Sean Hannity Show - Rudy! - 8.10

Aug. 10, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:36:05

Rudy! - 8.10

Sean was off today but a very special guest to the healm of 'Hannity' in the one, and only, Rudy Giuliani. "America's Mayor" was joined by Jay Sekulow to talk about President Trump's fight with the liberal media. Plus, 88 days until Election Day! The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	Let not your heart be troubled.
	You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
	If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what?
	That's not fun.
	You know, I tried everything.
	I couldn't get a good night's sleep.
	And this is neither drug nor alcohol-induced.
	That's right.
	It is my pillow.
	Mike Lindell invented it, and he fitted me for my first MyPillow, and it's changed my life.
	I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
	And the good news, you can too.
	Just go to mypillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
	You get 50% off to MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows.
	Now, MyPillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
	You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow tossing internee that's not working for you.
	Just go to mypillow.com right now.
	Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
	You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two Go Anywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
	Mypillow.com, promo code Sean.
	Hey, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Jay Seculo and Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
	How about that?
	Giuliani and Seculo.
	Isn't that the name?
	It is.
	Hmm.
	We could start all kinds of speculation.
	Herndon and Lincoln.
	Uh-huh.
	There you go, right?
	Hey, anyways, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
	When we get to sit in for Sean Hannity, Linda's giving him a day off.
	He doesn't get many of those, but we're glad that he's taking a day off, going to a wedding or whatever he's doing.
	But we're here and we're going to be taking your calls.
	And by the way, you need to know who we are because you know who Rudy Giuliani is because he's America's mayor.
	I'm just a lawyer.
	I'm Jay Seculo.
	I'm just a country lawyer.
	You can tell by the accent I'm a real country lawyer.
	I am Jay Seculo, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and one of the counsel to the president.
	And Rudy Giuliani, of course, America's mayor, former U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice official.
	And for purposes of right now, my colleague and co-counsel in a case involving a Russia inquiry that we're engaged in.
	You may have read something about it.
	We're also going to be taking your calls.
	And I'm going to give the number correctly because Linda said get the number correctly.
	1-800-941-7326 or 800-941-Sean.
	That's because I gave the number to my radio broadcast before.
	I've done that before on this broadcast.
	I'm not going to do it again.
	So, anyways, 1-800-941-7326 or 800-941-Sean.
	You could ask Rudy Giuliani or me, either one of us, or both of us at the same time.
	Questions of the day.
	We've got a lot to talk about.
	Obviously, a lot of you are going to want to talk to us about what is happening with regard to the Russia probe.
	We are also talking about, and this is important.
	That's an important issue also.
	But Rudy and I have both been working for over a year trying to secure the release of an American pastor named Andrew Brunson, who was in jail for 19 months in Turkey.
	He's now at house arrest.
	We're close to getting a resolution in that case.
	The president, Rudy, you and I both know has been working nonstop on this.
	You and I have been working on this for a long time, but we're getting close.
	I mean, we're getting there.
	But Turkey's taking a real hit financially right now, especially today.
	Turkey is taking a real hit financially.
	Their economy is in trouble.
	It reminds me to some extent of what's happening in Iran with the sanctions that have been placed there.
	It sort of just doubles down on their economic problems to start with.
	And I think people are starting to realize what happens when America imposes sanctions.
	All of a sudden, other countries don't want to trade with you because they need the American banks.
	They rely on the American banks.
	America could then impose sanctions on them for doing it.
	And I think it's this idea that we need all these other countries to agree with us on sanctions.
	We drive the world economy.
	Well, I know in Iran, on the Iran issue, you've been very involved.
	And, of course, we had another American that was held hostage by the Iranians.
	Got out a couple years back.
	And again, the president has imposed finally, you know, they've been for a couple of administrations, they've been saying crippling sanctions, but now they actually did it.
	What kind of impact do you think it's going to have on Iran?
	Have tremendous impact.
	Without the sanctions, based on just their own internal economic problems, they've had demonstrations and protests in over 142 cities starting in January.
	They're very, very well orchestrated.
	People have been arrested and killed, but they still go on.
	They're getting worse.
	The economic problems get worse.
	There's a chance.
	I don't want to overstate it, but there's a chance that this regime could be in trouble.
	I think that's right.
	And in Turkey right now, with their falling economy, I think they've got to make some tough decisions.
	And one of them is not so tough.
	Let the Americans, not just this pastor, let the Americans that you're holding hostage, Turkey, let them go back to the United States.
	Not that complicated.
	I understand this is a lot of political issues, but it's sure looking like hostage situations.
	Having said all of that, there's also some news on the domestic front you may have been following and that the mayor and I have been involved in, and that is in our representation of the president.
	And of course, you heard that there was a response that we put together with our team.
	We've got a great team of lawyers involving a request from the special counsel to interview the president of the United States.
	I'm sure you're going to have some calls and comments about that.
	We have had some comments about that, to say the least.
	We've been talking about that.
	We're not going to tell you what we have said, even though Rudy wanted to the other day.
	A reporter.
	I was afraid to get mad at me.
	He did say that, actually.
	He said that to a reporter.
	He said to this particular reporter, I wouldn't mind saying something, but Jay would be really angry if I did.
	But we will tell you this.
	Look, this is a process that we're going through right now, and there's a lot that goes into it.
	I think the Constitution's clear that there's not a right to interview the president under Article II.
	I think the Supreme Court would come to that conclusion.
	I think it also raises serious issues, not just for this president, but for future presidencies.
	And especially, Rudy, with the nature and scope of the cooperation that this White House has given to the investigators, it's unprecedented, especially in light of the irregularities.
	We'll go through the irregularities in a minute, but this has been unprecedented cooperation.
	It has.
	It's been unprecedented cooperation.
	So what that yields is under any set of circumstances, the court is going to require they make a showing for why they need the information.
	Well, they already have it.
	They already have all the information, plus more.
	They would have no ability to show need for this information.
	For example, they have his explanations.
	He's given them on television, on radio, on tweets, on remember they were arguing one of the reports was obstruction by tweet.
	Yeah.
	I mean, think about that for a moment.
	Obstruction by tweet.
	I mean, how can okay, so they're going to.
	Well, I'm going to give you a great example from Greg Jarrett's book.
	Greg Jarrett points out that Barack Obama during the 16 election pronounced Hillary Clinton innocent.
	Right.
	He said she may have been careless, but she didn't affect national security.
	Well, several weeks later, that's exactly what Comey wrote.
	She may have been careless, but she didn't affect national security.
	So you could say he obstructed that investigation, except for the fact that he was doing the same thing that our president does, except on different set of circumstances.
	He was giving his opinion.
	Which is protected, by the way, by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, protected by his authority as under Article II of the United States Constitution.
	After all, he's the president of the United States, and the president of the United States gets to not only opine, but to take action.
	And the idea that you would question a president about the motives and why he terminated a subordinate raises, as I said, really serious constitutional issues.
	Having said that, we have been and continue to maintain a very cooperative attitude.
	But I will tell you about that cooperation.
	We draw lines, and we rejected the proposal that came out from the special counsel in this last round.
	We came back with another proposal.
	We'll see what happens on that.
	But you can be cooperative.
	You can be professional without, you don't have to be disagreeable.
	But if you look at the scope and nature of this inquiry, the way it started, the corruption at the outset, we've joined later in the broadcast.
	We've got John Solomon coming up, who did a great story in the Hill about Bruce Orr.
	The number four at the Justice Department is in conversations with Chris Steele, who's working with Fusion GPS to put together this dossier and the president.
	Just happens to be Nellie Orr, Bruce Orr's wife, is also working for Fusion GPS and just happens to be assigned mayor to working with Christopher Steele on the dossier, which then James Comey takes and reviews with the then president-elect in Trump Tower in January of 2017.
	If you're looking for collusion, you got it.
	Whatever that means, by the way, you know, that's another story, the crime of collusion, which, of course, as I said, the rule, regulation, and law, and that one, I'm still trying to figure out.
	I think they are still trying to figure that out as well.
	But having said all of that, you look at the irregularities in this investigation and the way it's gone on.
	How about the fact that the special counsel is appointed because James Comey decides to leak a memo of a conversation he had with the president of the United States, purportedly, and he leaks this memo to get a special counsel.
	And he says that in his sworn testimony.
	Why did he think it would yield a special counsel, an independent counsel?
	I mean, that's a great question.
	The Justice Department certainly wasn't conflicted.
	You can argue whether Sessions was, but the Justice Department wasn't conflicted.
	How did he know that Rosenstein would use that as the basis for an independent counsel?
	Did they have a conversation about it?
	Did they talk about it?
	I don't know.
	My suspicious nature tells me he must have known something that hasn't been revealed yet.
	Well, look, we're getting information every single day.
	I mean, there's new information coming forward on this.
	I mean, literally every single day.
	I mean, it seems like there's a new aspect of this that you can't even believe, and then it happens.
	I mean, that doesn't even get into the issues of the FISA warrant and what that was based upon.
	And as I said, how would you like to be that judge?
	I mean, in the FISA case, talk about, you know, information that isn't correct, purportedly.
	And that's what we're hearing from Congress, of course.
	And then I take it another step on this, and I think this is important for everybody to understand, is we have a job to do, which is to give our client the appropriate advice.
	What do we think he should do in light of all of the issues and in light of the Constitution?
	And that is the highest honor that any lawyer could have representing a president and defending the Constitution.
	And that's why we have to go through a deliberative process.
	Yeah, we can't just shoot from the hip.
	We have to be able to have thought it out.
	We have to also be able to answer his questions.
	And you know, he takes this very seriously.
	He does have a desire to explain that he's innocent, which he is, but he also understands his role as president and that he just can't throw aside prerogatives of the presidency.
	Yeah, and this also impacts, I mean, let's be realistic here.
	This will impact not just this president.
	The decision we recommend to the president not only impacts this president, but it becomes a precedent then for other presidencies.
	Interestingly, as we're doing the analysis and you look at how witnesses have cooperated, in this case, unprecedented.
	You look at information that's gone over to the special counsel, unprecedented.
	And then you look at what have presidents done.
	I mean, sometimes it's been written questions.
	That's still an interview.
	So that may be one way this can go.
	Sometimes it's combinations thereof.
	We'll see.
	I mean, you know, we're not going to, and I think this is something we need to say.
	We're not going to disclose what we have come back to the special counsel with.
	I don't think we've heard the end of this.
	There's a lot of speculation out there.
	But we're going to make the right advice to our client.
	There will be no perjury trap.
	I've said that.
	You've said that on air.
	There's no perjury trap here.
	We're not, because we're not going to allow it.
	No, no, no.
	I mean, that's so obviously one of the things they're trying to do that it's not easy, but we can certainly protect against that.
	And I think that's one of the things that's, well, I don't want to talk about the Metaford trial.
	Yeah.
	So let's move on to the next one.
	But I mean, I will say this.
	We can do it afterwards.
	When you say a perjury trap, in other words, here's what you've got.
	You've got one witness that says this is what happened.
	And then you've got another witness that recalls, well, no, that's not how I recall it.
	It happened this way.
	And does then someone write up a report and say, well, we believe this one.
	We don't believe that one.
	Thus, it's perjury.
	So this is the problem with just walking anyone in.
	I mean, in any case.
	And with no underlying crime.
	Right.
	I mean, again, Flynn is the example.
	No crime.
	If it had been said, president says go easy on him.
	Which the president says, you know, he didn't say stop it.
	Don't do it.
	So no crime.
	However, it didn't take place, according to the president.
	According to Comey, it did.
	Of course, if it did, it wouldn't have mattered, but then you'd, but you're right.
	If there's two different recollections of a meeting, now do you set a perjury situation?
	Correct.
	Now, we have plenty.
	We have plenty.
	We've got plenty of information to impeach him with, including the fact that he testified under oath.
	By the way, when we say impeach him with, we mean impeach the other James Comey there.
	I don't want anybody to clip that two seconds.
	I know.
	I know it's hard to believe that people do that to you and me.
	CNN would never do that.
	None of them would.
	Nobody will clip just a sentence and then remove the other sentence.
	But having said that, no, you're right.
	I mean, that's part of the process that we're going to get into.
	All right.
	So we're going to take, we're having a good time.
	By the way, you can follow Rudy Giuliani on Twitter at, what's your Twitter handle?
	At Rudy Giuliani.
	Yeah.
	And you could, that's not so hard.
	And mine's at Jay Seculo.
	Are we sure about that or do I need to check this out?
	Lindy, you probably.
	I'll check it out right now.
	Will you check it out?
	He's going to check it out while I get ready to go to a break.
	It's at Jay Seculo, that I could tell you for sure.
	You could also follow our work at the American Center for Law and Justice at ACLJ.org.
	When we come back from the break, your calls and comments.
	At Rudy Giuliani.
	There, he's got it right at Rudy Giuliani.
	Hey, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Jay Seculo here with Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
	Giuliani and Seculo.
	I'll just say that.
	I'll just say that.
	And we're taking your calls.
	We're going to go to a call in the moment.
	I need to say something, though.
	I had the privilege today to go to the Statue of Liberty and go by Ellis Island with my grandchildren.
	And I am the grandson of a Russian immigrant to the United States.
	My grandfather was a group peddler in Brooklyn, New York.
	And his grandson, me, I get to argue cases at the Supreme Court of the United States and represent a president.
	And I had my grandson was with me, and I had three of my grandchildren.
	I got to tell my grandson, I said, now, I'm the Paul Paul right now.
	So I said, you know, my Paul Paul, your great-great-paul Paul, came right through that building at Ellis Island in 1914 to come to the greatest country in the world, the United States of America.
	And his eyes lit up.
	I'm just saying it is a great country.
	And you think about those things, and I know your family.
	So I have a very, very good friend, Elliot, who came to America when he was four or five, escaping the Holocaust.
	And he will tell you he has amnesia.
	Of course, he was only three, four years old.
	About anything before the following thing, as he's coming through the Verrazano Narrows, first thing he remembers is seeing the Statue of Liberty.
	And when he tells you that story, Maria, right?
	he started crying yeah well it's right today I mean, it's 60, 70 years later, and he'll start crying to me.
	Well, I mean, I think about that.
	When I argue cases at the Supreme Court, they start them the same way.
	God save the United States, the honorable court.
	They call a case number.
	They call a case number, and then they say, Mr. Seculo will now hear from you.
	I'm thinking, Mr. Seculo, the grandson of the Russian.
	You ever have a dream that you forget what to say when you get up?
	I don't even get, you know, I don't recall ever in my cases actually opening up the list.
	Everybody takes up a notebook.
	I don't recall ever turning to the first page.
	It just moves so quickly.
	Mr. Sekulo.
	So we're co-hosting for Sean Hannity.
	I'm at Jay Seculo on Twitter, and Rudy is at Rudy Giuliani on Twitter.
	And you can follow me also on ACLJ.org.
	And we're going to not take a call yet because we're going to be taking a break pretty soon, but we're going to take calls when we come back.
	So you can call us at 800-941-7326.
	That's 800-941-Sean.
	Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York, the great mayor of New York, America's mayor, and me, just a lawyer.
	It happens to be, both of us represent the press of the United States.
	We got a lot to talk about.
	We're looking forward to talking with you.
	But I will tell you this.
	When I talk about that thing with my grandson, boy, all those.
	That gets you, right?
	Every time.
	All right.
	We'll be back with your calls in just a moment.
	Mainstream press talking about this stuff.
	Sean Hannity is on the radio.
	Hey, welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
	It's Jay Seculo and Rudy Giuliani, guest co-hosting for Sean Hannity.
	We are also taking your phone calls at 800-941-7326.
	That's 800-941-Sean.
	You can follow Rudy Giuliani at, listen on Twitter, at Rudy Giuliani.
	And you could follow me on Twitter at JSeculo or at ACLJ.org.
	We are also taking your calls, as I said, again, 800-941-7326.
	Let's go ahead and go to Dayton, Ohio.
	Peter is on the phone.
	Hi, Peter.
	Yeah, hi, Mr. Seculo.
	Thank you for taking it.
	Call me Jay.
	Don't call me.
	You don't have to call me Mr. But go ahead.
	Hey, I just don't know, and I'm just confused on the fact that we know criminal activity.
	And speaking in regards to Hillary Clinton, we have proof of that.
	And why are we not pursuing that?
	Why is not A.G. Sessions pursuing those criminal acts?
	You got a little rain going on there, Peter.
	Sounds like I'm a drummer.
	You're either keeping a really steady beat or you got, or you get right, or a click, or you got your wipers on.
	It's one of the two.
	I suspect it's your wipers.
	But anyways, you ask a good question.
	You ask a good question.
	So what about, so supposedly there's an investigation, Mayor, going on by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Utah that was appointed to look at all of those issues related to Secretary Clinton.
	That's supposed to be ongoing, and you wouldn't necessarily know what's going on in that investigation.
	You did investigations like that, so the public wouldn't know as it's going on.
	Well, I mean, that should be the case, but the reality is this is such a public thing.
	If this was a very active investigation, we would know it.
	And it's a source of great frustration that none of these things are being pursued with the enthusiasm that they should be pursued.
	All the things that Greg Jarrett was talking about before, John Solomon, these are things that normally a federal prosecutor jumps on.
	And here, they've been investigating for a year and a half, two years to find a crime to investigate.
	And they haven't found it yet.
	And here we have a bunch of alleged crimes, and they're not investigating them all.
	Violating the Federal Records Act, violating the Privacy Act, obstructing justice, paying a foreign national to compile a false dossier on Donald Trump, putting it in as a basis for a Pfizer wire, knowing that the USAID's family.
	How would you like to be the judge that issued those signed?
	Because they burst a couple of times.
	They couldn't get the Pfizer warrant.
	They couldn't get the Pfizer warrant.
	I think the judge should refer the whole thing for criminal prosecution.
	Maybe that'll light a fire under them.
	One of the things I've wondered, you know, as you look through all of this and you look at, and I do think it's important to understand the context and the nature of what's taking place here.
	The investigation from its inception was fraught with conflict and corruption.
	And every day it's something new.
	And these are not facts.
	Let's talk about facts that are not in dispute.
	It is not in dispute that Christopher Steele was the primary author with Fusion GPS of the dossier, which James Comey said was salacious and unverified.
	We know that.
	Fact.
	So Christopher Steele, that's a fact.
	We know that the FBI ultimately fired Christopher Steele because he was leaking.
	Yet at the same time, we also know as fact, undisputed, that Bruce Orr, the number four at the Justice Department at the time, wife, Nellie Orr, worked for Fusion GPS and was assigned to work with Christopher Steele on the dossier.
	This is the number four at the Justice Department spouse working for Christopher, with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele.
	Christopher Steele gets fired because of leaking.
	It seems to be the issue over there.
	And then you have conversations still going on with Bruce Orr and trying to get him back in.
	Bruce Orr, by the way, is still at the United States Department of Justice.
	Interesting.
	All of this.
	And I haven't even brought up the Strzok and Page situation.
	All of this is begging for an investigation, a serious one, a grand jury investigation.
	Also, if Rosenstein is appointing special counsel, independent counsel, as he did basically being manipulated by Comey, why the heck not appoint one here?
	Yeah, I thought about that too.
	Yeah, I've raised that issue.
	All right, we're taking your calls.
	800-941-7326 or 800-941-Sean.
	I'm Jay Secular here with Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani and Seculo, hosting the Sean Hennedy Show.
	Let's go to Staten Island.
	Scott, you're on the air.
	Hey, Jay.
	Yes, sir.
	Big fan of yours.
	Thank you.
	Hello, Mr. Mayor.
	Big fan of yours.
	How are you?
	And I'm a fan of Staten Island.
	You know that.
	There you go.
	Yeah, well, trust me, we're a huge fan of yours, too.
	What's going on?
	Guys, I'm really concerned what's going on.
	You know, you have all these ultra-left wingers out there, and I just got to know that after this is over, that you guys are really going to drop the hammer on some of these people.
	I mean, Comey, Mueller, all these other people, you know, and now you have Dianne Feinstein out there employing a Chinese spy for the last 20 years.
	Only two decades.
	Right.
	That's all.
	I mean, you know, it wasn't that long.
	I mean, you also have these people, the way they're speaking about the president and his family.
	I've never heard anything like it in my life.
	And they're telling lies and lies and lies.
	But please tell me that after this garbage is done, I mean, obviously, you can't tell me.
	Obviously, I understand, but are people going to get in trouble for this?
	Well, look, I mean, I have some experience with government officials that have not done appropriate conduct, and that was Lois Lerner and the targeting that she engaged in at the IRS.
	I actually represented those conservative groups that challenged the IRS on this.
	Ultimately, Lois Lerner took the Fifth Amendment.
	She had the right to do it rather than testifying, although she took it in kind of an unusual way.
	She lost her position, did not lose her pension.
	She was not criminally prosecuted.
	And we, as private lawyers, can't initiate, we can't bring a criminal case.
	That's what the government does.
	In that case, though, it did cause reform within the Internal Revenue Service, at least within the nonprofit world.
	Now, Rudy, you were involved in this because of, I'll use the 9-11 example.
	We obviously had gaps and flaws in our intelligence gathering.
	You were part of the team that kind of re-put it all back together again.
	So, what does happen when you look at if you've got this fundamental problem within an agency here, the FBI and DOJ?
	What do you do?
	Well, I think if I were the Attorney General, I would appoint an independent counsel, and I'd appoint the independent counsel for two purposes.
	Purpose number one, to appropriately prosecute the people who violated these laws.
	Comey clearly leaked a document that he wasn't supposed to leak, a clear violation of the law.
	He committed perjury about whether he was obstructed or not, where he felt he was obstructed.
	I could go on and on.
	So, I'd have those things, the struct thing, the dossier, the paying for it, the lying to the court, all that should be investigated.
	But I'd also have the independent counsel do a report on how to clean this up so it doesn't happen in the future.
	That's what happened after Watergate.
	I joined the Justice Department, and I was the Associate Deputy Attorney General for Judge Harold Tyler when he was the deputy to Ed Levy.
	And we produced a document of how to reform the Justice Department.
	So, it included rules like you can't communicate with the White House except through the White House counsel's office.
	The Justice Department just can't call up the White House and discuss a criminal case.
	We are in need of that kind of straightening out of the Justice Department now.
	You know how frustrated the president is about the state of the justice of what he says.
	My Justice Department is doing this, my Justice Department is doing that.
	It needs thoroughgoing reform the way Ed Levy reformed it after Watergate because it was completely infected by Obama.
	Let's go ahead and take another call.
	And I think let's go to Las Vegas.
	And, Larry, Larry, go ahead.
	You're on the Sean Hannity show.
	Yes, gentlemen, thank you for taking my call.
	I appreciate it.
	Sure.
	I'm a retired law enforcement officer.
	I practiced my profession in Illinois and Nevada.
	Thank you for your service.
	It's very clear to me, sir, and I'm very familiar with how the patronage system works.
	And I know the mayor should be very familiar with this in running a big city.
	Obama protected Hillary, and we know that.
	There's things that's even mentioned in Kevin Klein's book, Guilty as Sin, where Comey was called in.
	So these were all directives given by the past president, Barack Obama.
	And everything that's come out, revealed through Fox News and other entities and a lot of books, is very clear.
	Obama should be charged.
	The Department of Justice is being lack in its responsibility right now to they should be looking and investigating and charging Barack Obama with abuse of power.
	What do you think, Reef?
	I don't want to jump.
	I don't think you could.
	I would agree with you.
	It is crying out for an investigation.
	There are a couple others where it is clear they violated the law.
	Comey, clear.
	The dossier, clear.
	The people who paid for that dossier and then the people who included it in the Pfizer application, maybe the worst of all.
	But how much did the president know and when did he know it?
	And that's a good question.
	It is worthy of investigation.
	But I think, in fairness, we shouldn't jump to a conclusion.
	Yeah, you know, look, I think here's the problem.
	This idea that you immediately go to an investigation of a former president or a president.
	I think, listen, we're all, I think for Rudy, and certainly for me and Rudy, that the fact is we're dealing with one right now.
	And these things should not be entered into lightly.
	And I think you've got to understand that's part of the process that we're going through in dealing with representation of the president and why this is, you know, why we're in this discussions that we've had with the special counsel's office and continue to have regarding where this ends.
	We want this to be over with soon.
	We think the country deserves it to be over with soon.
	Our position is clear that we do not think there's been any violation of any law, rules, or regulations.
	But we want to see this end.
	And this has been unprecedented cooperation at the highest levels.
	And I'm just going to leave it at that.
	I'm going to take another call, though, because someone is calling about a situation that, Mayor, I think really you could address.
	And that's Amy from Colorado.
	And she's concerned about Chicago.
	Amy, go ahead.
	You're on the Sean Hannity show.
	Hi, gentlemen.
	It's an honor to speak to both of you.
	My question is for you, Mr. Mayor.
	I have a brother that lives in Chicago.
	Of course, I'm concerned about the situation there.
	You know, all the deaths over the past week, and they just don't seem to have their act together.
	What recommendations do you have to clean that city up?
	Well, let's just remind people there were 72 people shot over last weekend.
	72 people shot over last weekend.
	Not a single person as of yesterday arrested, which is not unusual.
	They don't clear all but about one out of 20 shootings, which is totally impossible to understand.
	And the mayor is finding all kinds of excuses other than let's reform the situation and handle it.
	What would you do?
	I would immediately appoint a police commissioner who was going to put in a Comstat system that really works, which means measuring crime.
	I was going to say, let's define that for the audience.
	When you say CompSTAT, what do you mean?
	CompStat was invented by me, Bill Bratton, Jack Maple.
	One of the people who clearly knows it well is Gary McCarthy, who's running for mayor of Chicago.
	He ran the system for us for four or five years.
	I don't want to get involved in the politics.
	What is that system?
	It's a computer-based system.
	Very intricate.
	It measures crime every day.
	And then it pin maps it, puts it on a map, tells you where the crimes are being committed, shows you where your gaps are.
	And then every day you readjust your policing to try to have the police in the right place at the right time.
	And then every week you have a Comstat meeting in which you go through about two or three hours of where you did it right, where you did it wrong, who needs resources.
	What could be, what is it?
	The city of New York has been doing that since the first day of 1994.
	Crime is down 72, 73%.
	Murder is down about 78%.
	Chicago has done it.
	Why are they not doing it?
	Chicago three times the murders of New York.
	But why not do it?
	Why would they do it?
	Why wouldn't Ram Emmanuel do it?
	You have to ask Ram Emmanuel.
	I mean, he's fiddling while Chicago burns.
	Rahm Emanuel is not a law enforcement guy.
	He doesn't understand that his police department doesn't do a damn thing for him because he turns his back on him.
	Part of this is also your police department has to be willing to go the extra mile for you because you go the extra mile for them.
	You're constantly blaming them for things.
	You're making them worried about doing their jobs.
	They're just not going to do their jobs if they're ordinary cop.
	The hero cop will do it anyway.
	So it's part a policing issue.
	Part is a structural issue?
	It's a policing issue.
	It's a morale issue.
	Look, the communities want it now.
	I mean, he's having terrible problems.
	Plus, he made some comment on it's only in certain neighborhoods.
	You're done right, Ram.
	It's in certain neighborhoods.
	It's in the poor neighborhoods.
	It's in the black neighborhoods.
	And they're the people who are being slaughtered.
	And you're not doing a damn thing about it.
	All right.
	We're with the Rudy Giuliani.
	You got Giuliani and Seculo here sub-hosting or not sub-hosting, co-hosting.
	Co-hosting for sure.
	Good friends, yes.
	We're also going to take your calls at 800-941-7326 or 800-941, Sean.
	Also, I should say, if you want to follow us, you can do that at Rudy Giuliani or at JSeculo or ACLJ.org.
	We've got a lot more ahead on what I consider a very fun day, being able to host the Sean Hennedy Show.
	All right, we'll talk to you more in just a moment.
	Hey, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
	Jay Seculo here, co-hosting with Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
	We've got a lot more ahead, by the way, coming up, but it is great doing this with you.
	Well, I think we've clearly demonstrated and will demonstrate through the course of this show that there's a lot of questions about this investigation.
	It surely looks like an illegitimate investigation.
	President of the United States said this a long time back, that it's a witch hunt.
	And well, you can describe it in a lot of ways, a hoax like Greg's book.
	But you look at the questions, they keep flowing out.
	Yep, and there's more information coming out.
	By the way, keep listening.
	Coming up, we've got some of my colleagues at the American Center for Law and Justice.
	We're going to talk about Turkey, talk about that issue involving Pastor Andrew Brunson.
	So we've got a lot more ahead.
	We're having a lot of fun here on the Sean Hannity Show.
	We'll be back with more in just a moment.
	Hey, everybody, welcome back to hour two of the Sean Hannity broadcast.
	This is Jay Seculo.
	I am sitting in for Sean, and also joining me today is going to be my good friend Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
	You just heard from him.
	You're going to hear from him some more.
	But I'm going to tell you before we get back to Mayor Giuliani, and there's a lot of news going on, obviously, but there's one thing that I have a stake in, I will say, and that is, of course, I have a stake in most of the news these days.
	I was making a joke the other day that sometimes you're making the news, sometimes you're in the news, and sometimes you're just talking about the news.
	I will tell you, these days I am doing both, or all three.
	I am making the news, talking about the news, and have been in the news.
	Having said that, of course, not only am I a counsel to the President of the United States, as Mayor Giuliani is, I am also the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
	And we have a case that is in the news.
	In fact, right now, it is a lead story on Drudge.
	And it's a case, an issue that we've been talking about a lot.
	In fact, Sean has been talking about it as well.
	And that is the case of Andrew Brunson.
	He's an American Christian pastor.
	He's been in Turkey for 23 years.
	He was picked up after the coup in Turkey two years ago and was put in jail.
	The charge against him was Christianization.
	That is actually in the indictment.
	We're going to talk about that because the lead right now on Drudge Report, and this is true, is Turkey's economy on the brink.
	This could be the most expensive pastor in world history.
	The billion-dollar pastor in one sense.
	I mean, it's hard to believe that Turkey is letting itself get to this point.
	I mean, this is supposed to be a NATO ally after all, get to this point because they're so entrenched on keeping this pastor in Turkey.
	Now, I will say some good news, and that he's been released to home confinement, so that certainly was better than being in a Turkish jail.
	I am bringing in some of our experts at the American Center for Law and Justice to address this issue.
	Jordan Seculo is our executive director.
	It's also my son.
	Andy Iconimo is a senior counsel for the ACLJ and is very involved in the issues involving the Middle East and Turkey.
	Harry Hutchison is our director of public policy.
	Jordan, let's go to the latest to start with you here from the standpoint of the pastor's incarceration.
	We'll get into the economy in Turkey being impacted about this.
	But why don't you give everybody the latest report on where the case is because it changes literally on a daily basis?
	Right now, he's on house arrest.
	Yes, that's a much better situation to be in as an individual.
	You know, we've had these situations where people are coming right out of that prison environment back to reality and outside of it.
	That can be tougher.
	So he's, remember, this is his home, long-term home there.
	So while he's confined and so under house arrest, this is a familiar place.
	That being said, it's still confined.
	So he's still being detained by a NATO ally and by Turkey, by the government in this situation.
	The case has not been dropped.
	And I'd say that every day he's there now.
	The Turkish media, which is in these reports about the economy, it's non-stop.
	We're not so used to it here.
	It's become in the news more and more, so people are getting more familiar with Andrew Brunson's name.
	But for two years, he has been battered around the Turkish press to the point where it is not safe for him to be on the streets anymore.
	Someone who lived there for 23 years, that is the situation he is in.
	So every moment he has to stay in Turkey, even with the security he's got, is dangerous.
	Well, he's got 18 Turkish security guards around his house right now.
	I mean, 18.
	I mean, just think about that, protecting him from an environment that the Turkish government, Erdogan, created.
	Now, again, I'm going to go to Andy Aconamo, who's the senior counsel.
	He's been very involved in this case.
	Andy, you speak a lot of languages.
	You were able to translate the Turkish.
	This pastor, the charge against him is actually, I mean, folks, this is the reality of what you're dealing with.
	Everybody, of course, when they get arrested in these situations, they're a spy.
	It's espionage.
	They're a CIA agent.
	That's the allegations.
	But in this one, in addition to making, you know what the basis upon that was?
	It's called Christianization.
	Andy, that is the actual charge in the indictment.
	Yes, that's exactly correct, Jay.
	What they're charging this pastor with is a Christianization of the Turkish Republic or the attempt to Christianize the Turkish people.
	And this is under ridiculous charge.
	It is no crime.
	The Turkish Constitution provides, at least publicly and for purposes of popular consumption, freedom of religion and worship.
	But that's not the case for the minorities in Turkey.
	I'm Greek.
	I can tell you it's not the case for the Greek minorities in Turkey, and especially for the beleaguered ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople and Istanbul.
	That is not the case.
	And so what Pastor Brunson is being charged with is something that is not a crime, but has been concocted by the Erdogan regime, Erdogan being basically a dictator today in Turkey, and he is being charged with Christianization, a horrible thing to be charged with something that is not, as I said, a penal offense in Turkey.
	Let me go to Harry Hutchinson.
	He's our director of policy at the American Center for Law and Justice.
	Again, this is Jay Sekulama in for my great friend Sean Hennity.
	They give him a day off.
	Linda gave him a day off.
	Do you do that often?
	Only when I absolutely have to.
	Yeah, see, there you go.
	You know what I did, Jay?
	What did you do?
	I made him go to a wedding.
	There you go.
	Well, that's a good thing to be going to.
	It's good to have celebrations.
	So I'm glad he's having a good family time at a wedding.
	That's great.
	And I'm glad that I'm here also with my colleague, Rudy Giuliani.
	We're going to get back into some of those news items, but I wanted to really cover this because, look, this is a case where this is an American being held captive.
	Now, the president has been very aggressive about requesting and demanding.
	I would say requesting is not the right word, demanding this pastor's release.
	And he has put sanctions in place because of the way the Turkish government is acting.
	Harry Hutchinson's our director of policy at the ACLJ.
	He's also professor of law and economics.
	And Harry, it is fair to say, Professor Hutchinson, that the sanctions that the president has put in place here are having a dramatic impact on the Turkish economy.
	In fact, on the Drudge Report, it says Turkey on an economic brink.
	Jay, you are absolutely correct.
	Turkey is edging closer and closer to a full-blown financial meltdown as President Trump has authorized a doubling of some tariffs on Turkish products.
	The Turkish currency plunged by 17% today, reaching another record low as stocks slid by as much as 9%.
	Turkey is gripped by an economic contagion.
	In part, this is fueled by inflation and foreign debt.
	Most investment analysts are urging their clients to pull their assets out of Turkey immediately as Turkey faces runaway inflation and unrestrained foreign debt.
	As the Turkish lira continues to fall in value, the value of foreign-denominated debt rises, placing even more pressure on the Turkish government.
	You know, you look at the situation and you try to say to yourself, why in the world would Turkey suffer, put themselves in this kind of situation, the economic suffering that they're going through over this?
	And I'm going to go right back to Jordan Sekul on this.
	You look at the situation, as Harry just said.
	I mean, they're doing this for what?
	For a pastor to be kept in jail for a false charge?
	What we're seeing is a Turkish strongman who is not acting rationally anymore.
	And we've talked about how he has embraced Islamic politics.
	And so blending those two and kind of towed this line between somewhat radical, but still ISIS is an enemy.
	But then what's his statement on this ultimately about the fall of the economy?
	It's not economic or financial.
	It's invoking religion.
	So he says, quote, if they have their dollars, we have our people and our God.
	Now, I point out two things.
	One, in our country, we have our national motto, in God we trust, in our pledge of allegiance, we have one nation under God.
	So I don't think, you know, these statements alone, but we know what he's really saying there in Turkey.
	He is invoking a new kind of politics in Turkey.
	He's been doing it over years.
	And now even when it comes to finances, which ultimately these strong men are usually, that's their concern.
	But we've also talked about the idea that the new allies he's tried to make are never very good allies.
	The Russians are trying to work with Iran.
	They don't bail you out if they've got nothing in return.
	You know, in Syria, the Russians have a warm water base.
	As long as they can keep that, that's worthwhile for them to keep fighting.
	In Turkey, if the economy starts falling apart, they're not going to come in and save an Erdogan, who's still, by the way, government is a member of NATO, which the Russians can't stand.
	Yeah, this is the irony of all of this, of course, is the Turks and the Russians have an ongoing feud.
	They are a NATO ally of the United States within the NATO partnership, and they're certainly not acting like it.
	It's become an Islamic regime.
	That's what it is.
	I mean, it's where it's gone, unfortunately.
	This is not the Turkey and the Economo of Ataturk.
	No, this is not the Turkey of Ataturk, Jay.
	These men are simply Islamists wearing suits, coats, and ties.
	Ataturk wore a suit coat and a tie, but he tried to bring Turkey into the West and into the then 20th century.
	So Erdogan needs to wake up.
	He needs to realize that he may have God, but it's a good idea to get a local financial advisor, too.
	Yeah, and I don't think it's the guy that we're used to, and he certainly could use a financial advisor.
	So Harry, let me ask you this.
	You're a professor of law and economics.
	What in the, why would they put themselves in this situation over this pastor?
	Well, I think for political, ideological, and religious reasons.
	President Erdogan suffers, in my opinion, from illusions of grandeur.
	But President Trump is responding with maximum pressure, maximum economic pressure.
	Erdogan has responded with defiance.
	Meanwhile, his country and its people are suffering massively.
	This will lead, in my opinion, ultimately to a climb down by the Turkish leader.
	I think you're right.
	Jordan, really quickly here, as we get ready to go to a break in a minute, and this is important.
	We've handled these cases before with the Sudanese.
	We've handled them with the Iranians.
	You would have never thought that Turkey would be this difficult.
	You know, I mean, President Erdogan built himself palaces while the economy was on an upswing.
	You would think that's what he actually cared about.
	I mean, honestly, I mean, this strongman kind of leader would be more important to protect his palace.
	At this point, though, you see he's embracing a radical Islamic message.
	We've kept discussing this.
	How far is he going to go with this angle of using Islam to his political purposes?
	But I'll tell you, someone's been there in Turkey.
	I don't think that sells to enough people there to keep him in power.
	And these guys, as we can see, they may have a lot of power.
	They may pull out these coups, these phony coups, whatever's happening there.
	But ultimately, if the economy falls the way it's falling and it continues to fall, and with President Trump's announcement today on the tariffs, they don't survive.
	And I mean, literally, they do not survive these kind of situations.
	They either end up in prison like Mohamed Morsi in Egypt or worse.
	Yeah.
	And let me tell you this, folks.
	I spoke with the president as recently as yesterday on Pastor Brunson's case.
	And the president is serious.
	They're going to return Andrew Brunson.
	That's what needs to happen here.
	It has to happen here.
	So we'll get more involved in that.
	We'll keep you posted.
	And by the way, I want to thank Sean because he's been covering this case for Pastor Brunson.
	It's hard to break into the news on these kind of cases when everything else is going on.
	But the folks here at Sean Hannity's broadcast have done that.
	We appreciate it.
	Hey, we're taking a break.
	When we come back, we're going to have more with my friend Rudy Giuliani.
	We're going to talk about some of the other big news of the day.
	There's other news in the day today, by the way, in case you're new to this.
	And anyways, I'm Jay Seculo.
	I'm Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
	I'm also one of the president's lawyers, and I'm going to be taking calls also with Rudy Giuliani.
	By the way, if you want to talk to us, it's 800-941-7326.
	That's 1-800-941-7326, or 800-941-Sean.
	That's a pretty easy way to do it.
	Let me tell you this.
	We're going to come back with a lot more, so stay tuned.
	We'll be back with more in just a moment.
	Welcome back to the Sean Hannity.
	I'm Jay Seculo.
	I'm getting to be the host today with my friend Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
	But we're talking about a major case that we're involved in at the American Center for Law and Justice involving Pastor Andrew Brunson.
	We've got in our studio, as I say ours, because I have a broadcast too that airs, and that is Jordan Seculo, the executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, Professor Harry Hutchinson, a professor of law and economics, and our director of policy and senior counsel to the ACLJ.
	And that is Dr. Andrew O'Connell.
	Let me go right to Jordan here.
	We're talking about Pastor Andrew Brunson on home arrest right now, which is better than jail, but not quite home yet.
	I'm going to ask one question.
	I want everybody to give me your thoughts.
	I'm going to start with Jordan.
	What do you, with the economic pressure on Turkey now, what do you expect to happen?
	Well, we know that Turkey is tying directly to President Trump's tweet, which he did not do in the tweet announcing the tariffs, but they are in the media and through the government directly to Pastor Andrew Brunson.
	As you said earlier, the most expensive pastor in history to an economy falling apart.
	And is that going to, again, make it with the people of Turkey?
	They are not that radicalized overall.
	And I think that they may have been okay with a strong man talking Turkish nationalism, but his full embrace of almost Islamic, this kind of modern Islamic radicalism, I would call it, is not, it just doesn't sell to the people.
	And I think he's on the brink.
	He's the one on the brink of a real disaster for himself.
	So let me ask this to you, Andy, your sense.
	You've been to Turkey a lot.
	You know the region.
	You know the area.
	What do you think the next thing is here?
	I think Erdogan is going to have to climb down.
	I mean, I've been to Istanbul several times.
	It's a Western city, essentially, a city of 17 million people.
	The interior of Turkey is very different.
	Ancient Cappadocia and medieval Cappadocia, the heart of the old Byzantine Empire is different.
	But the reality is that people are hungry both in Istanbul and people are hungry in the middle part of Turkey, which means that they're not going to tolerate the inflation.
	They're not going to tolerate the economic hardships.
	And Erdogan is going to have to climb down, but you're going to have to give him some face-saving device.
	So, Harry, from an economic standpoint, the impact on the Lyra, the impact on the economy already has been significant.
	What do you think happens next?
	Well, I think, Jay, you're absolutely correct.
	The economy is cratering.
	The Lyra is plunging.
	Investors are fleeing and sanctions and tariffs are working.
	So I think there will indeed be a climb down by the Turkish president despite his current defiance.
	Ultimately, he will have to answer to his people and his people are hurting immensely.
	I think that's the reality.
	I appreciate everybody's opinions on that.
	Let me again say a huge thank you to Sean and the whole team here at the Sean Hannity show for covering this story.
	And I think, look, I think we're going to get this pastor home to the United States very, very soon.
	I can't give you a date.
	I know I'm not good at predicting dates, especially in these kind of cases.
	You can't because there's so many ups and downs.
	But I still think with all this going on, at the end of the day, we're going to get there, which is going to take, it may take a week, it may take a month, but we're going to get there.
	Anyways, we've got a lot more to discuss.
	We'll be taking calls as well at 1-800-941-7326.
	That's 800-941-Sean.
	My co-host will be back with me in just moments.
	That is Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who's also my co-counsel, representing the President of the United States.
	We have some news we'll talk about there.
	You may have heard some things, a couple of things, just a few things.
	So we'll get to those when we come back from the break.
	Stay tuned.
	Join Sean's Army on Twitter where we get back to conservative values.
	Hey, welcome back to the Sean Hannity Program, everybody.
	I'm Jay Seculo, co-hosting with my good friend, the former mayor of the great city of New York, Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
	But for today's purposes, more importantly, I will say, former U.S. Attorney, former senior member of the United States Department of Justice, and my colleague and co-counsel in a fairly important case, a very important case, that's going on right now.
	And he is our co-host today, and we're both co-hosting for Sean.
	Mayor, I want to talk to you about an issue that you and I are dealing with.
	And we'll start this and let you pontificate some here because I think this is important.
	You and I have handled a lot of media over the last couple of days on the issue of what everybody wants to talk about.
	And by the way, if you want to talk about it, you can call us at 800-941-7326 or 800-941-Sean.
	And that is the issue of a presidential interview.
	And there's a lot of issues that go into that, Rudy, and a lot of discussion that takes place and a lot of legal analysis.
	Let's kind of get everybody up to speed on where we are.
	So there are two things you have to deal with, as you know, Jay, because we deal with it every day.
	One is just the normal representation of a person who is in some way under investigation, although they're very fudgy about what it's about.
	So far, no crime suggested.
	And he has rights, and they have to be protected.
	Second, he's the president of the United States.
	So he has prerogatives that have to be protected, not just for him, but for future presidents.
	So it's very, very complicated.
	And we also have a client who wants to be heard.
	He has felt from the very beginning, and he's right, he's done nothing wrong, that he should be able to tell his story, and they should believe him.
	On the other hand, he also knows that he doesn't exactly have an unbiased group of people.
	They have indicated to us, even in our discussions, a preference for Comey, a preference for some of these other people.
	The whole root of the investigation is corrupt.
	Going back to the dossier and struck people who hate him.
	A counterintelligence investigation that I can't figure out how they ever did it.
	FISA wires that somebody should get prosecuted for perjury and getting them.
	All of that taints the investigation.
	So we have a lot to consider.
	You know, I said from the outset that the corruption started this investigation, actually.
	If you look at just the beginning of the investigation, the inception of the investigation, the corruption ran very deep and then it continued to permeate.
	And if you start, just go through what I call the parade of horribles.
	I mean, just look at the issues.
	You and I keep calling this an irregular investigation.
	Well, and that's being kind, actually.
	That's being courteous.
	Because look at the irregularity.
	It starts with the dossier that even James Comey admits is salacious and unverified.
	We now find out that the author of that was Christopher Steele, who just happened to be hired by Fusion GPS, who happened to be hired by the Clinton campaign, who was working with Bruce Orr, the number four in the United States Department of Justice wife, Nellie Orr.
	She was working for Fusion GPS and just happened to be working on the putting together the dossier.
	Now, okay, you could not make that up, except then it gets better.
	And that is, you have the lead investigator and the conversations he had with Lisa Page, and you got the whole Strzzok Page incident.
	Then you got the insurance policy with Andy McKay.
	We must get in, what's the insurance policy?
	Now, a lot of the people that were at the FBI are now gone that were involved in this.
	But the truth is that Peter Strzok, the agent, Rudy, was the lead investigator for the special counsel's office.
	And I keep talking about what happened to that evidence that they gathered, even though he was, you know, they'll say, well, he was subsequently fired.
	True, but what happened to that evidence that he gathered during that year and a half he was on the investigation?
	Because he predates the actual Mueller appointment.
	And we talk about in the law, the fruit of the poisonous tree.
	But it's serious.
	You can't even, the irregularities here are so in-depth.
	It's really hard to put your head around it.
	I would describe this as an investigation born in corruption.
	A corrupt dossier that is crying out for a real investigation.
	If you're talking about collusion to effect an investigation, paying a foreigner, as Hillary did, to produce a false dossier on Donald Trump is so far the biggest crime that's been committed with regard to the election.
	That is provable.
	And then that dossier is used as the basis for the wiretaps, the Pfizer wires.
	And then when they know it's false, they don't correct it.
	They go back to the judge and they keep repeating it.
	Now, some judge has got to be going out of his mind, even worse than Judge Ellis, because that judge was made a fool of.
	And the Pfizer process was completely made a mockery of by this false dossier.
	So it spawns an investigation.
	The investigation produces no evidence of anything involving President Trump and Russians.
	And somehow, Comey comes along and makes it into a criminal investigation.
	And now we know that the criminal investigation itself, of course, we also have to put in there that James Comey said that he created this memo after his meeting with the president, leaked it to the press for the sole appointment of getting a special counsel, which was miraculously appointed.
	Now, could you imagine, and you were a U.S. attorney, Rudy, and you were also a high-ranking Justice Department official.
	I worked for Treasury at the beginning of my legal career.
	Could you imagine if an IRS agent or an FBI agent were to release their 302 form to the press?
	What would happen to those agents?
	Well, those who have been indicted and prosecuted and convicted.
	It's a crime to do it.
	And in this particular case, it wasn't accidental.
	This was a planned, completely thought-out, corrupt scheme on the part of Comey.
	So it didn't come from him.
	It came from this professor.
	I mean, imagine the skull duckery of this man.
	And then he wants us to believe that the memo is accurate about the Flynn conversation.
	He wants us to believe that at the time of the Flynn conversation, he felt that he was being obstructed.
	However, he never told anybody about it.
	He never reported it.
	If he didn't report it, it's Miss Prison of a Felony because as a FBI director, he had to report it.
	He then he testifies under oath after it and before he releases the memo that he had not been obstructed in any way.
	You're going to have Jarrett on later, Greg Jarrett.
	He says, it's not happened in my experience under oath.
	Right.
	He's now contradicting that.
	In other words, he lied under oath.
	So they want this guy to be the arbiter of truth, and they're not investigating him for his crimes?
	I mean, this is really corrupt.
	Now, supposedly, there's an office.
	Yeah, well, there's the Inspector General's report that is supposedly coming involving James Comey.
	We haven't seen it yet.
	And I'm hearing, and you're hearing the same things we're hearing, but September, October.
	So that may come out.
	We'll see.
	The last one was pretty tough on Andrew McCabe.
	Interestingly, he's no longer with the Department of Justice.
	James Comey's no longer with the Department of Justice.
	Rabicki's no longer with the Department of Justice.
	So Comey wants us to believe.
	Yeah, I mean, you get that.
	There's been quite a lit, Lisa Page, all gone.
	Yeah.
	Comey wants us to believe that Trump had this conversation with him about Flynn, that he felt that there was an obstruction of justice, a serious federal felony, but he never reported it, never told McCabe about it, because McCabe also testified that there was no obstruction, as he did, and that he testified falsely under oath.
	I mean, he can't be obstructed three months later.
	He can't remember the conversation three months later and say, oh, my God, he tried to obstruct me.
	I mean, this is so phony.
	If it weren't for the fact that the president has these CNN and MSNBC and all these people that are just dying to interpret everything against him, people would be demanding an investigation to comey.
	You know, it's interesting because if you look at this one we're going to talk with, you mentioned Greg Jarrett, our friend Greg Jarrett's got a great book out, by the way, The Russian Hoax.
	Everybody needs to be reading.
	It's a great, great book.
	I'm underlining it.
	I bet you are.
	And I'll report it.
	And I got an early copy.
	So we all have.
	Let me say that we're going to get into that with Greg.
	I want to talk about a lot of that because it's important.
	But, you know, people need to understand also that we are trying to handle, and you understand this, you've got competing interests when you talk about an interview.
	So the question of the day is the interview of the president.
	Will the president submit to an interview?
	And I want to be very clear on this.
	We have raised and have raised this really since the beginning of my representation, which is going back over a year now, that there are significant Article II issues.
	I mean, really significant Article II issues.
	Do you think a U.S. attorney, for instance, should be able to subpoena a president of the United States to discuss the reason why he made a policy move or a decision to fire a subordinate?
	And if that's the case, well, then why couldn't every U.S. attorney in every district who has a beef with a particular president start issuing subpoenas and that the president instead of running the government ends up responding to subpoenas?
	That's not the way it's supposed to be.
	Our founders knew that, and that's why they have political process in there.
	It's not a legal process.
	There's not going to be a trial here.
	But people have to understand that we have to go through a real process of analysis in coming to these conclusions, Rudy, about what our recommendation is regarding an interview.
	Obviously, when the special counsel sent us the last proposal, obviously we didn't accept it.
	So we counter.
	We're not going to get into the contents of that counter.
	That wouldn't be appropriate.
	But there's a lot of factors that go into this.
	There are a lot of factors go into it, and not the least of which is you have to evaluate the good faith of the people who are seeking to question him.
	Do you really have a chance of persuading them?
	Or have they made up their minds already?
	And they're just trying to set him up.
	A great example, we talk about Flynn, is Flynn.
	The president of the United States says he never had that conversation with Comey.
	Comey says that he did.
	You know, both of us would be perfectly comfortable if he had had the conversation.
	Right.
	He said nothing wrong.
	He didn't say you must drop the case, which you could do.
	He said you should think about it.
	You should give him a break, which many people have said to me when I was a prosecutor.
	We know Comey didn't think of it as obstruction because he would have reported it.
	So we'd have a very good defense on the facts.
	But the fact is the president insists I never had that conversation.
	So now we put him in front of Mueller.
	Mueller asked him that question.
	He says, no, I didn't have the conversation.
	And then they say, oh, we believe the liar Comey.
	Now, here we're almost at a disadvantage because there's no trial.
	They'd never charge him in an indictment with it because Comey couldn't withstand cross-examination.
	Absolutely correct.
	He gave a prior statement under oath contrary to that.
	All right, we're going to be back with a lot more.
	I'm Jay Seculo in with Rudy Giuliani.
	We are hosting for Sean Hannity.
	He's taking a break for one day.
	They gave him a day off.
	Linda gave him a day.
	Yeah, we do.
	We're going to take calls also at 800-941-7326.
	That's 800-941 Sean.
	And there is a lot to talk about as we discuss not just the issues of what's facing the country and the president.
	We're going to talk a little bit when we come back about some strategy.
	Sometimes it's important to deal with strategy.
	And let me tell you something.
	The mayor and I are doing a lot of strategizing.
	A lot of strategery.
	Right, right.
	Yeah, no.
	President Bush is.
	Yeah, just to reflect on another president.
	Because look, I mean, again, as we've been talking to you, there's a lot goes into a decision about allowing a president to be interviewed.
	And we're going to talk more about that.
	And we'll get to a lot of your questions and comments as well.
	We're joined by a lot of great guests.
	Great book by Greg Jarrett.
	We'll be back with more on the Sean Hannity Show in just a moment.
	Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
	I'm Jay Secchulo, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, Counsel for the President of the United States.
	With me co-hosting is Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
	More important, former U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani and senior Justice Department official.
	There's something that Rudy, and we've got a lot more coming up.
	But there's something we want to get to.
	And I think it's important for people to understand this, as the decisions are made on interviews or not.
	We've told you what our inclination is, and that is, you know, we don't think they've met at this point the threshold at all.
	And I think constitutionally, they don't have the right to interview in the first place.
	There are a lot of other factors that go into this.
	But there's something that we do need to get very clear, Rudy.
	I think what we have to get clear is the fact that a lot of people interpret it this way.
	Well, if he's telling the truth, why wouldn't he just go in and testify?
	Hey, welcome to the real world.
	The fact is, he is telling the truth.
	He has done nothing wrong.
	All these months and months, all these people going after him, they haven't suggested one thing he did wrong.
	Not a single thing.
	No crime, no unethical conduct.
	The reason we have to worry about it is, one, we're giving away prerogatives of the president.
	And the president.
	And the president and his own counsel have to be heard on that.
	Second, we're walking him into a possible perjury trap, not because he isn't telling the truth, but because somebody else isn't telling the truth who they would credit, namely Comey.
	So if he says, I never had the conversation with Flynn, and they elect to believe Comey, they can write down, we believe he committed perjury.
	And now we have walked him into that.
	Even though it's one person's word against another person's word, and one's got a memo, and one said it didn't happen.
	Here's the problem with all.
	Let's be just blunt.
	Here's the problem with all this.
	Why would you do this?
	Why would you submit any client, let alone the president of the United States, to this kind of situation?
	But when you add to it the presidency of the United States, it's not just, by the way, about this president, it's about future presidents because what we decide and what we recommend to President Trump impacts future presidencies.
	Absolutely right.
	And that's where the Article II and the Constitution are so critical here.
	And I don't think we can ignore that for one single moment.
	I think we do that at our own peril.
	I think that's right.
	And if we have to contest it and fight it, we have a good chance of winning it.
	I believe so.
	And vindicating the presidency.
	The reality is, I will say this over and over again.
	If this were just simply, can he go in and tell the truth?
	Of course he can.
	He's got nothing to hide.
	We have stipulated with them.
	We are willing to stipulate with them what he's going to say.
	They know what he's going to say.
	Well, we produced millions of pages of documents, 32 witnesses.
	It's been the most transparent inquiry of this type when you're involving the office of the presidency in history.
	No one's done it like this.
	Having said that, there are also threshold constitutional standards that have not been met in our view at this point and that certainly raise not only serious legal arguments, but I think puts the onus not on us, quite frankly.
	And I don't believe a court, I hope we don't have to go that route.
	We might not have to.
	If we do, we do.
	I don't think the Supreme Court of the United States would say the president has been compelled to testify with regard to actions he took within his constitutional authority.
	That would set a horrible precedent.
	Back with more in a moment.
	Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone.
	Jay Seculo and Mayor Rudy Giuliani in for Sean Hannity.
	And we are joined right now by someone that knows a little bit about the topic we've been discussing, among many other things, but especially about this one.
	And that is our friend, Fox News, phenomenal legal analyst, Greg Jarrett, who's got a great book out, by the way.
	And you're talking about a must-read?
	The Russian hoax.
	Book's done pretty well there, Greg.
	Number one on the New York Times bestseller list for two weeks in a row so far.
	Must killed him.
	Yeah.
	The Times.
	You know, it's got to give him a high-rate fever at the Times.
	So, you know, you know the issues we're facing right now as a lawyer, of course.
	And, you know, and people are saying, why can't you just say no?
	We're not going to do it.
	And look, there's process in this, and there's considerations you have.
	One of the reasons is you got a client that says he wants to do it.
	Right.
	And, you know, so ultimately, you know, I said this to our friend Sean Hannity.
	He said, well, why can't you just say no?
	I said, well, if I say no and Rudy says no, that's great.
	But the client has to agree.
	It's the way it works.
	But you laid out the case very strongly in your book about the Russian hoax.
	Let's give the top line on that.
	Kind of what do you see as the, if you're going to name the top four of the, what I call the parade of horribles here, what would you say?
	Well, I would say that once people read the book, they will be absolutely convinced that top officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI abuse their positions of power to subvert the rule of law and undermine the democratic process.
	They cleared Hillary Clinton, even though they knew that there was overwhelming, compelling evidence of her criminality.
	Comey wrote it down not once, but twice, and then had his Confederate Lisa Page and Peter Strzzok sit down at Strzok's computer and expunge the language that was so incriminating.
	And on the very day that Comey stands in front of television cameras announcing that he's absolving Hillary Clinton because no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case, which was preposterous.
	Americans didn't know what was happening that moment.
	In a building in London, Comey's FBI is meeting with Christopher Steele who's on the FBI payroll, Hillary Clinton payroll.
	He composed the totally fabricated dossier, the anti-trust, alleging collusion that Putin and Trump had been colluding for five to eight years before the 2016 election.
	It was utterly preposterous.
	You know, Greg raises, Mayor, the issue here, because I think this is one that sometimes gets lost in this process.
	When the former FBI director, then the FBI director, James Comey, makes the statement, the grand pronouncement that no reasonable prosecutor would move forward on a prosecution.
	First of all, he was the director of the FBI.
	He shouldn't have been even pronouncing on that.
	No FBI director, in my memory, has ever given a press conference and described the facts of a case in which he's declining prosecution, and he doesn't get to decline prosecution.
	No.
	I did when I was U.S. Attorney, not him.
	I would have gone totally nuts if he did it to me when I was U.S. Attorney.
	And it's the reason he got to him.
	He probably got him fired.
	Yeah, immediately.
	Well, he is usurping the power, as you point out, Mayor, of the Attorney General.
	Well, when I read your book, Greg, I come away with the following.
	They're investigating, in one way or another, the President of the United States now for two years without a single suggestion that he committed any crime.
	That's right.
	We don't know what the crime is.
	It's an investigation in search of a crime.
	On the other hand, we have all these possible crimes committed by Comey, leaking the memo, lying under oath about not being obstructed or lying later about feeling he was obstructed, misprison a felony, the dossier in which it is clearly untrue, and they go ahead and have three Pfizer applications in which they don't explain to the judge that it's untrue or that it's a problem.
	Why isn't this being investigated?
	It should be.
	I mean, this is, you know, sort of Alice through the looking glass.
	Everything's backwards and upside down.
	You know, just look at the dossier, as you point out a moment ago, by Comey and others.
	They used a false document.
	They knew it was false.
	They deceived the judges.
	They concealed evidence in the case.
	That is a fraud on the court, as you know.
	How would you like to be that FISA judge?
	Oh, I'd be angry as can be.
	They pulled that on him.
	Because it is the biggest felony is abuse of power, deprivation of rights under color of law.
	You cannot use your position in government to deprive somebody, Carter Page and President Trump, of their constitutional rights.
	It's also perjury.
	I mean, they signed a document vouching for its authenticity and veracity when they knew it was a lie.
	Why wouldn't Sessions or Rosenstein, why wouldn't they start an investigation of this?
	What is stopping them?
	It almost seems like, you know, here they can actually write a subpoena and mention crimes, cite crimes.
	Well, they'll say they got this.
	They went to a U.S. attorney in Utah that's going to be looking at all of this.
	That was kind of their, that's their way to handle it.
	Go ahead, Greg.
	Yeah, I mean, and I don't have much trust in that.
	I don't know how you do an investigation in Utah of people and activities that took place in Washington, D.C.
	But nevertheless, I think Jeff Sessions, who is a very nice man, has been the most feckless Attorney General in my lifetime.
	You know, I don't think he's in charge.
	I think he's in a back room playing with Legos or something.
	The guy who's really the Attorney General is Rod Rosenstein, and he has every reason to continue to obstruct Congress, hide documents, and cover it up because he's part of the wrongdoing.
	He signed the fourth FISA, the third renewal of the FISA document, knowing that he didn't have new evidence and the law requires new evidence, and he also knew that it was fabricated.
	Well, he also produced a memorandum recommending the termination of James Comey.
	Right.
	Talk about conflicts of interest.
	The federal regulations, not to mention ethical rules that govern lawyers, say you cannot be a prosecutor and a witness in the same case.
	The actual actual.
	The rules seem to be a lot.
	Let's say they get a little murky when it's involving this.
	The actual basis for the independent counsel is that memo of Comey's and the idea that Comey was fired as an obstruction of the investigation.
	The best witness against that is Rosenstein, who gave the president advice of counsel that he should do it.
	But here's the thing with putting all of that aside.
	So if the president of the United States decides he's going to fire the FBI director, what in the Constitution says he can't do that?
	In fact, the Constitution says the opposite.
	There's four clauses: the take-care clause and the vesting clause.
	Both clauses allow him to fire a political appointee who's head of a branch of the executive branch of government, a department, or agency.
	This is all within the Article 2 of the Constitution.
	That's right.
	And so Mueller has no legal basis as an inferior officer to question the President of the United States about exercising his constitutional authority.
	So that, as you guys have pointed out, should be off the table.
	Isn't Rosenstein a necessary witness?
	He's been interviewed by Mueller.
	To the firing of Comey since he recommended the firing of Comey?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	He's a key witness.
	And he's actually been interviewed by his underling.
	Mueller has interviewed his own boss, which is Rod Rosenstein.
	That is.
	But don't worry, they also want to interview the President of the United States.
	Yeah.
	Who's the ultimate boss under Article 2 of the Constitution?
	And that goes to the second part of this, which is, obviously, we're going through a process here.
	And if you look at this, by the way, historically, this is the process lawyers go through when you're talking about interviewing a president.
	You know what?
	Rudy and I have been pretty clear on what our inclinations are on all this.
	Ultimately, the president's going to make a decision based on legal advice, and they've got a bar that I don't think they've met.
	Having said that, again, you look at it as a lawyer that's been practicing law a long time.
	38 years.
	That's right.
	Me 40 years.
	Too young.
	40 for me.
	You're younger than me.
	You don't want to know how long I've been practicing law.
	I don't remember.
	I'm 39 years old.
	I was back in Lincoln's era.
	I didn't even go to law school.
	You read the law.
	I'm not a print.
	I read the law.
	So if you were in our shoes, Greg, how would you handle it?
	Well, obstruction questions are completely off the table.
	As for collusion, I don't understand how Mueller has the right to question the president about a non-crime.
	As I pointed out repeatedly, collusion is only a crime in antitrust law.
	It is nowhere else in the criminal codes.
	Now, other people have said, well, it's conspiracy to defraud the government.
	No, it's not.
	That requires a lot of people.
	There has to be a conspiracy to do that.
	Well, and it requires, the Supreme Court says, deceit, craft, trickery, and dishonesty.
	So sitting, for example, in a Trump Tower and listening to a Russian lawyer provide information that in the end she never provided.
	How is that dishonest?
	Something about the Majinski law, which is, of course, no.
	And, you know, Nancy Pelosi hauled off and said, wow, it's a clear violation of campaign laws.
	No, it's not.
	She never read the Federal Campaign Election Act, which allows a foreign national to volunteer services, including information, to a political campaign.
	And information by itself is not a thing of value.
	Because I actually argued Title III of McCain Feingold before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And that involved a lot of these issues of money and campaigns and how that worked.
	I actually got the provision that I was responsible for, Title III, struck as unconstitutional, nine to zero.
	You got to look at what the law actually says, not what you wish it would say or what you hope it would say if you're trying to go after some.
	What does it actually say?
	And what does Supreme Court precedent say?
	And it just does not support the interpretations that some in the media have gone with are just incorrect legally based on the statute and certainly based on the Constitution.
	But it serves the media's anti-Trump narrative.
	Their hatred for Trump is so conspicuous every day in their coverage of this case.
	Their unabashed scorn and visceral hatred for the president is reflected in the bias within their stories, not only how they tell the stories, but the stories they choose to tell.
	I heard a media individual say, oh, I know what it is.
	It's honest services fraud.
	That individual never read the Supreme Court decision, Skilling versus the United States.
	It says there has to be a bribe or a kickback.
	Yeah, because the government had gone too far in making honest services just a catch-all everything.
	I mean, the whole, I mean, they're going to try these novel and bizarre theories of campaign finance and obstruction, and you're going to just determine, you're going to do the test case and have the test case on the president of the United States.
	First of all, there will be no case.
	I keep saying that because that's not how this goes.
	President can't have a case.
	That's not the way it works under our system.
	That's not the way the Department of Justice works.
	But the media and Democrats, and I realize that's redundant, they insinuate a crime by using a word that connotes a crime, which is the word collusion.
	And it just sounds so inaffirding.
	It does.
	You know, in fact, in my book, I quote an interview, Jay, that you did with George Stephanopoulos, in which you kept saying to him, But where is it in the criminal codes?
	And he said, Oh, collusion is conspiracy or something to that effect.
	Without ever answering your legitimate question, wait a minute, what rule, law, or regulation has been violated here that you're colluding with?
	Even conspiracy is not a crime.
	It's got to be a conspiracy to commit a crime.
	Right.
	We conspire every day to have lunch or breakfast or whatever.
	That's not a crime.
	No, but I'll tell you what something everybody needs.
	Your book.
	Well, thank you.
	It's very helpful.
	It really is.
	We've got a lot more coming ahead on this.
	And by the way, The Russia Hoax, it is a great book by Greg Jarrett, and it's great to be in the studio here with Greg, actually in the same room, not just on a TV camera remote.
	So it's great doing that.
	All right, we're going to take calls.
	We've got a lot more to discuss on the Sean Hannity Show.
	Now that Uncle Joe has left the building, maybe we can get back to bringing jobs home.
	That's Jobs, J-O-B-S.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
	This is Jay Seculo and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Attorney, former senior Justice Department official, in with the author, New York Times best-selling author, number one best-selling author.
	I want to be very clear here, Greg Jarrett.
	Thank you.
	The book is The Russian Hoax.
	I want to go right to Greg on this, and then, Mayor, you should comment too.
	And that is, we're in this now.
	You know, the so-called investigation has been going on now really for almost two years.
	I mean, if you look at just the kind of the time frame, we've had the special counsel's been a little bit over a year and what, about a year and three months, 15 months.
	How do you, what do you think the public appetite for this is these days, really, in the body politic?
	Well, just judging from the sales of my book, I'd say, you know, it's very topical, and people are talking about it.
	You know, even if I hadn't written the book, it is still probably the most talked about news story in America.
	It is day in, day out, 24 hours a day.
	And, you know, frankly, every day brings new revelations of evidence of wrongdoing and corruption on the part of the investigators.
	These are the law enforcers who became themselves the lawbreakers.
	You know, I think I get into the Bruce Orr situation in great detail.
	I'm sure we'll do it.
	I think when the history of this is finally written, the fact that they took so long is going to hurt them.
	Because if they had written their report three months ago, which they could have done, we'd have written our report and we'd be waiting to see if Congress is going to do anything.
	Right.
	But the revelations, since I got involved with Jay, first of all, you have the Horowitz Report, you have Peter Strzok.
	Sure.
	Now you have the whole dossier thing, Bruce Orr.
	Who knows what's next?
	You don't know what's next.
	It's all unraveling.
	And the American public, I just looked at the polls yesterday.
	The longer this goes on, the more negative the opinions are of Bob Mueller and his team of partisans.
	22-point swing in three months.
	Right.
	From trusting Mueller to not trusting Trump, trusting Trump.
	And because they're finally getting the message that this is not only a team of partisans, but it was politically motivated.
	You know, Mueller had three different conflicts of interest.
	Rosenstein had one glaring conflict of interest.
	Together, they put together a team of partisans.
	They sabotaged the integrity and credibility of their own investigation.
	And as you point out, Mayor, the longer it goes on, the more Americans are wising up to what really happened.
	It was a hoax.
	Yeah, yeah.
	A hoax.
	It started as a hoax, and it just gets worse and worse and worse.
	And their misconduct keeps coming out.
	Well, it's breathtaking in scope.
	I mean, from the beginning of this inquiry to today.
	And we still are, I mean, every single day, it seems like there's more and more.
	That's right.
	You know, I point out in the book that the FBI, when they launched its investigation of Trump and collusion, they violated their own FBI guidelines known, as you guys know, the dialogue.
	You've got to have articulable facts in support of probable cause.
	They didn't have that.
	That's absolutely right.
	The book is the Russian hoax.
	The author is Greg Jarrett.
	He is our friend, a fellow lawyer.
	Great legal analyst for Fox News.
	Greg, thanks for being with us.
	My pleasure.
	Thank you.
	We'll be back with more.
	Read the book.
	Read the book.
	We'll be back with more in a minute.
	Hi, everybody.
	Welcome back to the broadcast.
	It's Jay Seculo and Mayor Rudy Giuliani sitting in for our friend Sean Hannity.
	It's great to be co-hosting with my colleague.
	I get to say colleague.
	I've known Rudy.
	We've known each other a long time, but we are working on, we've worked on a number of cases, but this, I would say, is the biggest.
	Representative president of the United States.
	I tried to help you with Pastor Brunson a year ago, a year and a half ago.
	Yes, you did.
	God did willing.
	Yep.
	I hope so.
	God willing, he'll be out soon.
	I will tell you, we're going to talk a little bit more about that, actually, in days ahead.
	I am hopeful.
	And I'll trace a little bit of that since you said it.
	We'll do it.
	And just spend a minute, and then we'll get John Solomon on from the Hill.
	He's got some good news here for us, an interesting story.
	On the Pastor Brunson matter, I will tell you this.
	This is a Christian pastor.
	He's been in jail now for ⁇ he was in jail for almost 18 months, almost 20, I think 20 months actually, and then has been on house arrest.
	But we tried to get him released last year.
	It did not.
	We got close.
	But now Turkey's feeling some real pressure.
	What's your quick thoughts on that?
	I think the pastor, he's at home arrest right now.
	I think the president is committed to getting him home.
	I believe, given what's going on with their economy, they're going to crack.
	They're going to have to crack.
	And the reality is, you know, it's a completely contrived case.
	He didn't do anything wrong except preach Christianity in a tasteful, decent way.
	Well, look, I know Mike Pompeo, the vice president, especially the president, are working diligently on this.
	Look, the Turkish situation right now, their economy is hurting, and they're hurting because they're keeping Americans held hostage.
	And that's not what you're supposed to do.
	Let's go back to a domestic matter.
	John Solomon, our friend from the Hill, is on.
	And, John, you broke a story yesterday.
	We talked a little bit about this already in this whole Bruce Orr situation.
	He was the number four ranking official at the Justice Department, but you broke some new news.
	Of course, he was working with Christopher Steele.
	Let's retrace that for some folks for the folks here.
	I think it's important to understand this was the number four in the Justice Department.
	His wife was working for Fusion GPS, who had been working with Christopher Steele to put the dossier together.
	Take it from there.
	That sounds great.
	I'll take you to the exact date and time where we need to be.
	It's December, middle of December of 2016, a month after the president has won the election.
	Democrats are still mourning.
	Pete Stroke and Lisa Page are probably still in shock at the FBI because their plan to stop President Trump didn't work.
	And the FBI has formally fired Christopher Steele, the British MI6 intelligence agent paid by the DNC, paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign to dig up dirt on the president.
	He's been fired for misconduct because he spoke to the media in the final days of the election.
	As you all know, that's an illegality or not allowed for a human intelligence source.
	So he's fired, and yet Pete Stroke has no way to get, and Pete Stroke has no way to get the information from Christopher Steele anymore.
	So they create an end run here.
	They get Bruce Orr, the number four Justice Department official, and somebody who, by the way, is not in the chain of command on the intelligence investigation.
	What was his position, John?
	What was Orr's position?
	He's an Associate Deputy Attorney General.
	Yep.
	Yeah, good question, Mr. Mayor.
	So he is the top deputy, the Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, a woman who signed one of those FISA warrants, by the way.
	And he is, you know, counterintelligence investigations are supposed to be left to counterintelligence pros, people who do it for a living.
	So you can detect deception.
	You can detect efforts to deceive.
	And that doesn't happen.
	So as Christopher Steele starts meeting with Bruce Orr and that information is flowing in.
	But at this moment, Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, the man who the Clinton campaign paid directly, the DNC paid directly, and then he hired Christopher Steele to do the dirt digging.
	And by the way, Glenn Simpson is the boss of Nellie Orr, Bruce Orr's wife, because he had hired Nellie Orr to work on the Trump dossier.
	They're meeting.
	They're meeting at a coffee shop in Washington, D.C., and they're having this extraordinary conversation.
	First off, a thumb drive, a memory stick, is handed to Bruce Orr, according to these handwritten notes of the meeting, and it has all of Glenn Simpson's latest dirt on President Trump, the latest version of the dossier, all the things that the FBI has already committed to stop collecting, right?
	Because they fired Steele.
	He hands them that, and then they begin to have this extraordinary discussion.
	And some of the stuff is, you know, almost jaw-dropping and sounds like a spy novel.
	They come up with these different theories.
	But one of the most important things that occurs here is that Glenn Simpson, for the first time, is recorded in written notes saying, I know who the source that Christopher Steele used to prove this or to come up with all of this collusion allegations.
	And he actually isn't in Moscow.
	We don't have any sources in Moscow.
	Well, if you're having a Russian spy case, you would kind of hope you have some sources close to the alleged plot.
	They're not.
	It's a former Russian intelligence officer in the United States who's feeding this information.
	I show this to some of the best counterintelligence professionals in the world, people who've done this for a quarter century or more.
	And the first thing they said is, you know what?
	A counterintelligence professional, the first thing they're going to say is, that's not, there is no such thing as a former Russian intelligence officer.
	That guy is working to disrupt the election.
	It's most likely a compromise effort to feed information to the Democrats to smear Donald Trump so we mess up the whole election.
	First thing that jumps out in the notes to the professionals.
	And then he talks about Glenn Steele, blurts something out and says, at the end of the election, I couldn't wait anymore.
	I couldn't keep this dossier secret anymore.
	So I went to Mother Jones and David Korn, and I leaked the story and I asked Christopher Steele to participate in that leak, by the way, violating the FBI's rules.
	Gets him fired.
	And he uses this word, excuse me.
	Yeah, got him fired, too.
	Supposedly.
	Got him fired.
	It cost them right.
	He uses, it was a Hail Mary attempt.
	Now, that's such an important word because we know what a Hail Mary means.
	They're trying to make a last-minute impact on the election because it didn't go the way they thought.
	Well, that's so important because Glenn Simpson has now testified to two different committees, House Intelligence, House Judiciary.
	And he told them the same thing.
	This was not about politics.
	I wasn't trying to influence the election.
	I was just trying to be a good citizen.
	This was about citizenship and reporting wrongdoing.
	Well, if you're about citizenship and you're reporting wrongdoing, you'd think you let the FBI do their job.
	But not these two guys.
	They go to the media and they leak it because really their intention is now clear.
	They're trying to sway the election and they're just using the FBI as a part of the political opposition tool that they needed.
	So that's the second admission.
	And then the third admission is Glenn Simpson kind of gives us what he really thought his theory was.
	And this theory is ludicrous to the people I've talked to in the intelligence community.
	Here's how the theory goes: Donald Trump had a revolving group of insiders that were the point men for Moscow's big conspiracy.
	The first guy was Paul Manafort.
	He got kicked out.
	Then it was Carter Page.
	He got kicked out.
	So then it becomes Michael Cohen.
	And those three guys are working the election and colluding and conspiring and doing all these things.
	Well, just think about this.
	There's no way Moscow had three separate assets working out in Operation Mike because it's not possible.
	But then you look into the facts.
	Why did they believe this?
	Well, Michael Cohen's relative did some real estate business in Moscow, and that's the best they got to prove that Michael Cohen was there.
	They say he might have been in Prague.
	We now know that Michael Cohen was never in Prague because he showed everybody his passport.
	The level of weak, double-hedged, third-source intelligence that Glenn Simpson says is the core of the steel case is stuff that most intelligence professionals would have laughed out of the CIA or the FBI were it not for Pete Stroke and Bruce Orb, who are circling it through the system, even though it's this weak, this discredited, this silly of a plot.
	And that's what we learned from these notes.
	And it's amazing that it took us 18 months for the Justice Department to keep these from the American public to see how silly this case was and how politically corrupted this case was.
	So, John, when you look at the situation, I mean, we're into this now.
	You know, this inquiry, as they call it, or investigation started in 2016.
	We're now, you know, more than halfway through 2018.
	And it seems like every day or every couple of days, you've got a new story and a new report and a new discovery.
	I don't know if we've seen the half of it yet.
	What do you think?
	Yeah, that's a great question.
	I think the most important thing that could happen before Election Day, or quite frankly, at any time for the American public, let's not even tie it to an election.
	The most important thing to have happen here is what happened after 9-11.
	We had adults in the intelligence community at that moment.
	And after we got sucker punched and they had that horrific moment, the FBI and the CIA made a commitment.
	Listen, no matter how embarrassing it is, no matter how bad it is, we're going to put all our chips on the table and we're going to let people see what went wrong here.
	The American public deserves to know what was the FISA court told.
	What were the flaws in the evidence?
	What things did the FBI know that they withheld from the FISA court?
	And I think if we do that, Mr. Mayor was an important voice during that time for us during 9-11 of arguing for accountability.
	If we didn't have Mayor Giuliani doing those sort of things, we might have not healed the way we did.
	We have to get right on this.
	We need the FBI director, the DNI, and the CIA director to let us see what really happened here.
	It's not going to compromise any case in this.
	John, why this perplexes us tremendously.
	Why are Sessions and Rosenstein covering up?
	Why would they obstruct Congress, keep this information back, not launch a really, really intense investigation?
	Instead of your finding this out, they should be finding this out.
	Why?
	What's the motive?
	That's right.
	I think they may know it.
	And at the end of the time, when I first came to town, I met an old wiley senator named Bill Proxmeyer, the Democrat from Wisconsin, never spent more than $1,000 on reelection.
	And he told me something that I always thought stuck with me all these years later.
	He said, never ascribe to conspiracy what you can explain the bureaucracy.
	I think in some way the Justice Department knows that this is embarrassing to the institution.
	It's embarrassing to the court that they might have misled.
	And I think they're trying to run out the clock so they don't have to go through that period of embarrassment.
	But hey, the FBI had to go through 9-11 and missed the Phoenix memo and the Masawi memo.
	The FBI will do itself and the American public a great favor if they just lay the cards on the table.
	This is what went right.
	This is what went wrong.
	We won't do it again.
	I think we all move on a lot quicker.
	I think the bureaucratic instinct that protects the institution is at the heart of this keepaway game.
	I really do.
	Well, could it also be Rosenstein's involvement with the last Pfizer application?
	Well, that's a great question, sir.
	And it's an interesting thing because in the story, a couple of days ago, I noted something very privately.
	Ron Rosenstein sent a letter to Congress saying, hey, I testified I didn't know there was nobody in my agency that was working on this except me.
	I didn't know about Bruce Orr.
	Well, you know, sir, because you were at the top of the Justice Department.
	Ignorance is not an excuse before the Pfizer Court.
	It is your obligation to know that Bruce Orr was doing these things or that the FBI was withholding things before you signed your name to it.
	I think Rod Rosenstein's own personal institution, his own reputation, is a little bit in jeopardy if we learn how much the court might have not known about exculpatory information.
	And everything I hear about what's in the Pfizer redactive sexism is about exculpatory information.
	Hey, John, let me ask you this.
	You've got a piece out.
	It's at the Hill right now, and thehill.com.
	I know you've got other pieces you're working on.
	Folks, you need to be following John Solomon.
	We encourage you.
	And John, thanks for taking time to be with us on the Sean Hannity show.
	Yeah, and thanks for doing the work you're doing, John.
	You're doing what the Justice Department should be doing.
	Service to the United States.
	Thank you very much.
	All right.
	We're going to be back with more.
	God, boy, we've covering a lot of material, Mr. Mayor.
	Amazing.
	That's what we do.
	All right.
	Hang tight.
	We'll be back with more in a moment.
	And welcome back to the last segment of the Sean Hannity program.
	And it is great to say that I've had the chance to be with Rudy Giuliani for hours and hours and hours over the last couple of months working on a case that everybody knows about.
	But here we are in the last segment of the Sean Hannity Show.
	Let me ask you this, Mr. Mayor, your kind of impressions here as we are, as you and I say, trying to land the plane.
	Well, I think my impressions are that we're doing fine, and we've got a, our strategy is multifaceted.
	We're ready for anything.
	The thing about it, it's amazing, is how much more there is to this that doesn't necessarily involve us.
	Going back to the beginning of this, I think this investigation is going to continue, but a totally different focus.
	They're going to investigate the investigators because of the irregularity.
	Somebody has to investigate this.
	And whether it's bureaucratic protection or something worse, the Justice Department has really, really acted inappropriately.
	I agree.
	All right, let me tell you something else.
	We've had the opportunity to talk about a lot of issues.
	I have great guests, but we've also started the broadcast with, as we always do, giving you news of what's happening.
	And we're, like I said, the mayor and I are kind of living it, making it, and in the middle of it.
	But also, I don't want to forget about something we talked about, and that is the case of Pastor Andrew Brunson.
	This is a big weekend on that case, I believe.
	You've read the news of what's happening in Turkey right now.
	The president's demanding the return of this American pastor.
	I'd appreciate your thoughts and prayers for him and for his family as we try to get him returned to the United States of America.
	Also, let me say this, as we look at the case involved.
	I know there's, you know, some of you are getting impatient.
	Some people are getting impatient with us, Rudy.
	Some people think, why can't they just make up a decision here and just announce it?
	There's a lot more to it than that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	If we had just acted precipitously two, three months ago, none of this would have come out.
	Yeah.
	Patience has worked in our favor here.
	Yeah.
	And look, I think at the end of the day, the legal strategy we've implemented is correct.
	I believe that the right type of process that we've gone through to protect the Constitution and the integrity of the Constitution, separation of powers, Article II, that's what you do when you're representing a president, and that's the highest task I think.
	And you've had some big tasks, and I've had some big tasks, but this is the biggest task we've ever had as lawyers to represent a president.
	I had the opportunity a couple of times to represent President Reagan, not in this kind of thing, but as president.
	And it's the greatest honor in the world.
	It's a great honor to represent the United States government.
	When I was an assistant U.S. Attorney, I'd get up in front of a jury or an appellate court, and I'd say, my name is Rudolph Julian.
	I represent the United States of America.
	I'd always get goosebumps.
	Yeah, always.
	It's like when I get, when they call your name to the Supreme Court of the United States and say, Mr. Secula, we'll now hear from you.
	I've done it a lot, but it doesn't change.
	You still get goosebumps when they say that.
	I think about that.
	You know, Mr. Secula, the grandson of a fruit peddler that was from Russia that went to, lived and raised his family in Brooklyn, New York.
	A barber.
	A fruit peddler's a barber and a barber and a barber and a tailor.
	There you go.
	My two grandfathers.
	There you go.
	This makes America just what it is.
	It's absolutely great.
	Hey, it's been great sitting in for Sean, and I want to thank the entire staff at the Sean Hannity Show for allowing us to do it.
	It's always a blast.
	And I will tell you this.
	Sean does a great service every single day that he is on the air, and so does this team that he's got, bringing you real news, real insight, real information.
	It's been our pleasure.
	Have a great weekend.
	Thank you.

▲