, maybe Iran, North Korea, apparently not Russia, managed to hack into Hillary's private server and obtain classified and top-secret information on her server?
Nobody ever seems to raise that question.
If that is not the biggest double standard, I don't know what is.
It's interesting, the FBI director Christopher Wray said yesterday that China, not Russia, poses the biggest intelligence threat to America, pointing out that Beijing has hacked into computer systems of just about every industry in the country.
By the way, stealing intellectual property is a huge, big deal.
Anyway, in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt at the Aspen Security Forum on Wednesday, the FBI Director Ray described China as the most significant long-term threat facing the U.S. today, noting the FBI has economic espionage cases open in all 50 states that trace back to China, covering everything from corn seeds in Iowa to wind turbines in Massachusetts and everything in between.
And Lester Holt tried to redirect the conversation back to Russia, but that didn't work out too well.
You know, think of all the record unemployment now we're getting.
You want to go back to that?
And which one of the five items the Democrats are running on is going to help the economy get better?
Impeaching Trump, open borders, is that going to help job creation?
Obamacare, really?
They still want to keep it?
Keep your doctor, keep your plan, and pay less.
That doesn't sound like a good idea, but that's what they're running on.
They want their crumbs back.
They think the crumbs that you were given in your tax cut, that's theirs.
They deserve to spend it.
And then, of course, stopping Justice Kavanaugh from getting on the Supreme Court.
That's their agenda.
They're not talking about any other thing.
It's just anti-anti-obstruct, anti-Trump, feigning moral outrage every day.
New claims for unemployment benefits fell 8,000 for the second week of July.
Department of Labor reporting this morning, the lowest such rate since 1969.
Forecasters had expected new jobless claims to edge up, well, to around 220,000.
Didn't happen.
Fewer people sought unemployment insurance than any time in 48 years.
Thursday's benchmark is especially impressive given that the labor force is twice as large as it was during the late 1969.
We now have more jobs available than we have people to fill them in this country.
Let's see.
It looks like Stormy Daniels' lawyer says he may seek the Democratic presidential nomination.
Okay, I don't care about that.
Hillary is still the 2020 frontrunner with Democratic women.
I think she really does want to run.
I don't think she can get over the fact that she lost.
There's something about people that lose or people that run campaigns and lose, they all end up losing their minds.
Back up, you creep.
Get away from me.
But of course, we're just smelly Walmart people that are irredeemable, deplorables, clinging to God, our faith, our guns, our Bibles, and religion.
A landslide of Republicans approved the way of Donald Trump handled Putin.
I told you, the media is not impacting people anymore.
Doesn't matter how loud and hysterical they get, people see through it.
Mark contrast, all the fake news media, all the breathless reporting.
Anyway, Axios now describing his GOP support as, quote, unbreakable because people see right through it.
They understand.
Trump now saying he wants a second meeting with Putin.
That's pretty good.
Larry Kudlow, Europe is now willing to lower tariffs on U.S. goods.
Oh, so we're going to have freer, fairer trade, better deals for American companies, more money in our pockets.
It's all good news.
I don't know any Democrat that would lead on any of these issues.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
A lot of you have been very patient here.
As, let's see, we say hi to Philip is in Pennsylvania.
Philip, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Good.
How are you?
I'm good.
What's happening?
Okay, so I was listening, and you were saying about the images of the servers that were being given to the FBI.
Yeah.
An image in IT terminology means that they take a digital copy of the entire drive and not actual pictures of it.
So they basically take a digital copy of the drive and they send it over, which it can be manipulated prior to you taking this digital copy and sending it over.
Right.
And I just know whenever you were saying about them getting the images, you said we're saying pictures.
It's basically more of a.
All right, they're getting images, but is it better not to have the actual hardware?
And maybe they're better at extracting the information that is hidden on that hard drive than whoever the private company was.
Oh, absolutely.
I've been doing IT work for about 10 years now, and that's the best way to do it is to actually have the physical information.
I mean, the physical drive there with you.
Because as soon as you start doing digital, I can change a file and then send it to you.
It's like, that's the original, but you don't know if that truly is without actually having the actual hard drive there.
Mm-hmm.
So it seems like.
Listen, I'm sure people can do it, but I think the idea that they were allowed to do it when there's an investigation going on and they didn't hand it over to the FBI, and why aren't they handing it over to the FBI now?
What happened to it?
See, I myself, if me or you were to do something like this, we couldn't get away with it.
And I just don't see how anybody else could get away with doing what they're doing right now.
Yeah, interesting, right?
I don't think anybody can get away with it.
No, we've been actually, I've been, like I said, what we do, I do part of this for a living is we make images of hard drives to make it easier to mass produce things.
So basically, you take an image.
Yeah, you make an image of it.
How come America, after 30 years of hacking, we haven't built up the defenses to prevent it from happening again?
Why not?
A lot of it just seems to be that a lack of interest in us wanting to digitally protect ourselves is the main thing.
I feel as people are so complacent with technology that they don't care about their digital print that they're leaving out there.
All right, my friend.
People who do care basically do invest into software and things like that, but that software, somebody already is in their basement trying to figure out how to hack it by the time it comes out.
Exactly.
I understand.
But you got to be five steps ahead.
I could imagine if America puts their best, brightest minds on this, we should be unhackable.
We should be able to build defense against cyber hackers.
We ought to have full and complete cybersecurity, especially with our nation's secrets, which highlights how dumb it was for Hillary to do what she did.
All right.
I have time for one quick call.
Kurt in Wichita, Kansas, the home of Atlas MD and our good friend Dr. Josh Umber.
What's going on, Kurt?
How are you?
Hey, greetings from a fellow smelly Walmart deplorable.
Yeah, I know.
I think I'll go to Walmart this weekend, as a matter of fact, go shopping.
Say hi to my friends.
Hey, real quick, two things.
I noticed that you play a lot of Hillary clips.
Do you ever play her clip from, I think, the third debate where she comes out and says we must accept the results of the presidential election?
I think that should be played a heck of a lot more because it's her words.
You know, I think we should do that, Linda.
All right, we do take requests.
Jason is writing it down.
All right, we've got it on the list.
We'll get it out for you as soon as we can.
I feel like a DJ now wanting to play your favorite songs.
We'll play it.
That sound okay?
All right.
We're on vacation not too long ago.
We stayed at one hotel and we're watching Fox News at the end of the day.
And like about 9:30, the audio and the video froze, and it was dumb for the rest of the night.
So we figured, all right, probably something with the cable system.
We stayed another hotel the next night.
There's Fox News, there's audio, or there's video, and no audio.
We stay in another hotel in Oklahoma City the next night.
Same thing: video, no audio.
Every other station, you know, MSTMZ and all the others, all the audio and video are synced.
No audio for Fox News.
I think some cable companies are doing the dirty to you guys.
Well, it's interesting.
I got to look into that too.
Many of the bureaucracies here in Washington know how to wait out Congress.
They know to try to plan meetings on a Friday when they know there's not votes or on a Monday when there's not votes.
That's the time that they want to give things.
They wait.
They know that Congress is going to adjourn next week.
And so the more that they delay for no reason, we're waiting on many documents, as you know.
We're getting very slow, snail-paced cooperation that is clearly designed to wait until next week when Congress adjourns.
Now, I have news for them.
They're still going to get to come in and give depositions.
They may think they're not going to, but they're going to be coming in to give depositions throughout the summer.
And that's part of the 42 names that I sent to Chairman Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatt.
So I have every expectation that there will be many opportunities for these 42 individuals to come to Congress, even though they have tried to wait us out.
And I think they'd love to see Republicans lose.
And I say that.
I don't want to, I hate to say that, but I have to believe the Department of Justice and FBI, the people at the leadership, they are banking on a loss by the Republicans in the fall, which is why people have to understand how important it's going to be to get out and vote in this election to ensure that the members of Congress are returned that are actively involved to ensure, because if the Democrats get control, they're going to drop all of this investigation.
There are differences in their testimony.
In many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say, as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks that we've all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative.
Based on everything that's in the public realm that we know about the Mueller investigation, the indictments that exist, is there anything that would allow it to be called a witch hunt?
I've been consistent.
I get asked this a lot.
I do not believe Special Counsel Mueller is on a witch hunt.
I think it's a professional investigation conducted by a man that I've known to be a straight shooter in all my interactions with him in my past life in government and certainly since then.
So I don't think it's a witch hunt.
Do you think that investigation, though, has been held to its mandate or was the mandate extraordinarily broad?
Well, I can't really discuss the mandate because the scope is in a confidential document.
But from what you're seeing, there's nothing that suggests that it's running amok or running around the edges.
Well, as I said, I think Special Counsel Mueller is conducting a professional investigation.
There you have it.
And Devin Nunas on my show last night.
Yeah, the leadership of the DOJ and the FBI are trying to run the clock out and not turn over the subpoenaed documents for large part because they're hoping the Democrats can get control of the House and these investigations would all go away, drop by the wayside.
Then you've got John Ratcliffe saying Lisa Page admitted the text messages meant exactly what they say.
And even more troubling, I'm hearing the words again and again of the new FBI Director Ray.
And he seems like as big a bureaucrat as his predecessor and doesn't seem all that inclined to want to get to the bottom of all of this or the truth of all of this.
We have joining us Fox News legal analyst.
His book is out Monday, The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton, Frame Donald Trump.
You can get it right now for pre-sale.
You'll get it next week in the mail, amazon.com.
Sarah Carter's with us, Fox News contributor and investigative reporter.
I think what Devin Nunes is saying is 1,000% right, but it's still July.
These elections don't take place till November.
They still have the power of subpoena.
They do have the ability to stop the obfuscation and obstruction that's been going on here.
We keep hearing that they're drawing up articles of impeachment, but nothing seems to happen.
Sarah, what's the latest?
Well, the latest is that the serious threats that they've been pushing from Congress need to be taken on by all congressional members.
We've seen a failure on some of the congressional members, particularly those that have played significant roles like Trey Gowdy and others, back away from enforcing impeachment on Rod Rosenstein.
Remember, I said before, Sean, that Rod Rosenstein was waiting this out.
He was going to hedge his bets.
Congress wouldn't do anything.
And there's a failure in Congress to work together.
I think Nunes is doing the best that he can do.
I agree with him wholeheartedly that they're waiting until November.
But let's just look at the people that he is calling on that he will be subpoenaing to speak before Congress.
When you think about this, Joe Pienka, remember, he was the second FBI agent that was with Peter Strzok when they interviewed Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was a former NSA National Security Advisor to President Trump.
They really need to speak with Joe Pienka because he's the only other person that was in the room at that time that can talk about what happened, particularly with General Flynn, both during the interview and afterwards at FBI headquarters when both he and Peter Strzok confronted McCabe and other leadership about that interview.
Other people that are really interesting is Toshina Gohar.
She is on the list.
Nunez is subpoenaing her.
She's a name that we don't hear about much.
She is basically the right-hand person to Rod Rosenstein.
And why is she important?
Because Toshina Gohar actually worked for Sally Yates.
She was working very closely.
She was Sally Yates' right-hand person at the Department of Justice.
Now she's with Rod Rosenstein.
She has a lot of information, both from the time she was with Sally Yates up until now that she is with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
And I've also been told by a number of sources that Rod Rosenstein considers her essential to his investigations, considers her essential to the Department of Justice.
In fact, somebody that he can't do without.
But I can tell you this: there are a lot of people interested in the role that she played, the access that she's had to a lot of this information, the role that she continues to play right now at the Department of Justice, and they want to question her.
Now, whether or not the DOJ will allow the questioning of people within the DOJ is another battle altogether, but the over 40 people that Nunez has put on that list are very important people, all of them.
It's unbelievable.
Let me move on to the story broken by our friend John Sullivan.
And a couple of very key points we discover in this piece.
According to Solomon, Lisa Page is telling, and you reported this too, Sarah, that House investigators, that her boyfriend, the FBI's most vehement anti-Trump or biggest Trump hater, Peter Strzzok, didn't really believe that there was any real evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians.
And the one FBI text message on the probe should alarm every American citizen.
And the piece goes on to say it's no longer in dispute that Strzok and Page held an animus for Donald Trump, who was the subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to stop Trump and then the insurance policy, but stop him from becoming president.
The only question was whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.
And the Justice Department Inspector General now is endeavoring to answer those questions.
But anyway, he points out there are just five words among the thousands of suggestive texts of Page and Strzzok that were exchanged, and there's no big there there.
And the date of that text has been of intrigue to many investigators because it's two days after Rod Rosenstein named the special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.
And since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.
Well, now, according to reports we're getting, Page during a closed-door interview with lawmakers confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message, in fact, referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.
In other words, the admission is extraordinarily revealing and consequential because that would mean Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome abuse of power investigation of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that even Trump-hating FBI officials thought there was no there on, and they're the ones that have been investigating it.
What does that mean legally, Greg Jarrett?
Well, John Solomon's right, and that's consistent with other reports we're getting, that Lisa Page testified in deposition that some of these Peter Strzok messages sent to her meant exactly what they said.
No, they're there.
That's exactly what I argue for 300 pages in my book.
That this is an investigation in search of a crime, which the law, by the way, does not allow.
There was never any evidence of a crime.
There was never any intelligence to justify a counterintelligence probe.
And they knew it.
They knew that dossier was completely fabricated, but they decided that they were going to use it anyway as a pretext to launch this dilating probe of Trump to prevent him from becoming president.
And then when he succeeded, they continued with it to try to destroy him.
That's exactly what happened.
And, you know, no, they're there.
Peter Strzok knew that there was no legitimate evidence against Trump.
Rosenstein knew it.
He appointed Mueller anyway.
How many of all of the people that have been indicted have been indicted for collusion?
Zero, because there never was any evidence of collusion.
So this is all, these other indictments are all smoke and mirrors by Mueller and Rosenstein to try to justify themselves.
Where do you guys see this investigation?
If you had to make a prediction today, reports in the Washington Post say that, well, now Mueller's team wants to begin to wrap up.
They'd hand anything else that was left over to the Department of Justice.
What would that mean?
That ends up with either an interview or no interview with the president.
They write a report.
It sounds horrible.
And then Rudy Giuliani writes a counter report.
Is that how it ends?
Or does Mueller want to keep this alive for another three years?
Well, all he has to do, Sean, is create a disinformation campaign.
It's the same type of campaign that we've seen coming from former CIA Director John Brennan, the same type of campaign that Comey has been a part of and all of these other ex-Obama officials that they've been pushing out their rumors and lies not based on facts, which is so interesting because their job required them to be all about fact-based findings.
But instead, they utilize rumors and innuendos to spread lies about their own president, about the president of the United States.
What was really interesting to me, I spent the day with talking with George Papadopoulos' wife, Simona, and talking about what they've been through as a family and how the FBI handled them.
Well, in order to get that guilty plea, I mean, they threatened Papadopoulos with almost everything they could.
I mean, the family is pretty much bankrupted because of this, and they then threatened him with being an Israeli spy.
They said, you know, well, we're going to bring charges against you that you were an Israeli spy.
I mean, it was just one thing after another after another until he finally pled guilty, you know, to one count of lying because he didn't know where to go.
His sentencing hearing comes up in September.
So these are people, and you have to ask yourself this, just like Greg said, if they knew there was no there there, why did they keep pursuing it?
What were they trying to achieve?
And if their ultimate goal was to achieve either an impeachment of a president, a duly elected president of the United States based on false lies or in an attempt to stop this person from ever becoming president, then you have to ask yourself, what is that on the big grand scheme of things?
Is that a soft coup?
Was that what they were attempting talking about?
We already know the answer.
That they had a favored candidate that should have been indicted, that they saved from indictment by rigging the investigation, and then they turned their sights to malign and smear and even use Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies to even get Pfizer warrants.
There was no level of the law was followed.
It was all hands on deck to elect Hillary at any cost.
And they just can't believe they lost.
Because if she won, none of this would have come out.
It's not like she would have been mad.
They did all this to help her.
So if Devin Nunes is right, and now the Department of Justice is looking at the hopes that the Democrats will have this blue wave that seemed to be receding.
But I guess anything can happen in an election, and I don't count my chickens before they hatch.
But if they got control of the House of Representatives, every one of these investigations would die.
That would happen.
In other words, the Democrats would bury it all.
And that means the deep state would get off the hook yet once again.
Is that what that's what they're now delaying for?
And why would the Republicans allow them to delay that long, Greg?
Well, this is the old Muhammad Ali rope-a-dope in the 1974 Rumble in the Jumble. Jungle.
You know, you put up your fists and you try to draw the opponent with exhaustion and fatigue.
And they're running out the clock.
And that's exactly what they're doing.
But, you know, frankly, one of the reasons why I published my book, I worked very hard to get it done so that it would get out by next week, is because I want people over the next month or two to read that book.
And I'm convinced that if they do, they will realize that Donald Trump was completely victimized by the FBI and the Department of Justice, that he is the victim, not the villain here, and they'll be angry about it.
And they will not want to return to Congress a lot of Democrats.
And, you know, the Republican red wave will consume the blue wave.
It's going to be interesting.
Final thoughts, Sarah.
Well, I certainly hope that that doesn't happen, Sean.
I think we need answers.
I think the American people deserve those answers.
And I'm counting on Greg's book to make that happen.
Yeah, we all are.
It's out next week.
You don't want to miss it.
The Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton, frame Donald Trump, bookstores everywhere.
You can get it now on Amazon.com.
It's out Monday.
All right.
Thank you both.
We'll take a quick break.
We'll come back.
Judge Janine Pirro thrown off the show, The View, earlier.
She'll give us a front row seat of what went on.
Wow, this is going to be.
I missed it.
And apparently, she was cursed out as she was walking out.
We'll get the details up next.
DDP under Obama was barely one.
We're going up to four.
So you want to talk about him.
Tell us about it.
We're a law for hate crime.
I also think it's important, as we said, 89% of the Republican Party still supports him.
He still has huge popularity in the country.
And if Democrats don't get there, you know what?
Together, he's certainly going to be a good person.
Here's my question for you.
Here's my question for you.
I am not.
Nobody else.
Oh, yeah.
Did you just point at me?
Yeah.
Listen, I don't have Trump derangement.
Let me tell you what I have.
Okay.
I'm tired of people starting a conversation with Mexicans or liars and rapists.
I'm tired of people starting a conversation about this country.
Listen, I'm 62 years old.
There have been a lot of people in office that I didn't agree with, but I have never, ever seen anything like this.
I've never seen anybody whip up such hate.
I've never seen anybody be so dismissive.
And I and clearly you don't watch the show, so you don't know that I don't suffer from that.
What I suffer from is the inability to figure out how to fix this.
That's my issue.
But one of the things that you talk about a lot, and I'm curious about it, is the deep state.
How long has the deep state been there and who's running it?
Well, I want to answer your question because you gave me a question.
You had to ask you a question.
Your opening statement, which was how horrible it is that Donald Trump was talking about.
I'm sorry, that's what you said.
You said that it wasn't going to be here, end up murdering the children of American citizens.
You know what's hard?
What's hard?
When the president of the United States wakes up, people to beat the hell out of people.
No, say the body.
Hold up.
Well, that was what went down on the view earlier today.
Judge Janine Pirow, I guess, got thrown off the show, and it got worse behind the scenes.
All she was doing was pointing out: no, the president doesn't refer to all immigrants as racist or murderers and rapists.
But we've given you the statistics.
We brought on guests on this program.
Yeah, families whose children have been murdered by illegal immigrants.
And it's a reality.
We've met the angel moms and the angel mom groups, and they do exist.
But the president does not speak with broad-sweeping generalizations.
He's talking about some and has been very clear and made that determination and distinction many times.
Judge Janine Pirro has her new book out, which I guess brought her to the studios of the view.
It's called Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy.
All right, you got to tell us what happened.
Holy moly.
Well, Sean, thanks.
You're absolutely listening to that.
I haven't watched it and I haven't looked at what happened.
I'm still reeling from it, to be honest with you.
I went on thinking that we would have a discussion about the book.
The truth is that it was an attack on Donald Trump and then on me.
I sat there as Whoopi Goldberg participated about how horrible Donald Trump was.
And at one point, I said, you know, I'm here to talk about the book.
And then she went ballistic.
She ended the segment.
She said, that's it.
I'm done.
And what people didn't see who were watching the show was she jumped away from the desk where we were all sitting, and she decided that she was going to end it.
No one saw that, but it got worse.
When I went off the stage, Sean, I was walking downstairs, and I said something like, Whoopi, I fought for victims my whole life, and she came at me as I was leaving, and she said, F you in my face, literally spitting at me, F you, get the F out of this building.
And I said to her, Did you just say that?
She said, that's what I said.
Get the F out of this building.
And she was screaming at me.
And I'm walking out of the building like a dog who was just kicked off.
So forget about what she did to me on set, which was horrific in itself.
But the treatment by Whoopi Goldberg is typical of what is going on in this country.
The left, they invite you on to talk.
They then won't let you talk.
They throw you off the show and then throw you out of the building.
And here's the problem, Sean.
The problem is once one starts doing it, the rest of them are going to start doing it.
And I am.
But it's already happening.
I mean, it's Secretary Nielsen, it's Pam Bondi, it's Sarah Huckabee Sanders, it's now Stephen Miller.
I mean, they're outside of people's homes.
I was invited, Sean, onto that show.
I got it.
Listen, she wanted to get away with saying something that is absolutely provably false, that the president refers to all immigrants as rapists and murderers.
That's not true.
And, you know, the fact that the president, his real policy is to build a wall, to vet immigrants from other countries, but have a big door in the wall.
And once we vet you, we find out you want to be a part of our family.
And it just is, it's much easier to go with the emotional talking points and the facts be damned.
And one thing you have on your side is your keen intellect.
You studied this as well as anybody I know.
And she wasn't going to be able to hold a candle to you actually debating her.
And as you were beginning to tell her she's wrong, that's when, you know, she threw you out.
But, Sean, throwing me out.
I mean, these people on the left, and I said in the first segment, Sean, and again, I have to look at it.
I said, we need to start talking about this stuff.
You know, we need to start recognizing that it doesn't matter if it's Donald Trump or if it's a Democrat running.
We've got to have a Department of Justice and an FBI that is not corrupt.
And it was, I'll tell you, Sean, I've been a prosecutor, a judge, and EA for 30 years.
I've sat on murder trials.
I can go toe-to-toe with anyone.
I've tried murder cases.
I've gone against drug cartels.
I have never been treated like that in my life.
I was stunned.
You know, you would think if they would at least do a little bit of research in your background and your experience as a prosecutor, you were a strong defender your entire career for women's rights and the rights of children.
I mean, that was, you know, some of the cases you took on.
The rights of victims of hate crimes.
I fought for a hate crime law.
I testified before Congress on a hate crime law.
I testified for the silent victim of crime.
I protected the illegals when they were victims of other illegals.
I mean, I don't know.
You can't say anything.
How dare you like Donald Trump?
How dare you stand up for the president of the United States?
How dare you say that when he met with Putin, that wasn't treason?
Well, wait a minute.
For 75 years, presidents have met with the head of the Kremlin.
They've lost their mind.
And the way I was treated and thrown out at the end, first of all, is a setup.
They never said, by the way, we're going to have CNN co-host this, a contributor from CNN, Anna Navarro.
And then it was just, the whole thing was stunning, Sean.
And you know what?
The right has got to learn that there is no way to calmly discuss this.
These people are out there.
If you would have asked me ahead of time, I would have told you not to go on the show.
You didn't ask me.
And I had a similar experience, except at that time it was with Rosie O'Donnell, and it was a knockdown, drag-out shouting fest.
Barbara Walters could not shut either one of us up, and it just got it's it's I just was not going to be shouted down by a lunatic.
And that's what they try to do.
And they told me, don't go on the deal.
I said, you know what?
I've got a book.
You know, the book is based in fact.
There isn't any question I can't handle.
But I'll tell you what they.
Well, you can't handle five-on-one and ending an interview and being cussed at as you walk out the door.
It's not, you know, in that case, they couldn't handle the fact that you did have arguments to the back of what their see, they have a predetermined narrative, and it's very comfortable in that studio with a liberal audience of people that worship them and are going to clap at everything they say.
They can't handle the fact that you do have real substantive answers, researched answers to their talking points that they spew every day that are not rooted in truth.
And, you know, the book, that's why I wrote the book.
The book is factual liars versus the liberals.
You know, that's why I wrote it.
I want to talk about what is going on in this country, but they don't want to talk about it, Sean.
And that's why, I mean, people like you and me are demonized by the left.
Well, let's go over the two points you were going to make.
The first was about her statement that any president that refers to immigrants as rapists and murderers, you are about to say, no, that's not true.
Well, first of all, the first point was, you know, let's talk about the rapists and murderers.
And the second point is that's not what he said.
I didn't have a chance to say, I've known Donald Trump for 30 years.
I've seen him with minorities.
And by the way, minorities today, Hispanics, African Americans, have never been better off in terms of the employment, in terms of the economy, in terms of the ability to provide for your family.
Never been safer than we are from ISIS.
I mean, you know, and this whole idea that, you know, meeting with Putin makes them treasonous.
Well, you know what?
Barack Obama sat there while Putin invaded the Ukraine while he annexed the Crimea and did nothing.
Barack Obama hoisted up a fake belief, a make-believe counterintelligence investigation as an insurance policy to shut up Donald Trump and make sure he was in peace.
I mean, this is about right and wrong and justice.
Lady Justice is supposed to be blind, not with them.
Right now, she's peeking through those bandages and looking to balance the scales on their side.
You know, this is what there's another part of this is that if somebody could calmly, intelligently, and with the facts, debunk all the narrative that they spew every day, it then becomes a problem for them because now the audience that just maybe watches them and maybe just CNN, the few that do, then they begin to realize, wait a minute,
there is a whole other thought process out here that's different from ours and the daily dose of propaganda we're being fed, and that becomes a threat to them and who they are and what they've actually been telling their audience, and they get exposed as not being telling the truth.
And the amazing part of it is that it is a live example of the effort on the part of the left to take away our free speech rights.
They will invite you on to talk with them and answer their questions.
Then they'll pontificate.
They won't let you speak.
They shut down your First Amendment right, and then they pull the plug, curse you out, and throw you out of the building.
You know, never in my life, Sean.
And, you know, and I'm hoping that people will read the book, Liars, Leakers, and Liberals, and get what's going on because I'm here to tell you I've experienced it.
Well, I can't wait to show this video of you.
Maybe you can give us a play-by-play tonight on Hannity.
We'll continue.
We'll have more with Judge Janine Piro.
Liars, Leakers, Liberals, the case against the anti-Trump conspiracy.
And as we continue with Judge Janine Pirro, the host of Judge Janine Saturday nights at 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel, the number one show in its slot by far.
Frequent villain guest on Hannity, the nights that I take off.
Her new book is out, Liars, Leakers, Liberals, the case against the anti-Trump conspiracy.
And she made the mistake of going on the view today and got thrown off the show and then got kicked out and the door with a few choice cuss words from Whoopi Goldberg.
Well, let me ask this.
You were going to explain to her what the deep state is.
She was like, who is this deep state?
I know you have a good answer.
I have a good answer.
How much time does she have?
Exactly.
Yeah.
Well, she didn't want to know.
What she wanted to do was make an opening statement on what a racist Donald Trump is, not let me answer, then throw me, end this segment.
And, you know, I'm a television like you, obviously, Sean.
And I'm saying to myself as I'm sitting there, Janine, is this really happening?
The segment isn't over yet.
It just started.
And she stormed off, and they immediately put my book up so people couldn't see her storming off, although she ended up, I understand, apologizing to the audience.
But when I walked off stage and she was there as I was stepping down, she got in my face and she was so close to me, Sean, and she said, F you, F you, get the F out of this building.
You know, get the F out of this building.
And I said, did you just say that to me?
And, you know, get the F out.
And I'm walking out of the building and I'm saying, I've been a prosecutor, a judge, a district attorney.
People used to rise when I walked into a room.
And I don't need that formality, but I have never been asked to come somewhere, try to answer a question, and then cursed up and thrown out of the building.
I've never been treated like this in my life, and it's what the left is doing to people on the right to shut them down.
They can't deal with it.
And I think that Americans need to recognize in 2018, if we don't make sure that we keep the House in the Senate, we're going to end up being not just ostracized, but thrown out on a larger scale the way they did to me today.
It was outrageous.
Outrageous, Sean.
Well, you're obviously somebody that I know well.
I know it was uncomfortable, but I know if anybody can handle it, it's you.
You handled it perfectly to me.
I can't wait to show this video on TV tonight, so we'll see you later.
And hang in there.
It's a sign you're effective.
It's a sign they don't like how effective you are.
They're just angry, and you're bringing in a dose of reality that they really can't handle.
All right, Judge Janine, Liars, Leakers, Liberals, the case against the anti-Trump conspiracy, and Hannity.com, Amazon.com, if you want to get a copy.
We'll take a quick break.
We'll come back on the other side.
Our news roundup information overload hour with Jonathan Gillum.
Danielle McLaughlin is coming up and much more straight ahead.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
But first, we want to start with this week in Russia Game.
Donald Trump is afraid.
A political hurricane is out there in Seas for him.
We'll call it Hurricane Vladimir, if you will.
The whole Russian thing.
It is as if there are no shoes on the Trump human centipede that are not about Russia.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
This cloud about collusion with Russia will hang over him no matter where he stands.
It certainly feels like we're in the opening stages of a devastating political chapter in American history.
Evidence is mounting for the president's meddling in the Russia probe.
It's any day to be watching Ari, and it's today.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
I'll say it again.
This Russian connection just keeps building, and every time it builds and expands, you have to wonder if Trump himself isn't worried about what's swirling around under the covers.
So, you know, it's learned new details of the FBI investigation into potential links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Specifically, Willie, I think what it means is that a federal judge found that people in Trump's organization were colluding with the Russians.
If it's not that, it's all you know what you hear from the media or stormy, stormy, stormy, stormy, stormy.
Meanwhile, a comparison of the Obama administration, all the annexation, Crimea, eastern Ukraine, and other actions.
So much for the little button reset that they had during the Obama years as things got progressively worse.
Oh, and I guess Russia probably got the best deal ever when they were able to manipulate 20% of America's uranium away from us.
Yeah, the foundational material for nuclear weapons that nobody seems to remember, but I do.
And many of the people involved in that deal will throw money back to the Clinton Foundation, massive amounts of millions of dollars, which I'm sure we're going to get back to because we've only been too busy with the deep state arguments as they exist in the country.
But the media, who's been tougher on Russia?
Well, it's been Donald Trump, not Vladimir Putin's best friend, Barack Obama.
Hey, Demetrius.
Yeah.
More flexibility.
I am the summer.
I submit to Vladimir.
I will give to him.
Anyway, here to sort through News Roundup Information Overload Hour.
Jonathan Gillum, he wrote the book Sheep No More.
Danielle McLaughlin, attorney, constitutional expert who co-wrote the Federalist Society, How Conservatives Took the Law Back from the Left, from Liberals, which we're seeing because now we're getting real judges, not, well, an extrajudiciary and a super legislator, which is what the left wants.
Who's been tougher on Russia?
Has it been Donald Trump or is it Barack Obama?
Simple question, Danielle.
It hasn't been Donald Trump.
In all honesty, good afternoon, Sean.
Hey, Jonathan.
I think this is the issue.
Why has the president been so has equivocated so much about Russian meddling?
Two weeks before his inauguration, he was given unequivocal evidence that Vladimir Putin ordered election interference.
It should have been really easy for him to come out against it.
And I think he should have.
You know, that's different from the collusion issues.
Excuse me.
I have to correct the record because our audience is too smart and knows better.
I have a montage that he has said over and over and over again that Russia interfered in the election, as did others.
He said it at least 15 times.
Let me play a few of them for you.
As far as hacking, I think it was Russia, but I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.
And I can say that, you know, when we lost 22 million names and everything else that was hacked recently, they didn't make a big deal out of that.
That was something that was extraordinary.
That was probably China.
We have much hacking going on.
Well, I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people and other countries.
It could have been a lot of people interfered.
I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries.
It was Russia, and I think it was probably others also.
The Russians had no impact on our votes whatsoever.
But certainly there was meddling, and probably there was meddling from other countries and maybe other individuals.
I'm with our agencies, especially as currently constituted with their leadership.
I believe in our intel agencies, our intelligence agencies.
I've worked with them very strongly.
There weren't 17, as was previously reported.
There were actually four.
But they were saying there were 17, there were actually four.
But as currently led by fine people, I believe very much in our intelligence agencies.
So he said it all those numerous times before, in reference to the 2016 election.
It also happened in 08.
It happened in 2012.
Devin Nunes warned about it in 2014.
So let's give you some examples.
For example, Barack Obama, he promised in an open mic more flexibility.
That seems like colluding with Vladimir to me.
Unlike Obama, Trump sent anti-tank missiles and serious military aid, serious amount of it, to help the Ukraine thwart Russian aggression that happened under Obama.
Obama did nothing.
Under Trump, NATO forces conducted military exercise near Russia's border with Poland and the Baltic nations.
Trump has imposed multiple rounds of sanctions against Russia.
Give you the specifics if you want them, Danielle.
When Russian-led mercenaries approached U.S. positions in Syria, Donald Trump authorized our forces to defend themselves, and dozens, if not hundreds, of Russian mercenaries were killed.
And when Obama hobbled the American energy industry, Trump now has unleashed American independence and energy production, which is now undercutting one of their main sources of income in Russia.
And after years of declining defense spending under Obama, Trump just pushed through the biggest defense increase for national defense in our history.
Look, I agree with you on U.S. energy.
I think it's great that what's happening, particularly in Texas with the oil fans, that we are unleashing our Crimea didn't happen under his watch.
The Trump people watered down our position on Ukraine on the GOP platform in 2016, making it seem like the GOP support would be less.
Trump this week had a meeting with Vladimir Putin with no records, and now the Russian president is talking about some agreements that were reached that the American people and even the IC doesn't know what that is.
You know, the possibility that Michael McFaul or Bill Browder, Americans, might be handed over to the Russians for questioning is really something that I think every American should scratch their heads about because we shouldn't be doing that.
Setting aside diplomatic immunity for Michael McFall, which is a principle of law that has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years.
You know, we know that Putin hates the Magnitsky Act.
We know that Bill Browder is a big pusher of the Magnitsky Act.
We need the president to really stand up, I think, for people like Bill Browder and Michael McFaul.
Jonathan Gillum, just as a talking point, when you add to the Uranium-1 deal, you pretty much have total, complete Russian capitulation under the Obama years.
Yeah, and here's something, absolutely.
We forget about all the, and the media never reports all the collusion or the relationship that Clinton and Barack Obama had with Russia and other evil empires like Iran, for instance.
But, you know, here's the thing, Sean, that I love Danielle, you know, and I say this all the time with people in the media that are not in the know, but they have an opinion about what's being reported.
What's being reported is being reported from a leftist narrative.
The reality when it comes to whether or not Russia tried to meddle in our election process, here's the facts.
Yes, but so does everybody else.
That's counterintelligence.
That's why we have groups like the CIA.
That's why the Russians have theirs.
That's why Cubans are trained.
People would be surprised how elitely trained the Cuban intelligence agency is and how much spying that they do on the United States to try to affect elections and political outcomes.
That's what they do.
And guess what?
Our allies do it as well, because if they can affect a political outcome, they can affect their standing in our economy and make more money that way or gain more power.
And that's counterintelligence.
That's what happens.
What I see from an individual who's been in the FBI, who's been in the military and seen the way and been read into these programs, what I see when I analyze what's going on right now with Russian collusion, if you will, and Trump, is I see the media and politicians on the left talking consistently about Trump Russia, Trump Russia.
And what they've done is the old Sololinsky playbook, they have convinced everybody without any proof, without ever mentioning that these other countries are involved in the same type of counterintelligence.
They have not talked about that.
They just completely continue to say Russia, Trump, Russia, Trump.
And that's what people hear.
And that's what people think is the truth.
When the reality is, it's not Russia, Trump.
It's Russia and every other counterintelligence agency trying to affect what the United States does on a yearly, daily, monthly basis.
Yeah, you know, Jonathan, I don't disagree with you.
I do understand that sort of modern-day warfare, we think about it in terms of economics or geopolitical influence and intelligence gathering.
And I understand, you know, we have allied relationships like the Five Eyes, but even our allies have an interest in what happens in our domestic political situation.
I think part of this is that there wasn't a clear enough message from the get-go that just basically where Trump put the hammer down and said, look, it was Russia.
I accept it.
We have to move on.
I think that the equivocating and all the language about, well, other people do it too.
I think that leaving that open has been a problem.
And I take no position on collusion because there's no evidence.
Let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this.
I'm sorry to interrupt you.
Not at all.
What has Russia done that affected our election?
They've done nothing.
They did nothing that was effective.
Well, what about hacking?
Okay, I'll give you an example.
Gussifer 2.0 was GRU officers.
They hacked into the DNC.
They hacked into John Podesta.
And you and I, and frankly, Sean, you know how damaging those emails were with WikiLeaks leaking ahead of the election.
You think that Russian state-sponsored operatives left footprints and showed the world that they were hacking the DNC?
Well, Malikin believes that they have an indictment against Russian agents who are Gusafer.2, who Roger Stone was looking to, by the way.
Here's the key.
Here's the key to what Putin said that everybody missed.
He said that Russian state-sponsored operatives did not do that.
And he's right.
It was Russians.
And I would theorize that it was Russians that were hired, owned, and paid by the DNC to hack.
I mean, I just think you've gone down a rabbit hole, honestly.
I mean, We got to take a break.
We'll come back more with Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillum.
All right, as we continue with Jonathan Gillum, author of the bestseller Sheep No More, Danielle McLaughlin, attorney and liberal and still a friend of the program.
You know, I just sense from Danielle.
I sense from Danielle today she just wants to buy the narrative, and the facts are meaningless in terms of how tough Donald Trump has been with Russia up to this point, especially compared to Obama.
And by the way, we didn't hand over 20% of our uranium to Russia the way Hillary did with massive kickbacks to the foundation.
That was the biggest win I think he got during the Obama-Clinton years.
Jonathan?
Yeah, I was waiting for Danielle to come back on that one.
You know, she had nothing to say.
I was buying her time letting going to you first.
You know, one of the other things, and I got to say this, because I haven't really been on any program since the Trump-Putin meeting and press conference, is that, you know, this is, we're looking at a president that sits down with people that are causing issues in the world, and he approaches them and gets close to them, and he's handling them.
And I've not seen him do anything wrong with Kim Jong-un, with Putin.
What is the problem is the media, Sean, it has gotten so out of hand between the leftist Democrats who are going further and further left.
They make Danielle look like a far right-wing zealot.
They are going so far left and working hand in hand with the media.
I saw a report today by Wolf Blitzer on CNN with a congresswoman.
The entire thing was, what's your opinion on this?
What do you think about this?
What do you think has happened here?
There was no facts.
No facts whatsoever.
And Wolf Blitzer puts himself up there as this great journalist, fact-driven journalist.
And not one single thing was a fact.
It was all them just bloviating.
And that's the biggest problem.
Nobody is praising this president for the fact that he's stepping forward and handling the troublemakers in this world.
Yeah, last word, Danielle.
I just want to make it really clear.
You know, I love coming on the show, and I love that you beat me up.
And I, you know, I'm right here standing waiting for it.
I'm not going to take a position on collusion.
I want to make that very clear because there are no facts.
All I'm talking about are the facts that we've seen and the behaviors that we've seen.
You know, the presidency, he's our president.
He's my president.
He's your president.
It's very important that we respect the man in the office.
I just wish there'd been less equivocation from the get-go on what the Russians did and as we're seeing from the Mueller investigation because I honestly think it would have helped the president.
All right.
Thank you both for being with us.
When we come back, wide open telephones 800-941, Sean, you want to be a part of this program.
We have a lot of breaking news.
We'll be bringing to you all news on Deep State, Struck and Page, interesting developments in that case, and much more.
Nine Eastern Hannity on the Fox News channel.
Your calls coming up next.
All right, another action-packed show.
Glad you're with us.
All right, time for you to take over.
800-941.
Sean is our number.
You want to be a part of the program?
We're going to start with Joel.
He is in Long Beach in beautiful California.
The Supreme Court put a stop on the proposition that was to go on the ballot.
They have a referendum system out in California that would have broken the great state of California into three.
Can you imagine?
Now you'd have six senators from California.
Not a good idea.
Anyway, Joel, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
I'm good.
I'd like to give a little short background.
I was brought up as a nice Democratic young man.
And as I grew up as a teenager, I was noticing, you know, just how things worked.
And it seems like, now, I'm an independent.
I don't call myself any party, but it seems like the Democratic or left-oriented people, if they don't get their way, they want to legislate morality, legislate everything, or change the Constitution to fit their own needs.
And, you know, they get kind of vicious.
Matter of fact, I just had a terrible event happen.
I forgot Benghazi, the word Benghazi.
And I called a friend of mine and said, that fiasco Hillary was involved in.
What was it called again?
He goes, why do you want to know?
And I told him why.
And, you know, I'm going to talk to you.
I decided to call you guys today.
And he flipped out on me and hung up the phone.
And he's a Democrat.
I mean, I'm shocked at the viciousness of it.
Anyway, anyway, moving forward, because I have a lot to say in a short amount of time, I guess, I'd like to create a distinction between the term strategy and tactics.
Most people don't know strategy is we need to cross the river and invade the town.
Tactics is your manner of how you get there.
And that's up to the generals.
The problem is, is today's culture, this Instagram culture, they want to see an event or see a part of an event, and then they want to see a resolution within 24 hours or two hours.
I mean, it's insanity because things take time.
When you mount the strategy, I mean, for example, what if Trump wanted to appear weak in front of Putin?
The truth is, they're definitely afraid of Trump.
Trump is a hard-ass guy with a finger on the trigger, and they know it, and they're going to abide by it.
But our own country doesn't see what if his intention, his strategic and tactical approach was to create a certain There's only one thing that Donald Donald Trump has a pretty sound doctrine, if you will.
He doesn't want to drag America into these foreign conflicts and wars.
And his belief is through economic prosperity's win-win deals, good fair trade, free and fair trade, and economic openness and opportunity, et cetera, et cetera, that that is going to create the most hope for the world in terms of peace because of the prosperity that would go along with it.
I don't think America, you know, for all the saber rattling by everybody, the last thing America needs is a war here.
And, you know, I forgot who said, maybe it was Judge Janine.
I don't know what the expectation was that he was going to go on stage and start a fistfight with Vladimir.
It's naive.
It's silly.
It's immature.
Yet, two, you know, take Putin for what he is, a hostile actor, but Putin was willing to sit and talk about nuclear proliferation, radical Islamic terrorism, a horrible civil war that is taking the lives of men, women, and children every day in Syria, and how do we deal with the number one state sponsor of terror and all the proxy wars that the Iranians are fighting?
So all significant issues.
No, do we want Putin meddling as he has in the past in American elections?
No, but at this point, I'm actually depending on our own IT capability to prevent that.
It's up to us to build the defense system to prevent them from having any shot at doing it.
The greatest incentive that we could create to stop them is having a system where they can't possibly ever do it.
And we haven't built that system, even though they've now gone on and done this for decades.
So that's the answer to me.
I believe in being self-sufficient.
Anyway, Joel, appreciate it.
Let's keep the phones going here.
Susan is in Omaha in Nebraska.
Hey, Susan, how are you?
Glad you called.
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm doing great, Sean.
What's going on?
Well, I had to call because I had made up this thing about Ben Sass.
First, I apologize for him because I'm a Nebraskan, and I apologize for Ben.
But here's what I have to say about him.
Ben, you think you're next presidential wonder, but that would be a great big blender.
You are great at spouting words against Trump, but when it comes to substance, you're in a real slump.
Start putting your words into action, Sass.
Otherwise, get off the stage and kiss my, and you finish it.
Anyway.
You wrote that.
That was pretty good.
I like that.
Really, he irritates me, and he's not what a lot of Nebraskans are.
I actually did a lot.
When he was running for office, we put him on TV a lot and radio a lot.
And I actually said, wow, this guy's a potential future rock star.
Yeah, and he's become, he was probably one of my biggest disappointments that I ever endorsed for Senate.
And I don't know, when is he up?
In a few years, two years?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, let's see if some good, smart Republican challenges him in a primary so I can make up for my mistake for the people of Nebraska.
But he said all the right things at the time, seemed like a good guy.
And then I had an interaction with him once.
I was doing some show with Glenn Beck at CPAC years ago, and he comes up to me and he goes, stop lying to the people of my state about me.
And I'm like, who are you?
I don't know who you are.
And he's, I'm, I'm Senator Ben Sass.
And I said, well, what do you, what did I say?
And he goes, you said that I'm telling people to vote for Hillary.
No, I said, no, no, no.
I said, if you vote for Hillary, if you don't vote for Trump, it's a half a vote for Hillary.
I said, and I stand by that today right here in front of your face.
It was a half a vote for Hillary.
Yeah, but you're leaving out some of the particular details there, Sean.
Okay, you go ahead, fill in the details.
So, you know, first of all, I just want to say, first of all, I want to say, Susan, I just love your poem because my nickname for him is Ben Sass the ass.
And I will say the ass for you, you lovely woman that wouldn't say it.
I've been calling him Sass the ass for a long time.
But anyway, go ahead.
I know, but Susan was so sweet.
It was a part of her poem that Ryan's been dealing with.
She's from Nebraska.
She doesn't say ass.
It's fine.
Anyway, so all that to say, though, when he came over to you, he was all ominous and leaning over and trying to be a real tough guy and got up in your face.
That was a big part of it.
You know, we're at CPAC.
It's supposed to be the land of open conversation.
He was a bully.
Yeah.
You left that part out, Sean.
He's like a kid on the side.
He's trying to be a bully, but I take these, I guess because I take these conversations or moments with such ease and no fear that I just stood up and got right in his face.
And I just have an ability to be really calm in those moments.
No, I think the funnier part was that you turn around and you're like, well, who are you?
And why are you this close to me?
I don't understand what's happening.
It was classic.
Who are you?
What could I do for you?
It was pretty funny.
It was awesome.
He's like a lot of these guys.
Reminded me of Rod Rosenstein, a guy with a vicious temper.
Seems like I have a horrible temper.
And he sweats a lot because he's always lying.
Yeah, he was sweating and he was sort of like pacing back and forth and moving his feet real fast.
And I'm like, okay, why don't you take a chill pill?
He sweats even during the press conference when he's got a script in front of him.
He's still sweating because he's lying.
Well, look, I could see him losing that seat easily.
I'm sure who would you like to challenge?
If you could pick one person today, Susan, who would you like to be the person to challenge him for that office next time?
Well, I would say, you know, Pete Ricketts, but I don't think he's going to, I don't think he's going to move from what he's doing now because he is making progress.
So I don't really see anybody else in Nebraska right now.
It's got to be somebody.
Somebody needs to step up that has the gravitas, the vision, and the fight in them to go and bring a message of prosperity, hope, and peace to the great people of Nebraska.
That's what I'm hoping.
Anyway, Susan, thank you.
Rockport, Colorado, Ben is on the Sean Hannity show.
What's up, Ben?
How are you?
Great, Sean.
How are you doing?
Hey, first of all, the guy from California, what a wonderful.
It's always a great day in America when you hear a conversion story of a guy who woke up out of the leftist fog.
So that was wonderful to hear.
Hey, I just wanted to say I find it really ironic that the guy who won the toss at the Helsinki press conference that got to ask the death blow question, that Putin put it right in his face and said, you know, after all, I was an intelligence officer myself, and I do know how dossiers are made up.
So, you know, don't forget this whole Russia deal hinges on that dossier and everybody around the world, even Putin himself, knows that it was a bunch of baloney.
It's kind of funny.
You know, and then, but, but then you got conspiracy theorists all over TV and in Congress.
He must have Leon Panetta suggested it.
And Nancy Pelosi.
They're all conspiracy theorists now.
You know, he must, he's got to have something on Trump.
You know, it's basically the whole lineup at MSNBC.
They're all advancing the big conspiracy now.
What does he have?
What does he have?
It's a level of insanity.
And I got to be honest, it's actually embarrassing to the country.
I'm sure Russia is looking at this.
They're looking at each other and they're saying, this is one messed up place.
They allowed Hillary to steal an election.
They allowed an investigation to be rigged.
That's pretty corrupt to keep her in the race.
They did everything to undermine Trump, including lied to judges and get warrants to spy in his campaign.
And nobody really seems to pay attention.
And we're going to lecture them on honesty and integrity in elections.
I don't think they're going to take us too seriously after all that has happened in this country by the left.
You know, you've said recently a lot that journalism is dead and these guys on the left are lazy.
I don't think they're lazy, Sean.
I think they're all got blood on their hands.
They're all in on it.
They know exactly what's been going on because they've been a part of it from the very beginning.
I just think they're all ideological hacks.
In other words, they are advancing their ideology, their talking points every day, which is why they sound the same all the time.
The same words, the same phrases, the same arguments, the same stupid arguments.
And that's why they keep recycling the topics, which is a point I was trying to make on TV last night.
They're going to go from one crisis, one amount of outrage and hysteria to the next amount of outrage and hysteria because they need to feel justified in hating this man every day.
Or otherwise, they'd have to actually look at some truth and reality and realize all of their predictions about what a horrible president he'd be are not coming true.
So they just try to justify every day the decision they made a long time ago that Donald Trump can't be president, but yet it happened.
And he's doing good things and the country's doing better.
That's a hard thing for their bruised little egos to ever come to a reckoning with.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
We got Jeff is in Portsmouth in Arkansas.
Jeff, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
I'm just great, man.
I listened to your show.
I saw an interview on CBS, and they talked about how dangerous it was for you to report the way you were, and I've been watching ever since.
I love you, man.
Thank you, bro.
Appreciate it.
What I've got a question about is, all right, we've got Debbie Schultz, okay?
She was like a badger getting this dadgum laptop back so she could give it to the Enmon brothers so they could take it to Pakistan.
Now, I think this whole ordeal, it's not that Trump has anything or Putin has anything on Trump.
It's that Putin and his oligarchs have got everything on the Democrats, especially with the Uranium One deal.
They don't want Trump to get anywhere near that because they know that it's just going to stir up a hornet's nest.
You know, if you look at why Russia invaded Crimea, I'll challenge you to look into that.
He had a very good reason for doing that.
You know, it's let me tell you something.
There's never been this much corruption.
I do think we're going to expose a lot of it.
I do think, look, they're doing everything they can do to bury it, stop it, delay it, get to the election.
Hope the Democrats, they'll help the Democrats.
They'll undermine the president.
And they'll try and spend as much money as they can to convince the American people that impeaching Trump is a good idea.
