Sean is joined by Congressman Jim Jordan to talk about the ongoing Paul Manafort trial and how the Democrats are so desperate to build a case that they've started resurrecting a 2005 tax case. Plus, Jordan reviews just why the November elections are so important! The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
Yep, most important midterm election in your lifetime.
And that is just a fact.
Glad you're with us.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, so the jury has been selected in the Paul Manafort case.
And uh what's really interesting about this is the word Russia may never be mentioned in the entire case.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Russia.
It has nothing to do at all with Donald Trump and the Trump campaign.
Not one bit.
As a matter of fact, this is about a case that goes back to 2005 through 2007.
And it happens to be a tax case.
And whether or not Paul Manafort earned more than I guess he earned more than 60 million dollars as a political consultant in Ukraine.
And Robert Muller on the eve of his criminal trial, providing the first tally of Manafort's income there.
By the way, it may sound like an astronomical sum of money.
It is.
Democrats, Podesta, all of them.
They all do, you think they're just working on American political cases?
No.
They work in all these countries.
And for whatever reason, they're viewed as geniuses in the terms of, you know, the pedestas, etc., etc.
Anybody that's ever won a big big uh race in America, that that's that's their thing.
And as Dershowitz said, Muller's hoping Manafort will choose to testify against Trump rather than die in prison.
Now the judge in this case is one that we have quoted now many times.
Judge Ellis uh and the third, and Judge Ellis III is the one that said, what the government is doing in this case.
Oh, I see what you've done.
You're dragging up a 2005 tax case as it relates to Paul Manafort in the hopes that you're gonna put the screws to him and that he's gonna sing, meaning talk about Trump, or compose.
That means basically make up a story so he doesn't have to spend the rest of his life in jail in the hopes that they prosecute or they can impeach Donald Trump.
That's what the judge in this case said about his own case.
But he said, All right, it's the law, I gotta do it.
We're gonna go forward, etc.
etc.
But that's what this has to do.
And what prosecutors are trying to prove in this case is that he failed to file and report a significant percentage of the money he made in 2005 through 2007 in the Ukraine.
That he failed to report it on his tax returns, and that he put it in foreign bank accounts or whatever else he might have done.
Now there might be a case here.
I don't know tax law.
I don't have foreign bank accounts, I don't do any of that stuff.
I know people that do do it, but some people would say if you have another business outside, I don't know anything about these laws, which is why I have other people professionals do it with my given standard instruction.
Pay more, pay it all.
Don't don't err on the side of me.
Because just knowing that I'm a public figure and I'm on the air four hours a day, believe me.
I always thought during the Obama years, whatever, they we know they went after conservative groups.
They weaponized the IRS.
Now we know that the powerful tools of intelligence have been weaponized.
You still have faith in your government.
I don't have faith in my government anymore.
You know, a lot of this is, you know, one of the things that we'll get into later with David Schoen and with Greg Jarrett, they're gonna join us later in the program today, is that you know, all these deals that are made all the time in these high-profile cases.
What's his name?
Sammy Sammy the Bull.
Gravano.
You know, they they knew he killed 19 people.
And they got him to testify.
He then the guy that we knew killed 19 people.
They wanted to get a bigger fish.
I think in that case it was maybe was John Gotti Sr.
Who kept getting, you know, hung juries and kept getting not guilty verdicts.
That's why they called him the Teflon Don.
Anyway, the guy kills 19 people.
The government makes a deal that he's going to testify to what the mob is supposedly doing.
There was another witness in that case that said he's lying.
But anyway, he gets off, no jail time for killing 19 people.
Then not only that, then the government sets him up at a nice new house in the witness protection program.
He ended up, I think, getting charged later for some drug crime.
I don't know if he went to jail or not.
I think he might have gone to jail.
Ten years in jail, 17 years in jail.
Okay.
Well, you follow your uh you follow your crime families really well.
You must have loved the Sopranos.
You must love casino and uh good fellas.
I watched them all too.
It's just an ironic government story where they took a bad guy to try to get another bad guy.
Right.
But here's my question.
So all these people they've got to flip.
One of them is his partner, Rick Gates.
Now remember, this is the most important part of it, though.
You're not gonna ever hear the word Russia in this trial.
Russia's not gonna come up in this trial.
You're not even, and this is an amazing turn of events, in my opinion, is Muller is ordering, you know, is orders Manafort witnesses to avoid mentioning Trump's name.
Now, Judge T. S. Ellis made it clear in May exactly what I just told you, that he thinks Robert Mueller's case against Paul Manafort is just a witch hunt designed to get Manafort to sing or compose for the purpose.
I'll read it to you exactly.
I don't see what relation this indictment has to do with the special counsel, what they're authorized to investigate.
This is the judge saying it.
You really don't care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud.
I'll add the words from 2005.
What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump, and so that it would lead to his prosecution or impeachment.
But with that said, all right, you brought the case, bring it in.
Now they selected jurors today.
Now, the interesting thing is Russia is not going to be mentioned in this case.
Nor it looks like will Donald Trump be mentioned in this case.
Paul Manafort, this is what, 2005, 2000.
It's 11 years before he ever worked for Donald Trump.
11 years.
And it's all designed to put the screws.
This isn't about the tax case.
This is Robert Mueller's team doing this.
And your tax dollars.
Now, I don't know what Paul Manafort did or didn't do.
I got to know him when he was with the campaign.
Talk to him on election night to 2016.
He was looking at his numbers.
I was looking at my numbers.
You should don't talk to me on election nights.
I am a madman.
I have three computers, three television sets, and I don't want to be disturbed unless you have more information than I do.
Because I'm looking at this county, Hamilton County, Cuyahoga County.
I'm looking at Palm Beach County.
Um, I'm looking, you know, I'm I'm looking.
What did the panhandle show up?
Southwest Florida show up.
I'm looking at specific counties in North Carolina.
I just want to know who's going to win.
I want to try and figure it out.
That's what I do.
Um I am a total complete loser.
Agreed.
All right, case closed.
But I that's what I my passion is.
Anyway, so let me uh this is interesting.
The judge's comments have Muller's prosecutors walking on eggshells.
I'll read from ABC News.
Prosecutors preparing witnesses for the upcoming trial of President Trump's one-time campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
I think, by the way, well, Paul Manafort did.
Remember the whole big delegate count, and there might be delegates flipping, and there was going to be an attempt to flip the delegates to steal the win from Donald Trump and all that.
It was Manafort that did all that heavy lifting.
That was the biggest role he played in the campaign.
And it was a short period.
First it was Corey Lewandowski, then it was Manafort, and then I guess it was Bannon and Kellyanne, right?
Or Kellyanne, I don't remember.
I don't, whatever.
It doesn't matter.
They're all involved.
And anyway, so it goes on that that they are now prosecutors preparing their witnesses for this trial against Paul Manafort, advising them to avoid mentioning Donald Trump's name, ABC News has learned.
The guidance to witnesses comes in response to an order from this judge that I'm telling you about, T. S. Ellis III, who agreed with Paul Manafort's defense team that invoking the defendant's ties to the Trump campaign, which is like a hundred days of his life.
That's all it is could unduly influence jurors.
The panel will be picked, it's already been picked, six men, six women, residents of Democratic leaning northern Virginia suburbs.
They voted heavily against Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
Jury's selection is done.
They have four alternate jurors.
Now the guidance to witnesses comes in response to that.
Solomon L. Weisenberg, a veteran criminal defense attorney not associated with Manafort's team, quoted in the ABC article, believes that prosecutors are complying in the hopes of derailing any attempt by Manafort's defense team to argue that they are using politics to prejudice the jury.
Okay.
Well we already know that they're being that they are using politics.
This whole case is about politics.
This is what Dershowitz calls criminalization of political differences.
The defense doesn't want to be prejudiced by association with Trump, he opined he said with a Northern Virginia jury they know they may not be kindly disposed to the president.
Veteran criminal defense attorney the uh a man by the name uh Sean Lon Wu is not associated with the Manafort defense team he tells ABC that it is his opinion the government strategy is more focused at this point on avoiding any doovers.
In other words you bring up Trump's name you tie him to Trump in the Northern Virginia suburb you got a pretty strong case for appeal right off the bat.
Now here's another case for appeal before they even get started the illegitimacy of the entire Mueller investigation.
What is this have to do with Russia?
What?
And this is what everybody needs to focus on today we have Russian real Russian interference Putin is a bad actor Russia is a hostile regime.
We know Hillary's server got hacked by all these foreign countries we don't even know the extent of it where is that server?
Where are the emails deleted that were under subpoena?
Where are the, you know, where why were the hard drives acid washed with bleach bit and the devices busted up why isn't she being tried today?
Why is she how does she get away with mishandling and destroying top secret classified information and she gets away with obstructing justice by oh acid washing deleting and busting up her devices and removing SIM cards.
And there's a lot of other people that could be you know who lied to the Pfizer court judges.
Why aren't they on trial today?
The people that purposely withheld information that this was a bought and paid for political document and they never told the judges.
Why aren't they under oath today?
And why aren't their jurors being picked?
The fact that you hand a judge, you know, false information and you didn't do your job of vetting it, verifying it, corroborating it.
You just vouch for it.
and it turned out to be false because you had a political political agenda one of those people what about the people that rigged the investigation into Hillary because she was their favored candidate to is going to beat Trump.
Remember they're going to destroy Trump and they had an insurance policy we're going to stop him what about where's the trial of you know McCabe what are we going to do with Jim Comey and the stuff that he's been involved in what's going to happen with struck and paid no we're going listen I don't know what Paul Manafort did or did not do.
I don't know but I know this you're not going to hear the word Russia in this case and it had nothing to do with his time with Donald Trump and this is what Muller is putting forward as some big investigation it's a let me tell you another thing the guy's been in jail most of the time solitary Confinement, we don't even do that to people we think are murderers.
What is this?
A mob case?
It's a tax case.
Okay, charge him for tax fraud.
But don't act like this is not political.
There's not equal justice under the law in this country anymore.
Nor are there equal application of our laws in this country.
Don't kid yourself.
You know, Levin's, this is a post-constitutional America.
And we better get it fixed, or they're going to be criminalizing political differences to the point it's just you don't agree with somebody, indict them.
Bang down their door, put a gun at the wife's head in the middle of the night or pre-dawn raid.
Whole thing is despicable.
Because there are people that should be on trial today, and they're not.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show.
All I'm saying here is that we've got to have a system of justice that applies equally to every American.
That's all I'm saying.
You know, when we criminalize these political differences, there's only one reason that Paul Manafort is on trial today.
It has nothing to do with what he did back in 2005.
That is that was the hook they have been using in the hopes he composes or sings about Trump to prosecute or impeach him.
That's the problem with with what is happening today.
Now, maybe he did violate the law.
I have no clue.
Zero clue about his work in Ukraine, about any tax issues, how much money he.
I don't know anything about it.
I just know it wouldn't be a case except that he worked for Donald Trump.
But I'll tell you this.
And when I said, well, when Mueller wanted everybody's phones that he had interviewed, I said, if I ever told somebody to do what Hillary did, delete the subpoenaed phones, acid wash them with bleach bit, bust them up into ity bitsy pieces, and take out the SIM cards and hand it him it'sy bitsy pieces to Muller.
I don't think it would turn out the same way as it's turning out for Hillary.
As a matter of fact, I even said it'd be a dumb idea.
And the left on Cube bubbled and fizz like Alka Celder.
Hannity's telling them to destroy evidence.
No, I said if you do it, you're stupid.
But my point was clear, and even they got it without knowing they got it.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean is our number.
You know, I just noticed this on National Review online, and I happen to like Netflix and those services, and they have great documentaries, and you got a lot of choices, and you know, you get to choose when to watch whatever you want to watch, when you want to watch it.
I love on demand everything.
Really, the only two things that are live viewing now are news, news shows, and sports, and a lot of it is either DVR, great invention, or any of these online available Hulu, Netflix, Amazon.
What else do they have?
They have so many of them now, streaming services.
Anyway, um, and um remember, I'm the guy that will never support a boycott.
Some of you have wanted me to join boycotts over the years.
I just refuse.
And the reason is is because ultimately you have all the power.
You don't have to listen to anybody.
You don't have to, I don't have to attack Netflix.
Like, for example, this just came out.
I guess Susan Rice joined the board of directors at Netflix, and I guess the Obamas, didn't they strike some deal with Netflix a while back?
Barack and Michelle Obama.
And I don't think this has anything to do with with what I'm about to say, but I'm just pointing it out.
I don't care that they work there.
They have programs that I choose to watch, and some I choose not to watch.
But ultimately, I don't have to watch at all.
You know, I I mean, I have to put on a good radio show to get you.
I can't, I have no way of crawling through the air and grabbing 15 million of you at once and saying, listen to the show now.
It's on.
Three hours.
Don't leave your chair.
Don't leave your car.
Don't leave your desk.
No more meetings for the day.
12 to 3, West Coast time, 3 to 60, stay right where you are.
Or six Eastern uh six on the West Coast and nine Eastern on the East Coast for the TV show.
We have to do a good show.
We have to we're fighting every day for for your listenership and your viewership.
And I know that there are groups that monitor tape and they hope and they pray that me or anybody else in talk radio or on TV says one word, one phrase, one sentence, whatever, that they can then start an advertiser boycott, shut you down, silence you.
I mean, it is now an industry that is funded with millions of dollars.
And I literally can say hello now to people that are being paid to listen to this program.
By the way, whoever you are, you are a loser, a total complete loser.
And you don't believe in freedom of speech.
Because if you did, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
And I I don't have a problem that Bill Maher is on the air.
I don't watch Bill Maher.
I have all the power in the world not to watch Bill Maher.
I've watched it like a few seconds, and then I turn the channel really quickly.
I might just say, uh, how are they dealing with this crap?
And then I'll turn the channel.
But it's neither here nor there.
Anyway, apparently Netflix, the National Review Online is reporting that they're offering a film chronicling the life of Nation of Islam leader Screwy Louie, Louis Farrakhan.
They're doing this on August the 1st, which is, I guess, tomorrow.
And this despite Louis Farrakhan's, you know, well-known anti-Semitic and racist comments over the years.
Now, to get this, it gets better.
The documentary, The Honorable Minister Lewis Furricon, My Life's Journey Through Music.
It was produced in 2014 by Farrakhan's son, and it chronicles Lewis Farrakhan's life as an activist and fringe political figure.
The documentary is going to be released on August the first, according to a list of the licensed films that Netflix released this month.
Veracom was so ecstatic, he personally teased the Netflix release in a Monday tweet.
My official at Netflix announcement will be forthcoming later today.
today.
All right.
Well, now we know there was a picture of Obama and Farrakhan before the election, and they they hid that picture from the public.
Would have added to, let's see, Frank Marshall Davis and Acorn and Olinski and Reverend Wright, the Church of GD America and Bernardine Dorn and Bill Ayers and company.
Would have added to that.
Here's the thing, though.
I'm not canceling my Netflix subscription.
I'm not.
I'm gonna because they have a lot of good shows on there.
And I will pick and choose what to watch when I want to watch it, if I want to watch it.
So I mean, it's we we don't have to.
You don't have to silence opposing views.
There are plenty of lunatic people out there in nuts.
On the night of September the 17th, 1985, I was carried up on that mountain in a vision with a few friends of mine.
As we reached the top of the mountain, a wheel or what you call an unidentified flying object appeared at the side of the mountain, and I was called from the wheel to come up into the wheel.
Three metal eggs appeared from the wheel, giving me the impression that it was going to land, but it never came over the mountain.
Being somewhat afraid, I called to the members of my party to come with me, but a voice from the wheel spoke saying, not them, just you.
I was told to relax, and a beam of light came from the wheel, and I was carried up on this beam of light into the wheel.
I sat next to the pilot.
However, I could not see him.
I could only feel his presence.
As the wheel lifted off from the side of the mountain, moving at a terrific speed, I knew I was being transported to the pilot.
the mother wheel or the mother plane, which is a human-built planet a half a mile by a half a mile, which the honorable Elijah Muhammad taught us of for over 60 years.
But the truth of the matter is you can't just make stuff up.
Yeah, that's one thing you learn as president of the United States.
You get called into account.
Let me see if I got this right.
So a wheel that we would mothership wheel and a wheel that we would refer to as a UFO, transported him, but only him.
Just you.
Relax.
Can feel the pilot, but I didn't see the pilot.
And then the wheel took him to the mothership wheel, which is really a man-made man-made planet.
And that there he met the honorable Elijah Muhammad.
And talked to him who's been dead for a while.
Mothership.
Mother wheel, mother ship hovers above the earth.
By the way, I just don't care.
I did care about the virulent anti-Semitism and the racism.
But it's the satanic Jews.
They control everything and mostly everybody.
If they are your enemy, then you must...
Must be somebody.
It is now becoming apparent that there were many Israelis and Zionist Jews in key roles in the 9/11 attacks.
White folks are going down.
And Satan is going down.
And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that satanic Jew.
I think that proves my case.
I'd say Chuck May, you know.
Umbody's ever asked Obama about that picture that I know of.
He only got asked one time in his political career about Airzendor.
Started his career in the home of unrepentant domestic terrorists.
His political career in their home.
Just the guy in the neighborhood, George.
And one question he asked, don't play it, but I was fed it.
I fed it to George Stephanopoulos the day before he moderated that debate.
Just the guy in the neighborhood, George.
Well, why'd you start your political career in that guy's house?
The guy in that neighborhood, him.
9-11, 2001 of all days.
Printed it wishing he had done more in terms of, you know, remember the weather underground bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol.
And uh New York City police headquarters.
Wish they did more.
What does that mean?
Wish we did more.
Um, so we got um the Manafort trial.
I'm just telling you what it is, and you're gonna see more coverage.
It'll never, I will take bets now.
How many times is the word Russia gonna be used in the trial?
This is about Trump Russia collusion.
No, it's not.
It's a 2005 tax case, and they're hoping that if Manafort in the course of this trial thinks he's gonna get convicted over an old tax case, maybe they hope he sings or composes to get it Trump.
All it is that's not justice.
Martha Stewart was never guilty of what they accused her tax-wise, lying to the FBI, and she spent a year in jail.
Well, if you can't get her for the crime that you want to get her for, don't set a perjury trap for her.
I feel I ran into Martha Stewart.
I never look, I'm not Martha, I don't, I'm not into home baking, cooking, decorating.
It's not me.
If you see how I dress right now, I have on a what do you call it?
Nike t-shirt, black.
Uh, I took off my black other shirt, jeans, and the same black pair of shoes I've been wearing for what, a year now?
I bought a really good pair.
They don't have any holes in them yet.
Super inappropriate.
What?
The black shoes?
With jeans and a t-shirt.
What's inappropriate about it?
Those are dress shoes.
Yeah, but What's wrong with my dress shoes?
They look dumb with jeans and a t-shirt.
No, I've worn them out so bad that they look like they're casual shoes.
They still look dumb.
Like he said, though, no hole.
Improvement.
Remember the remember one day I had my foot up and you guys are like, uh, you got holes in your shoes.
What's wrong with you?
I do remember that.
Because I wear one.
I wear one pair of shoes, wear them out, and I go buy another pair of shoes.
What why does everybody need 5,000 pairs of shoes?
You don't, but you don't.
You, you have no business having a hole in your sneakers.
Why not?
It's not in my sneakers, in my shoe.
I had a hole in my shoe.
It's it's not a good look.
You ought to know better.
I didn't feel the hole.
I didn't know it existed yet.
It's not like my sock was on the other side.
Yeah.
It looked perfectly fine.
I was wearing it, didn't know there was a problem with it until one day I had my feet up and you got a hole in your shoe.
Everybody starts making fun of me.
Can't afford a new pair of shoes, really?
Well, no.
I buy shoes for plenty of other people, but I don't buy shoes for myself.
I don't really I I don't really give a flying rip what I wear.
What's that?
Play the Zach Brown part, you know, from chicken fried.
You know, the clothes you wear.
It doesn't matter car you drive.
You know, none of that matters.
Matters a little bit of peace of mind in life.
And if I have to wake up in the morning, what am I going to wear today?
Let me go into my big closet.
Oh, I have a rack full of black t-shirts, a rack full of black shirts.
I have a few little colors mixed in because everybody in my life says I dress like a slob.
I have one pair of shoes, one pair of sneakers that I work out in.
Same pair, by the way, for the last four years.
And then I have a pair of two pairs of cowboy boots that were given to me as gifts.
Hey how it's little face.
Little things in life.
I mean the most mean the most.
Not where you live.
Not where you live.
What you drive.
What you drive.
Or the price tag on my clothes.
There's no dollar sound.
Sign on a piece of mind.
So if you agree, have a drink with me.
Raise your glasses for a toast.
Two little bit of chicken fries.
Whole beer on a Friday night.
We should do that now.
What really matters?
Pair of jeans that fit just right in a radio up.
What do you want all this crap?
What you know, why is it that people get cars?
And you think everybody's looking at you in your new car.
You think you look so cool.
Um especially like, you know, people that like the real flashy cars.
I do have friends that love sports cars.
Why don't you get a sports car?
And I'm like, I don't want one.
You want to drive mine?
Drive it.
Drive it.
They forced me to drive their sports cars.
I'm like, okay.
All right, that was fun.
I don't like being this low to the ground, but it's kind of cool.
I like my escalade where I'm way up top looking down.
And they're like, no, no, no, you really you gotta buy one now, right?
Because they love it.
I don't really care.
I don't get jazzed by cars.
I don't get jazzed by clothes.
I just don't.
Now I know I have to look okay on TV.
I don't pay for those clothes.
Fox pays for those clothes.
I don't pay a penny for those clothes.
I don't pay for the ties, I don't pay for the shirts.
They don't even buy me suits anymore.
I have like three why are you laughing?
Is it true?
Is there anything I'm saying here that's not true?
Nobody else on TV pays for their crap either.
All the stations pay for that crap.
What?
I'm still surprised they're wearing a tie on TV.
I thought you would have torn that off by now.
I've I've that that's the only thing I lose every contract negotiation.
So if it's a fight over money or whether or not I have to wear the stupid tie, I'll take the cash.
That's basically it.
Go ahead, weigh in.
I have nothing.
No, no, no.
Say it.
No, I want you to.
No, I have nothing.
You don't like the way I dress.
Just say it.
No, I think you look great.
You're so you know what?
That's like saying treat is gonna make it as a service dog.
Yeah, right.
Same thing every day.
You know.
Sweat socks and dress shoes.
Nothing sexier.
Yeah, really?
Why does why did I ask her?
Why?
Why did I bother?
Just wrong.
What how I dress is wrong.
Loafers and sweat socks.
They're not sweatsocks.
Yes, they are.
No, no, no, they're not.
They're Nike socks.
Just because they're made by Nike doesn't mean that they go with your body.
I know they're well, they're Nike socks.
They're not sweat socks.
They're black.
Oh my god.
They're black.
They got ribbing.
They got an elastic top.
Yeah, they're comfortable.
They're cotton.
It looks terrible.
Love cotton.
You look ridiculous.
Everything should be made in cotton, although these new shoes.
They make very nice dress socks.
That's what I'll get you this Christmas socks.
No, my mother-in-law gets me socks and underwear every year.
Where are they?
I just throw out the old ones and put in the new ones, and then I steal Patrick's box of Nike socks.
I take them for my son.
So bad.
I die he knows I steal them.
He plays sports.
He's allowed to wear that.
Okay, I play sports too.
When do you play sports?
Oh, good grief.
I hate all of you.
I you know, all three of you right there are just wrong.
I have only supported you today.
Yeah, for once in your life.
You're just doing it just to be contrary.
Uh, and you know, and I will say this.
Jason, he's got he dresses the best of anybody.
And Linda obviously dresses great.
I mean, I always ask you, what are you getting dressed up for this show for?
There's no point.
You should wear, you know, jeans every day.
Some of us think that's important that our employers like the way we look.
I don't give a flying rip what you look like.
You're not the only employer right now.
I'm your boss.
Yeah.
I'm the one that I'll let you think that.
Oh, good grief.
All right, big breaking news announcement.
Not only is the Manafort trial opening arguments now moving forward, the word Russia will never be used, I bet you in the middle of this trial has to do with Ukraine.
It has nothing to do with the Trump campaign, has to do with the 2005 tax case.
And that's the media's making this into the biggest opening, opening comments of the Manafort trial.
For a 2005 tax case that had nothing to do with Russia.
Except Judge Ellis saying that, yeah, they're putting the screws to Manafort in the hopes he'll sing or compose against Donald Trump so they could either prosecute or impeach him.
It's the only reason they've gone back to a 2005 tax case, which is what this is.
Yeah, criminalizing political differences.
But the big announcement is Congressman Jim Jordan of the great state of Ohio is running for Speaker of the House.
He joins us now.
Sir, hurry you.
Congratulations, or maybe I shouldn't say condolences.
I don't know which.
Thank you, Son.
Good to be with you.
Thank you for your support and uh getting the chance to go on your show uh last week.
We uh we really appreciate that.
So uh good to be with you.
I'll tell you why I'm supporting you.
Because if it's not for the freedom caucus fighting for the promises that pretty much most of the other Republicans made, and supporting the president's agenda, the promises he made, I don't think we'd get very much done because I don't see a lot of courage and backbone and vision and you know inspiring solutions from the Republicans.
I kind of see most of the great work coming out of the White House and a few of you in the Freedom Caucus and a couple of senators, not many.
President's doing what he said.
We've got to do more of that in Congress.
That's why I'm running.
I mean, plain and simple.
We talked about Tony's show.
I mean, think about regulations down, taxes reduced, economy growing, unemployment at the lowest in 20 years, Gorsey's on the court, Kavanaugh on deck, out of the Iran deal, uh, the embassy going to Jerusalem and hostages coming home from North Korea.
That's the president's accomplishments, and those are unbelievable.
But of that long list, frankly, the that the Congress helped with the taxes.
And those are good, those are important, but we got a lot of other things.
Border security wall, Obamacare, dealing with welfare reform, making people that's what we got to get focused on.
And uh, we should do some of that, frankly, when we get back.
But if I get the chance to leave the house, that's exactly what we're gonna be focused on, exactly what we're gonna get a copy.
Where are you on the issue of where the president is as it relates to, you know what?
We need the border wall.
It is a key part of the promise I made when I was running, and I'm willing to shut the government down if need be.
Not only was it a key part, it may be the single biggest promise that we made when we ran in 2016 to the American people.
Of course we've got to get that done.
Nobody wants a shutdown.
And I'll remind your listeners, you know the one person who shut the government down this year?
Chuck Schumer.
And he did it because he said just the opposite of what the campaign was about and what the American people elected us to do.
Chuck Schumer set it down because he said amnesty was more important than funding our troops, and he shut the government down, and over the weekend the American people told me, You're nuts.
Open it back up, and he did.
That that's that's the only people who set down the government.
We just want to do what we said, and so does the president, so let's get focused on doing that.
You know, I'm really beginning to think in a lot of different ways.
Uh I uh, you know, this is what's uh at stake here.
The Democratic Party has been very clear, although they've told Maxime Waters and some others to be quiet about it, but their agenda is pretty they're telegraphing it.
They want to impeach the president, they'll find a way.
They want their crumbs back.
Elizabeth Warren has said it.
Nancy Pelosi has said it.
They want to rescind the tax cuts and raise taxes on the American people.
They want to eliminate ICE.
They want open borders.
They want to keep Obamacare.
And on top of that, they want to stop the investigations into the biggest and most corrupt abuse of power scandal in American history.
All of that will happen if they get elected.
That's a problem for the country.
No, it's a big problem, and that's exactly that's the Democrats' plan.
Raise taxes, abolish ice, socialize medicine, impeach the president, and make sure we never found out that we never find out what exactly happened with the FBI and the DOJ when they started their investigation.
That is what it's all about.
And that is why we've got to drive turnout.
We've got to get Trump voters, conservative voters who came out for the president in 2016.
We've got to make sure they come out again in 2018 so the Democrats don't take back the House and do exactly what you just described.
All right.
So let me ask, what would be different under a Jim Jordan speakership, say versus Paul Ryan?
It's not a trick question.
Yeah, that's not a true question.
Not at all.
I we would we we'd be focused on doing what we told the American people we're gonna do.
Plus, we should change the process.
We should change the process in in inside Congress.
Why in the I use this example with you, Sean, but why in the world should the Speaker of the House and the majority leader and a couple of people at the top who control the steering committee, this committee on committees, why should they decide who gets to be chairman of everything?
We're gonna have nine committee chairmanships open up.
If we maintain the majority, nine committee chairmanships open up next Congress.
Why not let the people on those respective committees, the people who have expertise and know-how in those policy areas, why don't you let those individuals determine who their chairman is going to be?
Because I think when you empower rank and file members, you're gonna get policy much closer to what we told the American people we would do when they in fact elected us and gave us the privilege to serve.
So that's what needs to happen.
And the final thing I would say is we have to do a better job standing up to the executive branch.
When the IRS ran all over and targeted conservative people, we need to stand up more to them and we needed to hold people accountable.
Same thing now with the FBI and the DOJ, and and that includes people like Rod Rosenstein, who are making it tough for us to get the information we need to get answers for the American people.
So standing up for Congress against the executive branch and changing the process so we get the right kind of people in power so we have a better chance of fulfilling those pro those policies we told the American people we would actually get done.
All right.
So for for heading into this next, you know, go around with the budget and the president saying that it would be worth shutting it down.
I remember when Ted Cruz did his little filibuster in the Senate, I think it was in January of 2014, and the prediction was he's gonna cost the Senate seats.
We ended up getting seats.
Now, from my perspective, uh it's very really simple.
The American people will reward people that make promises, fight for the things that they think are important, and get the things done.
I think, in other words, if you if you do that, if you keep your promise and you fight hard for the American people, they're gonna reward you at the ballot box.
They'll get up and they'll they'll go vote.
And exactly.
But I think this is a nationalized election.
I think I think this is about as much about uh the president's agenda as it is anybody in Congress.
And I do believe they want to impeach.
I do believe they want to raise taxes.
I know they want open borders, I know they want Obamacare, and I know they want the investigations that you've been very passionate about stopped.
Yeah, of course they do.
That's what's at stake this election.
And the American people, they keep trying to send a message to that town.
They keep trying to tell Washington, are you finally going to get it?
2010, they put us in power.
They said, stop Obamacare, stop the crazy spinning.
2014, they they gave the Senate to Republicans who said stop this crazy stuff.
And in 2016, they elected a guy president that nobody thought could win.
And they said, we don't care what everyone says, we don't care what all the experts say.
In Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and across this country said we're gonna make Donald Trump president of the United States because we're tired of that town, continuing to resist what we keep telling them to do.
So this is not about who's gonna shut down the government.
This is not about a government shutdown.
This is simply about doing what they sent us to Washington to do and taking on the swamp.
The president is doing that, the Congress needs to do much, much more.
Yeah.
All right.
So where do you think your fellow Republicans are here?
Do you think they in other words, there's always the battle between the establishment and more conservative members of Congress, and I would like to see the leadership in Congress and the Senate.
I mean, Mitch McConnell saying, Well, we're not gonna do the border funding until after the election.
I don't understand his thinking, nor do I think the base of the Republican Party has a lot of patience for that.
And I think building the wall and protecting our borders with a big door, the American people want that and deserve that.
So it is it gonna come to a shutdown and how I I think the president holds out.
I kind of know Donald Trump.
And unless you give him at least half of what he wants, he's gonna stay doing what he's doing.
Well, understand if you just pass another bill that says we're gonna kick the can down the road and and deal with all these issues after the election, that bill will be nothing but, as one of my colleagues called it, an omnibus extension act.
Remember the omnibus bill that was two thousand two hundred and thirty-two pages that we had fifteen hours to look at the week before the Easter break, fifteen hours to look at and one hour to debate, where we funded things we said we wouldn't, didn't fund things we told the American people we would, namely the border security wall.
If you just pass a continuing resolution in September and say, Oh, we'll deal with this after the election, that how does that fire up our voters to come out and support us?
And and and how is that not just simply an omnibus extension act?
The same bill we passed it back in back in March that the American people hated.
That so we should not do that.
Let's have the debate.
We got a we got a guy in the White House who's pretty darn good at taking the debate to the other side, pretty darn darn good at making the argument.
Let's use that power and talk about building the border security wall and doing the things in the spending bill that we promised the American people we would do.
Let me ask you about this.
Uh, we all know Steve Scalise, and we're we're all happy about all the progress he's made.
He's had a very tough go of it since he was shot that day.
And he's what he's one tough guy and he's a nice man.
I like him a lot.
I've known Kevin McCarthy a long time.
I have nothing against Kevin McCarthy.
But th this is a fact that nobody's gonna become speaker without the support of the Freedom Caucus.
So you prepared as a caucus to demand a seat at the table if if in fact you don't win at speaker.
And I'm not saying you won't.
I think you could.
I think uh I want you to win as speaker, but I don't want any more of these closed door meetings.
I don't want legislation being, you know, written behind closed doors and then popped on members like the old health care bill was.
Sean, we're in this race to win it.
There's a there's a reason we announced early.
We need, I think, a longer campaign to take our message to the American people and to our colleagues.
We're going to continue to do that.
But I am in it to win it.
And look, I understand that the conventional wisdom is.
Oh, it's gonna be tough for Jim Jordan to be speaker.
But if you follow conventional wisdom, all kinds of things that actually turned out happen would have never even would have never even been attempted.
So I always say this there's a reason they kick the ball off on Friday night.
A lot of times there's one team that's a lot more favored and in the heavily favored, but you still kick the ball off and sometimes.
Well, you were a wrestler in high school, right?
You were a wrestler?
Heck yeah.
Well, heck yeah.
All right.
Well, I do mixed martial arts, but and let me tell you, wrestlers are the hardest.
But by the way, the good thing about m what the what I trained to do in Krab Maga, Kenpo, Jiu-Jitsu and and boxing and street fighting, and the but the thing is is we can get a wrestler.
We just, you know, but it's dirty, but it's dirty fight.
We'll just gowage your eyes out.
I mean, there's a little difference.
You have rules in wrestling.
Uh but get but getting serious.
What was your record in high school?
Well, I I mean, I was fortunate a good coach and good guys that train went to the city.
I didn't ask if you had a good coach, what was your record?
Oh, I know.
I hate talking about that.
I that was I won the tournament, the state tournament all four years and um but I lost one match and still mad about that.
I think the guy's name was Ham.
Wait a minute.
You won every single tournament in the state of Ohio for your, I guess, weight class at the time.
Yeah, back in the day, yeah.
Back in the day, you won every time, and you only lost one match in all your years wrestling?
In high school.
I lost plenty in and lost plenty in the international style and lost matches in college, but in but in high school.
But if you won the Ohio championship four years in a row all through high school.
Yes, uh, yes, but where did this humble gym thing come from?
I know you're from Ohio, but I'm not well listening I love that.
I think that's a pretty awesome record.
Listen, I don't think it's hard.
I think if you keep the American people's taxes low, I think if you keep fighting to bring back the jobs Obama said wouldn't come back.
I think if you if everybody in Congress remembers it's the people's house and they fight for the forgotten men and women, we look at these statistics, record low unemployment, fourteen states for women in the workforce, Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, uh military vets, if you f keep your focus on the forgotten men and women, you will be the party in power forever.
And I and I just don't understand.
Like for health care, why don't we have health care savings accounts and health care cooperatives?
How come that solution never even came up during the health care debate?
No, I know.
I know it common sense common sense makes fifth sense.
And uh that's not that's just not what we're seeing from from too much of Washington.
That's what we gotta what we gotta change.
You're you're exactly right.
And I I said just do what we said.
The reason we formed the Freedom Caucus on is we talk about just what you said.
The countless number of American families who feel like Washington has forgotten them.
Our job is to remember them, fight for them, do it with a smile on our face, do it in a in a productive, positive way, but actually fight for them and take the debate to the other side.
And I think if we do that, and we do it with a like Mike Pence says, uh, the vice president always says he's a conservative and he's not mad about it.
We got the truth on our side.
Let's go have the argument and let's win and let's accomplish things for the American people.
All right, Jim Jordan, thanks for being with us.
We appreciate it.
You bet, buddy.
800 941 Sean is our toe-free telephone number.
Tom Fitton, by the way.
Uh new emails reveal that Peter Strzok insisted on retaining declassification and other power positions when he worked for Robert Muller.
We'll get to that with uh Tom Fitt and then David Schoen and Greg Jarrett will talk about these deals the prosecutors always make with bad people to get other people.
It's unbelievable.
All right, let's say the hi to Gary is in Idaho.
Gary, hi, how are you?
And welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
What's going on?
Thank you, sir.
I have a question.
Yes, sir.
I don't understand.
I don't understand what a government shutdown is.
I mean, a shutdown indicates that you've been doing something and that you're going to stop doing it.
And when I shut down my business, I don't get paid.
Uh let me tell you about a government shutdown.
The government never shuts down.
Our military people don't uh go away.
Our air traffic controllers don't go away.
Non-essential employees end up getting a paid vacation.
That's it.
Everybody else, homeland security, national security, military, all essential government employees will go to work.
And uh the rest oh no, no, no, no, I understand.
I know what you're saying.
Listen, government of our military, those those are hardworking.
Yeah, but I listen, I know what you're saying.
Government is too big, too bureaucratic, too bloated, and too out of control.
There's no doubt.
And one thing the president has done is he's cutting down the size of the federal workforce slowly but surely.
And that's not a bad idea.
Marsha in Florida, what's up, Marsha?
How are you?
And uh welcome for to the show.
Are you there?
What?
What is it, boss?
What?
What?
Oh, you're talking to Marsha on the phone first.
Well, you why did you put it?
What are you doing?
said Marsha in Florida.
No, you can't talk to her right now.
Why are you yelling?
Why is it more important that you two?
I'm not done screening yet.
You don't have well, why don't you just put it up and see what happens?
You're afraid.
Why don't we see what happens, Sean?
Let's let's try it out.
Go ahead.
Test fate.
All right, Marcia.
Hi, Marsha.
How are you?
You only have about 40 seconds.
Oh, cool.
I just want to say I didn't know I'm just totally amazed at the at the ignorance of the Democratic Party and people.
I I I just don't understand it.
But you guys have an awesome show.
And thank you, Marsha.
I'm glad you called.
I am.
Thank you.
It's it's Marshall, not Marcia.
Oh, thank you.
What was that why you put it in?
This is what happens when you rush people.
Perfection takes time, my love.
I thought you were pointing to the call screen.
Go to Marshall.
You wrote Mortia.
You didn't want to be able to do that.
I wasn't done typing.
I wasn't done doing anything.
You better get a little quicker at your job then.
What's going on in there?
Oh God, you're lucky you're going to break.
I just the complete ridiculousness of it all.
Sean.
Do you think you would have been charged by the special counsel now if they had any evidence, considering that that Pfizer warrant gave them an opportunity to get every text, every email, every phone call you ever made.
Wouldn't that have led to an indictment by now?
You know, I I'm not uh, you know, I don't I don't talk about those things, but uh typically if any anyone would have um I I've never been given any information that uh you know I'm under any serious consideration over over recent months.
So the way we operate in the Department of Justice.
If we can accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence, incredible witnesses.
We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
And we have to affix our signature to the charging document.
That's something that not everybody appreciates.
And many people that I I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application is.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a Pfizer uh search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is.
If you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
All right.
24 now till the top of the hour.
800-941-SHAWN.
Toll-free telephone number.
You hear Rob Rosenstein.
Oh, yeah.
They're supposed to know what's in those FISA warrants before they sign it.
Judicial Watch has been doing incredible work, especially as it relates to, you know, getting some of these documents that nobody ever wants to release.
And, you know, but for them, we wouldn't have a lot of the information that we're we're getting out there now.
Tom Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch.
He joins us now.
And uh your headline today is you asked the court for Carter Page Pfizer warrant hearing transcripts.
Uh you want Comey to preserve his records, and you got more struck page information today.
So you got to, you've had a busy day.
Yeah, it's always busy.
It's the you know, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Uh you know, no one else seems to be doing much.
Uh there are individual members pushing in Congress, but the leadership, as you know, Shawn's out to lunch on this.
So you use the Freedom of Information Act, and what's amazing is the stuff that you have requested, how long ago before you ever get anything fed back to you.
It's amazing the time the interim.
Yeah, we asked for we asked for the Pfizer warrants last year, back last July.
It took a year to get them declassified in part with President Trump's help.
He did it early on that got the process going.
Uh but we got the big warrants uh as has been discussed, showing the misuse of the Clinton DNC dossier multiple times, if within the same document, to mislead the court into granting the warrant.
Now what we want to see also are the transcripts of any court hearings, and it's a shell game on that too, because the court was asked about that by, I think Devin Nunes and the chief judge of the Pfizer court said, look, we've told the Justice Department both formally and formally, we have no objection to their releasing transcripts as they see fit.
So we asked for the transcripts of DOJ.
They gave us the runaround, we sued.
Then they said, Oh, we don't have Carter Page transcript so those uh any discussions with the court on the warrants.
So then we went back to the court last week asking for the records.
Uh if if they're transcripts, let's see them.
Frankly, if there aren't transcripts, it makes you wonder what the courts are up to.
They're just representing these documents four times or asked to spy on someone connected to the president of the United States or the candidate for presidency, and they didn't ask any questions.
I doubt that.
We want to see the transcripts.
You also talk about how the security clearance that that Peter Strck was wanted to keep badly when he went to work for Muller.
Why is that significant?
Well, we got some new emails for because we asked about what happened with Peter Strzok getting assigned to Mueller.
What happened to him getting unassigned from Mueller once those text messages became known to them known to the Mueller team?
And one of the emails shows he was really insistent on keeping all the prerogatives he had as a top official in the FBI.
Uh the ability to issue national security uh letters, the ability to uh get travel for certain agents.
It's unclear what was going on.
And he writes of those, the most problematic and one of the most essential is declassification authority.
Isn't that interesting?
Yeah, why does he want the declassification?
Why does he want to have the ability in that position to be able to do both?
What is the motivation in your mind?
Well, you know, Mueller obviously got a new powers with having someone like Strck there or additional powers or had him reaffirmed.
Uh I I read declassification and we know Strzok acts improperly.
We know he had the insurance policy, he wanted to stop Trump.
And I see an Opportunity or a vehicle to get information leaked to the media.
That's what I read into that.
Um read less innocent, uh more innocent explanations, but you know, forgive me for being cynical.
All right.
So it you you filed the motion today in the foreign intelligence surveillance court seeking transcripts of all hearings related to the surveillance of Carter Page.
Uh now we've been trying to get these 19 pages apparently redacted in the last FISA warrant, and repeatedly people are telling me that it is unbelievable what was said to the court and the methods that they use to keep this warrant in place.
And we already know that on three previous occasions, this being the fourth time, the fourth application, that they used the bulk of the information was the phony Clinton paid for Russian dossier.
Was filled with lies.
Wasn't verified.
And it had to meet the high standard of the Pfizer court application process.
The Pfizer court judges were all lied to.
They were never told that it was a political document that was paid for.
They never, you know, Steele, we find out now was updating the Clinton campaign, Bobby Mook and Robbie Mook and whatever his name is Podesta and and other people and lawyers in the campaign.
Mark Elliott, I guess, was the lawyer at the time.
And they're getting regular updates from Christopher Steele, but then Christopher Steele, in an inter interrogatory in London, went under the threat of perjury, says, Well, slow down.
This is raw intelligence, and I don't know that any of it's true, and it's like maybe 5050.
Uh so, but then that became the basis of the Pfizer warrant.
So he told the truth when he knew he was, you know, potentially gonna be charged with perjury.
Well, Rod Rosenstein, who's the number two in the DOJ, signed off on one of these warrants.
So Mueller, uh during Mueller's time as special counsel, so obviously it was for Mueller.
So he benefited from this uh illicit uh effort to spy on the Trump team.
So we know parts of the warrant evidence corruption.
Devin Nunes and Bob Goodlatt and others, as you point out, told us other parts that we haven't seen yet, also evidence corruption.
We don't have the details because the deep state and Rosenstein has classified it.
The president, like he did previously, Sean, needs to declassify those portions that are still classified so the process can work and the American people can see what was going on here.
Why is there this reluctance to do that though?
Uh, you know, my guess is the president being told by his lawyers and the usual suspects, sources and methods, blah, blah, blah.
Uh, and he was told that with the Clinton DNC dossier class association classification fight.
And he overrode uh those objections, and he was right to do so.
He'd be right to do so again, in my view, based on what I'm hearing from Nunez, who I trust more than.
Has Nunes seen these 19 pages, do we know?
Nunes has said publicly that what's in them is worse or as bad as what's in the Clinton DNC, uh the Clinton DNC.
By the way, this does put to rest the notion that Devin Nunes ever leaked the thing.
Did you ever hear this phony call when when literally uh what's his name?
The biggest liar shiftless uh uh shif shifless shift, I call him.
Yeah, when he in fact was uh bamboozled by this Russian guy that's offering naked pictures of Donald Trump and did you ever hear this call?
Let me play it for you.
Okay, and so Buseva met with Trump uh in in uh New York at some point after the 2013 Miss Universe uh Absolutely.
And she got uh compromising materials on trout after their uh short relations.
Okay.
And what's the nature of the compromise?
Well, there were pictures of naked Trump.
Okay.
And so Putin was made aware of the naked pictures.
Uh the availability of the compromising material.
Yes, of course, uh Buzawa shared those materials with uh Sobchek and Sobshark shares those materials with uh Putin because she's uh Goddaughter of Putin and Putin decided to press on Trump.
Um the materials that you can provide to the committee or to the FBI uh would they corroborate this allegation?
Sure, of course.
Uh when they were in Ukraine, we got their conversation by the phone where they're discussed uh those uh compromising materials we are ready to provide it to FBI.
So you you have recordings of both Sovchek and Buseva, uh where they're discussing the compromising material on uh Mr. Trump.
Absolutely.
Okay, and then of course we have the infamous uh Medvedev.
Tell Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election.
Don't we're not gonna tell the American people.
Yeah, uh after my election, I have all the Vladimir.
I'll tell now, was Adam Schiff colluding?
Sounds like collusion to me.
Sure does.
Of course the Clinton DMC was their uh dossier was a very definition of collusion.
Uh the Clinton campaign used the cutout law firm to hire Fusion GPS who hired Christopher Steele, a foreign retired spy who used Russia Intel sources to launder fake dirt into the cli FBI DOJ through Bousor and others.
You know, this has all the hallmarks of uh Sydney Blumenthal special in my view.
You know, it was wandered through the State Department through Sydney Blumenthal type of um sources and Sydney Blumenthal indirectly.
And then it's how come his name doesn't come up a lot more in all of this, yes.
Is he involved in all this?
Uh he has been involved in the State Department versions of variations of the dossier.
People should understand there's more than one dossier out there.
It was uh information from the dossier, anti-Trump information was laundered to the State Department, uh through the Justice Department and the FBI, and through obviously the SEAL operation and fusion GPS, and it came at uh law enforcement at the Obama administration from all different angles, probably from the same sources.
And when I see Sydney Lumonthal uh dealing with SEAL and the State Department to get info to the Justice Department, alarm bells go off.
I don't understand why he hasn't been brought in to be displayed to testify at least publicly.
How come how come shiftless shift is able to get away with this in this particular case?
Well, you know, that tape is illustrative of what was going on.
It would be such a joke, but that same quality of information, obviously that was a joke, was being used in the Clinton DNC dossier.
Remember, after he signed off on the warrants, Comey said a key portion of the dossier was salacious and unverified.
Yet he's presenting it as a court as justification, a spy on the Trump campaign.
I tell you, there's never before been such misuse and abuse of the FBI and the Justice Department, and who knows what else in terms of the CIA to target an opposition candidate for office in American history.
I'm not aware of it happening ever before.
And uh I say, and I keep on saying this, thank God Comey was fired by President Trump.
What a mess we'd be in if he were still there.
All right, thanks a lot, Tom Fitton with Judicial Watch.
He's their president, great work, and we're getting a lot of information because of the deep dive you dig in the use of the Freedom of Information Act.
Uh 800 941 Sean is on number.
You want to be a part of the uh program at the top of the next hour.
We've got Greg Jarrett and David Shona gonna be with us and much more.
Well, let's get our busy uh telephones here.
Gary is in Greenwood in Indiana.
Gary, hi, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Hi, Sean.
It's great to have the honor to talk to you.
What's going on, my friend?
What's happening in uh Indiana, which we love, of course, in our Midwestern sensibilities, which the country could use a little bit more of.
Well Linda.
Sorry.
She needs to be I'm pretty sure Gary likes me, but go ahead.
Okay, but they don't curse as much as you do in the Midwest.
Trust me, Gary's on my side.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
All right, Carrie, go ahead.
Uh I gotta be honest, Sean.
I'm absolutely on Linda's side.
What a wonderful, delightful, beautiful young woman.
Outstanding.
You guys you guys want to talk privately?
Because you know, I've got fucking private.
I'll get this is not Love Line, whatever that showed.
We can do that in the next segment.
I'm not Dr. Drew Pinski here, but go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
Now the reason I called Sean is uh have the opportunity to thank you for a couple of things you've done.
Uh one, uh, for putting that wonderful World War II veteran on your show Friday, uh Woody Snail.
Oh, he was amazing, wasn't he?
So many people love that.
Hundred hundred years old, sharp as attack, wonderful American, A hero in every way.
And I the best question I asked him is now did you ever think you'll live to a hundred?
And he goes, Well, started thinking about it when I reached ninety-nine.
Uh God bless him.
You know, and he's he's healthy, he walks, he takes care of himself.
He's sharp.
I mean, good for him.
I've had the pleasure to be his neighbor.
And I know Woody personally.
Wow.
Are you the guy that arrest you're the guy that arranged this?
Well, I guess I am.
I'm not su now.
I know why you're sucking up to Linda.
They're beginning to say, all right, some guy just calls in randomly, praises Linda, talks about Woody.
You know what?
This is like a and so she promised she'd put you on the air.
She promised she put you on the air because you called to set this whole thing up.
True or false.
Uh, you're very well.
Listen, you don't have to thank I thank you.
I got to meet a great American hero.
And I got to share that great American hero story with the rest of America, and that was my great honor.
Uh, and you're a good man, Gary, for doing that.
You're very good, man.
Uh so thank you so much.
And I'll let you and Linda talk off air if that's what you guys want to do.
Just kidding.
We're just teasing.
Um, anyway, thanks so much.
Uh when we come back, news roundup information overload, Greg Jarrett, David Shona here, and much, much more.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
The special counsel is after Paul Manafort.
That's our headline today.
Uh, you know, a year and a quarter almost uh since the special counsel began uh his uh his journey through uh this extraordinary rabbit hole that we've been treated to.
Uh what's this got to do with anything?
Nothing.
It's about something that happened ten years before the 2016 campaign.
And um I just wish or I hope that the same level of scrutiny would be applied to the pedesta boys.
Uh they're in the same boat, apparently as Mr. Manafort, and yet there's a thundering silence.
Uh, you know, if Mr. Manafort except for the squeals of delight from the pedestal boys, as you put it.
Uh uh Tony Podesta given immunity.
Uh apparently.
Apparently, you know, in theory, if there was equal justice under the law, there would be a joining cells.
I mean, you've got Bernie Sanders, uh, former campaign advisor, uh, helping the special counsel go after Manafort.
Uh and this guy and his candidate were absolutely uh cheated uh out of uh a fair contest for the nomination by Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
It's the very definition of political opportunism.
This is you know, looking down the road to the next campaign and the next fight or the next uh committee chairmanship of such a I don't argue their motivation, I'm asking where the heck is their integrity.
We are gonna have well if you're looking for integrity in Washington, D.C., it's gonna be a hell of a long search, Lou.
I mean, this is uh this is this is the uh the daily fair in this uh in this city.
All right, as the Manafort trial begins today, uh that was from our buddy Lou Dobbs show last night.
And yeah, we don't have equal justice under the law.
We'll do this on Hannity tonight as well, but you know, who should really be having a start of a trial today?
I can name a lot of people, and we'll go through the list uh in just a minute here, but as it relates to the Manafort trial, I think it's really important to know what is this case about?
It's about uh whether or not Paul Manafort paid money taxes on money that he may or may not have been paid, uh, having nothing to do with Russia, not a thing to do with the Russia investigation.
Nothing to do with getting information from Russia.
It has to do with events in his life that go back to 2005 to 2007.
It's basically tax charges on Paul Manafort.
Now, the judge, T. S. Uh Ellis III in this particular case, he's the one that made the statement that Mueller and his merry band of Democratic donors and his pit bull, Andrew Weissman and Jeannie Ray, who worked on the Clinton Foundation, and of course, uh Bruce uh or his wife, of course, we can talk about her too separately.
But Ellis is the guy that said they're trying to put the screws to Manafort to make him sing or make him compose.
Compose would be sub morning perjury, making up a story, so he gets off the hook for the purposes of either prosecuting or impeaching Donald Trump.
Well, now with the jury that has been picked in that trial today, it's very Interesting to see that the judge, Judge Ellis, has made it clear uh that he thinks uh this case against Manafort is a witch hunt because they're trying to flip Manafort to get Trump.
Anyway, prosecutors preparing for the witnesses in the upcoming trial, and the guidance to witnesses, the judge has ordered particularly here is very interesting.
And it comes from Judge Ellis, who agreed Manafort's defense team that invoking the defendant's ties to the Trump campaign could unduly influence jurors, uh which he talks about the panel.
The defense doesn't want to be prejudiced by association with Trump, he said, with a Northern Virginia jury, and they know that they may not be kindly disposed to the president.
Well, now the judge has ordered in this particular case, uh Manafort witnesses to avoid mentioning Trump's name.
Anyway, Greg Jarrett is with us.
He's got the number one book in the country right now on Amazon.com.
It is called the Russia Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton, frame Donald Trump, David Schoen, civil rights and civil liberties attorney, both with us.
What do you make of that order, Greg Jarrett?
Well, I'm glad to see it because uh any reference to Trump or as campaign would not only be irrelevant, but prejudicial uh in the eyes of the juror.
So this was the correct decision because this case has nothing whatsoever to do with collusion with the Russians to influence a campaign.
And in fact, this was an illegitimate prosecution in my judgment, because under the authorization order for Robert Mueller, the special counsel, he is only permitted to bring a case that arises out of his investigation.
This did not.
This was dug out of the dusty archives of the tax division of the Department of Justice.
Uh this is an old, old case that they chose not to pursue for lack of evidence long ago.
So this is an illegitimate prosecution in my judgment.
You know, uh this was a case supposedly that was really resolved and going back many years ago.
But they dug down deep, and I think Judge Ellis had it right.
He goes, I don't see any relation in this indictment and what it has to do with the special counsel in terms of being authorized to investigate.
You really don't care about Mr. Manafort's so-called bank fraud.
What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump uh or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.
This is the judge in this case.
What do you think of the ruling number one, David?
And number two, the judge kind of got it right, but since then has kind of said, okay, the case goes forward.
It's a 2005 political tax case criminalizing political differences, but I guess I have to follow the law.
We know what's going on here.
Greg's right.
The ruling, of course, is the right one.
The defense will have to be careful not to open the door.
But you said it early on in the show.
The case has nothing to do with Russia.
Listeners don't have to take your word for it.
You happen to always be right, but they don't have to take your word for it.
Yesterday, Greg Andres, one of the lead prosecutors in the case, is quoted in the newspaper saying, You may never hear the term Russia mentioned during the course of this case.
You also have it right when you say this case had gone away.
It's about start from start to finish, sending a message to President Trump and trying to flip Manafort uh from start to finish.
That's the MO of these prosecutors.
And that's the other thing I think that the listeners have to know about this case.
Um, you've got Weissman, you've got Andres.
These are two of the worst of the worst in here.
I've had cases against both of them.
Um, you know, Greg Andres uh fancied himself to be a bit of a boxer when he was younger.
There's a case in the Eastern District in which I was involved.
He squared off against one of the defense counsels.
Really a ridiculous scene.
His wife, of course, is a President Obama appointee as a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, longtime family of Democrats, uh Floyd Abrams, of course, one of the top First Amendment lawyers around.
But uh that's what the case is about.
Look, Judge Ellis is the first judge and the most important judge to make a clear statement in this case, a statement that you reported on this case in detail when he said this is really just about trying to turn the screws to President Trump.
He was shown then the mandate that Rod Rosenstein approved for Mueller.
And that's the key.
Clearly, that mandate was broader than anyone could have anticipated, and we still haven't seen it.
The public must demand to see the mandate that Rosenstein gave to Muller.
It clearly is far broader than anticipated.
I want to get into the weeds here, and you're two of the best attorneys that I know, and And I really want people to understand how this system works.
What where you really put it what is putting the screws to somebody means?
You know, uh look at somebody, um well what was uh Bull uh what's his name?
Uh Sammy the Bull, Ravano, Okay.
Right.
Guy that, if I remember correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, kill nineteen people.
Okay.
He doesn't get prosecuted for killing nineteen people because his testimony, he's the little fish.
He only killed nineteen.
And then they're looking, I think in that particular case was a John Gotti Sr.
They used him to go after John Gotti Sr.
So he gets a get out of jail free card.
He got a new life, he gets put in a witness protection program.
He doesn't see any jail time.
He admits he kills nineteen people, and that that that's how they cut a deal.
How does somebody like that have any credibility with a jury?
Because if I'm on a jury and they say, Oh, this guy killed nineteen people, and he's saying that this guy killed 45 people, I'm making that up.
Um, therefore, we're gonna convict that guy, but this guy gets to uh get out of jail free card, a nice house out in Arizona.
You know, th all too often, and I've seen it frequently, um, overzealous federal prosecutors and even state prosecutors suborn perjury from witnesses they're flipping.
They give them sweetheart deals, uh get out of jail free card.
In exchange, you must say the following.
And quite often it's not the entire truth.
And that is actually suborning perjury, uh, by a government officials.
But they don't care because all they care about is their one loss record and gaining a conviction.
And I, you know, I worry about it uh whenever people start talking about flipping witnesses like Manafort or Michael Cohen and others, because the heavy-handed, overzealous tactics of federal prosecutors is anathema to the rule of law and justice.
Absolutely.
Well, but let's talk about you have worked for some some of the so-called big crime families over the years, haven't you?
Yes, I have.
And I've proved that Sammy the the Bull committed 20 murders, frankly.
I interviewed the Iceman, Kaklinski who killed the Were you involved in that case where they used him?
Uh no, but he was the only witness against another client of mine.
I handled the appeal rather than the trial in that case.
He's the classic example, and it's not coincidental.
You tell us who the client was?
Uh no, he's just gotten out of prison actually.
Okay, I got you.
Any event that's I mean, that's the quintessential example.
And these are the guys who made those kinds of deals.
This is Weissman, John Gleason at that time, and others in that crew.
That's the same crew.
That example wasn't coincidental.
They took exactly what you said, proven nineteen murders, went back out on the street because he gave the testimony that they wanted to hear.
And you know what else happened in that case?
Another guy called Gaspipe Casso, who was a higher up in the family, said that Gravano was lying, that some of the things he said testified to could not have happened.
I was there, and they didn't happen that way.
You know what they did?
They didn't like what Gaspipe Casso said.
He's in the supermax.
Gravano's on the street, and Gravano goes back into the drug business when he gets to Arizona, back into prison.
Yeah.
I mean, look, I'm only using that as a high profile example.
I mean, how is it that a guy that's getting away with you say 20 murders?
How does he have any credibility with a jury?
But now, look, I know Manafort's partner, Rick Gates, whatever, he copped a deal.
All these other people cop a deal.
So in other words, did they sing or compose because they want to get out of jail?
How do you ascertain the truth in that case?
Because to me, if you got something for your testimony and you got freedom for your testimony, I'm sorry, I'm not buying your credibility.
Yeah, it this is the challenge for defense attorneys uh like David and a great many other really skilled defense attorneys.
You can try to impeach the credibility of a witness on the stand like a Gravano and others.
And you get you get to tell the jury that they coped the deal.
Yes.
But generally you don't have the uh financial resources and the access to information that the government does.
And the government doesn't always fairly disclose it.
So all you can do is ask the witness like Gravano, what are you getting out of this?
And then you try to persuade the jury that he is lying to save his himself.
Isn't it the law that the government has to hand over whatever the deal is?
Yeah, I wish they would abide by the law.
They don't abide by that?
Absolutely not.
Did the jury in that case know that Gravano got a deal for killing 19 people?
Yes.
Yeah, they know that.
But they the government doesn't always disclose they didn't say he's got no jail time out of this evidence that would help the defense attorney impeach the witness like Gravano.
But probably the m the worst thing of all that happens in that scenario is the prosecutor often is telling the witness what to say, either by hint or expressly.
I have a witness right now who is prepared to testify that in a murder case, he's a mob guy, became a longtime informant, reliable according to them.
Weissman and the others with him told him how to testify.
They knowingly got a person indicted for a crime they knew he did not commit.
This guy had admitted committing the crime.
So these are the same characters.
That's exactly what goes on.
Now look, these are street guys or tough guys.
They may be willing to say anything to help themselves.
Take the white collar guy in a Manafort case.
This is a person who's never spent a j a day in jail in his or her life, wants to get back to the family.
They often Weissman will turn the screws to a family member, the Flynn case, and otherwise these people would say anything.
Listen, if the two FBI agents and Comey that interviewed uh uh General Flynn say they didn't see any evidence that he deceived or lied in any way, the only reason he coped that deal is he was going broke.
He's had to mortgage his and sell his house.
That's right.
And I would bet, I don't know for a fact, because his son was in the business, he they probably said, Well, we're gonna investigate your son.
And like any good father, he jumped and dove on the sword for his own kid.
What father wouldn't admit to a crime he didn't commit to save his son?
Everyone.
Absolutely.
And that's exactly what Michael Flynn did.
And the government, with its vast resources and unlimited power, unchecked power, can ruin an individual financially and personally, and that's what they did to Michael.
That's the whole story with with Weisman.
That's the whole problem with Mueller appointing this guy.
You know, exculpatory evidence withheld.
Uh losing nine-zero in a Supreme Court, tens of thousands of people at Anderson Accounting losing their jobs.
Uh four innocent Merrill executives go to jail for a year only to be overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
Maybe it's not a big deal to him, but a year of my life is worth something.
And that's what the people need to understand that you've been reporting about the Mueller investigation.
Muller knew who he was selecting for his team.
Weissman was his right-hand man at the FBI.
He knows his history.
That's he knows his history, and he knows he only picked people of similar events.
Why didn't he pick somebody that could win before the Supreme Court or not get overturned on appeal?
We'll take a quick break.
David Schoen, Greg's book, number one in the country, really proud of you.
The Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton, frame Donald Trump.
800 941 Sean is our number.
We have a great handed tonight.
We're going to keep these guys for the hour because I want to get into more just just what these trials are really all about, the tactics the prosecutors use, and how we need to fix the justice system.
All right, as we continue with uh David Schoen and Greg Jarrett, 800 941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Uh all right, so we're talking about the system of justice, Manafort on trial.
David, you said something and it's so true.
Russia may not even be mentioned in this case.
It all got started with a so-called investigation into Russian collusion.
Russian collusion happened.
Hillary paid for Russian lies and a Russian dossier that was used then to get warrants to spy on Americans because they never verified it, and it's all false.
Uh this is what?
Is Manafort is Manafort?
This is the big question.
We'll come back and continue.
Is Manafort really dumb not to take a deal?
Should he have taken a deal or is the deck stacked against him?
We'll pick it up on the other side, 800 nine-four one Sean is our number.
I'll get back to Greg Jarrett and David Shonen in a second as the Manafort trial begins today, although they're never going to talk about Russia or Donald Trump in this case, the 2005 tax case that had to do with the Ukraine.
It's ridiculous.
Oh, no, no, no evidence of collusion, smoke but fire.
No evidence of this.
And then, of course, if you want collusion, we actually have the conversation of uh shifty little Adam Schiff, uh, the biggest liar in America, and he thinks he wants to get naked pictures of Donald Trump, and he's thinks he's talking to a Russian the dope, and it turned out to be a hoax against him.
And then, of course, Obama's comments, and then we'll get back to our uh analysis here.
Uh but Mr. Clapper then went on to say that To his knowledge, there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
We did not conclude any evidence in our report.
And when I say our report, that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office.
The Director of National Intelligence had anything, any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians.
There was no evidence of that in our report.
Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?
I think he's right about characterizing the report, which you you all have read.
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's NSA FBI and CIA with my office, the Director of National Intelligence that had anything that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
There was no evidence of that included in our report.
Have you seen anything, either intelligence briefings, through intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you have made?
They have the documentation that they did the hacking.
The hacking on the DNC.
Right.
And on some of us, you know, that had to be.
But the collusion, though.
No, we have not.
Do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?
Not at this time.
Okay.
And so Buseva met with Trump uh in in uh New York at some point after the 2013 Miss Universe.
Uh yes.
Absolutely.
And she got uh compromising materials on Trout after their uh short relations.
Okay.
And what's the nature of the compromise?
Well, there were pictures of naked Trump.
Okay.
And so Putin was made aware uh of the the availability of the compromising material?
Yes, of course, uh Buzawa shared those materials with uh Sobchek and Sobshark shares those materials with uh Putin because she's uh Goddaughter of Putin and Putin decided to press on Trump.
Um the materials that you can provide to the committee or to the FBI, uh, would they corroborate this allegation?
Sure, of course.
Uh when they were in Ukraine, we got their conversation by the phone where they're discussed those uh compromising materials we are ready to provide it to FBI.
So you you have recordings of both Sovchek and Buseva, uh where they're discussing the compromising material on uh Mr. Trump.
Absolutely.
I wanted to uh present you represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying.
That is we want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together.
Thank you very much.
You are very welcome.
We worked hard to get the right Russian word.
You think we got it?
You get this wrong.
I got it wrong.
It should be there Zagruska.
And this says uh Bere Gruska, which means over charge.
Well, we won't let you do that to us, I promise.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
We've got my best.
This is my last website, please.
Yeah.
Um after my election, I have more flexible.
Um, to the legend and I must have my favorite there is what was what Adam Schiff did there is that collusion?
No.
What a dope it it's no more collusion than Donald Trump Jr. meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer who purportedly has information about Hillary Clinton, but never provides any.
Um in neither case is a collusion.
Uh but the very thing they're saying about that meeting at Trump Tower, where everybody in the meeting, notes from the meeting, everybody said it was about the adoption.
Right.
And nobody's a Nancy Act.
Right.
And and then nobody it was a waste of their time.
Sure.
Okay.
Although this Russian woman meets with confusion GPS before and after the meeting.
I'm sure a mere coincidence.
I, you know, forgive me for being suspicious.
And you got Adam Schiff, Shiffless Schiff over there doing his thing.
You've got Hillary Clinton who is uh got a an ex-MI6 spy on the payroll uh and paying money for information about Donald Trump sourced allegedly from Russians anonymously sourced and uh double, triple and quadruple hearsay.
But she's paying money, which is a thing of value in a campaign and a direct violation of the Federal Campaign Election Act.
In agregious cases, that is a crime, and yet nobody is investigating Hillary Clinton.
Nobody is accusing Hillary Clinton of collusion, which isn't even a crime, but it is a violation of the Federal Campaign Election Act.
All right.
David, what's your take on on all of this?
Well, first of all, on that subject, I mean, worst case scenario, the Trump campaign were approached with opposition research.
That's part of the process.
Now, does anybody in this country with a straight face think that if Hillary Clinton or anyone involved with her campaign or a supporter were presented with opposition research regarding Donald Trump or any other candidate on that panel in the primaries, they would have looked the other way?
Well, we don't have to guess.
Because not only didn't they not look the other way, they paid for it.
They paid for that so-called opposition research.
They paid well bought and paid for it, but they didn't tell the Pfizer court judges.
All right, here's the next question.
So we were talking before about the Sammy the Bull Gravano case, and he kills you say 20.
I thought it was reported at 19.
It was reported at 19.
Okay, and he gets a he gets a pass, get out of jail free card, he gets in the witness protection program, he's sent to Arizona, ends up committing some drug crime out there.
All right, but let's go to other cases.
Now, will we find out in this case what Manafort's partner, what deal Rick Gates got?
Is Rick Gates going to tell us if he got no jail time?
Generally speaking, yes, that is disclosed, and usually prosecutors want to get it out front so that it doesn't emerge on cross-examination, but they try to soft pedal it and stand up for the credibility of the witness, even though most of them who flipped have no credibility.
But I mean, this is the thing.
If you've worked with a lot of juries, David, I mean, in your time with juries in these cases where people have basically flipped and they're getting deals from the prosecution, and they said aren't they willing to compose people?
Let's be honest.
One hundred to save their ass.
100%.
Is a script written by the prosecutors often.
These two are classic for doing that sort of thing.
Um, and they'll say anything.
Now look, does the jury look at it skeptically?
You would hope so.
And by the way, the defense is entitled, this is how uh lacking in credibility they are.
The defense is entitled to a jury instruction that's bes specifically tells the juror they should take with a grain of salt, in essence, a testimony by a person who's testified with a deal.
But remember, but how many people in this case have deals?
Well, we don't know that.
We don't know what deal Manafort was offered, by the way, uh based on your earlier question.
Manafort may be a person of principle who's simply not willing to lie to take whatever.
Three months?
Yeah, he may have nothing value enough valuable enough to them to give him.
But there are people who will stand up.
There's a fellow right now, as a result of this show, who's called me up in a white collar case using a major firm now.
I mean, a guy listening in jail or No, no, he's out.
He's out of jail.
Very respectable guy at his stockbrokerage firm.
But he eventually had an SEC case against him and then was indicted from Weissman's office when Weissmann was with Maine DOJ.
The lawyer he's using now used to work with Weissman.
This man says there's absolutely no evidence of criminal conduct against him.
And the lawyer said to him, you know what?
That's Weissman's M.O. I can see in my mind's eye, the lawyer who worked closely with Weissman said, I can see Weissman leaning back in his chair and saying, F him.
I don't care if there's no evidence.
Indict him.
Why uh, you know, why have I so naively in my life believed in the justice system and believe it's imperfect, but you're laughing at me.
And I, by the way, I probably deserve it for my naivete.
It's fine.
Say that that's a false image.
Uh, and I can tell you from the trenches as a defense attorney that I saw too many uh unprincipled and unscrupulous uh prosecutors who would do anything to gain a conviction.
Now, look, I've also known a lot of fine, honorable, honest prosecutors who would not do that.
Uh, but unfortunately, that is not the case with all of them.
What about uh I know we're all following the Muller case, but you got this other case in the Southern District of New York, which according to everybody that I've ever interviewed or talked to over the years, uh that's the elite district in terms of the lawyers that are involved, the the people and their credentials.
Um A lot of great political figures have come out of there as a result of high profile cases that they're uh involved in.
Uh do you believe they're honest and ethical?
There are some who are honest and ethical.
When Michael Horowitz was in that office, he was honest and ethical.
He still is, as the IG, I believe.
He came in, he saw uh government corruption in the case, and he threw out some convictions.
But still remember, we have prosecutors who by and large get ego involved.
We have leaders of those offices trying to make a name for themselves, and uh anything could go on.
Look, I still think there's a story to be learned about as to how the Mueller case uh team gave that case to the Southern District, because remember, you've got a member of the Mueller team, Andrew Goldstein, who comes out of the division that that case was given to.
I can't believe there was no communication about that.
I don't know, maybe that's a safety valve.
If the Mueller investigation is over, that's still going on.
But look, we've as taxpayers, we have to ask ourselves how long does it go on, how much money is being spent, and what we understood the Mueller mandate to be, what on earth are we doing with a full team prosecuting Manafort under the guise of the Mueller investigation?
Well, and factor in the fact, Sean, that this was an illegitimate special prosecutor appointment to begin with.
Does that matter in the end?
Would that matter on appeal that it was an illegitimate investigation?
Uh whether or not you can sell that on appeal is an open question.
But I I spent an entire chapter of the book.
It's entitled The Illegitimate Appointment of Robert Muller.
Um to put it quite simply, under the regulations uh for the special counsel, there has to be a stated crime.
I I challenge anyone to look at that statement of authorization for the appointment of Robert Mueller and identify a crime anywhere in the criminal codes.
There's only the need for one juror to say, I don't believe this is right.
One person, six men, six women chosen, and four alternates chosen.
Um how hard you do this defense work.
What's your percentage of wins and losses, David?
I mean, they've got to play they've got to play it pretty strong in that case to a juror.
That's the way to play this case.
Play to a specific juror.
I think they'll have a sense of the jurors early on in this case.
They're gonna have to play this case for that.
Listen, that's a tough they did it's not coincidental they picked Northern Virginia.
The Eastern Dict District of Virginia is very tough for this kind of case.
They happen to have drawn a good judge for this case because he's shown skepticism already.
That's unusual.
Remember, people only woke up to the city.
But that'll matter.
That'll matter when we get jury instructions.
That's right.
And it'll matter during the course of the case.
You know, how the evidence is presented to the jury.
But you're this is what you do.
You go in court and you argue, right?
Yes.
That's right.
Okay.
And what's your success rate?
I'm not trying to put and you take on some of the hardest cases.
Yeah, I mean, it depends on how you say that outright wins, don't come so often with a jury.
But those case, you know, most cases don't go to the jury.
But I would say that in each case I've tried, certainly come up one thing.
Is this case going to the jury?
I believe it will.
Uh, yeah, right now every reason to believe.
But remember, Manafort can flip at any time during the course of this case.
And again, these are people who are.
If they think they're losing, they might cut they might cut their losses.
They might.
They might, and it may change the deal.
But there's a reason they wanted Manafort locked up.
And this and every other case like this.
For a tax fraud reason that had nothing to do with Russia.
And to turn the screws to him before trial.
He can't prepare properly from his jail cell, and he starts thinking, my God, what would my life be like ten years ago?
But he's got another case he's got to deal with.
That's right, which may be, you know, an even more difficult case.
I think a far more difficult case considering the judge in that case.
All right, thank you both.
Congrats on the book, the Russian hoax and bookstores everywhere, Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
We'll take a quick break and we'll come back.
All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
Uh we have an amazing Hannity tonight, 98 on the Fox News Channel.
You know something?
The obsession of the media on a 2005 tax case.
We're gonna give you the list of people that should be tried today that should have been indicted uh in the past but haven't.
Uh and we have the latest news on the deep state.
Sarah Carter, uh Greg uh Jarrett is with us, Monica Crowley and the woman that got pardoned by Trump, Alice Marie Johnson.
