Sean takes a much needed day off and Gregg Jarrett takes the helm. There is talk of Congress calling in President Trump's interpreter. Joe DiGenova joins Jarrett to discuss the legality of this move. What world leader would ever meet with a US President again if this new precedent was allowed to be set. Has anyone heard of Executive Privilege? 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.
If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what?
That's not fun.
You know, I tried everything.
I couldn't get a good night's sleep.
And this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
That's right.
It is my pillow.
Mike Lindell invented it, and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and it's changed my life.
I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
And the good news, you can too.
Just go to my pillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
You get 50% off to my pillow premium pillows, two go anywhere pillows.
Now, mypillows made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money back guarantee, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow, tossing and tourney that's not working for you.
Just go to MyPillow.com right now.
Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two Go Anywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and depealing and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
MyPillow.com, promo code Sean.
Hey everybody, happy Friday.
This is Greg Jared in for Sean Hannity.
is the Sean Hannity Show and I'm happy to be with you.
Sean certainly deserves a day off after the incredible work he did in London and Helsinki with Linda and the whole gang.
So I'm filling in for him today and And it is perhaps a propitious time for me to be here because my book, The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump, comes out on Tuesday, July 24th of the next week.
So I want to talk about it today.
For those of you who don't know who I am, uh, I am a Fox News legal analyst.
Uh, but I spent 15 years as a Fox News anchor before that, uh, Court TV, MSNBC.
I was a lawyer, a defense attorney, a trial attorney back in the 1980s.
Uh, yes, I'm a lawyer, don't hold it against me because everybody sins.
Remember that.
So that's my background.
And if you want to follow me, my Twitter handle is at Greg Jarrett, but that's two G's on the end of Greg.
G-R-E-G-G dot or no, just Jarrett at and then that's Twitter.
Um, you can also buy my book in advance of Tuesday.
All you have to do is go to Amazon.com, obviously, BarnesandNoble.com, or make it easy on yourself and go to Hannity.com, and you can read about me.
You can read about my book, you can buy the book in advance.
And I think it's worth your while.
Yes, I wrote it.
But let me give you a little bit of a backstory.
So I I have spent the last three or four years writing columns in many of them about how Hillary Clinton broke the law, and yet she was cleared by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page at the FBI, and people at the Department of Justice.
And on the very same day that Comey announced he was clearing Hillary Clinton, his FBI was meeting secretly in London with the author of the fictitious phony anti-Trump dossier, which was funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
And that document, together with many other unfounded accusations, would be exploited in a malicious attempt to frame Donald Trump for unidentified crimes that he never committed.
And that was the beginning of the Russia hoax, July 5th, 2016.
Interestingly, James Comey doesn't remember the moment that he decided that Hillary Clinton had committed crimes.
And that was one of the more stunning revelations contained in the Department of Justice recent report by the Inspector General.
It's worth reading.
And if you want a shortcut, just go to roughly page 187 of the IG report and read the next 10 pages, because here's what you're going to learn.
On May 2nd, 2016, Comey, Then the FBI director sits down at his personal computer and he composes a statement summarizing all of Hillary Clinton's illegality, her mishandling of classified documents, and he concludes in his writing that she was quote unquote grossly negligent.
And he wrote it down, not once, but he wrote it down twice.
Now those words have meaning.
They are pivotal words in the law.
They are drawn directly from a federal statute, 18 USC 793, making it a felony to handle classified documents in a grossly negligent manner.
And so, based on that finding by Comey, Clinton should have faced a multiple count criminal indictment that day since the FBI had discovered that she had stored not one or two or ten or twelve, but a hundred and twenty and ten classified emails on her unauthorized private computer service.
And if you don't think Russia has those hundred and ten classified documents after we now know they they also hack the DNC server, then you're smoking something.
The Russians have it, the Chinese have it, everybody has it.
Because her unauthorized server was available for all to obtain.
It was unprotected.
And that's why it's against the law for her to have done that.
Other people have been prosecuted for similar conduct that jeopardized national security in violation of the law.
And I devote several pages going through each and every one of those individuals in my book, The Russia Hoax comes out on Tuesday.
You can order it right now.
But why is it that those people were prosecuted and Hillary Clinton wasn't?
Comey saw to it that no charges would ever be brought against Hillary Clinton.
And he had his minions who were on board, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, the whole gang over at the FBI.
So here's what happened.
The inspector general questions Comey about his conduct.
And Comey admits to the IG that, yeah, I wrote that May 2nd statement.
I penned every word of it myself.
But then he offers the most implausible claim I think I've ever heard.
And here's a quote from the IG.
Comey did not recall that his original draft used the term gross negligence, and he doesn't recall any discussions about that issue.
End of quote.
James, how perfectly convenient of you.
You suffered a complete memory lapse.
Now, of course, you and I know that Comey's amnesia is utterly preposterous.
His perfidy is no surprise.
The man is unscrupulous.
Look up that word and Comey's picture should be next to it.
Comey would have us believe that as FBI director, he memorialized in print on his computer, his conclusion that the leading candidate for president of the United States committed crimes, and yet, oh gee, you know, I don't recall that.
I don't recall writing the incriminating words.
I don't recall talking about it with my staff.
Yeah, right, James.
Guess what?
There are notes.
The truth is that Comey does remember what he wrote that Clinton was guilty of crimes because he participated in subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton's gross negligence and her crimes.
Several meetings were held on the subject.
Contemporaneous notes proved that Comey was in attendance.
Comey participated in those discussions.
Those records show that yes, Comey was convinced that Clinton broke the law, but he was determined that he was going to clear her anyway.
Now, in order to achieve that legal somersault, that convicting terminology, gross negligence, that would have to be stricken from his statement.
How else do you absolve the soon to be Democratic nominee for president of the United States?
You've got to clear her path to the White House.
So this is what happened.
June 6th, the FBI lead investigator on the case, a guy by the name of Peter Strzok, we all now know him, sits down at his office computer to cleanse the statement of gross negligence.
And guess who's there?
Leaning over his shoulder is FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with of course, he's been having an extramarital affair.
So the two of them together decide to substitute the words extremely careless to make it appear less criminally culpable.
Lisa Page actually told the inspector general, quote, to use a term that actually has a legal definition would be confusing.
Hey, guess what, Lisa?
It surely would.
I mean, how do you clear Clinton by using a phrase that has a legal meaning under the law?
So in other words, this was all just a clever legal charade conjured up by Comey and Strck and Lisa Page to exculpate Hillary Clinton.
And, you know, there's more to this story.
I mean, Strzok and Page also expunged from Comey's statement his reference to another statute that Clinton had plainly violated.
So with the director's consent, his encouragement, they sanitized his findings of fact, his contortions of uh of law, and Clinton was free and clear.
Voila.
The FBI did not even interview her at this stage.
How in the world do they know her intent?
It was a preconceived sham, a predetermined outcome.
There really was no investigation.
It was all a charade.
And Comey's machinations are all over the place.
He offers to the IG another absurd explanation.
He says, and this is a quote from the IG report, it was his understanding based on the statute's legislative history that Congress intended there to be some level of willfulness under the gross negligence statute.
Really?
I got news for you, James.
You never read the legislative history.
I did.
It's not there.
Your statement to the IG is demonstrably untrue because Congress amended the espionage act to create this new category called gross negligence, and they specifically decided to eliminate any intent or willfulness.
So Comey just invented this excuse as a ruse to try to avoid charging Clinton.
You know, amnesia is clearly contagious over the FBI.
Peter Strzok during his congressional testimony pretended he didn't remember making the change on his computer.
But guess what?
He did implicate Comey.
Here's a quote.
Ultimately, he, Comey, made the decision to change the wording.
Oh, wait a minute.
How could Comey order a change in words he doesn't remember writing?
Well, look, their stories don't match.
Absent some serious dementia.
These overt lies are evidence of a conspicuous cover-up.
And that is just part of the Russia hoax.
That was the beginning.
And then they get their hands on that anti-Trump phony fabricated dossier, and the FBI is off to the races.
Peter Strzok signs the documents, launching the Trump Russia collusion probe without necessary facts to justify the probe.
There was never evidence of any crimes to justify a criminal investigation.
There was never any intelligence to justify a counterintelligence investigation.
They made it up.
And then they went to a FISA judge and using this phony dossier, which they knew was fake.
Comey later admitted it was unverified.
They nevertheless deceived the court.
They hid the evidence that Hillary had paid for it, and they obtained a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
Well, that's just part of the story, and we're going to be talking a lot about it today because my book comes out on Tuesday, The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
You can order it on BarnesandNoble.com, Amazon.com, Hannity.com.
I'm Greg Jarrett, in for Sean Hannity.
We'll pause, take a quick break.
We'll be right back with a Sean Hannity show.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean today.
My book comes out Tuesday entitled The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
You can get it in advance on Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or wait till Tuesday and buy it at the stores.
Check it out on Hannity.com.
My Twitter handle is at Greg Jarrett.
And by the way, we want to hear from you during this hour.
So give us a call.
I'll talk to you, answer your questions, explains things, explain things if you if you don't understand something.
Our number is 800-941-7326.
That's 800-941.
This book is not a defense of Donald Trump.
It is a defense of the rule of law, which I believe came under sustained attack by high government officials like Comey and McCabe and Strzok and Page who abuse their positions of power to subvert our system of justice and undermine the democratic process.
And Sean encouraged me to write this book because he'd been reading my columns.
He was having me on his show.
And he realized, and I think he shared with me how angry we were becoming over these top officials at the FBI and the DOJ who were deliberately abusing their offices.
They not only absolved Hillary Clinton of violating felony statutes as we were talking about moments ago, but these people weaponized the law and regulations to investigate Trump without legal justification.
Why?
They were trying to destroy him.
And as they did that, they compromised essential principles, and they damaged the nation's trust.
And this is the story of my book, The Russia Hoax.
And we want to hear from you.
So give us a call, 800-941-7326.
Again, that's 800 941 Sean.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
You can order the book ahead of time, BarnesandNoble.com, Amazon.com, go to Hannity.com.
We're going to pause, take a quick break.
phone calls on the other side You can't always believe what the other side claims.
That's why there's the Sean Hannity show.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
We're going to take your calls in just a moment.
We've been talking about the Russia hoax, and that that is actually the title of my book that comes out on Tuesday of next week, July 24th.
The subtitle is The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
You can order it on BarnesandNoble.com, Amazon.com, Just go to Hannity.com.
The hoax itself is this.
There was never any plausible evidence that Donald Trump or anybody in his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency.
Zero.
There have been a bunch of indictments by Robert Mueller.
How many of them, I ask you, involve Trump Russia collusion?
Let me help you with the answer.
The answer, you know it, is zero.
To launch that investigation against the president, facts were invented or exaggerated.
The laws were perverted or ignored.
And guess what?
The law enforcers became the lawbreakers.
And James Comey scheme to trigger the appointment of his longtime friend, ally, and colleague, Robert Muller as special counsel.
That was a devious maneuver by what I think is an unscrupulous man.
Comey's insinuation when he testified that the president obstructed justice, that was another myth, another canard designed to inflame the liberal mainstream media.
And sure enough, they became witting accessories.
were only happy to do it.
The Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Let's go to our callers right now.
Attila joins us from Kowani, Wisconsin.
Hi, Attila.
Hi.
So glad to be on the show.
And thank you for having me.
My pleasure.
What uh what do you think of this whole thing?
I uh it's an it's a great honor to talk to you, and I'm gonna rush out and get your book in our library.
I've convinced them to order your book too.
But we are already seeing, uh Gregory, the the a dual system of justice, which um Podesta gets immunity now by Mueller, right?
And and uh the and we have a um Trump's campaign manager under lock and key for 23 hours a day.
That that should tell us all what we need to know about uh the the corruption that's going on.
And now they're trying to go after Jim Jordan and and get rid of Devin Nunez.
Yeah.
Uh what there it's uh it's a head hunting list.
You know, I I've been a lawyer for uh gosh, I don't know, 40 years or so.
I I'd have to actually sit down and count them.
I passed the bar exam and became a lawyer in 1980.
So my numbers are off.
I apologize.
But um I have never seen a case in which a prosecutor gives five immunity deals to the associates of the target of an investigation, and that prosecutor gets nothing in return.
This was the Hillary Clinton case.
All of her PALs who were in on it, the mishandling of classified documents, the destruction of documents, uh, the defiance of lawful subpoenas, they all get immunity.
Do they testify against Hillary?
No.
And James Comey let two of them actually sit in on Hillary Clinton's FBI interview with Peter Strack and a few other hacks.
And, you know, she said, I don't recall roughly 40 times.
The only thing that Hillary Clinton could remember was her name and date of birth, and she probably fudged on the latter.
Uh, I mean, it was a total charade.
And so, you know, talk about prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of office.
That is the prime example.
And then those same people conjured out of thin air fake evidence to go after Donald Trump.
And my book has 700 footnotes.
It was originally 500 pages.
We cut it down to about 300 pages.
I wrote every page, every word myself.
Uh, I spent seven hours a day, Seven days a week for four months and then a month worth of revisions and additions.
So five months writing this day in and day out, night and day.
Uh and I'm actually very proud of the result because I think I lay out the meticulous evidence of how our system of justice was abused by people in high positions of power.
Attila, thanks for your call.
Let me go to the next caller, Lou is standing by in Connecticut.
Hi, Lou.
Uh, thank you very much for taking the call.
Just to preface my question, which I know you're aware of.
I've been biting at the uh bridal.
This whole thing has just been a maddening experience to watch from afar, especially having been in law enforcement to watch the abuses, to have worked in the federal task force, uh to work in the state task force.
I've been with a lot of uh uh law enforcement personnel, and I don't know any of them who would have done what the FBI did.
My question is this.
We have probable cause if we had a real AG, a real deputy A G that uh these FBI agents, uh some management, uh even some of the people on Mueller's side uh permitted crimes to take place, destruction of evidence, right?
Um whether it's uh witness testimony or hard physical evidence, would immunity deals with the commission of destruction.
I know where you're going.
And and yeah, for obstruction of justice.
I mean, look, an FBI agent can obstruct his own investigation.
It's obstruction of justice.
The FBI director did that in my judgment, and he's also guilty of a variety of other felony statutes, including abuse of power uh and uh perhaps perjury.
And Comey himself may well have violated the same uh espionage act uh laws that Hillary Clinton did.
I mean, he gave seven presidential memos that he stole from the federal government.
He gave uh at least four of them to somebody who was not authorized to have them, and according to uh the FBI, uh some of that information was classified.
They had to go into the individual's office and do uh uh to sanitize the office and gather the evidence and documents so that nobody else got their hands on them.
What does that tell you?
So all of these people could be prosecuted, including James Comey, but you've got to have a an attorney general who has the will and the knowledge to do it, and you don't have that in Jeff Sessions,
probably the worst attorney general in modern history, and you've got Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who is really running the Department of Justice, and this is a guy who is doing nothing but obstructing the congressional investigations and defying congressional lawful subpoenas.
So with those two guys at the top, nothing's gonna happen.
Let's go to our next caller, Susie joins us from San Antonio, Texas.
Susie.
Hey, thank you so much for taking my call, Greg.
Um I appreciate all that you do and the work that you do.
You sh you certainly are a warrior.
My question is this.
I uh I I did 17 years as a federal uh agent, and it it just stuns me that somebody like Comey can stand up and list off this, tick off this list of all the laws that she broke and all the things that she did, but no reasonable prosecutor would take her to take this case.
How how does that just stop it?
How does James Comey because then even Trey Gowdy says, well, you know, um no reasonable prosecutor will take this case.
Why?
Oh, that you know, that was just a lie.
And Comey thought if I say it, you know, people will believe it because Comey believes his own press clippings.
Uh, you know, Comey thought he was godlike and that he could do anything he wanted, and that he knew better than the uh American citizenry.
And so he didn't want Trump to be president.
He didn't want Hitler to be president.
So he was going to save the nation by exonerating Clinton so she could be president and destroy Donald Trump.
That that seems to me to be the story of James Comey.
And I think he's nothing more than an arrogant, pompous, pretentious fraud.
And but listen, when you're the head of the FBI, uh you have immense power, and he abused that power to clear Clinton and go after Donald Trump.
And it I'm so glad you brought up the fact that, you know, Comey's ridiculous deception.
No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
I got news for him.
Prosecutors all over America would have loved to have brought that case against Hillary Clinton.
It was a slam dunk.
It was right there on her server.
110 classified documents.
That's a crime.
Even, you know, Comey himself said in his nonsensical statement that he originally wrote the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as secret at the time it was discussed on emails, supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.
That's a quote from James Comey.
But because he wanted to clear Hillary Clinton, he struck that from his computer statement.
And he probably thought nobody would ever find out.
Clinton will become president, and it'll be a great secret.
Well, guess what?
She didn't become president, and metadata and computers record everything and maintain everything.
And that's part of the evidence against Clinton and against James Comey.
Let's go to our next caller, who is Ron from Chicago, Illinois.
Hi, Ron.
Hi, how are you?
Interesting program.
Thank you very much.
Why can't Mueller be fired?
He can.
I understand he can, but why isn't he being fired?
Well, I'll tell you why.
Uh because two reasons, I think.
Uh I think Donald Trump believes that he'll be cleared in the end because he knows he never colluded with Russia.
So uh, you know, one can understand why am I going to fire a guy who in the end cannot possibly come up with any incriminating evidence because it doesn't exist.
I mean, if you talk to Donald Trump, he was like, I never talked to any Russians.
Hillary Clinton was talking with Russians, but he'll say I never talked to any Russians, and I didn't know if anybody in my campaign was talking to Russians.
So I didn't collude.
Why should I fire a guy if I'm completely and utterly innocent?
On the other hand, I think that the president realizes that Mueller's out to get him.
I mean, the day before Muller was appointed by Rosenstein as special counsel, Mueller was in the Oval Office begging for the job to replace James Comey as FBI director to get his old job back.
And Donald Trump didn't want him.
There's a conflict of interest that demands recusal.
You get turned down for a job by the president, and you take a job the next day to investigate the president, the guy who rejected you and turned you down for a job.
Not to mention the fact that Mueller is close friends, allies, former colleagues with the key witness in the case, James Comey.
And if you look up the code of professional responsibility, not to mention the Department of Justice regulations, it's mandatory.
You've got to recuse yourself.
You can't uh prosecute a case when the key witness has a close relationship to you.
That's literally word for word, almost word for word, out of the regulations.
So Mueller deserves to be fired, but I think the president probably correctly realizes that within minutes of firing Mueller, he'd be accused of being Richard Nixon and Watergate all over and the firing of Archibald Cox, which eventually uh unraveled and led to the uh what were articles of impeachment for Nixon and prompted his resignation.
So I mean the political fallout would be severe.
So I think that's the reason why.
This is Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
We're taking your calls.
We're talking about my book, The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
It comes out next Tuesday in your local bookstore, but you can order it online, Barnes and Noble.com, Amazon.com, or just go to Hannity.com and check out my Twitter handle at Greg Jarrett.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Sean.
Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean in just a few minutes.
We're going to be talking to former U.S. attorney and former independent counsel, Joe DeGenova, one of the finest lawyers in America.
I interviewed him for my book, and he is quoted in several places.
The book comes out Tuesday, The Russia Hoax.
Barnes and Noble, Amazon will be back in a flash.
The Sean Hannity Show.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.com or just go to Hannity.com and there's a link there.
And you know, you can read what's in it, but frankly, the title tells the story, but the dirty, disgusting details are on the inside, complete with uh 700 footnotes.
So I didn't just make it up like Michael Wolfe.
So one of the people who was actually quite helpful in uh in my writing the book was um Joe DeGenova, because he granted uh me an interview, and so uh several of his comments about the Russia hoax are contained within the book.
Now, Joe DeGenova is one of the finest lawyers in all of America, former U.S. attorney.
He was also, and this is what's important, he was also an independent counsel, which is the equivalent these days of the special counsel because the independent council law was not renewed by Congress, and now Robert Muller under a special counsel regulation uh is playing that role, though there are very meaningful differences.
But let me get Joe on the phone now.
Joe, thank you uh so much for joining us today.
And and once again, thank you for agreeing to be interviewed uh for the book because I think your uh comments were an important contribution to the book.
Well, Greg, thank you very much.
And and first of all, let me congratulate you on the publication of the book, as you know I've read most of it uh pre-publication.
Uh it's a fantastic read, may I tell uh your your listeners and Sean's listeners, uh, please get it.
You you just won't be able to put it down.
Well, that's very, very kind of you, and I appreciate it immensely.
Um before we talk about uh some of the things that are in the book, uh, I do want to ask you about uh some of the latest information that we're now getting.
There's a growing number of Democrats who are asking that the interpreter during the Trump Putin meeting, her name is Marina Gross.
They are demanding that she be hauled before a congressional committee to reveal what uh was discussed and what she heard during this one on one meeting between two world leaders.
And they're also demanding that she turn over to Congress any notes that she took during uh the Monday two hour meeting In Helsinki again between Trump and Putin.
Your thoughts?
Well, first of all, uh the Democrats do not control either House of Congress, so their request is a legal nullity.
It is nothing more than a request that does not have the force of law.
She does not have to respond.
The President does not have to respond.
No one has to respond.
That said, um it would one thing is also clear that if the president uh needed to, he could invoke executive privilege, let's say if the Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress.
But an interpreter is never going to be called to testify.
Uh I can assure you that the Democrats ultimately know they're never going to get her, and so this is just a game.
Because if they thought they would get her, uh it is quite conceivable that uh Mr. Schumer, no matter how obnoxious he is from time to time, would realize that a future Democratic president would not want this to happen.
And so it wouldn't happen.
But this is grandstanding uh of the Democrats.
This is what they do.
They've become a a very, very bad joke.
Well, um the liberal media and Democrats um uh you know there was hair on fire hysteria after the you know the Putin uh Trump meeting and the the news conference, accusing Trump of being soft on Russia and in Putin's pocket.
You know, frankly, you know, Joe, that is belied by the facts.
This president increased sanctions against Russia fivefold, went after their energy sector, the defense industry, Putin's inner circle, and that most recent set of sanctions three months ago in April that the president signed.
He issued a statement saying this is in direct punishment for Russia's meddling in the election.
Uh you know, as I see it, Trump has taken more punitive action against Russia in 18 months than Obama did in eight years.
What do you think?
So I don't think there's any doubt that the president's conduct, uh whether it's giving uh defensive missile systems to Eastern European countries, which are now part of the Western bloc, uh, whether it's giving arms uh to Ukraine, whatever it may be, the sanctions, expelling 62 uh Russian quote unquote diplomats who were intelligence people uh uh as a result of the uh poisoning of the former Russian spy in London, the president has been fantastic.
Uh his messaging has been a little off from time to time, but in terms of the the real uh activities to punish the Russians, it is absolutely true that compared to uh the abysmal record of President Obama, he has been a superb defender of American interests.
And I I must say, I I over the last few days, I I've always uh it's been fairly obvious that John Brennan, the former CIA director under Obama, is a very sick, sick man, a man so partisan, so viciously corrupted by his biases that he he he looks like a madman when he's on television, his fiery face, he can barely stay within his skin.
But the person who disappointed me even more the other day by suggesting that the Russians might have something on the president was Leon Panetta.
You know, there's a guy who, while Secretary of Defense during Benghazi did absolutely nothing to save an American ambassador and three other brave Americans.
Um Leon Panetta should be ashamed of himself.
And uh I I can't imagine what possessed him to say something as stupid and as uninformed as he did about the current president of the United States.
But this is where the Democrats are.
Uh, they're cowardly.
Panetta, by the way, is one of those guys who, for all of his experience as a member of Congress, Secretary of Defense, CIA director, he is really a weak, weak person.
It's fascinating how he kowtowed to Hillary Clinton.
Quite remarkable.
You know, a couple of hours after uh John Brennan, former CIA director, a Hillary Clinton lackey and uh, you know, a hyperpartisan uh tweeted out uh that the president committed treason.
I tweeted a response, and my response was every time that John Brennan opens his mouth or tweets something, he removes all doubt about his ignorance.
And the reason I uh said that is because the treason laws, as you well know, are very specific in the United States.
Not only in Article 3 of the Constitution, but under the statute uh of treason.
You have to be at war with another country for treason to apply.
And the most the most obvious example was Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in the 1940s and 50s.
They were never charged with treason, even though they gave nuclear secrets to the Soviets, they were charged and convicted and put to death for espionage.
But you know, Brennan and uh, you know, all the others who hauled off and said this is treason, are absolutely ignorant people.
They are.
And and the other thing that's very clear about Brennan when you watch him, uh it's very Shakespearean in the sense that he does protest too much because he is well aware of the central role that he played in creating the hoax about Russian collusion, in allowing the improper uh searching of FISA information by the NSA.
He is at the core of spreading the false dossier uh around the government in an effort to get it published.
He is at the core of the unmasking process with Susan Rice and others.
He's at the core of the leaking of all of that information in violation of federal law to the American media.
John Brennan is uh among that whole list.
Clapper uh is of course another one, but he's so stupid and and inarticulate that he probably has a defense of uh being just not quite dumb enough to know how to properly lie.
But but but Brennan is at the center of the entire conspiracy against Trump.
And and the the thing about it that makes him so obviously a part of the conspiracy is the the vitriol that he has cloaked himself in to go after a sitting president and the damage that he has done to the CIA personnel who work out there today.
They are I speak to people at the agency all the time.
Right.
They are embarrassed by John Brennan.
They are mortally, mortally embarrassed by him.
Well, he's uh he's a mean and malevolent person, and and and don't just take my word for it.
That's what Samantha Power, the uh Obama United Nations ambassador, said uh rather cryptically when, and I'll quote her, not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.
That's in my book.
And in fact, as you know, because you've read much of the book, Joe, uh, my book entitled The Russia Hoax, Chapter Six.
The title of that chapter is The Fabricated Dossier Used Against Trump.
And I open it with salvos against John Brennan as the instigator of the dirty dossier.
And in fact, I quote a House Intelligence uh senior aide, House Intelligence Committee senior aide, who said, quote, John Brennan did more than anyone to promulgate the dirty dossier.
He politicized and effectively weaponized what was false intelligence against Trump.
And then I lay out all the facts and the evidence that prove it, Joe.
Yes, I and I and I couldn't agree with you more.
I think that that particular chapter is one of the most stirling parts of the book, and I I heartily commend it to people who want to understand how the an outgoing administration during a transition period be between an election and an inauguration could engage in such perfidy during that time in an effort to undermine a present do a president duly elected by the people of the United States.
I don't I you know, I think the American people have figured out without any question that the Russian collusion thing is idiotic and a hoax, except the most partisan of Democrats who will believe anything because they hate the president.
Right.
But what what people are not aware of is how criminal, and I underscore criminal the activity was that led to the to the attempt to frame Donald Trump.
They will not succeed.
The president will not be framed, but they have done a terrible thing to the American people and to a new president.
They've stolen 18 months of his presidency to deal with this nonsense.
And uh at the core of that were the people, the senior people in intelligence of the Obama administration, who I believe engaged in completely criminal activity that should be investigated.
I'm I am regretted, I regret to say that uh Jeff Sessions uh as attorney general will never permit the type of in-depth criminal investigation that needs to happen.
Oh, I I agree with you 100%.
Joe de Genova, you're gonna stick around for just a moment uh because we're gonna squeeze in a quick break.
I have many more questions for you.
The great attorney Joe de Genova, uh, who is in the book, The Russia Hoax.
You can buy it on Tuesday.
I'll be right back.
This is Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
Back now with a Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
You can follow me on Twitter, Greg Jarrett, um, at Greg Jarrett.
And by the way, two G's on the end of Greg.
Not to be confused about that other Greg Jarrett.
Um I've been talking with Joe DeGenova, uh terrific lawyer in Washington, D.C., former U.S. attorney, former independent counsel, he was interviewed for my book.
He is quoted in it.
The name of the book is The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump, available in bookstores beginning on Tuesday, or you can order it, uh Barnes and Noble.com.
But Joe, one of the arguments I make, uh, this is in I believe chapter six, is that you know collusion is not a crime in a political campaign.
Collusion's crime and antitrust law and so forth.
Um, if you pay a foreign national for information in a political campaign, that would be a crime, and isn't that what Hillary Clinton and Democrats did?
Well, Greg, the answer to that is, of course, yes, what they did was definitely pay a foreign national for information in a campaign.
And the question is whether or not that type of activity uh is is covered by federal criminal law and should be investigated.
But here's here's the problem with all of this.
And the problem with the Mueller investigation, which was created by Rod Rosenstein, uh, because he was so furious about the fact that he thought the president of the United States had embarrassed him by telling Lester Holt that he would have fired James Comey no matter what, no matter what Rod Rosenstein had recommended.
Rosenstein is just a coward.
And the the problem that exists now is if it is true that Bob Mueller has immunized Tony Podesta as part of the prosecution of Paul Manafort, we will have reached a point in this ridiculous Mueller investigation of complete perfidy, complete untrustworthiness.
But just put your head on straight for a second and think about what that means.
That means that every Democrat who's been investigated by the Comey Justice Department, Comey FBI, has gotten either immunity or a no prosecution decision.
Can in the middle of the Manafort case, they're going to immunize Tony Podesta, who committed many of the same crimes that that that Manafort is alleged to have done.
It is it is so mind-boggling and shocking that I'm I'm apoplectic about it.
Joe de Genova, many thanks.
Let's do it again sometime soon.
One of the great attorneys in America talking about my book, The Russia Hoax, which comes out on Tuesday.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
We've been talking a lot about my book, The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
It comes out this coming Tuesday, July 24th.
But you can, you know, order it ahead of time on Barnes and Noble.com, Amazon.com, or just go to Hannity.com.
But the uh, you know, look, the title tells this story.
The whole Russia Trump Russia collusion was nothing but a hoax.
There was never any evidence of it.
It was a uh legally unjustified investigation of the president after Comey and company cleared Hillary Clinton purely for political reasons, uh, because she obviously violated the criminal statutes and should have been indicted and prosecuted.
But that, of course, is not what the FBI and the Department of Justice and the Obama administration wanted.
And the President himself, in an April 2016 interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, basically directed the FBI to clear Hillary Clinton.
He told Chris Wallace that she didn't intend to violate the law or jeopardize national security, and that she was merely careless.
And, you know, within six weeks, they changed Comey's statement from gross negligence, which is a clear violation under the felony statute, to Obama's word, carelessness.
So the president all but instructed them.
He did it through the media to clear Hillary Clinton.
Did anybody accuse Barack Obama of obstruction of justice?
Of course not.
But the president exercises his constitutional right to fire James Comey and my lord, it's obstruction of justice.
Joining us now to talk about the book and other things, Sarah Carter, Fox News uh contributor and intrepid investigative reporter, and one of my favorite people to be on with, and David Schoen, who is a terrific lawyer, a civil liberties attorney.
And I always learn something when I uh tune in to David when he's on or talk to him.
So thank you both for being with us.
And uh, let me ask you about the most recent news that came out today.
This is going to, of course, change the immediate news cycle yet again, that uh Michael Cohen taped his conversation with President Trump regarding a potential future payment to Karen McDougall, uh, who is a uh Playboy playmate who allegedly had an affair with uh Trump many years ago.
And uh apparently, you know, she wanted to uh get her greedy hands on a few greenbacks, and there was a discussion that took place.
David, since you're the lawyer, let me go to you.
Is there any anything illegal or criminal about paying somebody to go away?
Absolutely not, and as you well know, Greg, it happens every day in settlements across the country in all kinds of civil cases.
I think the greatest importance this uh revelation has is probably it gives uh more entertainment value at the checkout counter in the grocery store now.
I sort of put it in the Kardashian Paris Hilton category of news.
The only issue they try to make uh potentially one can see is that this was somehow a payment to affect the election.
He was paying hush money or authorizing the payment of hush money to a person who had bad news and might impact on the election.
It's absolute nonsense.
And not it's not just nonsense.
It's offensive to the American voters to suggest that the voters in this country base their sacred vote for president on either Russian propaganda or uh a calculus as to whether the president or potential president had an affair or didn't have an affair.
And we know, I mean, from history that those facts only go so far.
We don't have to look any further than President Clinton and his popularity when you know that's a proven fact about the affair.
But it's really offensive to the American people and it's offensive American people to keep spending money chasing these things down.
I understand it's a sexy story.
Um and by the way, the story itself, of course, raises so many issues about why it was taped, uh, what that does to his professional standing.
Um, all of these kind of who leaked it, what agent seized it?
Of course, the DOJ uh uh regulations prohibit an agent involved in investigation from seizing items from a lawyer's office.
It's supposed to be a tape team going in.
So there are all kinds of issues, but yeah.
Anyway, that's my lot of it is covered by attorney-client privilege.
That privilege, by the way, is not held by Michael Cohen, but by the client, which would have been Donald Trump.
Uh, only he can waive the privilege.
I suspect, I mean, the information we're getting is that Cohen's lawyers coming through files uh saw this conversation.
They alerted uh the president's legal team, and they probably said, you know what, there's no there, uh, no need to hide it.
Uh it'll be leaked by the Department of Justice anyway, so we might as well get ahead of the story and and report it ourselves and and tell the truth about it.
Sarah Carter, you know, this whole business about uh, you know, affairs and payments and so forth.
I mean, that was largely baked into uh the media narrative before the election anyway.
They were, and this is about character assassination, right?
And disinformation campaigns that we've seen with the Russia alleged Russia collusion.
Uh now we have this.
This is this is part of a character assassination campaign against uh President Trump.
And if we look through history as, you know, I David Schoen so rightly put it, we've seen this over and over again.
I mean, it is a sexy story.
People want it out there.
I think my concern, Greg, was looking at the fact of, you know, attorney client privilege, wondering how many more recordings, you know, uh Michael Cohen has or other clients that he may have recorded.
Um, and also how did it leak?
When you mentioned the Department of Justice, of course, there are guidelines that must be followed, and you think, well, then who in the DOJ had access to this?
Who leaked this?
Were there copies made?
Could this have been a separate copy of the Michael Cohen tape?
Could it have come from somebody else?
That would have been interesting as well.
So there's a lot of questions here, a lot of questions that need to be answered, and likely, more than likely, this has nothing, I mean, there's nothing criminal here.
There is no issues here of that nature.
It certainly will uh drive home for the mainstream media, this continuous push to go after uh President Trump.
And of course, people are going to look at it.
It's important.
I mean, it's a story, it's out there.
Um, and now it's going to be up to the White House and up to the administration to decide how they are going to handle this and how they're going to move forward with this.
Because uh it's certainly something that's gonna take up a lot of airtime.
You know, um Greg and and go go ahead, David.
Go ahead.
I just want to jump in on two things.
Sarah is absolutely right, and she's hit all the issues as always.
I I think I I sort of wish that Mr. Giuliani would stop commenting substantively about this tape or anything else.
I'm sure he knows what he's doing, etc.
I don't want there to be somebody claiming an issue of waiver, etc.
He doesn't speak for the president's present as you said, it's the president's probably just number one.
But number two, as you know, Greg and Sarah, in these tape cases, what can be the most vitally important evidence, if there is any issue at all, is what wasn't taped.
What conversations went on that weren't taped?
Because remember, Michael Cohen or whoever it is doing the taping controls what to tape and when to tape it and when to turn it off.
So if the president, for example, said, I won't be a part of any kind of hush money thing, I don't want this to look like it's hush money, and that wasn't taped.
That's obviously the key bit of evidence, and all people here would put on the tape.
Uh let me turn to another story that's uh coming out here, Sarah.
Uh Judicial Watch uh today expects the Department of Justice to release some redacted documents about the infamous FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
Uh and and how it was hidden in footnotes that the uh unverified dossier was actually paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
What do you know?
Well, it's yeah, this is what they've been waiting for.
Without judicial watch, Greg, I think that a lot of us would be left blinded.
I mean, they really have had the power to fight back the federal government in court.
This is a the the this foreign intelligence surveillance act, the warrant to spy on Carter Page.
The fact that they did hide that in the footnote, it was not overtly obvious to the court was something that was deeply concerning.
In fact, they didn't lay out, they just said opposition.
I mean, it was very, it was very small, it wasn't the footnote, it didn't lay out that it was Hillary Clinton, it didn't detail the campaign.
So it is very important, it's vital.
It's vital that those documents be released so that the public can see what was going on.
Secondly, I think it's also vital and very important that the 19 pages of the last FISA warrant that was taken out on Carter Page, that would be the one that was signed by Rod Rosenstein, that those documents also be turned over to the public.
Remember, they're 19 pages.
Now, The House Intelligence Committee, some members there have actually viewed these uh documents.
They believe that it's important for the public to view these documents.
But what's happened is the Department of Justice has basically put a noose around their neck, not allowing them to release any of these documents.
The president would be the only person right now that could authorize that release.
You know, we did uh get some of the FISA documents through uh the release uh by Congress, uh the House Intelligence Committee and some memos from the Senate side.
And in fact, David, in my book on page 159, uh my book, by the way, is called the Russia hoax.
It's out on Tuesday, or you can pre-order it on Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com.
But on page 159, I recite verbatim, uh, footnote number eight, in which uh the government, the Department of Justice and the FBI, absolutely disguised and buried who paid for the anti-Trump phony dossier.
We now know it was Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democrats.
And so I recite that entire footnote on page 159.
And not long ago, my wife read the book for the first time, and she got to that page and she read that footnote, and she turned to me.
We were on a plane, and she said, Are you kidding me?
No one in their right mind could discern from that footnote that that the sourcing for the dossier came from the Clinton campaign and Democrats.
And it's true, isn't it, David?
Yes, it is.
And anyone in their right mind better read your book from cover to cover and not just that page, if they honestly want to know what happened here, because you folks have been reporting on this stuff in detail that nobody else has reported on.
And if you're interested in the facts, read the book and get the facts and listen in every day.
Um listen, you know, back to the FISA documents.
Remember, as you reported on this show, uh, the FISA court, the presiding judge herself said in a letter to Congress, there is no bar to the Department of Justice turning over these application documents.
We suggest you go to the Department of Justice and get it from them.
And if the American people deserve it.
Yes, absolutely.
Um, we're with Sarah Carter, the terrific Fox News contributor, investigative reporter, David Sean, one of the best lawyers in America, a civil liberties attorney.
Uh, these are two of the people that I think know a great deal about the Russia hoax, the title of my book, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Um, you guys are good enough to stick around for after the break.
We're gonna squeeze one in right here.
Uh this is Greg Jarrett.
I'm filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity show.
Follow me on Twitter, Greg Jarrett at Greg Jarrett, two G's on the end of Greg.
Uh, and you can buy my book in advance, Barnes and Noble.com, Amazon.com, or just go to Hennedy.com.
It's called the Russia hoax.
I think it'll be worth your while.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hennedy show.
I'm Greg Jarrett in for Sean Today.
We've been talking about my book comes out Tuesday called The Russia Hoax.
Get it on Barnes and Noble uh or Amazon.com.
Uh final thoughts now with Sarah Carter and David Schoen.
Sarah.
Well, I think we've got to keep our eyes on the prize.
I'm very excited about your book, Greg.
I can't wait to read through the whole thing.
I'm I I'm waiting for it to come to my home.
Uh, but as far as this investigation is concerned, I think the most important thing we need to be looking for is if and when Congress moves forward with this investigation.
Will those documents be exposed?
Will we see what actually took place?
And I think more importantly, uh, will the president decide eventually to release those documents to declassify some of the documents that Congress has been requesting uh so that the public can know the truth.
All right, Sarah, your book, by the way, arrives FedEx tomorrow morning.
Be on the lookout.
David, I've got to shoot one off to you, FedEx.
Uh, but your final thoughts.
Okay, and we can't wait to get the book.
Uh look, my final thoughts are let's not let this Cohen Salacious incident and uh Helsinki derail the focus from Strook and Page and Muller.
Struck and Page are the two of the largest disgraces our government has had in many recent years.
Uh Maybe an equal disgrace is the performance of the Democrats on both committees who should have been outraged, who should have not taken the position.
The end justifies the means, but who Jackson Lee and Nadler speak out against government misconduct, but not when President Trump is the victim of it.
Shame on them.
Let's get back to focusing on what damage was done by this horrible misconduct.
And what damage is still being done.
Yeah.
Sarah Carter, uh David Showan, thank you both.
And you know, Sarah, your books arriving tomorrow.
David, I'm going to put one in the mail.
I'm going to put one in the mail to you today.
Thank you both for being with us today.
The book is called The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
I spent uh four months writing it, another month's worth of revisions.
It is very, very detailed, complete with roughly 700 footnotes.
Uh, and I think you'll learn a lot that hasn't been revealed, or those things that were buried are brought to light.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity, who uh richly deserves the day off after all of his hard work and uh exemplary coverage uh abroad, the uh Helsinki meeting between President Trump and uh Vladimir Putin.
Um, and uh it gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit about the book that I wrote, The Russia Hoax, which comes out next Tuesday.
The Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump in bookstores Tuesday.
Uh but you can buy it on uh Amazon.com or Barnes Noble.com, or go to uh Hannity.com.
There's a link there as well.
You can follow me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
Uh, one of the people um who has really been instrumental in uncovering the Russia hoax and the machinations of the Department of Justice and the FBI, their abuse of power, uh subverting the rule of law, and attempting to undermine democracy in an election, is uh one of the best members of Congress.
Uh, he's a goodatorial candidate in Florida, a freedom caucus member.
Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida joins us.
And Congressman, thanks for being with us today.
Oh, thanks for having me, and congrats on the book.
I know it'll do very well down here.
Well, I sent you one, and uh, I think you will get it either today or tomorrow, or you know, maybe Monday, and I hope you'll read it.
Um there is a lot in there about not just how James Comey and company wrongfully, and I think illegally cleared Hillary Clinton, but then how they conjured a case against Donald Trump for Trump Russian collusion without any evidence,
without any facts, in violation of what's called the dialogue, which is basically the handbook that guides the conduct of the FBI, not to mention the Department of Justice uh regulations that guide them as well.
There was never any evidence to justify a criminal investigation.
There was never any intelligence, as Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee found to justify a counterintelligence probe, and nevertheless, uh Comey and others launched this dilating investigation of the president, I believe, in order to uh first of all defeat him as a candidate, and when that failed to destroy him as president of the United States.
How concerned are you about the corrupt behavior of top officials at the FBI and the Department of Justice?
Well, just think about the timeline here.
Uh Donald Trump wins the Indiana primary in the spring of 2016.
What is Peter Strapp text to his lover Lisa Page?
He says, now the pressure really bill builds for us to finish mid year exam, which was the Clinton investigation.
Why would Trump's victory build pressure to finish that?
I mean, if if you were uh if he was guilty, then you would need to take that.
But he basically was instrumental in helping bring that to a conclusion where Hillary faced no charges.
He was uh edited the Comey statement months before they interviewed Hillary.
So he was involved in that whole show.
Lisa Page is obviously texting him saying, hey, don't go in there with Hillary with guns blazing.
She's gonna be the next president, remember?
So at every step in that investigation, they bent over backwards not to make a case against her.
Then what happened?
They Comey g does the press conference, the infamous press conference.
By the end of that same month in July, Peter Strzok is the one opening up what was called crossfire hurricane, the Trump Russia collusion case, based on what?
As you said, Greg, no foreign intelligence.
And they've not been willing to give us the documents to substantiate why they did it.
I think the reason they did it was because of Papadopoulos making this comment that that the Russians had dirt on Hillary.
Alexander Downer provided that info to the Obama State Department, and I think the information came from State Department.
Even Alexander Downer, though, says he never mentioned anything about email.
So Strzok's view, I think, is hey, we heard that Trump's campaign may have inside knowledge about hacking Hillary's emails, therefore we open this.
And that's not true.
There was no facts to do it.
So what does he do after he opens the case?
Eight days later, he's texting Lisa Page saying, no, Trump won't be present because we will stop it.
Uh we'll stop it at the FBI.
And of course, we know uh a week after that was the infamous insurance policy text where he said that uh we can't take the risk of a Trump presidency.
And the thing that I think was interesting, and we got this when we had Strzok come in, is you know, when Mueller was appointed, he texted Lisa Page saying he was really concerned that there was no there there in the investigation.
And you think you're accusing the guy of colluding with a foreign power and you're concerned there's no there there?
You should be happy there's no there there.
He wanted, they wanted to go after him from day one, and that's what they did.
And I think it was uh an abuse of the counterintelligence powers of the federal government, and I think that that's gonna cause Congress to have to go back and look at how some of this is handled against people who are U.S. citizens domestically.
You know, Peter Strzok uh, when he testified, um said, uh, well, those text messages didn't really mean what they say.
Uh we're getting some reporting now from fairly reliable sources that Lisa Page in her behind closed doors deposition uh said no, some of those messages meant exactly what they said.
What do you think?
Yeah, no, I think I think Lisa Page was much more honest about it.
And here's the thing with Strzok uh he gave the same explanations to the IG that he gave to Congress publicly, and the IG said his explanations weren't credible.
Uh David Horowitz, who's not a not a Republican, uh or Michael Horitz, sorry, he's not a Republican, and uh they didn't find it credible.
Americans didn't find it credible.
I mean, think about it, Greg.
She's saying Trump can't be president right, right, right.
He responds no, no, he can't, we'll stop him.
And Strzok's explanation for that is well, I meant the American people, the voters would stop him.
And that just defies credulity.
I mean, he was saying we at the FBI will stop him.
Same thing with the insurance policy text.
Uh, it's obvious, and I think Page was smart enough to not try to lie about that and to just be honest.
Of course, you know, I think she was obviously very biased against Trump, but but uh Strzok was really in a position to use his bias in ways that Paige probably wasn't.
So I think she probably has less exposure than Strzok does.
But man, his explanations, uh, I don't think people uh viewed those as worth the f worth worth anything.
And I think he really hurt himself uh with his performance uh in front of the Congress.
You know, he seems to have suffered from acute amnesia.
He doesn't really remember changing Comey's statement of Clinton's conduct from gross negligence to extremely careless, even though the metadata on his computer shows he made the change.
And then he also said, Well, I don't really remember writing that uh text message uh that we're gonna stop Trump, and then he went on to explain what it meant, even though he didn't remember it.
Uh and and you know, what also struck me is that he said, and I'm I'm looking at, oh, here it is.
He had the audacity, this is Peter Strzok to say, quote, I do not have bias.
He later then testified those text messages are not indicative of bias, you know, which must mean the earth is flat and pigs can fly.
I mean, nobody with an ounce of intelligence, Congressman, could possibly buy the self-serving rubbish that Peter Strzok was peddling in that, by the way, includes the inspector general, who after his investigation wrote, I think it's page 497,
if my memory serves me correctly, or thereabouts, he said, quote, the struck page communications are not only indicative of a biased state of mind, but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral process.
Is there any doubt in your mind that they did use their positions of power to take official action to try to alter the events?
No, in fact, in Horwitz even admitted when I questioned him, if you look at what happened after Strzok opens the counterintelligence investigation, we then have the surfacing of the Anthony Wiener emails in September of 2016.
So right in the home stretch of the election.
And Strzok, he refused to really pursue that because he was so worried about this uh collusion investigation that he had concocted.
And Horowitz said that Strzok's explanation for his conduct was not credible, and that the most reasonable inference was that it was his bias that was causing him to slow walk the Hillary stuff and focus on Trump.
And I think it dovetails, I think his actions throughout both investigations really dovetail with his bias.
And yes, how absurd is it to say that you're not biased with stuff like that.
He tried to say, look, we're allowed to have political opinion.
I mean, Greg, it's like if you and I were in the FBI and you and I debated like the merits of of a tax reform proposal.
Uh he's trying to say what he was saying is akin to that.
I mean, give me a break.
That was not just a political opinion.
That was a deep-seated animus that he had toward Donald Trump.
And look, it'd be one thing if there was evidence, uh, obvious evidence is why you should start investigation.
But what makes it so troubling is even after us asking all this time, why did you do it?
You know, what we're left with is Papadopoulos and a and a steel dossier that was funded by Hillary.
Uh that's just not acceptable uh in the United States of America.
Well, the great irony is that uh the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid money to a foreign national, which I view as uh a violation of the federal campaign election act, uh, and yet uh there's no investigation of her for that.
Uh there's no potential prosecution of her for that.
Uh and an associate juxtaposed this, an associate of Donald Trump uh and his son, uh, you know, meet with a Russian lawyer, no money is exchanged, no information ended up being handed over, but somehow talking to a Russian is a crime.
And by the way, if you look up on the website, the Federal Commission election commission's website, they say foreign nationals are permitted to participate in American political campaigns.
They can attend meeting, provide information, you know, they can talk as long as money isn't exchanged.
But the media and Democrats have that as a crime, but it's not criminal for Hillary Clinton to pay money to a foreign national to trash Donald Trump.
And also, I mean, what are the odds that whatever information Steele got that he got for free?
I mean, Christopher Steele almost assuredly had to pay some of that money to some of these Russians uh that he was getting information from.
Look, it wasn't credible information, uh, but he was getting it from somewhere.
He was getting this innuendo.
So uh I think the money that Hillary uh paid to Perkins Coe, who then paid fusion, who then paid Steele, I think some of that money ultimately ended up in the hands of some Russians.
And so, yeah, it's it's absolutely ridiculous.
They were paying for care for opposition research.
If some Russian national had just come to their campaign and said they had dirt on Trump, they would have taken the meeting in a minute.
We all know that.
So it's just uh it's hypocrisy.
But the media, I I think with all this Russia stuff, you know, this is the horse they want to ride, and they've been riding it for a year and a half now, and they're continuing to do it, and they're gonna try to blow anything they can out of proportion so it fits their narrative.
We're talking with uh Congressman Ron DeSantis, also a good editorial candidate uh in Florida.
Um he's gonna stick around for just a minute.
We're gonna squeeze in a quick break and we're gonna continue talking about what's in my book, and we've been doing that.
Uh The Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump, available in bookstores on Tuesday.
You can buy it now on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com or go to Hannity.com.
There's a link there as well.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
We'll be back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity and our guest uh today talking about my book.
Uh it's called The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
It's out next Tuesday.
You can get it at your local bookstore.
Order it on BarnesandNoble.com or Amazon.com or go to Hannity.com and follow me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
But we've been talking about it with Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida.
He's running for governor down there.
He's a member of the Freedom Caucus, and uh he has been instrumental in attempting to uncover the wrongful acts uh by many people at the FBI and the Department of Justice.
And Congressman, all along the way, the FBI and the DOJ, and in particular Rod Rosenstein, have been resisting and obstructing and defying lawful subpoenas.
So where are you in all of that?
Look, Greg, we have to set a sanction for noncompliance.
And basically, we've gone back and forth.
Uh, I think what you do is when you have a deadline, you say the next day will be a contempt of Congress hearing if you don't produce what we need to produce.
I mean, this is stuff that we're clearly entitled to.
I mean, we're conducting oversight over potential abuse of the government's counterintelligence powers.
Uh that is, if that's not right for congressional oversight, I don't know what is.
And I think that Rosenstein has stonewalled, and I think they are trying to run the clock out as Devin Nunes said.
So it's um we got to do this soon, though.
And I think we've waited too long.
So I I'm in favor of imposing some penalties here so that we can finally get them to comply.
I mean, we're looking specifically uh for the two things we need, I think right now are the information about why Strck opened the counterintelligence investigation against Trump's campaign, what was uh underlying reason, the different uh any documents that were produced with that, and then any documents involving any other contact between any type of FBI informant and the Trump campaign preceding July 31st.
And we know there was some contact.
So someone like Stefan Hauper, potentially others, what did the FBI do, if anything, to initiate contact?
All right, Ron DeSantis uh Congressman from Florida, good editorial candidate there.
Thank you very much for being with us today.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity show.
My book comes out Tuesday, The Russia hoax.
Hope you'll buy it and read it.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show on Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean today.
Um my book comes out, The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump this coming Tuesday, July 24th.
I started writing this in December.
Uh, and I wrote seven hours a day, seven days a week until I finished in late April, then spent the month of May rewriting, adding things because so much was happening while I was writing the book.
So additions and revisions had to be made.
It went to print the first week of June, And it's already out at the bookstores at Barnes and Noble and Costco and Target and Sam's Club and you know all the places you want to uh pick up a book, uh, or you can just order it.
Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com, go to Hannity.com, there's a link there, and you don't even have to leave the comfort of your home.
It'll be delivered to your doorstep.
And then you can sit down and read the 300 pages of the Russia hoax.
And so what does it tell you?
Well, I reveal that those within the FBI and Barack Obama's Department of Justice worked not just improperly, but I believe illegally to support the election of Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
And it failed.
So those same people, undeterred by the law, decided to contrive an investigation of President Trump, the so-called collusion, in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.
Why?
Because these people were so arrogant that they believe that the American public, that's you, the listeners, didn't know enough, didn't know any better.
You know, you're deplorable, and you couldn't possibly think with that brain of yours to make a proper decision as to who should be the president of the United States.
And when you chose Donald Trump, guys like James Comey and Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe and the whole gang over at the FBI and others like Bruce Orr at the Department of Justice, with the help of the money of Hillary Clinton, went after Donald Trump with a vengeance to destroy him.
And the evidence is compelling that these partisans within the FBI and the Department of Justice, driven by, you know, this personal animus and a misplaced sense of political righteousness, covertly surreptitiously acted to subvert electoral democracy in our country.
And I am absolutely convinced, and the evidence in my book, I believe will persuade you that this is the biggest political scandal and the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on Americans in modern history and maybe in all of history.
We're taking your phone calls, and I appreciate your support on this book.
People have been buying it.
We've been doing well on the pre-orders on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com, and I appreciate your support.
You've been very kind.
People sending me messages, encouraging me uh through the process of writing the book and now when it's about to come out next Tuesday.
Let's go to uh Doug in Michigan, who's been holding and standing by.
And Doug, thanks for your patience.
What do you think?
Hi, Greg.
Um I really appreciate talking to you.
You're uh true warrior, as some have said earlier, and I appreciate you standing up for truth justice in the American way.
Um my thought is you are really good at explaining things for lay people.
And what I'm worried about and wonder about is why uh Devin Nunes and the Oversight Committee don't just charge these people in a DOJ and FBI with contempt and instruction and get a warrant or whatever with maybe federal marshals or whoever they would have and pull them a mirror and go in and grab the documentation they need and put an end to this forever drama that's been going on.
Is there some rule or law or stipulations that they can't just go ahead and do that?
There is.
You know, while Congress does have the power of contempt under the law, they do not have the power to enforce contempt with punishment.
They instead have to go to another branch of government, the judiciary, and they would have to go since they're Congress is in Washington, D.C., they would have to go to a federal judge in that jurisdiction uh and seek enforcement of their contempt Citation.
Now, look, in a lot of uh jurisdictions uh where I used to practice law uh back in the 80s in California, you know, if you defied a lawful subpoena, you know, there'd be a bench warrant issued by a judge without a hearing for your arrest, and thereafter there'd be a here uh what's called a show cause hearing to show cause why you should not be held in contempt.
And there are very few excuses for defying a subpoena.
Uh I used to issue subpoenas as a lawyer in the cases uh in in which I was handling, and people rarely defied a subpoena.
But when they did, I went to a judge, it was enforced, and that individual invariably ended up in the hooscow without a toothbrush.
And uh unfortunately in Washington, D.C., the courts, the federal courts are populated by uh a bunch of bleeding heart whiny liberals.
And oh, you know, can't we work this out?
I don't want to throw anybody in jail.
Oh, kumbaya.
And that's the kind of response you get there.
And so, you know, we can all feel the pain of members of Congress.
They have two steps.
They have to first vote for contempt, uh, which would, you know, be a majority in the House of Representatives, then they gotta go and enforce the contempt citation.
One of the other things they could do, and they, you know, they've drawn up some articles of impeachment for folks like Rod Rosenstein, but the trouble is you gotta you gotta get the House to vote by a majority for impeachment, and then the trial for impeachment is in the Senate, and you gotta get two-thirds, and with Democrats there, you're just not gonna get it done.
So their only avenue, their only recourse is to go to a federal judge, and good luck in in Washington, D.C. So these folks are handcuffed in really trying to pursue the defiance of the law by Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Ray and others.
Uh, but great question, Doug.
Thanks very much.
Let's go to Mike in Virginia, who's been standing by.
And Mike, thank you for being with us.
Well, no problem, uh, Greg, and uh thank you uh so much for taking my call today.
I listen to Sean's show pretty much every day uh during the week, just like I do uh with Russian Limbois.
Um I'm a disabled veteran, and I wanted to focus uh primarily on the upcoming election in November.
And I've been re I've been voting Republican since I was 18 years old, and that's 30 years ago this year.
And I'm gonna be voting Republican across the board.
I also heard your uh discussion there with uh Congressman DeSantis from Florida and best of luck to him and his uh governor campaign down there.
But uh the Democrats obviously they have no clue, they have no plan.
All they want to do is chirp and complain like crazy that President Trump has you know has done this and has done that wrong.
And this uh hoax that you've been talking about, that's all it is.
I'm convinced 100% of it's a hoax.
Right.
And also too, everything that he's done to the veterans, uh I mean, I can't say enough about it.
Sure, sure.
Um and of course I've been retired for the last uh eight years myself.
And uh and then I'm I'm almost very uh proud to be a Republican.
I will always vote uh vote that way.
I'll be doing it again uh here in Virginia this November, and I'll be voting some Democrats up because again, like the Congressman said during your interview with him, they are nothing but first class hypocrites.
Yeah.
I listen, I agree with you, and God bless you.
Um you know, we are so appreciative to you.
Thank you for your service uh in our military.
Um and I think you you raise a really great point.
Um I think there's gonna be a red wave in November, and here's why.
Democrats are moving more and more and more to the left.
Prime example, uh the young woman, 28 years old in New York, who won the uh, you know, Democratic primary for a House seat, so she's a shoe-in to be a member of Congress.
Her name is Alexandra Ocasio Cortez.
She is the new fresh face of the increasingly progressive liberal Democratic Party, and in fact, she's out campaigning with Bernie Sanders today.
God bless them, the two socialists together.
And you know, if this continues, this will be an early Christmas gift to Republicans.
You know, thanks to innumerable television appearances, Democrats are now being asked about their new their new star in the party, Ocasio Cortez.
And what they're finding is that she is profoundly ignorant of basic facts of both history and current events.
Her full-throated embrace of socialism, that's troubling enough for Democrats.
But her tortured explanation of what America is all about is now branding all Democrats as obtuse.
And now it's a debate over capitalism versus socialism at a time when the capitalism markets market economies are booming.
The socialist experience is nothing more than a model for failure, and history tells us that.
Capitalism equals prosperity.
We're seeing that now.
But of course, all of that is lost in the likes of Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders, and you know, the whole, the whole gang of progressive, you know, the warrant, Senator Warren is also one of them, and these are the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Let me give you an example of the stupidity of Ocasio-Cortez.
She said the other day, and this is a quote, capitalism has not always existed in the world, end of quote.
Hello, that's wrong.
Capitalism has been around since people were, you know, living in caves, engaging in primitive trade.
Ocasio-Cortez then said, quote, when this country started, we did not operate on a capitalist economy.
Oh, really?
Did you ever go to civics class in high school?
We didn't have a capitalist economy when the nation began, then what was it?
Let me tell you something.
Capitalism came to America on board ships.
The Quakers, the Puritans, the Virginians, they all extolled market economies.
They came to America because it had an abundance of land, which they settled and they developed.
It was largely an agrarian form of capitalism.
Crops were, you know, planted and harvested and traded and sold.
There were competitive markets, supply and demand, wages, abundant trade.
These are all hallmarks of capitalism, and it thrived and grew.
The initial stages of the industrial revolution took place shortly after the Constitutional Convention and the inauguration of President George Washington.
You know, to Ocasio Cortez, I would say, read a book for God's sakes.
And I'd be happy to loan you the wonderful book by Ron Chernow entitled Washington.
It's about uh George Washington, the beginning of our nation, the revolutionary war, what Americans fought and died for, freedom and a capitalist market economy of their own and not just purely British.
And the Constitutional Convention, uh, our esteemed Constitution and the Bill of Rights, his eight years, George Washington as president of the United States.
I don't think Ocasio Cortez has ever read a book about American history because she exhibits nothing but conspicuous ignorance about it.
Here's another example.
She said, again, this is Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, you know, who won the House Democratic primary in New York.
She said, quote, unemployment is low because people have two jobs.
Really?
Are you that obtuse?
The labor department calculates the unemployment figure, Alexandra, by taking in the number Of those without jobs, and they divide it by the labor force total.
Here's the thing.
Ocasio Cortez represents the need for an intelligence test before somebody is ever allowed to run and hold public office.
She would surely funk a basic high school civics examination.
For now, Democrats are stuck with their falling star, and Republicans may be the beneficiaries.
Moreover you calls on the other side.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
And it has been a stupendous three hours filling in for Sean today.
We spent most of it talking about my book, which comes out next Tuesday, The Russia Hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
And I want to thank all the people who have sent me messages of encouragement and support.
Our callers today, our guests today, Joe DeGeneva, Sarah Carter, David Sean, uh Congressman Ron DeSantis.
You've all been terrific.
I hope you'll go out and buy my book, BarnesandNoble.com, Amazon.com, or go to Hannity.com.
