Roger Stone, former Trump campaign advisor has been a long time friend of the President, and has promised that no amount of pressure from the left, or Mueller’s team, will encourage him to hurt or testify against President Trump. What is Mueller trying to accomplish? Stone and Hannity dig in... The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
All right, 84 days, the biggest, the most important election in midterm election in our lifetime.
Glad you're on board.
Glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free number.
It's 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of this extravaganza, we got a lot of news that we are going to get to today.
It looks like the trial of the century, the Paul Manafort trial, is now headed towards closing arguments.
As what's interesting about this is the defense is basically saying, well, the prosecution never proved their case.
And sorry, we're not interested in putting on a defense because we don't see a need for one.
Now, this is a common strategy, risky in a sense, but you know, on the other hand, they're just basically telling the jury, we don't think you reached the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a particular case, and nor are we going to give you an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses we were otherwise going to bring on board.
And this case is now over, and we'll make our final remarks and closing arguments in this case.
The star witness for the prosecution for Team Mueller was, of course, the partner of Paul Manafort, who faced well over 100 years in jail.
He got a get out of jail free card by Team Mueller and, you know, which is a pretty incredible incentive.
Every other person, it seems, that testified in the trial was given immunity on behalf of Mueller and his team to just line up against Paul Manafort.
The media, I can promise you now, is you know, they're just salivating in the hopes and prayers you're going to get a guilty verdict against Paul Manafort.
And, you know, honestly, the odds are against him because you got a 95% plus conviction rate in federal courts like this.
But I'm not so sure this is a slam dunk.
I actually think the jury, just watching how disgusted that the judge was in this particular case, that this case was even brought to trial.
Now, remember, this is the same judge that said that the prosecution don't really care about a tax fraud case dealing with a 2005 to 2007 tax issue.
That wasn't their motivation at all.
Let's be honest, he said, this is to put the screws to Manafort so Manafort will sing or compose, meaning make up, in the hopes that they can get information from Manafort that they can use to prosecute Donald Trump or impeach Donald Trump.
That's the only reason they did it.
And everybody pretty much that is associated or that was used by the prosecution in this case was, well, in a roundabout way, bribed or paid.
Use whatever term you like.
But if Rick Gates, their star witness, who admitted to being a liar, admitted to being an embezzler and a tax cheat and committing all sorts of fraud, etc., he's your main witness, and he's given a get out of jail free card.
How much credibility can such a person have with the jury?
I've been using the example of Sammy the Bogravano, commits 19 murders.
He gets a get out of jail free card, doesn't get prosecuted for those murders, and on top of it, gets a new life in Arizona with a new home and a chance to start over with the government protecting him through the witness protection program.
Okay, now if you're facing charges of 19 murders, which means the rest of your life in jail, and you're already a murderer, how much credibility are you going to have testifying against anybody?
And I think this is an incredible flaw in our criminal justice system, you know, because you're incentivizing people to say things.
You're giving them something in return for their testimony.
In this case of Rick Gates, the rest of his life potentially in jail.
So I just don't know how much credibility they have here.
There was an interesting article about this.
A veteran defense attorney argued many cases before Judge T.S. Ellis said that the incompetent performance by Mueller's prosecutors during the Manafort trial has exposed Mueller's Democratic dream team as the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
The headline on NBCNews.com, a column by veteran criminal defense attorney, a guy by the name of Greg Hunter, said, quote, the Manafort trial judge snapped at Mueller's team because they're not ready for prime time.
I've heard from many people that have gone before Judge Ellis, you better have your act together and you better have your game on and you better know what you're doing because he will tear you to shreds and has no problem at all doing it, as we now have witnessed here, as he has dressed down the prosecution again and again and again during this ridiculous so-called trial of the century.
Anyway, Judge Ellis keeps yelling at the prosecutors.
Now, it's not necessarily good news for the defendant, but as Greg Hunter writes, I've spent my career defending criminal cases before Judge Ellis and his colleagues, and Mueller's team earned his ire.
And he goes on to say that, you know, I've spent my entire career defending cases in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Having watched the Mueller team in action, I believe they earned Ellis's anger and lack of respect for their work and the jury's time.
The fact remains, Mueller's team has to actually try Paul Manafort in this case and only Paul Manafort.
And no matter how strong their evidence, how righteous their cause, or how impressive their resumes may be and actually are, Mueller's prosecutors simply have not done a very good job.
This case started with the Mueller team's first appearing in Ellis' courtroom without consulting the local United States Attorney's Office.
The Eastern District of Virginia has perhaps the best collection of prosecutors in the entire nation, and Ellis doesn't see much of a need for anyone from across the river coming to help, let alone to prosecute a case on their own.
And Mueller's team mistakes didn't stop there.
They did eventually bring in a veteran assistant U.S. attorney from Alexandria along with them after the first hearing.
They didn't let him speak at any motions hearing in May where Michael Drieben, perhaps the nation's premier appellate advocate, appeared to be poorly prepared and less than candid with the court, earning them even more of Ellis's ill will.
And through much, although much has been made about Ellis interrupting and reprimanding the government from the first moments of the trial, even interrupting their opening statement, the Mueller team invited these interruptions by repeating the exact factual claims Ellis had already ruled were irrelevant to the case at hand.
You're not even reading the judge's orders and what the judge has already resolved.
The same sort of treatment has continued throughout the trial, and the prosecution continue to bring up irrelevant points, even though they are often compelling.
They've rolled their eyes.
They've complained and even once argued that they should be able to present a chart the judge had excluded because the witness took a long time to make it rather than telling him why they thought it was relevant.
If you want things to go better in Judge Ellis's court, you have to live up to the high standards that he demands.
Every attorney who has ever tried a case before him knows this, including literally hundreds of current and former assistant United States attorneys.
Anyone who has simply Googled Judge Ellis' name and read the coverage of other famous cases he's presided over knows this too.
And that doesn't mean I don't want people to get their hopes.
I don't know what Paul Manafort did in 2005 and 2007.
I do know that Most of the people that testified in this case were all given immunity.
And that means against prosecution.
And others, you know, in the case of their star witness, Gates, I mean, admitted to basically every single crime that you could possibly admit and being a liar and an embezzler and everything in between.
Now the question is, how does he become their star witness?
And how's the jury going to view that?
And maybe it just comes down to numbers and accounts and the boring details of how money was exchanged or handled, which is at, I guess, the heart of the whole case.
I have no idea.
But I think the thing that everybody's missing in all this is everything we talk about every day.
How did we get here?
How is this Mueller's big case?
You know, he's got 29 people he indicted that are never going to see a courtroom in the United States.
So that, okay, gives him a little Russia connection to this whole thing.
You know, he indicts the equivalent of CIA operatives in Russia.
They're never coming to the United States.
They seemed ill-prepared when they went after these Russian bot companies that they say were trying to influence the election, but they defended themselves in court.
And then Mueller says he wants to prevent them from even having simple discovery.
That case seems to be falling apart as well.
If he's not going to allow discovery, then the case can't go forward.
It means the indictments will have to be withdrawn in some way.
So that's not working out particularly well.
You know, the fact that all these other people that are involved in the 2016 election and that there are real crimes associated with the 2016 election, it's obvious that if you were to delete subpoenaed emails and use bleach bit on your hard drive and beat up your devices with hammers, that I think most of you listening to me would be arrested.
Just like the Espionage Act has put innocent people in jail.
Just like if any of you dared to ever lie or commit a fraud before a FISA court judge, good luck to you and your life.
It's not going to work out well for you, which happened repeatedly by using the fake, phony Clinton bought and paid for dossier with a foreign national putting it together that turns out to be Russian lies.
And then they never verified or corroborated it, but they signed off that they verified it.
They signed off that it was legitimate and corroborated.
They purposely didn't tell the judge that Hillary paid for it on four separate occasions.
That's a fraud on the court.
That is an illegitimate document presented to the court.
Most of us will go to jail over these types of things.
And all these Yates and Comey and Rod Rosenstein, they all signed off on this thing.
No wonder why they don't want to hand it over and allow us to see the FISA court applications and the renewal applications.
Because we already know the bulk of information was Steele's dossier.
These are insane times we're living in.
Now, you know, you're losing.
Here we've now peeled away every layer of the onion.
McCabe is gone.
Comey's gone.
Strzz is gone.
All these other people are gone.
And now we have the Inspector General report now leading to an investigation into the FISA abuse.
But we did have real Russian information that was fed to the American people, even vis-a-vis our CIA director, or Obama's CIA director at the time, the former communist Brennan, handing it off to Harry Reid.
And then all of this through Christopher Steele, Bruce Orr, and others being leaked to the media, all designed to propagandize and misinform the American people to sway an election on top of putting the fix in on Hillary's investigation.
That was to keep her in the game.
And then a group of people beginning not only exonerating her, but them beginning this phony Russia investigation much earlier than anybody anticipated or saw.
And that was their insurance policy after they had, you know, said, of course, we're going to stop him.
We need an insurance policy.
It's like a 40-year-old dropping dead, okay, in case Trump happens to win.
And they've implemented all of that.
If they care about Russia collusion, what about Adam Schiff on the tape, you know, begging for every single solitary detail of naked pictures of Trump and Russia?
That doesn't seem to come up very often in Mueller's take.
And I guess they're going after him.
And I guess now the next target is Roger Stone.
We'll talk to him later today.
He's actually gone out there and said they're obviously targeting him.
Why are they targeting him?
What did he do?
Did he have any influence?
By the way, what if he did try to get information on Hillary Clinton?
Is that a crime?
Well, I mean, let's listen to the conversation with Adam Schiff, Shifty Schiff.
We know what he's done.
All right, we see that Democrats insist Peter Strzzok's firing doesn't undermine the legitimacy of Robert Mullo's investigation.
Time will prove otherwise, I am convinced, even though it was launched by Strzzok under false pretenses and a obvious, clear, present political agenda.
What if Strzok isn't all that important to the Destroy Trump movement?
Why are so many Trump haters rushing to pay his legal bills?
Anyway, you know, who says that sending anti-Trump texts to your girlfriend doesn't pay?
Anyway, Peter Strzok, they seem to have garnered enough to raise more than $250,000 for his legal suspense on his GoFundMe page on Twitter.
The page was launched on Monday.
Friends of special agent Peter Strzok.
They initially sought $150,000 to be put in a trust dedicated to his growing legal costs and lost income.
That sum was reached so quickly, they now have gone up to $350,000.
And they say he's a man of integrity.
We saw that on display clearly.
There are new developments.
It appears that Bruce Orr had 60-plus contacts with Christopher Steele.
Remember his wife, Nelly, worked for Fusion GPS.
Congressman Mark Meadows has pointed out that Bruce Orr will come before Congress on August the 28th and answer why he had 60 plus contacts with the dossier author Christopher Steele as far back as January of 2016.
He owes the American public the full truth, Meadows tweeted.
Lawmakers obviously believe Orr now is key to finding out how the Clinton campaign, the DNC, paid Fusion GPS and Steele to fabricate this conspiracy of Trump and the campaign Russia collusion at the top levels of the Justice Department and the FBI.
Obviously, Orr's contacts with Steele, the ex-British spy that put together the Russian dossier lies, are said to date back more than a decade.
And, you know, this is the guy also, too, remember, that was fired from the FBI.
And they continued contact both before and after the election.
Emails handed over to Congress by the Justice Department show that Orr, Steele, Simpson communicated all throughout 2016 as they were digging up dirt paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
And Congress rightly now is set to grill Bruce Orr on these secret contacts with Christopher Steele with the members of the House Judiciary Committee and others.
This will be interesting come the end of this month.
Trey Gowdy telling Martha McCallum last night that the Justice Department is doing what Bruce Orr does right now.
Both men are prosecutors.
It's unbelievable a prosecutor would insert himself into an ongoing investigation for which he had nothing to do.
Well, he worked for the Department of Justice.
We're getting to the bottom of it.
It's getting worse every day.
It's all beginning to unfold.
All right, 25 now To the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
Let me give you the latest on Manafort's defense team.
Rested today without presenting a case.
Prosecutors resting their case yesterday.
Closing arguments are set to begin 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The attorneys will confer with T.S. Ellis III later today to discuss jury interactions.
Now, there's 18 counts of tax and banking crimes, and the jury has now gone home for the day.
They were brought back into the courtroom to learn that Manafort is not presenting a defense.
The judge told the jurors to go home, reminded them, as always, that they must not discuss the trial.
Said the court is now in recess when we will begin a hearing about jury instructions.
On their way out of the courtroom, the defense attorney Kevin Downing said that the defense rested because the government has not met the burden of proof.
Anyway, so what's playing out for the rest of the day today?
They're now having both rested their cases that the attorneys will now confer with the judge, discuss jury instructions.
Ellis said he will announce his decision on another technical issue that the attorneys have asked about.
And this all begins 9:30 tomorrow morning.
Ellis encouraged each side to keep them under two hours.
And the judge called Manafort to the podium to answer a brief set of questions, all before the jury was brought into the room.
Ellis asked if he discussed testifying with his lawyer.
I have, Your Honor.
Ellis asked if he was happy with his lawyers.
Manafort said, responded affirmatively.
Ellis then asked if he made a decision about testifying.
I have decided.
Ellis asked if Manafort would testify.
No, sir.
He took a seat.
Manafort is not obviously required to testify because of Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Ellis made this clear during his brief conversation with Manafort.
You have an absolute right to testify before this jury.
You have an absolute right to remain silent before this jury.
So it's going to be interesting.
I think, you know, if they do keep it to that, you could even have this sent to the jury as early as tomorrow.
And we'll be watching all of this very, very closely.
We have other news today, some of which is pretty interesting.
National Democrats are kind of pretending what is going on with Keith Ellison is not happening.
It seems to be getting bigger and bigger.
You know, if it was Donald Trump news, that it would be all over the place.
But now we have a, you know, apparently a high-profile Democrat, Keith Ellison.
You know, Democrats have not said a word.
Nancy Pelosi, nothing.
Kirsten Gillibrand, nothing.
Hillary Clinton, nothing.
Diane Feinstein, nothing.
What do we hear from Senator Warren?
Nothing.
Camila Harris, nothing.
Maxime Waters, nothing.
Prominent Democratic women, the most vocal supporters of the Me Too movement, they're all now circling the wagons, seemingly around their party leader, Keith Ellison.
And, you know, according to news that has come out today, a second woman now has accused Ellison of domestic violence, and a 911 report supports this woman's accusation.
This weekend, a woman by the name of Karen Monaghan accused Ellison, currently a candidate for attorney general of Minnesota, of being physically, verbally abusive towards her.
Allegations were posted on Twitter, were also posted on Facebook by her son, and the post has now gone viral.
And she took to Twitter over the weekend in a series of tweets to support her son's post about the assault.
Following these allegations, another woman claimed that Ellison had abused her during a relationship.
And so we're going to watch this unfold.
But the only difference is his last name is not Trump.
I don't know what happened in this particular case.
I wasn't there.
But certainly, there is a different double standard as it relates to the news media in this country, which is my only point.
I do believe people deserve the presumption of innocence until they're proven guilty.
That's not how the media has been working in a lot of these cases.
What else do we have here?
Some other news that I want to get to if we have time on RussiaGate.
If there's any question just how afar Robert Mueller is in this Russiagate investigation and how it's running out of gas, this latest development, assuming it's true, could remove all doubt.
The Hill's reporting that Amarosa is now saying she's certainly willing to share recordings from her time in the Trump administration with the special counsel Robert Mueller and that his office has already reached out to her.
I mean, you can't even make this up.
Anyway, but asked by Chris Matthews if she has tapes from her time working in the Trump administration beyond the two that she has shared publicly in recent days, she said, I have plenty.
Anything Mueller would like to see?
Well, if his office calls again, anything they want, I'll share.
Anything they want, I'll certainly cooperate.
She didn't elaborate on what previous interactions with the special counsel, what they may have involved, but asked if she believes Trump will be impeached.
At this point, yes.
I mean, you just, you can't make this up.
You really can't.
What other news do we have today?
I mean, there's a lot going on.
It's unbelievable.
There is some good economic news.
Does anyone ever care about the good economic news?
We have small business optimism has now hit a 35-year high in the country.
News surveys, small business owners are now more optimistic about the economy than any time since the beginning of what was the Reagan Revolution and the Reagan boom, which really began in 1983.
A year later, Reagan won re-election in a 49-state landslide.
Small business optimism now marked its second highest level in the survey's 45-year history at 107.9, just below the July 1983 record high of 108, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
The index reading was expected to decline a notch from June's 170.1, and the rise to 107.9 was four basis points higher than the highest estimate of economists that were surveyed by Bloomberg.
The July report also contained good news for workers with seasonally adjusted, a net 23% of small businesses now planning to create new jobs.
37% of owners said they have unfilled job openings.
Small business owners are now leading this economy and expressing optimism, rivaling the highest levels in history, according to the NFIB president.
Expansion continues to be a priority for small businesses who show no signs of slowing as they anticipate more sales and better business conditions.
We have other good news.
President steel tariffs have now generated a multi-billion dollar windfall in new revenue for the U.S. government.
CNBC reports in less than five months, the Trump administration collected more than $1.4 billion in new revenue from steel and aluminum tariffs, according to a recent report prepared for by members of Congress, which, by the way, we all want free and fair trade.
Congressional Research Service estimated between March and July, the U.S. reaped $1.1 billion and $344.2 million from levies on foreign steel and aluminum, respectively.
We now see those jobs coming back in a pretty significant way also.
One other point on Mueller, a landslide of the American people, say they're losing patience with Robert Mueller and his investigative fiasco, and they want him to wrap up things by election day, which kind of gives the bumbling special prosecutor a little more than two months.
Two-thirds of Americans would like to see Mueller finish the investigation into Russian election interference before voters go to the polls in November.
Democrats are more apt than Republicans to think Mueller shouldn't aim to wrap up things before the election.
Of course not.
Majorities across both parties say you ought to be able to complete the investigation before voters head to the polls.
Well, that would be good for the country.
Why would we ever want something like that to happen?
Which, you know, you just, you can't make this stuff up.
It's pretty unbelievable.
What other news?
You know what the sad thing is with the media is, you know, I noticed that fake news CNN is actually saying, well, these people that we have on tape, and I'll play it later in the show, we played it yesterday, even calling for the assassination of the president, that these same people were there to stop hate.
And I'm listening to it, and it's person after person after person.
They either want to punch the president in the face, slap him in the head, slap him around, or assassinate him.
Now, that used to be a crime to threaten the president of the United States.
I don't think anything's happening, though, that shows that that's anti-hate.
Unbelievable.
Oh, one other thing on Amarosa, she apparently has secretly recorded Jared and Ivanka.
I guess we're going to get a tape a day.
And the president fighting back, but at this point, I don't even see any point for it.
Anyway, let's get to our busy phones.
800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
Brian in Albany apparently wants to argue with me about something.
Brian, how are you?
Glad you called.
What's going on?
Hey, Sean, thanks for taking my call.
I am a periodical watcher of The Hannity Show at 9 o'clock.
And my question for you is very simple.
In your endless defense of Donald Trump, why do you constantly talk about how the media is unfairly covering this president?
Trump is the engine that drives the car.
The media is responding to what he's tweeting, what he's saying, what he's doing.
I don't understand why you feel the need when talking about the media coverage to call it fake news and witch hunt.
And you're actually the one who's propagating a message through the media, a pro-Trump message.
And I just don't understand why you're always beating on the media and calling the media the mainstream media.
Fox News is the most watched media network in the country.
Aren't you guys the mainstream media?
Well, no, not really.
I mean, in many ways, I would say, I want to answer your question thoroughly.
Number one, I'm a talk show host.
Number one, I give opinion.
I give strong opinion, but we also do straight interviews.
We had one with Jack Dorsey of Twitter, for example, recently.
It was just, okay, an informational interview.
I do interviews with Roseanne Barr occasionally or other straight interviews, even with politicians, just to get information.
So, you know, what's in the health care bill?
What do you want to have in the health care bill?
Why isn't this in the health care bill?
Those are all straight interviews.
We also obviously do opinion.
We also do investigative reporting.
I do my own research most of the time.
I have my team that helps me with some of the research, but I have my own sources.
I make my own phone calls.
As a talk show host, you wear many different, you know, many jobs are included, including, yeah, we do journalism.
We do straight journalism.
We do investigative reporting.
We do opinion.
We do debate monitoring.
do everything.
The difference between me and any of these people that you're mentioning is they say that they're journalists.
I'm saying I'm the entire newspaper.
News, information, opinion, we do it all.
And we tell people we do it all.
I turn on any of these channels and you can turn them on any point at any time of any day.
And all you get is nonstop hysterical coverage about Donald Trump.
You don't get any coverage of the success that he is now and the things that he's accomplishing.
They've ignored the biggest abuse of power scandal because of their own political bias.
And I think that's a big part of the story.
The way they say things, the things that they say every day and the things that they claim to be are not true.
And we point it out.
It is but a small part of what I do.
We're giving you news and information you're not getting anywhere else.
You know, our stories have been proven to be true.
We did learn that Hillary violated the Espionage Act.
Everything we told you about her subpoenaed emails that she deleted or acid washed with bleach bit or destroyed her devices with hammers turned out to be true.
She and the DNC did pay a foreign national through funneled money through a law firm through GPA Fusion GPS.
That's all true.
And that Christopher Steele, the foreign agent, yeah, had an opinion that was anti-Trump and he used Russian lies that were propagated to the American people for the purpose of influencing them with Russian lies before the election and similarly was used after the election as a weapon to destroy Donald Trump.
We have FISA court judges that were lied to repeatedly.
That information that was never verified, corroborated, that ended up being debunked was presented to these judges with the purposeful omission that Hillary Clinton paid for all of this information, a vital point that they didn't present to the judges.
That's a fraud against the court.
That too is a crime.
Also, the considerations that were given by people that we now know through Freedom of Information Act requests and different documents that have been subpoenaed and turned over to Congress, which has the authority for checks and balances, we've discovered that most of the people involved in the Hillary Clinton investigation had a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump bias.
You know, like Hillary should win $100 million to zero and that we're going to stop Trump and that we've got an insurance policy and that he's loathsome.
Those are the same people that were writing an exoneration before even investigating that case.
So all of the things that we have covered have turned out to be true.
You can't give me a single bit of evidence because it doesn't exist about any Trump-Russia collusion of any kind.
But I can play you a tape of Adam Schiff talking on a phone that was recorded by Russian hucksters, hoaxers, and he thinks he's getting dirt from Russia about Trump.
Okay, and so Buceva met with you.
No, no, I don't want to play this now.
I'll give you, go ahead.
You can respond to all that.
Yeah, I mean, half of the things that you just said there are either utterly conflated or just give me one thing that I said that is fact.
Wait, wait, wait, one thing that I just said that's false.
There is absolutely zero evidence of any attempts of collusion by the Trump campaign in Russia.
That is utter nuts.
Tell me what it is.
I'll tell you what it is.
A meeting in Trump Tower between Trump's entire campaign and Russian people close to the Kremlin while President Trump is the only floor.
That's not collusion at all.
Then you would say the tape of Adam Shifty Schiff is collusion.
I have that tape and all that was discussed at that meeting by everybody and all the evidence showed they talked about Russian adoption and that things that were promised that they might have some dirt on Hillary were never delivered, never even discussed.
So there is no evidence of any collusion.
What you're saying is false, and it's been repeated over and over again by leftists like you.
Look, I can't convince you.
If you want to convince yourself that you want to believe the worst about Donald Trump, go right ahead.
But it's not going to end up well for those on your side because the country's succeeding in spite of you.
Have you been asked to appear before the special counsel's team?
I have not, but it has been publicly reported that they have interviewed and subpoenaed a number of my associates.
I know that there exists nowhere evidence of Russian collusion or WikiLeaks collaboration or any nonsense pertaining to John Podesta's email.
But I'm also mindful of any prosecutor's ability to squeeze underlings to get them to compose testimony against a bigger fish.
I have not been contacted by the special counsel's office.
I've made it abundantly clear that there's no circumstances under which I would testify against the president.
I would not rule out cooperating if they think I can be helpful in some area.
But beyond that, I have not spoken to them.
That was Roger Stone from earlier last night.
And Roger Stone has now written a piece about all of this.
Signs growing that Mueller is zeroing in on Roger Stone is a headline on The Hill in their article.
He joins us now.
And, of course, he has a Stone's Rules, which is his brand new book out.
You even go against your own rules in your article.
How are you?
Excellent.
You know, generally speaking, Sean, I think the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
But last Friday, I might have taken exception to that when my longtime associate Kristen Davis went before the grand jury, when my longtime traveling aide Andrew Miller was charged with contempt because he refuses to allow them to violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
And it was revealed that Randy Credico, who I swore under oath before the House Intelligence Committee, was the source who told me that Assange did have the goods on Hillary and would publish them in October, received a subpoena.
By the way, that testimony was 100% accurate and truthful.
So by the way, why would that even be?
There is no evidence whatsoever that I either colluded with the Russians, collaborated with Wikileaks, or knew anything in advance about John Podesta's devastatingly embarrassing and incriminating emails.
Well, let's just stop for a second and leave your statement on its face value for a second.
What if you did know?
Well, that is an interesting point.
You see, Sam Nunberg and other misfits have been out there saying that Stone can be charged with defrauding the United States.
Really?
Prove that Julian Assange is a Russian asset.
Prove that WikiLeaks is a Russian front.
I know that John Brennan and James Clapper repeat this lie constantly, but it's never been found to be true in a U.S. court of law.
And you and I, I think, both believe it to be nonsense.
Well, I mean, I did interview Julian Assange both on this radio program, and I flew to England, and I asked him specifically if If it came from Russia, this leak, et cetera, he was adamant in saying, no, it wasn't Russian.
Nobody connected to Russia and it wasn't a state party.
But, you know, if we're really interested in getting to the bottom of it, I have said all along, in my humble opinion, he would be the one guy that I would assume would have the actual proof and evidence of where it came from.
And there was a report last week or the week before that, in fact, he might be invited to testify before the Senate.
And I think that would be a good thing for the country to have resolved, don't you?
I totally agree.
In fact, there's been a lot of speculation that Ecuador would soon expel him from the embassy, that the British government would extradite him to the United States to stay in trial, although it's hard for me to understand what the charge would be, unless they intend to charge the Washington Post and the New York Times as well for publishing class forward information that they got from a whistleblower.
That's what journalists do.
But he is the one person who could clear this up.
Yes, Julian Assange, more than any person on the planet, could really clarify these matters and I think put the lie to the deep state claim that Assange is a Russian asset, which he is not.
Well, let me go to what you think Mueller is trying to accomplish here.
I mean, Kristen Davis is known as this famous madam in New York.
And she had a run for office herself many years ago.
You're friends with her.
And why is she being drawn into this?
Well, first of all, that was 10 years ago.
Kristen Davis paid her debt to society.
It's ironic that she went to prison and Elliot Spitzer, the guy she provided high-level prostitutes for, went on to have a show at CNN rather than doing any time.
There is a little irony in her life.
She's a single mother.
She's trying to launch a cosmetology business.
She's certainly not engaged in any illegal activities today.
But, Sean, she's worked with me, kept my schedule, worked with me on some IT projects.
She put herself through school to learn web design.
She's a fine person.
She has no knowledge of Russian collusion or WikiLeaks collaboration or any other illegal act.
Nor does Andrew Miller, nor do any of the people who have been brought before the grand jury.
So the expression witch hunt comes to mind.
In fact, I think it's a fishing expedition.
Why me?
Because I'm for Donald Trump and I won't back down.
So I'm not sure whether their goal is to silence me or whether their goal is to try to get me to flip and testify against the president I've known for 40 years, but that's not going to happen.
I'm not going to do that, no matter what they come up with.
You even said in this piece, you know, I guess a lot of people have perceptions of other people that they're extraordinarily wealthy, but we've learned in this, all of this nonsense that has gone on.
You know, General Flynn serves his country for 30 years.
Even Peter Strzok and James Comey said there was no indication at all he's lying, but he can't afford attorneys.
And I would assume they were probably putting the screws to him, just like they are Manafort, so he'll sing or compose for the purpose of getting to Donald Trump to impeach or prosecute.
I think the same thing is going on all over the place, to be honest.
And in his case, he had to sell his house.
You know, thanks for serving your country.
The FBI didn't think you lied to them, but we want you to sign here, or maybe we'll go after your son and your whole family, and you won't be able to afford to defend yourself.
That's exactly what's going on with me.
Sean, there are stories you can find online that say Roger Stone is worth $20 million in their dreams.
You know, I'm not a wealthy man.
I work for a living to provide for my family.
I work hard to flog my books.
And I'm glad you enjoyed my most recent book.
By the way, I break every single rule in the book, and every other rule is about how you dress.
And I dress like a slob because I'm wearing jeans and t-shirts and baseball hats.
You've got some of the best neckties on television I have ever seen.
Well, I know there is one hour a day that I clean up.
The point of, of course, this is that, yes, they try to destroy you financially.
Between the Democratic National Committee lawsuit against me, between this Obama-based group that sued me, a suit I recently got dismissed, between the House and Senate intelligence committees, between Mr. Mueller poking into every single aspect of my personal life, Sean, my private life, my family life, my business life, my social life, my political activities, my legal fees are set to run a couple million bucks, which I don't have.
So I had to set up a legal defense fund at stonefensefund.com.
And I thank the thousands of patriots who are donating.
I could not stay afloat.
I could not fight without them having my back.
But I'm fighting for something larger here because you're absolutely right.
This isn't about Roger Stone.
It's about taking down Donald Trump.
It's about trying to flip me and get me to testify against him.
Let me tell you, Roger.
I'm not sure what they're going to come up with.
I am not going to do that.
I don't know what you have done or haven't done in your life.
I don't know.
I know you.
We've mostly gotten along over the years.
You've taken a few shots at me, which is fine.
I probably deserved them.
I'm looking at what's going on with Paul Manafort, what Judge Ellis has said, exactly what you just repeated, and I am disturbed.
More importantly, this was supposed to be about Trump-Russia collusion, and we're digging down deep into a 2005 tax case as a means of putting the screws to him.
And it has nothing to do with collusion, nothing with Russia, nothing with the campaign, nothing with Donald Trump.
How did the mandate ever cover such a wide, wide range of basically anything you want to go after, you're free to go after as a special counsel?
Secondly, we do have evidence of Russian interference.
We had warnings that Obama said ignored of Devin Nunes.
That should bother everybody.
Devin Nunes warned us all in 2014 the Russians wanted to influence our election in 2016.
Obama told Trump in October of 2016, stop whining and go out there and try and get some votes thinking Hillary would win.
And what have we discovered?
Hillary paid for a phony dossier full of Russian lies that was spread by the former CIA director to Harry Reid to literally influence the American people with what they knew were lies.
Those same lies were used, never verified, corroborated, and it was used four times to obtain warrants to spy on a Trump campaign associate, American citizens.
They never corroborated the information.
They never verified it, nor did they tell the Pfizer court judges on four separate occasions that Hillary bought and paid for this.
All of that has to do with Russia.
You want to hear about Russian collusion?
We've got a tape of Adam Schiff, you know, breathlessly, you know, begging for naked pictures of Donald Trump as he being hoaxed as a hoax has taken place with some Russian prankster.
That's on tape.
I don't see any interest or resolve to get to the bottom of that collusion or conspiracy.
So I have an entire distaste in my mouth, and I feel that we're losing the country.
I feel if we can lie to FISA court judges that Hillary Clinton can literally have an investigation fixed, there's no American that will get away with deleting subpoenaed emails, acid-washing their hard drive, and beating up their devices the way she did, Roger.
Those are all crimes.
She got away with it.
All these FBI high-ranking DOJ officials, they all committed crimes.
They all tried to steal an election here, and the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
So I don't know what you did or didn't do, but we do know these things happen, and nobody seems to give a rip.
Yeah, no, look, Sean, no one has connected the dots like you have.
And in fact, I think we both know that the entire Russian collusion investigation is a distraction from a much more serious crime.
And that is the use of the phony dossier, which was produced with the assistance of Russian intelligence and by the Clinton campaign as the phony rationale for the use of surveillance by the state, the power and the authority and the capability of the state to spy on Donald Trump's campaign.
Yes, that is a crime far more serious than Watergate.
The New York Times reported on January 20th, 2017, that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Page were all subject to FISA warrants.
Whistleblowers have come to my attorneys and pointed out exactly where my name was redacted from the Carter Page FISA warrant application release two weeks ago.
There's far more of this story to be told, but I have no intention of turning on the president.
I will fight, but I need the support of patriots like you and like others to give me this forum to tell my side of the story because the mainstream media is obsessed with Russian collusion when they should be obsessed by the illegal and unconstitutional acts of the Obama Justice Department and the Obama FBI.
I remember a conversation, a private one.
I won't go into all the details that I had with Paul Manafort after all this.
And he actually said the words, there's nothing for me to tell.
In other words, he didn't have anything that they wanted.
Thus, the case goes forward.
And look at his partner, Rick Gates.
What was he facing?
Up to 100, 200 years in jail?
And meanwhile, he admits he's a liar.
He embezzled.
He committed tax fraud.
He's guilty of every single thing that the government says Manafort's guilty of, but they gave him a get out of jail free card.
Well, that is not exactly a credible witness to me, but there is a 95% conviction rate in federal court.
No, you're absolutely right.
In fact, Gates said on the stand that he had embezzled $400,000.
I believe it's more like $3 million.
So clearly, the rules are only for Trump supporters.
I learned that the woman doing the questioning of my associates in front of the grand jury is 23.
Wait a minute.
Let me get this straight.
So the woman who, as a private attorney, represented the Clinton Foundation in the email case, which is one of the subjects for which I am being investigating and being investigated, is now conducting the investigation of me.
Can you say conflict of interest?
I don't even know what to say.
All of this thinks to high-heavy.
All right, got to take a quick break.
We'll come back more with Roger Stone on the other side, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, as we continue, Roger Stone is with us.
His book is out, Stone's Rules, which you can get at his website.
And here's my fear, Roger, that they are ignoring major crimes that they say their mandate causes them to act on.
And they're ignoring the biggest abuse of power scandal to literally steal a presidential election from the American people.
If we don't solve this abuse of power, the fundamentals here, we've lost the country, Roger.
It's gone.
It's over.
Our constitutional republic will be dead.
You can't have a dual justice system.
You can't.
If you don't have equal justice and equal application of our laws, it's over.
That's just a fact.
There is really only one answer, in my opinion, and that is President Donald Trump needs to clean house.
He needs to terminate Mr. Sessions.
He needs to terminate Mr. Rosenstein, who ought to himself be prosecuted.
He needs to terminate Mr. Mueller.
This is a witch hunt.
It's interesting that the courts have ruled that Mueller's appointment is perfectly okay because he has the oversight of acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the president.
But the president and Rosenstein are both, at a minimum, witnesses in the Mueller investigation and therefore conflicted.
That's a conflict.
Well, there's two conflicts for Rod Rosenstein.
He signed the fourth FISA warrant, A, which was never verified or corroborated, and he should be answering questions.
And B, he recommended the firing of Comey.
And a third conflict, if you will, is his friendship with Robert Mueller.
Add to that that he is withholding the FISA material from Congress on the basis of national security when it has nothing to do with national security.
It has everything to do with raw politics.
Rosenstein is a weasel and a criminal, and he's the one who ought to be investigated and prosecuted, in my opinion.
We'll be watching very closely.
What is RogerStone.com?
What's your website?
You can go to stonecoldtruth.com.
All right.
Thank you, Roger Stone.
And his book, by the way, you can find there as well.
Stone's Rules, 800-941.
Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
Glad you're with us.
800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Joining us now, John Highbush is with us.
Somebody I've gotten to know.
He's the executive director of the Reagan Foundation, author of a newly released book, The Second Coming, a sequel to the Shroud Conspiracy.
And he highlights what's different, what's the same about Ronald Reagan, his administration, and Donald Trump, the current president.
What's different?
The media, the people, the protests, the conversations, et cetera.
I think it's a fascinating read and a fascinating question.
And I wanted John to come on a couple of minutes and talk to us about it.
How are you, sir?
Oh, I'm just great, Sean.
Thanks so much for having me.
It's great to be with you.
Reagan Library, it is a must-see for anybody that wants to just spend a little time and learn about one of America's greatest presidents and one of America's great turnarounds.
And it is fascinating to me because there is a distinct stylistic difference between Reagan and Donald Trump.
Reagan was the ultimate gentleman.
Reagan was always polite.
Well, not necessarily, but he was forceful.
Donald Trump is abrupt.
He is straightforward.
He's an iconoclast.
He feels a need to break things and doesn't ever shy away from any controversy whatsoever.
Doesn't play the political game at all.
But I look at their policies on taxation.
I look at their policies on Supreme Court justices and judges in general, originalist.
I look at their even their philosophy, policies on immigration, although the 86 bill we can talk about specifically, peace through strength, the need for energy independence, ending burdensome regulation.
I see so many similarities, and I think we're beginning to see the similar results that Reagan brought us to by implementing conservative policies.
Your thoughts.
Yeah, Sean, you hit it.
I don't know I could describe it any better.
You couldn't find two men who are more radically different in their styles, but who are also so perfectly aligned in terms of their policies.
I think President Trump has executed a very Reagan-like agenda.
So in reality, you know, what he's been able to pass through Congress and the things he's done are, they're so much like Ronald Reagan, and I don't think he gets enough credit for it.
You know, it's interesting because if you go back over the years and people forget this, Reagan was hated, absolutely despised by establishment Republicans.
They're the ones that said that he was an amiable dunce and an actor or grade B actor, et cetera, et cetera.
They're the ones who are Bush who said, you know, voodoo economics.
Well, voodoo economics gave us the longest period of peacetime economic growth and 20 million new jobs in America.
And Reagan and Trump both were able to do something that few Republicans can do, and that is get the working men and women on their side.
Yeah, you're right, Sean.
You know, it's funny now, the media has a love affair, it seems, with Ronald Reagan now.
But, boy, if you look back, you're right.
I remember Reagan saying, remember, he talked about he had a bile in his throat about the media.
I mean, the way they treated him was so much like President Trump.
It's just in Reagan's case, he actually had to work through the mainstream media, right, to get his message out.
There was no internet, you know.
Al Gore hadn't invented it yet.
And so the way that Ronald Reagan could get his message across was through the media.
I think with President Trump, he's got, at least he's got the advantage of being able to tweet and reach the American people directly with this message.
But, you know, times and technology have changed so much, Sean.
Yeah, I mean, talk radio was in its infancy.
I mean, Rush didn't syndicate nationally until 1988.
That's the end of the Reagan presidency.
And, you know, think about Fox News not existing until 1996.
It's a different media environment.
Then you had social media and Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and all these other means of communication.
You know, the president with one tweet can reach millions of people, like 100 million people.
It's massive.
His ability to buy pay.
He doesn't need the media anymore.
These press conferences have become dog and pony shows.
They're just a waste of everybody's time.
There's no need for them anymore.
Yeah, that's right.
And that's a result.
I think, Sean, what's interesting is because President Trump and the media seem at war with each other now, it's just fascinating to see how remarkably same he and President Reagan are with respect to each other.
It's just that the media and the technology, everything is just so much different.
It took even years later, but even Democrats begrudgingly began to acknowledge the success of Reagan.
Everything is going to be judged through the prism of success.
Is this president going to follow through on his promises?
He's doing it.
Jerusalem, Iran, North Korea, borders and taxes and regulation and energy and all of these policies.
And if he's successful, it'll be amazing how many people turn around and say, yeah, he was a great president, but they had no vision that he could be.
And I think that, you know, different times call for different type of leadership.
And I think American politics, our political system, is in such a dramatic state of decline that it needs this jolt or shock to the system that is known as Trump, who is literally moving at his pace and not playing along with how the swamp and the sewer in D.C. works.
Yeah, isn't it interesting, too, Sean, that at a time when the media, and I don't mean just the editorial, but reporters and all the talk show hosts have made Trump the enemy, at the same time, they've never been making more money, right?
I mean, the New York Times subscriptions have increased and eyeballs have increased and, you know, everything's gone.
All the subscriptions are up, but yet he's the enemy, too.
Well, you know, we have the highest ratings we've ever had by far.
Yeah.
And we're number one in cable.
And it's in large part because the media is so hostile towards him like they were hostile to Reagan.
But John Highbush, it's an honor to have you on.
Executive Director, Reagan Foundation, author of this new released book.
It's called The Second Coming, a sequel to the Shroud Conspiracy, highlighting the differences and what the similarities are between President Reagan and Donald Trump.
It's a great read.
And thank you so much for being with us.
Yeah, thanks so much for having me, Sean.
I'm honored to talk to you.
It's just been an honor to have you here at the Reagan Library when you're able to come.
So thank you.
I would love to be back as soon as I can.
Thank you, sir.
800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
Van is in Florida.
Van High, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
I'm doing well, sir.
Honored to speak to you.
How are you doing?
I'm good.
How are you doing?
I'm doing very well.
And my name is Van Johns, not Van Jones.
That's a good thing.
What's going on?
Listen, there's so much I want to talk to you about that we don't have time.
I just want to run one thing by you here real quickly.
I think you'll understand.
Mr. Trump is the same person now that he was back in the 70s, back in the 80s, back in the 90s.
He was revered by everyone, the Democrats, the media.
They all wanted him to be at their parties.
They all wanted to be like him.
He was revered.
Now he is reviled.
And all he did was change jobs.
Listen, I got to be honest.
That's the thing that I think makes him successful.
Donald Trump has been successful because he's running government like a business and he moves from issue to issue to issue to issue to issue.
And okay, that's done.
Now let's move to this.
Now let's move to this.
You know, Mitch McCall saying, well, you know, it doesn't require Harvard experience for Washington.
And, you know, it's not the way we do things around here.
And, well, that's the problem.
You know what?
You're supposed to have, they need a sense of urgency to serve the people of their states and their communities.
And I don't see that urgency.
And when people are on food stamps and in poverty and suffering, and the country's not safe and secure, and you know what?
Where's the sense of urgency?
I mean, I want to pull my hair out myself and go fix Chicago if I could.
I mean, I can't believe that 71 people can be shot and nobody blinks an eye.
I'm like, where's the sense of urgency to get in there and save lives?
It makes no sense to me.
I don't roll that way.
I get up every day and I hit the ground running.
And I have a job to do every day.
And I work hard to do this job the best that I can.
And most Americans do the same.
You know, politicians telling us, what, that they're going to watch 71 people get shot and not move and fix it?
I don't get it.
That's their job.
Go do your job and do it expeditiously and to the best of your ability and keep your promises.
What's so hard about keeping your promise?
You know, try telling your kids if they get straight A's, you'll take them to Disney and then say, well, never mind.
Good luck with that.
It's not going to work.
Team, keeping your promise is not hard for people such as you and myself and people like Mr. Trump.
And like I said, sir, again, all I was saying is, you know, that Trump derangement syndrome, TDS thing, or whatever, that got started.
And all I'm saying, again, along the same lines, the man went from being revered to being reviled, and all he did was change jobs.
He's the same guy.
Yeah.
And that, by the way, and keeping his word.
There's nothing he's doing that is the opposite of what he said, which is kind of the MO of most politicians.
All right, big time AJ Houston, Texas, has a big announcement.
He made some new friends over the weekend or recently.
What's going on, big time?
Big time, Sean Henry.
Hey, I met my girls, Diamond and Shilt.
You did?
Where did you meet them?
They were at the Hilton here in Houston Sunday.
And what a fun time we had.
Oh, it was great.
Did you tell them we're friends?
Did you tell them we're friends?
Oh, I told them.
I told them.
I say, I know it was one of y'all I talked to with Sean Henry, but both of y'all are so awesome.
I don't know which one it is.
But what, Sean, I get the chance to hug both of them and take a picture with them.
I think it's supposed to be on their website or something.
I don't have that Facebook, but it should be on a Facebook website or however you can get to it.
But, Sean, I tell you, them girls are so funny.
They're so awesome.
They talked about how they got into the groove.
And it was like, wow.
And you know me, I had to holler out.
I say, well, it's going to be a red wave in November.
Did y'all hear that?
I'm not so confident in a red wave as you are, but I hope you're right.
Oh, oh, Sean, we've got to save this country because this election is one of the, this is just as big as the Trump election.
This elect, this got to be what's going to pool the Republicans.
We're going to drag them over the top since some of them don't have the cojones to do what you're doing, Rush doing, and Trump doing.
I mean, what is the people missing?
And when I asked the liberals, I'm like, do you have your eyes open?
Are you looking?
I mean, they're trying to give Obama credit for what Trump done.
I'm like, Jesus, are y'all idiots?
You know what they are?
They're just political hacks.
That's it.
They just, all they care about is the game.
You know, look, I mean, I'm watching with a little bit of amusement and a little bit of sadness, to be honest.
This Amarosa is now the love of the liberal media.
And let me tell you, you know, two days from now, they're not going to care about Amarosa at all ever.
And they're only, you know, this is the latest thing that they can focus and fixate on so they can avoid discussing the biggest abuse of power scandal in American history that if we don't get right, we're going to be in deep trouble as a country.
I'll tell you that.
And we're not going to have a country.
You saw that.
And right quick, and for the black folks, Amarosa and Obama, they got into soft spots.
And blacks, what the liberal blacks, they always say what we can't get there and can't do.
Them two got there and failed the country.
I mean, I'm sorry, people.
29% of the blacks are born with Trump right now.
I say it's more, really, but the media not reporting it.
And I'm like, look at Diamond itself.
Look what they're doing.
I mean, come on.
What are they not looking at, Sean?
I mean, yes, I'm betting they had a very big crowd as well.
I bet they had a good crowd.
Oh, it was a night.
They had wine.
They had good snack food.
Oh, it was set up beautiful, Sean.
Them girls are slow.
Hey, real quick.
They say, yeah, we had to get secret service.
And but we had to get secret service because they wanted to protect the people from us.
That's hilarious.
They want to go along with that protests.
They say, where they had.
I played the boy.
Them girls had a crying laughing, Sean.
Well, good for them.
You know what?
They're wonderful people.
They got great senses of humor.
They stand up for what they believe in, and they take a lot of grief for it.
But you know what?
They entertain people at the same time.
It's a perfect combination.
Big time.
I got to roll.
We love you.
Thank you, my friend.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
We'll talk about the media corrupt coverage of everything when we get back.
Joe Concha is going to check in.
All right.
We have about a minute plus here.
We'll give it all to Kimberly in Connecticut next on the Sean Hannity show.
Kimberly, hi.
How are you?
Glad you called.
Hi.
Hi.
Thanks for having me on.
I'm here today's primary day in Connecticut.
Only 2,000 registered Republicans have voted so far of the 12,000 who are able to.
What race are you talking about in particular?
Okay, this is a gubernatorial race between the five Republicans.
So we have two mayors and three businessmen.
Stefanowski has Arthur Laffer's economic plan for Connecticut.
Stefanowski is the strongest conservative candidate for the Republican Party.
Stefanowski has the backing.
How is the turnout that low?
I mean, that is amazing.
Everyone's shockingly low.
Yeah.
A dumb time to have a primary.
It's only 15% of all registered Republicans in the state of Connecticut have voted.
Whoa, there's only 12,000 registered Republicans in the whole state.
I'm talking about, sorry, this is Colleen Kernet.
Colleen Prennit.
All right.
Well, I got to run.
But all right, Kimberly.
What a dumb time to have a primary in the middle of August on a Tuesday.
People don't have their brains straight.
All right, we'll take a quick break.
We'll come back.
So we also know who was a mediator between Trump and Russian government, who met with ex-advisor of Trump, Mr. Flynn.
It was Russian singer, very famous singer, Arkadyo Kupnik, who met with Mr. Flynn on Brighton Beach in Brooklyn in a special Russian cafe, Langeron.
What's the name of the cafe?
Langeron.
Langeron?
Yes, it's on the Brighton Beach.
Okay.
It's a special, right?
It's a Russian district in Brooklyn.
And do you know what was discussed?
They discussed many things, but the most interesting thing is they use a special, they use the special password before their meetings.
When they met each other, they said, weather is good on Zerubasovsky.
Weather is good.
Yeah.
And where?
Weather is good on Zeribasovsky.
There is a name of a street in Odessa.
Did you hear?
Yes, I did.
We are asking people what they would do if President Trump were to show up at this march.
Some of the answers have been pretty stunning.
Here they are.
What'd you do if Donald Trump showed up at the Trump?
Murder him?
Murder him for the people?
How about you, man?
Now I'll tell Trump to get on the f on the floor and scrub those toilets himself because he don't know how to clean.
He needs to learn.
He needs to learn how to clean?
Scrub some toilets?
Yeah.
I mean, yo, he's America's Caesar accepted.
So, you gotta take him down.
Trump!
If it came down to it and it was a group effort, we'd have to do him like a Duffy.
Like a Duffy?
Yeah.
What would you do if Donald Trump showed up?
No, I'm gonna wild out.
You'd wild out?
Yeah.
Yeah?
I'm gonna f you know.
You'd f him up?
Yeah.
To be honest, if I get a chance to do that, I would do that.
What's that?
If I get a chance to him up, I would.
Chance to f him up?
You would.
Yeah.
How about you?
What would you do?
I would just smack him.
Smack him?
Yes.
I will smack the out of him, son.
That?
Like, for real.
Yeah.
All right.
How about you, sir?
I smack him too.
It'd be like a pimp slap.
Pimp slap?
Not a pimp slap over the surface.
If the president showed up at this march, what would you do, sir?
Beat his ass?
Trump showed up today.
What would you do, sir?
I'd throw the bell at him.
You'd throw a bell at him?
Yeah, why not?
All right.
What would you say?
Tell him the f off.
All right.
What's that shirt say?
Trump is the off, man.
What's that?
I diss on his leg.
What's down here?
I will tell his wife to go home and for him to get on his jet and get the out of here.
Yeah.
And Melania to get out of here too?
Yeah, because you know, he hates everybody, but he forgets his wife.
He's a immigrant, too.
I wouldn't say anything because if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
And with this kind of inspiration, I will go and take Trump out tonight.
Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?
I want to clarify, I'm not an actor.
I lie for a living.
However, it's been a while.
Maybe it's time.
How dare you say the things he does?
Of course I want to punch him in the face.
Press always asked me, don't I wish I were debating him?
No, I wish you were in high school.
I could take him behind the gym.
That's what I wish.
All right, there you hear.
That was from the what, well, CNN described as an anti-hate counter-rally.
I heard a lot of hate and a lot of talk of assassination and a lot of talk of slapping, hitting, beating, punching the president of the United States if they had the ability to, but none of it should surprise us considering all the rhetoric that we've heard out of Hollywood and from left-wingers and what we've been watching with Pam Bondi and Secretary Nielsen and Sarah Sanders and the Trump family and even the president's wife and daughter and kids and granddaughter.
I mean, nothing surprises me, even his 12-year-old son and four-year-old granddaughter.
Nothing at this point surprises me.
All right, joining us now, he's with The Hill.
He covers all things media and has been on through all these crazy media cycles.
He's kind of a unique island in the media in as much as he's actually a little fair and balanced and calls out his fellow people in the media.
I guess that takes you out of the circle or the loop or the, I don't know what you want to call it.
But I mean, they've got this bubble that they live in on Twitter and amongst themselves.
And they seem to just think alike, use the same words and phrases and sentences and spin.
John Notchum.
Yeah, Sean.
I'm not in the trust tree anymore, I guess.
No longer allowed in the group.
You know, I don't really care.
I don't want to be on the big panels and go to the big parties.
I just want to call balls and strikes like any ump should.
Everybody's so compromised at this point.
And mainly even a lot of media reporters are.
And that's a shame because we're supposed to be the refs.
And when they're even being compromised, then we got problems.
Compromise.
I mean, they've gone all in anti-hate Trump.
I mean, it's not even, you know, this is what the media doesn't seem to understand is that there's a reason that trust in them is now at an all-time low and getting lower.
And I think this is one of the big reasons why they're all losing audience and losing in ratings wars because they are, you know, predictable and they have opinion and they try to serve it up as their news channel and they're not a news channel.
Well, that's right.
And we've talked about this before.
You're an opinion maker, right?
And yeah, I know you break news on your show through like the John Solomons and the Sarah Carters and the Greg Jareds.
And I get that completely, but mainly you're an opinion guy.
And a lot of these people.
I actually beg to differ.
Okay, go ahead.
I'm a talk show host.
Talk show host, you wear many, there's many roles associated with it.
Right.
You don't call yourself an anchor, correct?
Well, no, I mean, if I said I'm a journalist, then that puts me in a very narrow scope.
But a talk show host, I do plenty of straight interviews.
I think I did a straight interview with Jack Dorsey of Twitter or Roseanne Barr.
I think I do straight interviews all the time where it's just, okay, give me answers to specific questions on the news of the day.
But mostly you're where you're at now because of your opinions and your convictions.
Right.
That's what we do.
I give strong opinion.
I also interview newsmakers.
We break news.
We do investigative reporting.
I use sources.
And it's all encompassing when you talk about what a talk show host does.
We do do journalism and we do do opinion.
In other words, I would say we're the whole newspaper.
We're there the news division of the newspaper and they claim to be, but they're not.
Right, okay.
So you're not just the op-ed, but you also are saying you're that.
You're a hybrid.
We'll put it that way.
Yeah, look, I mean, I think that's a lot of the problem here, that so many people are called anchors when they're clearly giving opinions.
I know you mentioned Chris Cuomo and Antifa, and he's still listed, if you look at the CNN bio, as an anchor.
Don Lemon's listed as an anchor, or Anderson Cooper, yet they all have commentary, very provocative commentary on their programs.
And I think when people hear that, they're saying, wait a minute, you're supposed to be the anchor.
You're supposed to be giving us facts and let us decide at home what our conclusions should be.
But, you know, the Antifa commentary by Cuomo last night certainly getting a lot of play.
And, you know, I just remember when Chris actually sent out a tweet last year.
I didn't even see what Chris said.
I wasn't talking about him specifically at all, but I will say this.
They were covering this as an anti-hate protest.
Look, there were 2,000 ignorant racist morons that showed up in Washington.
But by the coverage leading up to it, you would have thought a million people were going to show up.
Yeah, 20, right?
I think it was like 50.
2,000.
Yeah.
And you couldn't even get a football game together with that.
And by the way, I have no problem with people standing up against ignorant, racist, hateful people at all.
Yeah, who would, right?
Yeah, but with Cuomo's point, I think that he had said that, you know, Antifa should not be compared to, basically, he defended them saying that, you know, they're standing up to hate, therefore, that makes it okay.
And, you know, you could read about On the Hill today.
I think it's on Mediight as well.
It's gotten some play.
But, you know, you got to look at it like, you know, he also had a tweet a year ago where he showed Allied troops storming Normandy on D-Day and saying this is the same thing as Antifa protesters, right?
Because they're fighting Nazis.
And no, no, when both sides are using violence to bring home a point, I say you can equate them.
I don't think there is any difference between.
Well, I heard a lot of hate in the tape that the Daily Caller put together as they went into that rally.
And I experienced it recently myself when I was in London and I went into the middle of an anti-Trump protest there.
I was a little shocked that everybody there knew who I was.
They were not particularly happy that I was there.
And I didn't stay particularly long for a lot of obvious reasons.
But, you know, there are calls for and talks of really violent attacks, even assassination of our president.
And it's done daily and it's done openly.
And it wasn't hard to get these comments from people.
Right.
And put the shoe on the other foot.
Let's pretend it's 2010.
Okay.
And let's say members of the Tea Party marched and rallied and reporters were sent into those rallies and you had Tea Party members saying, I want to assassinate the president at that time.
Right.
Could you imagine they would be shamed out of existence?
Not that the Tea Party didn't get a lot of bad press already, but they would be shamed out of existence.
And I can't believe that we're hearing people defend Antifa because if you're going to defend Antifa and say, well, they're fighting hate, therefore that makes it okay.
Then I guess we should have rooted for Stalin as well because he was on the side against the Germans as well in World War II.
That makes him a good guy.
No, you could have both bad people on both sides.
And that's clearly the case here in threatening to assassinate the president, in attacking reporters, including Cal Perry from NBC.
Again, we hear the media screech about these things so much, saying we have to stand up and support the media whenever they're attacked.
But it seems like they want a Trump supporter to be doing the attacking.
But when Antifa does it, it gets ignored.
The bias of omission against strikes.
They're offended at the president saying that the press is fake news and fake news is the enemy of the people.
They're worried about potential violence against them.
And you and I both know the reality if you're in the public eye.
You've experienced it.
I've experienced more than I've ever brought in these airways.
I've had threats against my life.
I have had all sorts of incidents that I've had to deal with over the years.
Unfortunately, that's the reality of being in the public eye.
And I don't want any of my colleagues to do it.
I don't want, if I'm ever at any conservative event and anyone ever went after the press, you know me.
I'd be the first one to dive in and help defend whoever is being attacked.
And you're very capable of doing that, too, from very whole Cobra Kai thing that you got going on.
We do some serious, serious training every day.
It's hard work.
But I would do it because it's the right thing to do.
But words are different.
You know, saying chanting fake news or CNN sucks is not the same as what we're hearing.
I want to murder the president.
I'd kill him.
I'd slap him.
I'd punch him.
I think an awful lot about, you know, whatever blowing up the White House.
Yeah, look, and you look at guys like, you know, Ben Shapiro or even Guy Benson, right?
And Guy Benson's not exactly provocateur.
And he was telling me not too long ago that when he goes onto college campuses and tries to just give a speech, right?
And you think Guy Benson, you're not thinking like Milo here.
I mean, this is somebody who's just a regular conservative.
And hundreds of thousands of dollars in security is needed to protect guys like Guy Benson or Ben Shapiro.
So everybody's got it bad.
And I think when the media tries to play the victim of, oh, boy, you know, we're getting mocked and we're getting chanted at, you know, well, you know, that happened to Sarah Sanders and it happened to Kristen Nielsen and it happens to a lot of people out there.
And it's not just the media.
And I think it's just the way the country is right now.
We're all very polarized and no one knows how to have a conversation anymore.
Yeah.
All right.
More with Joe Concha on the other side.
He is a writer for the Hill.
Right as we continue with Joe Concha, he is a media writer for The Hill.
Let me ask you this question.
Do you see the biggest story that I and Sarah and Greg and so many others have been talking about and the media ignores?
And to me, it is the biggest dereliction of duty I have ever seen in the media in our lifetime.
Can I guess what it is?
Yeah.
I will say it's probably the fact that you had a campaign during a presidential campaign that colluded with a foreign spy to get information from the Russians to take down another political candidate.
That is conspiracy conclusion.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have logic.
It doesn't get covered.
And I think the reason why is they say, well, Hillary didn't win, so that's her punishment.
And that's not the focus because Trump is president.
No, it absolutely should be because the evidence is there.
While we haven't seen the evidence yet against Trump as far as any collusion, correct?
Well, we haven't seen that.
We have seen Hillary pay for, we now know, bought and paid for Russian lies that was disseminated to the American people in the lead up to a campaign that influenced their vote.
It was never verified or corroborated by the FBI or the Department of Justice, but it was used as the basis of a FISA warrant.
They never told FISA court judges that it was paid for by Hillary Clinton, an important omission.
And we also know that if you really care about Russia and you really care about Russian interference, well, Barack Obama missed all the warnings of Devin Nunes and the like and lectured Trump to stop whining.
And we have Adam Schiff on tape talking to Russians, trying to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, naked pictures and the like, and he's giddy about it.
And yet all of that is ignored.
Well, why cover that, Sean, when Amarosa's father's brother's nephew's former roommate once heard from another friend that maybe Trump said the N-word at one point?
I mean, that's the thing.
Like Amarosa is getting all the media coverage now when she has contradicted herself, when she's been caught in several lies, when she's made up things that are impossible to believe, like Donald Trump swallowed a piece of paper as if to destroy evidence.
The germaphobe did that, really?
And even Michael Cohen, who's no fan of President Trump, said, I never saw anything like that when Amarosa said he was right in the room.
So that alone should have her dismissed from any media coverage or any interview that happens.
She should be getting raked over the coals.
And instead, it's Michael Wolfe, Fire and Fury, part two, where we treat basically gossip as gospel.
And she's going to dominate the news cycle for the next two weeks when it's been proven that she lies, exaggerates, and has no credibility.
But it doesn't matter to anybody because the narrative is the end goal here in terms of anything that can make the president look bad.
Yeah, it's pretty unbelievable.
All right, Joe Concha, we appreciate you for being with us.
And thanks for your time and thanks for your commentary, which is in a world of bias.
Honestly, it is refreshing because you're basically an island unto yourself now in terms of a little bit of objectivity in analyzing news.
Thanks for being with us.
Thanks.
I've invented my own party, by the way, the pragmatist party.
What do you think?
Appreciate it.
Joe Concha, thank you.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, the hot news, the burning issues, all you need to know.
84 days to the midterm elections, the most important midterms in our lifetime.
There's no other way to put it.
All right, let's get to our phones.
Norfolk, Virginia, we have Pat standing by.
Pat, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Sean, thank you for taking my call.
Thank you for calling.
I am an 82-year-old, very conservative Republican.
So I'm not a liberal.
So I want you to know this when I take you on.
Why are you supporting Donald Trump?
Well, because I went into great detail about this yesterday.
If you were listening to the program.
I was home and I wasn't listening at home.
Okay, no, that's fair.
Well, I'll give you the reasons.
Okay.
I think conservatism, I'll start with this, a broad overview.
Conservatism works.
Conservative philosophy helps the forgotten men and women that suffered under Obama's policies that have now been suffering for almost 10 years.
We see the proof in the pudding.
I didn't even think things would turn around this quickly, but they are.
And I agree with the president that we're overtaxed, not undertaxed.
He gave us the biggest tax cut in history.
I believe that government regulation has created a stifling environment towards business, which, yeah, Obama was right.
If we kept all of that big government regulation, we would not be able to see manufacturing centers and factories going up, nor would the president be able to appeal to businesses to continue to invest trillions of dollars in cities like Cleveland and in Ohio and in Michigan and in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and that's all happening.
So it works.
We see it with 4 million new jobs, 2 million fewer people on food stamps.
I agree with the president.
He has now opened up American energy possibilities in a way that it has never been before, which gives us not only the opportunity to become energy independent, but also allows America to create millions of high-paying career jobs for our fellow citizens.
That is important to me.
I agree with the president that we've got to build a wall to secure our southern border.
I've been down there 14 times.
I've seen the crime.
I've seen the drug warehouses.
I've seen the tunnels.
I've been out all over the place on the border.
The statistics speak for themselves, but we can have a big open door and just vet people before they come in.
We're an inviting country.
I agree with the president's peace through strength in making Jerusalem the capital of Israel, which many presidents promised and never delivered on.
I'm appreciative that he pulled out of that ridiculous Iranian deal and is not dropping billions of dollars in cash and other currency on the tarmac of mullahs that chant death to our country.
I'm glad what he's been able to accomplish with ISIS and degrading them to the extent that he has.
I agree with the president's tough position on North Korea, China.
I think we're getting better trade deals because he's willing to just negotiate.
I don't think any of this is about a trade war.
I think it's about better deals and free and fair trade with reciprocity.
So that's the shortlist of what I like about this president.
He's also a guy that is fearless and gets things done.
And he takes on one issue after another.
He also got rid of the individual mandate on health care and has fought like hell to get rid of Obamacare altogether.
Okay, now, the reason I called you is I remember Amarosa.
See, this is what sparked me to call you on Monday because I watched Chuck Todd's interview of her.
I have been working as a volunteer on campaigns.
Now, I mentioned to you I was 82 years old.
Since I was in my teens, I have never missed a vote in my community, even the SOAR Commission.
I worked on Jeb Bush's campaign in the last presidential election.
Now, all those many, many things that Trump is doing, I agree with.
But he waters them down by his ugliness.
Now, you know, to say Amarosa, I don't agree with a lot of things she did because I don't know her personally, but I met her on the apprentice.
To call her lowlife.
You know what?
Do this in the privacy of your office.
Hit the wall and make a hole into it.
But why does he have to character assassinate everybody?
And you know what, Sean?
I have voted in every presidential election for over 60 years.
I walked out of the polls two years ago, left it blank.
And in 2020, I now moved to Norfolk.
I was in New Hampshire for 32 years.
And you know what a great state that is for politicians.
I am going to work my back side off to get Trim Trump out, not impeach him, but I'm going to work in 2020 to get another good Republican there.
And I'm looking at Jeff Flake.
Sean, I love you.
I mean, I have a son that's your age, and my son thinks Trump is the greatest.
But I can't stand that man.
What you're basically telling me is you don't like style.
What you're basically telling me is that, and by the way, I get where you're coming from.
I've had this discussion with many people.
You're talking about style.
President Trump is never, ever going to be the quintessential establishment-like, and I mean this in all sincerity, president.
It's not him.
But I do think that things are so bad that America, it's sort of like, I don't know if you've ever had a pool or taken care of a pool.
It's a pain in the neck.
Don't bother getting one.
It's not worth it.
But you sometimes have to shock the water, shock the system.
I think America's political system needs this electric shock that Trump is bringing to it.
And by that, I think both parties have become corrupt.
You mentioned Jeff Flake.
You know, with all due respect, he's not somebody that can get a thing done in Washington.
He's not somebody that is going to make promises and fight like hell to get it accomplished.
You know, I think the fact that the president fights so hard has been a blessing overall for the American people.
I know it hurts some people's feelings, but I don't know.
Maybe it's the fact that I grew up in New York.
I'm just not offended by it.
I'm not offended by words.
I don't feign this outrage every day that everyone in the media seems to feign.
I look at the results and I look at the promises made and the promises kept, and I find it refreshing.
I look at him call out people for what they are and who they are, swamp sewer creatures, and they're being exposed in ways that we never imagined, you know, when he came down that escalator in 2015.
It doesn't upset me.
I understand your level of being upset, but if you say you're a conservative, I don't see Jeff Flake as a conservative at all.
And I don't see that he has any wherewithal to get a thing done.
And that's part of Washington's problem.
Weak Republicans, inept Republicans, spineless Republicans, Republicans full of fear and not courage, no vision, the people perish.
They can't even keep their promise of seven years to repeal and replace health care.
It's pathetic to me.
And so I feel very strongly that this is a moment in time.
America deserves action.
And President Trump is an action president.
And sometimes when you're doing action, you're going to step on a lot of toes and piss a lot of people off.
And frankly, as long as it's for the good of the American people, I don't mind.
By the way, one other thing on my list, conservative justices.
I don't think there's one thing, if you're a conservative, that he has accomplished that I name to you that you can disagree with.
When you mentioned being a New Yorker, can you hear me, Sean?
Yes, ma'am.
I hear you loud and clear.
Well, I moved to New York in the 50s, out of middle America.
Met my husband.
He's a New Yorker, same as you, but if he was alive today, he'd be 92.
I couldn't believe how caustic New Yorkers were.
So you know what?
We were married in 1960.
I dragged him out of that city to Atlanta in 61, and we never returned.
You know what changed my life?
You're going to love this, Pat.
Well, no, well, that, and I lived in the South.
And by the way, I prefer.
Pat, I would leave here tomorrow if I could get out of here.
I don't want to live in New York.
I hate New York.
Well, that's right.
You lived in Atlanta.
Well, my son was born at Beachtree Hospital, and he's 56 years old.
How old are you?
I'm 56 years old.
You're old enough to be my mom, yes, ma'am.
Oh, I'm 82.
Of course I'm old enough to be your mother.
Listen, I'm only saying, and you didn't answer this part of my question.
I know I've heard you loud and clear on style, but between judges and immigration and tax cuts, ending burdensome regulation, energy, peace through strength, you know, Jerusalem, Iran, North Korea.
Are you saying that as a conservative that you disagree with all these accomplishments?
No.
You don't like Estasoview?
It's all style.
That's all style.
And you know what?
Damn it, he can change that.
I mean, he should have said.
For somebody that's upset with people, style, you just said, damn it, I wish he'd change that.
I mean, you got a pretty tough core yourself.
Well, because it's hitting my hot button.
And I've never called a talk show host until now.
He could have come out and he could have said to the reporters, I'm sorry that Amarosa is going, but she just didn't.
And basically, you want him to be somebody he's not.
Listen, most politicians, and this is an interesting observation you're making, will spend their entire careers hiding who they really are and creating a false image of themselves.
You know, Donald Trump's the opposite.
Donald Trump, he wears it all on his sleeves, and you know where he stands, and he doesn't hold back.
And in a way, if you look at it a different way, it's kind of refreshing that he's not BSing us.
Jeff Flake, to me, who you mentioned, is the biggest phony I've ever seen in D.C. Gosh.
You're too smart for him.
I told you I'm going to investigate Jeff Flake.
I don't support anybody unless I dig deep into them.
He's a snowflake.
Well, okay, I'll look at somebody else, but I am going to work damn hard in 2000 to make sure Trump doesn't win the primary.
I hope I can make a difference.
Well, I love your passion.
You sound like a wonderful person.
And I hope you feel that this was a worthwhile experience as your first talk radio call.
We hope you'll call back again.
Well, I love talking to you, Sean.
I really do.
Well, you're very sweet.
You're very kind.
I hear the goodness in your voice.
I would just say to you, this country is headed, it was headed down a headed down on a slope that really frightened me.
I think that we're exposing all of these flaws of the deep state ought to scare every American.
I think we're at a precipice, a tipping point for the country, for our constitutional republic.
And this is not a time to be soft-spoken.
I think there's a time to be, you know, gentle, and there's a time to be forceful.
And right now is a forceful period.
And you know what?
We need to fix the country for the sake of our fellow Americans.
And for me, that's all that I care about.
I'm not in this for me.
I'm not in this for fame, money, anything anymore.
I'm done.
I just do it because I really think that this country is at a tipping point.
And if we don't fix it, we're going to lose this great gift that I believe was divine providence from God.
Love you like a son, because like I said, I'm out in the car every day.
So I listen to you every day.
Now, I'm going to tell you something.
He's going to dump on you down the line because he dumps on everybody.
And when that happens, I'm going to fly from Norfolk to New York and take you out to dinner.
Let me tell you something.
There's nothing anybody in this world can say about me anymore that I care about.
I have given up this idea that I have to please people to be happy.
And this isn't a selfish, you know, just the reality is, is you either know who you are, where you stand, or you don't.
And I am standing in my core.
I know my heart is with the forgotten men and women of this country that have suffered needlessly because of, frankly, the horrific policies of government.
And I want to do all I can, because I still am that person, to make sure that every American has the opportunities that God has blessed me with in my life.
And if you want to call me names, he wants to call me names.
The liberal media calls me names.
I just don't care.
I'm not going to live my life caring what other people think about me.
I just refuse to live that way.
I'm going to give you more.
When I was about your age, I stopped caring.
You got it.
No, it's freeing because in the sense that if I cared what these people said about me, I couldn't function every day.
No, I wouldn't be able to be who I am.
And I am being blunt, brutally honest with you.
I love this country, and I see a chance to fix it, and I want to take advantage of it fully.
Well, I've been doing that for years.
And as I said, you know, one person can make a difference.
But anyway, I love you.
God bless you.
You too.
What about the woman that used to call you all the time and she brought her grandchildren into New York to your office?
I can't think of her name.
I don't remember.
Linda, do you remember who she's talking about?
No, I don't.
Well, if you think about it, you let us know.
Listen, take Linda's number.
We'll give you a number.
You can call us whenever you want to yell at me, okay?
Well, did I really yell at you?
I didn't mean to yell at you.
I wanted to know.
No, you were not.
You are very respectful and kind.
Don't worry.
You're good.
He was brought up that way.
I know.
I don't know.
I think I need to jump in, Pat, and say you gave him a little bit of New York today.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think you went a little New York on me is right.
I think Linda is absolutely right.
There you go, Pat.
That's right, girl.
Own it.
Own it.
When I was living in New York in the 50s, I was a flight attendant with United.
And that was a lovely job.
It was a great job.
Those were the good old days.
Now a flight attendant, I don't think it's as good a job as it used to be.
All right, listen, we love you.
Thank you, Pat.
God bless you.
You're welcome anytime.
And we do appreciate your being with us and being out there.
And I think this was a worthwhile call for a lot of people.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for tonight.
All right.
New huge developments as it relates to Deep State Gate.
It is now unraveling even more deeply than we thought.
We'll have the latest details.
Sarah Carter, Mark Penn, joins us tonight.
We'll get the legal analysis from Greg Jarrett and David Schoen, also Jesse and Jessica, and Dan Bongino, Sebastian Gorka, and how obsessed the media is with their new favorite star, Amarosa.
That and more tonight at 9, Hannity Fox News.
We'll see you then, and we'll see you back here tomorrow.
