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, the 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 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 as a political consultant in Ukraine.
And Robert Mueller 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.
But let me tell you, there's a ton of people that do this.
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 Podestas, et cetera, et cetera.
Anybody that's ever won a big, big race in America, that's their thing.
And as Dershowitz said, Mueller'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 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 going to put the screws to him and that he's going to 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 got to do it.
We're going to go forward, et cetera, et cetera.
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 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, 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 going to 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 the Bull, Gravano.
You know, they knew he killed 19 people.
And they got him to testify.
The guy that we knew killed 19 people, they wanted to get a bigger fish.
I think in that case, it was maybe it 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.
10 years in jail?
17 years in jail.
Okay.
Well, you follow your crime families really well.
You must have loved the Sopranos.
You must love Casino and Goodfellas.
I've 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 going to ever hear the word Russia in this trial.
Russia's not going to come up in this trial.
You're not even, and this is an amazing turn of events, in my opinion, is Mueller is ordering, you know, 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.
Talked to him on election night, who's 2016.
He was looking at his numbers.
I was looking at my numbers.
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.
I'm looking, you know, 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.
I am a total, complete loser.
Agreed.
All right, case closed.
But that's what my passion is.
Anyway, so let me, this is interesting.
The judge's comments have Mueller'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, what 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.
Whatever.
It doesn't matter.
They were all involved.
And anyway, so it goes on 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 100 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 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 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, a man by the name Seanlon 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 do-overs.
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 does 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, why were the hard drives acid washed with bleach bit and the devices busted up?
Why isn't she being tried today?
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 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 were going to destroy Trump, and they had an insurance policy.
We're going to stop him.
What about, where's the trial of McCabe?
What are we going to do with Jim Comey and the stuff that he's been involved in?
What's going to happen when it's drunk 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 Mueller is putting forward as some big investigation.
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, charging 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 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 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 itsy bitsy pieces, and take out the SIM cards and hand it in itsy bitsy pieces to Mueller.
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 fizzed like Alka Selder.
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.
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, and 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 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 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 on the West Coast and nine Eastern on the East Coast for the TV show.
We have to do a good show.
We're fighting every day 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 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.
If there's somebody that I know or like on there, which is very rare, I might just see, oh, how are they dealing with this crap?
And then I'll turn the channel.
But it's neither here nor there.
Anyway, apparently Netflix, 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, this gets better.
The documentary, The Honorable Minister Louis Furrakhan, My Life's Journey Through Music.
It was produced in 2014 by Farrakhan's son, and it chronicles Louis Farrakhan's life as an activist and fringe political figure.
The documentary is going to be released on August the 1st, according to a list of the licensed films that Netflix released this month.
Farrakhan was so ecstatic, he personally teased the Netflix release in a Monday tweet.
My official at Netflix announcement will be forthcoming later today.
All right.
Well, now we know there was a picture of Obama and Farrakhan before the election, and 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 going to, 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 don't have to silence opposing views.
There are plenty of lunatic people out there.
They're 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 legs 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 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.
The truth of the matter is, you can't just make stuff up.
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 planet.
And there he met the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and talked to him, who's been dead for a while.
Mothership.
Mother wheel, mothership hovers above the earth.
By the way, I just don't care.
I do care about the virulent anti-Semitism and the racism.
The satanic Jews that 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, nobody's ever asked Obama about that picture that I know of.
He only got asked one time in his political career about Erzendorf.
Started his career in the home of unrepentant domestic terrorists, his political career, in their home.
Just a 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.
It's just a 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 bomb, the Pentagon, the Capitol, and New York City police headquarters.
Wish they did more.
What does that mean?
Wish we did more.
All right, so we got the Manafort trial.
I'm just telling you what it is, and you're going to see more coverage.
It'll never, I will take bets now.
How many times is the word Russia going to 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 going to get convicted over an old tax case, maybe they hope he sings or composes to get it Trump.
That's 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.
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.
That's super inappropriate.
What?
With black shoes?
With jeans and a t-shirt.
What's inappropriate about it?
Those are dress shoes.
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 you said, though, no hole.
Improvement.
Remember one day I had my foot up and you guys are like, you got holes in your shoes.
What's wrong with you?
I do remember that.
Because I wear one pair of shoes, wear them out, and I go buy another pair of shoes.
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 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.
I had a few pairs of shoes with holes in them, I have to say.
Oh, 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 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 a car you drive.
You know, none of that matters.
Matters of 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.
Little things in life.
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 sign.
Sign on a peace of mind.
This I've come to know.
So if you agree, have a drink with me.
Raise your glasses or a toast.
A little bit of chicken fries.
Cold 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.
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.
Especially 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're going to 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 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 you're wearing a tie on TV.
I thought you would have tore that off by now.
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.
No, I have nothing.
You don't like the way I dress.
Just say it.
No, I think you look great.
You know what?
That's like saying treat is going to make it as a service tough.
You look so nice every day.
Every day.
Yeah, right.
Same thing every day.
Sweat socks and dress shoes.
Nothing sexier.
Yeah, really?
Why did I ask her?
Why?
Why did I bother?
Just wrong.
How I dress is wrong.
Loafers and sweatsocks.
They're not sweat socks.
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 camera.
I know they're well, they're Nike socks.
They're not sweat socks.
They're black.
Oh, my God.
They're black.
They've got socks.
They got ribbing.
They got an elastic top.
Yeah, they're comfortable.
They're cotton.
It looks terrible.
I love cotton.
You look ridiculous.
Everything should be made in cotton.
All of 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.
He knows I steal them.
He plays sports.
He's allowed to wear that.
Okay, I play sports too.
Socks, really?
When do you play sports?
Oh, good grief.
I hate all of you.
You know, all three of you right there are just wrong.
I have only supported you today for once in your life.
You're just doing it just to be contrary.
And I will say this, Jason, he dresses the best of anybody.
And Linda obviously dresses great.
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 employee of ours.
I'm your boss.
Yeah.
I'm the one that makes it.
I'm going to 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.
It 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 from 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 can 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, how are you?
Congratulations, or maybe I shouldn't say condolences.
I don't know which.
Thank you, Sean.
Good to be with you.
Thank you for your support and getting the chance to go on your show last week.
We really appreciate that.
So 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 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.
Plain and simple.
We talk about Sonia's show.
When we think about it, regulations down, taxes reduced, economy growing, unemployment at its lowest in 20 years.
Gorsi's on the court, Kavanaugh on deck, out of the Iran deal, the embassy going to Jerusalem and the hostages coming home from North Korea.
That's the president's accomplishments, and those are unbelievable.
But of that long list, frankly, 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 work.
That's what we got to get focused on.
And we should do some of that, frankly, when we get back.
But if I get the chance to lead the House, that's exactly what we're going to be focused on, exactly what we're going to get accomplished.
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 shut 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'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.
You know, this is what's 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 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 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?
We would have to.
That's not a trick question.
That's not a trick question.
Not at all.
We'd be focused on doing what we told the American people we're going to do.
Plus, we should change the process.
We should change the process inside Congress.
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 people off the top who control the steering committee, this committee on committees, why should they decide who gets to be chairman of everything?
We're going to 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 going to 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 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 profit those policies we told the American people we would actually get done.
All right.
So for heading into this next go-round 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 going to cost the Senate seats.
We ended up getting seats.
Now, from my perspective, 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 do that, if you keep your promise and you fight hard for the American people, they're going to reward you at the ballot box.
They'll get up and they'll go vote.
Yeah, you know, exactly.
But I think this is a nationalized election.
I think this is about as much about 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 spending.
2014, they gave the Senate to Republicans and 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 going to make Donald Trump president of the United States because we are tired of that town continuing to resist what we keep telling them to do.
So this is not about who's going to 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's saying, well, we're not going to 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 is it going to come to a shutdown?
And how 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 going to stay doing what he's doing.
Well, understand, if you just pass another bill that says we're going to kick the can down the road 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 2,232 pages that we had 15 hours to look at the week before the Easter break, 15 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, how does that fire up our voters to come out and support us?
And how is that not just simply an omnibus extension act, the same bill we passed back in March that the American people hated?
So we should not do that.
Let's have the debate.
We got a guy in the White House who's pretty darn good at taking the debate to the other side, pretty 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.
And we all know Steve Scalise, and 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 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 this is a fact that nobody's going to become Speaker without the support of the Freedom Caucus.
So you prepared as a caucus to demand a seat at the table if, in fact, you don't win it, Speaker.
And I'm not saying you won't.
I think you could.
I think 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 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 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 going to be tough for Jim Jordan to be Speaker.
But if you follow conventional wisdom, all kinds of things that actually turned out happened 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 the heavily favored, but you still kick the ball off.
And sometimes you're not going to be able to do it.
Well, you were a wrestler in high school, right?
You were a wrestler?
Heck yeah.
Heck yeah.
All right.
Well, I do mixed martial arts.
And let me tell you, wrestlers are the hardest.
But by the way, the good thing about what I trained to do in Krav Magaw, Kempo, Jiu-Jitsu, and boxing and street fighting.
But the thing is, is we can get a wrestler.
We just, you know, but it's a dirty fight.
We'll just gouge your eyes out.
I mean, there's a little difference.
You have rules in wrestling.
But getting serious, what was your record in high school?
Well, I mean, I was forced to have a good coach and good guys that train went.
I didn't ask if you had a good coach.
What was your record?
Oh, I know.
I hate talking about that.
I won the tournament, the state tournament all four years, but I lost one match and still mad about that.
I think the guy's name was Hammond.
You won every single tournament in the state of Ohio for your, I guess, weight class at the time?
Yeah, back in the day.
And you only lost one match in all your years wrestling?
In high school.
I lost plenty in the international style and lost matches in college, but in high school.
But you won the Ohio Championship four years in a row all through high school.
Yes, yes.
Where did this humble gym thing come from?
I know you're from Ohio.
Listen, 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 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, 14 states for women in the workforce, Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, military vets.
If you keep your focus on the forgotten men and women, you will be the party in power forever.
And I just don't understand.
Like for healthcare, why don't we have healthcare savings accounts and healthcare cooperatives?
How come that solution never even came up during the healthcare debate?
No, I know.
I know.
Common sense meant spit sense.
And that's just not what we're seeing from too much of Washington.
That's what we got to change.
You're exactly right.
And I said, just do what we said.
The reason we formed the Freedom Caucus, Sean, 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 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, 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, new emails reveal that Peter Strzok insisted on retaining declassification and other power positions when he worked for Robert Mueller.
We'll get to that with Tom Fitton and David Schoen and Greg Jarrett.
We'll talk about these deals that prosecutors always make with bad people to get other people.
It's unbelievable.
All right, let's say 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.
Let me tell you about a government shutdown.
The government never shuts down.
Our military people don't 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 the rest.
No, no.
No, no.
No, I understand.
I know what you're saying.
Listen, government.
Those are hardworking.
Yeah, but 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.
Marcia in Florida, what's up, Marsha?
How are you?
And welcome to the show.
Are you there?
What?
What is it, boss?
What?
What?
Oh, you're talking to Marsha on the phone first.
Why did you put it in?
What are you doing?
Said Marsha in Florida.
No, you can't talk to her right now.
Why is it more important that you talk about it?
I'm not done screening yet.
Well, why don't you just put it up and see what happens?
You're free.
Why don't we see what happens, Sean?
Let's try it out.
Go ahead.
Test fate.
All right, Marsha.
Hi, Marsha.
How are you?
You only have about 40 seconds.
Oh, cool.
I just want to say I didn't know.
I was totally amazed at the ignorance of the Democratic Party and people.
I just don't understand it.
But you guys have an awesome show.
Thank you, Marsha.
I'm glad you called.
I am.
Thank you.
It's Marshall, not Marsha.
Oh, thank you.
Was that why you put it on?
This is what happens when you rush people.
Perfection takes time, my love.
I thought you were pointing to the call screen.
Go to Marsha.
Oh, Lord.
You wrote Marsha.
You didn't really know what I'm saying.
I wasn't done typing.
I wasn't done doing anything.
You better get a little quicker at your job.
Oh, Tom.
Oh, God, you're lucky you're going to break.
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 FISA 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'm not, you know, I don't talk about those things, but typically, if anyone would have, I've never been given any information that I'm under any serious consideration over recent months.
The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible 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.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA 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 Sean, toll-free telephone.
Number one, you heard 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 getting some of these documents that nobody ever wants to release.
And but for them, we wouldn't have a lot of the information that we're getting out there now.
Tom Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch.
He joins us now.
And your headline today is you asked the court for Carter Page FISA warrant hearing transcripts.
You want Comey to preserve his records, and you got more struck page information today.
So you've had a busy day.
Yeah, it's always busy.
It's, you know, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
You know, no one else seems to be doing much.
There are individual members pushing in Congress, but the leadership, as you know, Shimon's out to lunch on this.
Well, you used 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 interim.
Yeah, 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.
But we got the big warrants, 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 transcripts of those, any discussions with the court on the warrants.
So then we went back to the court last week asking for the records.
If they're transcripts, let's see them.
Frankly, if there aren't transcripts, it makes you wonder what the courts are up to.
Are they just rubber-stamping these documents four times they're 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 Peter Strzok was wanted to keep badly when he went to work for Mueller.
Why is that significant?
Well, we got some new emails because we asked about what happened with Peter Strzzok getting assigned to Mueller.
What happened to him getting unassigned from Mueller once those text messages became known to the Mueller team?
And one of the emails shows he was really insistent on keeping all the prerogatives he had as a DOP official in the FBI.
The ability to issue national security letters, the ability to 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 new powers with having someone like Strzzok there or additional powers or had him reaffirmed.
I read declassification, and we know Strzzok 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.
Others will read less innocent, more innocent explanations, but forgive me for being cynical.
All right.
So you filed the motion today in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking transcripts of all hearings related to the surveillance of Carter Page.
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 used 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.
It was filled with lies.
It wasn't verified.
They did no checking on this, but they presented it like gospel truth, and it had to meet the high standard of the FISA court application process.
The FISA 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 other people and lawyers in the campaign.
Mark Elliot, I guess, was the lawyer at the time.
And they're getting regular updates from Christopher Steele.
But then Christopher Steele, in an interrogatory in London, under the threat of perjury, says, oh, slow down.
This is raw intelligence.
And I don't know that any of it's true.
And it's like maybe 50-50.
But then that became the basis of the Pfizer warrant.
So he told the truth when he knew he was potentially going to be charged with perjury.
Well, Rod Rosenstein, who's the number two in the DOJ, signed off on one of these warrants.
So Mueller, during Mueller's time as special counsel, so obviously it was for Mueller.
So he benefited from this illicit 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, have 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?
You know, my guess is the president being told by his lawyers and the usual suspects, sources and methods, blah, blah, blah.
And he was told that with the Clinton DNC dossier classification fight.
And he overrode 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 Nunes, who I trust more than anyone else.
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, the Clinton DNC.
By the way, this does put to rest the notion that Devin Nunes ever leaked a thing.
Did you ever hear this phony call when literally, what's his name, the biggest liar shiftless shift, shiftless shift, I call him.
Yeah, when he, in fact, was bamboozled by this Russian guy that's offering naked pictures of Donald Trump.
Did you ever hear this call?
Let me play it for you.
Okay, and so Bouceva met with Trump in New York at some point after the 2013 Miss Universe pageant.
Absolutely.
And she got compromising materials on Trout after their 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 availability of the compromising material?
Yes, of course.
Bouzava shared those materials with Sovchek, and Sobshak shares those materials with Putin because she's a goddaughter of Putin, and Putin decided to press on Trump.
And the materials that you can provide to the committee or to the FBI, would they corroborate this allegation?
Sure, of course.
When they were in Ukraine, we got their conversation by the phone where they discussed those compromising materials.
We are ready to provide it to FBI.
So you have recordings of both Sovchek and Buceva where they're discussing the compromising material on Mr. Trump?
Absolutely.
Okay, and then, of course, we have the infamous Medvedev.
Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election.
We're not going to tell the American people.
Yes, after my election, I apologize for that.
I tell Vladimir.
I'll tell.
Now, was Adam Schiff colluding?
Sounds like collusion to me.
Sure does.
Of course, the Clinton DMC was there.
Dossier was a very definition of collusion.
The Clinton campaign used a cut-out 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 FBI DOJ through Busor and others.
You know, this has all the hallmarks of a Sidney Blumenthal special, in my view.
You know, it was wandered through the State Department, through Sidney Blumenthal type of sources and Sidney Blumenthal indirectly.
How come his name doesn't come up a lot more in all of this?
Is he involved in all this?
He has been involved in the State Department versions or variations of the dossier.
People should understand there's more than one dossier out there.
It was information from the dossier, anti-Trump information, was laundered to the State Department, through the Justice Department and the FBI, and through, obviously, the Steel operation and Fusion GPS.
And it came at law enforcement at the Obama administration from all different angles, probably from the same sources.
And when I see Sidney Blumenthal 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 testify at least publicly.
How come Shipless Schiff 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 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 and the use of the Freedom of Information Act.
800-941 Sean is on number.
You want to be a part of the program?
At the top of the next hour, we've got Greg Jarrett and David Shona going to be with us and much more.
Well, let's hit our busy 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 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.
I got to be honest, Sean, I'm absolutely on Linda's side.
What a wonderful, delightful, beautiful young woman.
Outstanding.
You guys want to talk privately?
Because, you know, I'm off.
I'm not talking private.
This is not Loveline, whatever that show.
We can do that in the next segment.
I'm not Dr. Drew Pinsky here, but go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
The reason I called, Sean, is to have the opportunity to thank you for a couple of things you've done.
One, for putting that wonderful World War II veteran on your show Friday, Woody Snail.
Oh, he was amazing, wasn't he?
So many people love that.
100 years old, sharp as a tack, wonderful American, a hero in every way.
And the best question I asked him is, now, did you ever think you'll live to 100?
And he goes, well, started thinking about it when I reached 99.
God bless him.
You know, and 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 you're the guy that arranged this?
Well, I guess I am.
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 what you, you know what?
This is like, and so she promised she'd put you on the air.
She promised she'd put you on the air because you called to set this whole thing up.
True or false?
Really, the motivation was to thank you.
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.
And you're a good man, Gary, for doing that.
You're a very good man.
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.
Anyway, thanks so much.
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.
You know, a year and a quarter almost since the special counsel began his journey through this extraordinary rabbit hole that we've been treated to.
What's this got to do with anything?
Nothing.
It's about something that happened 10 years before the 2016 campaign.
And I just wish or I hope that the same level of scrutiny would be applied to the Podesta Boys.
They're in the same boat, apparently, as Mr. Manafort, and yet there's a thundering silence.
You know, if Mr. Manafort...
Except for the squeals of delight from the Podesta boys, as you put it.
Tony Podesta given immunity.
Apparently.
Apparently, in theory, if there was equal justice under the law, there would be adjoining cells.
I mean, you've got Bernie Sanders, former campaign advisor, helping the special counsel go after Manafort.
And this guy and his candidate were absolutely cheated out of 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 committee chairmanship or something.
I don't argue their motivation.
I'm asking, where the heck is their integrity?
Well, if you're looking for integrity in Washington, D.C., it's going to be a hell of a long search, Lou.
I mean, this is the daily fair in this city.
All right, as the Manafort trial begins today, that was from our buddy Lou Dob 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 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 whether or not Paul Manafort paid money, taxes, on money that he may or may not have been paid, 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. 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 Rae, who worked on the Clinton Foundation, and of course, Bruce Orr's wife, of course, we could 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 supporting 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 that he thinks 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 judges 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, 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, 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 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 any reference to Trump or his campaign would not only be irrelevant, but prejudicial in the eyes of the jurors.
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.
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, this was a case supposedly that was really resolved 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 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 from start to finish, sending a message to President Trump and trying to flip Manafort 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.
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.
You know, Greg Andres 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, Floyd Abrams, of course, one of the top First Amendment lawyers around.
But 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 Mueller.
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 I really want people to understand how this system works, where you really put it, what does putting the screws to somebody means.
You know, look at somebody, what was Bull, what's his name?
Sammy the Bull.
Gravano, okay?
Right.
Guy that, if I remember correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, killed 19 people.
Okay.
He doesn't get prosecuted for killing 19 people because his testimony, he's the little fish.
He only killed 19.
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 19 people.
And 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 19 people and he's saying that this guy killed 45 people, I'm making that up.
Therefore, we're going to convict that guy, but this guy gets to a get out of jail free card, a nice house out in Arizona.
You know, all too often, and I've seen it frequently, overzealous federal prosecutors and even state prosecutors suborn perjury from witnesses they're flipping.
They give them sweetheart deals, 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 by government officials.
But they don't care because all they care about is their one loss record in gaining a conviction.
And I, you know, I worry about it 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.
But let's talk about.
You have worked for some of the so-called big crime families over the years, haven't you?
Yes, I have.
And I've proved that Sammy the Bull committed 20 murders, frankly.
I interviewed the Iceman Kuklinski who killed him.
Were you involved in that case where they used him?
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 guys tell us who the client was?
No, he's just gotten out of prison, actually.
Okay, I got you.
In any event, 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 19 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, this is the challenge for defense attorneys 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 to tell the jury that they copped the deal.
But generally, you don't have the 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 knew that.
But the government doesn't always disclose evidence that would help the defense attorney impeach the witness like Gravano.
But probably 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 who are 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 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 General Flynn say they didn't see any evidence that he deceived or lied in any way, the only reason he copped that deal is he was going broke.
He's had to mortgage his house 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, they probably said, well, we're going to 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.
So 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 Fleischer.
That's the whole story with Weissman.
That's the whole problem with Mueller appointing this guy.
You know, exculpatory evidence withheld.
Losing 9-0 in a Supreme Court.
Tens of thousands of people at Anderson Accounting losing their jobs.
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.
Mueller knew who he was selecting for his team.
Weissman was his right-hand man at the FBI.
He knows his history.
He knows his history, and he knows he only picked people of similar age.
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 great Hannity tonight.
We're going to keep these guys for the hour because I want to get into more, just what these trials are really all about, the tactics that prosecutors use, and how we need to fix the justice system.
All right, as we continue with David Schoen and Greg Jarrett, 800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
All right, so we were 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.
This is what?
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.
800-941-Sean is our number.
I'll get back to Greg Jarrett and David Schoen in a second as the Manafort trial begins today, although they're never going to talk about Russia or Donald Trump in this case, a 2005 tax case that had to do with the Ukraine.
It's ridiculous.
Let's go back and all the Democrats that said, oh, 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 shifty little Adam Schiff, the biggest liar in America, and he thinks he wants to get naked pictures of Donald Trump, and he 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 analysis here.
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 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've 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 Buceva met with Trump in New York at some point after the 2013 Miss Universe.
Yes.
Pageant.
Absolutely.
And she got compromising materials on Trout after their 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 availability of the compromising material?
Yes, of course.
Buzava shared those materials with Sobček, and Sobchak shares those materials with Putin because she's a goddaughter of Putin, and Putin decided to press on Trump.
And the materials that you can provide to the committee or to the FBI, would they corroborate this allegation?
Sure, of course.
When they were in Ukraine, we got their conversation by the phone where they discussed those compromising materials.
We are ready to provide it to FBI.
So you have recordings of both Sovchek and Buceva, where they're discussing the compromising material on Mr. Trump?
Absolutely.
I wanted to present you, which represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying.
And that is, we want to reset our relationship.
And we've got to do it.
So we will do it together.
Thank you very much.
You are very welcome.
We worked hard to get the right Russian word.
Do you think we got it?
You get that wrong.
I got it wrong.
It should be Perezagruska.
And this says Peregruska, which means overcharge.
But we won't let you do that to us.
I promise.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
We'll get my desk.
This is my last question, please.
And after my election, I have more talks about it.
And I trust you this finish to the legend and I understand.
All right, my favorite there is what Adam Schiff did there, is that collusion?
No.
What a dope.
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.
In neither case is it collusion.
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.
And the act.
Right.
And then nobody dope.
It was a waste of their time.
Sure.
Okay.
Although this Russian woman meets with Fusion GPS before and after the meeting.
I'm sure a mere coincidence.
You know, forgive me for being suspicious.
And you got Adam Schiff, Schiffless Schiff over there doing his thing.
Well, and you've got Hillary Clinton, who has got an ex-MI6 spy on the payroll and paying money for information about Donald Trump sourced allegedly from Russians anonymously sourced and 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 egregious 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 all of those?
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.
Well, it was bought and paid for, but they didn't tell the FISA 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 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 softpeddle it and stand up for the credibility of the witness, even though most of them who flip 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 say, aren't they willing to compose people?
Let's be honest.
100%.
To save their ass.
100% is a script written by the prosecutors.
Often these two are classic for doing that sort of thing.
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 lacking in credibility they are.
The defense is entitled to a jury instruction that 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, based on your earlier question.
Manafort may be a person of principle who's simply not willing to lie, to take what he's doing.
What if he doesn't?
He only worked for Trump for, what, three months?
Yeah, he may have nothing 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?
No, no, he's out of jail.
He's out of jail.
He's a very respectable guy at a stockbroker's firm.
But he eventually had an SEC case against him and then was indicted from Weissman's office when Weissman 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 have I so naively in my life believed in the justice system and believe it's imperfect?
But you're laughing at me.
And by the way, I probably deserve it for my naivete.
It's fine.
Yeah, that's a false image.
And I can tell you from the trenches as a defense attorney that I saw too many unprincipled and unscrupulous 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.
But unfortunately, that is not the case with all of them.
What about I know we're all following the Mueller 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, that's the elite district in terms of the lawyers that are involved, the people and their credentials.
A lot of great political figures have come out of there as a result of high-profile cases that they're involved in.
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 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 anything could go on.
Look, I still think there's a story to be learned about as to how the Mueller team gave that case to the Southern District.
Because remember, you've got a member of the Mueller team, Enrico 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, 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.
Was that matter in the end?
Would that matter on appeal that it was an illegitimate investigation?
It should.
Whether or not you can sell that on appeal is an open question.
But I spent an entire chapter of the book.
It's entitled The Illegitimate Appointment of Robert Mueller.
To put it quite simply, under the regulations for the special counsel, there has to be a stated crime.
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.
How hard you do this defense work.
What's your percentage of wins and losses, David?
I mean, 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 going to have to play this case for that.
Listen, that's a tough.
It's not coincidental they picked Northern Virginia.
The Eastern 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 market.
So 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 this is what you do.
You go in court and you argue, right?
Yes.
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 day.
Is this case going to the jury?
I believe it will.
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 have never been...
And if they think they're losing, they might cut their losses.
They might, they might, and they 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 10 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 in Bookstores Everywhere, Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
We'll take a quick break and we'll come back.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
We have an amazing Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
You know something?
The obsession of the media on a 2005 tax case.
We're going to give you the list of people that should be tried today, that should have been indicted in the past but haven't.
And we have the latest news on the deep state.
Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett is with us.
Monica Crowley and the woman that got pardoned by Trump, Alice Marie Johnson, she will join us.
