The Russians are coming! Senator Rand Paul announced today that he has traveled to Russia and lawmakers there have agreed to visit Washington in the coming months. "Instead of having a big debate and blaming President Trump for things that happened under Obama," began Paul, "We ought to be securing our own elections." Paul reminded 'Hannity' audiences of Reagan's success with Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev. Plus, Paul talks about his visit with Gorbachev and other Russian officials. 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, glad you're with us, 82 days.
I know, I know.
I'll be we're gonna wait till after Labor Day to go full bore because I know many of you are on vacation, maybe listening to me on a boat, and maybe you're about to pull in a big fish and have a great day.
Maybe you're about to drink a beer and say, Hannity, just don't get me all riled up today.
I'm not, I'm in a good mood.
I'm relaxed, I'm vacationing.
Not something we do a whole hell of a lot of uh in the summer.
But we, you know what, we get our days here and there like everybody else, and um fishing is one way that you can have fun.
I'm good for a good couple hours of fishing, and then I'm done.
It's like get rid of me.
Uh, we are awaiting a verdict in the Manafort trial, and uh the jury is deliberating.
And so uh if that verdict comes in in the course of the show, we will get a heads up ahead of time and we'll bring it to you.
I would say the odds are very much against Paul Manafort because of just the way the federal system works, and you know, it's how many people got immunity, how many people got it?
Well, Rick Gates, their their lead star witness, gets a get out of jail free card.
I mean, the whole system to me is absolutely ridiculous.
I mean, so you take somebody that's an admitted liar, uh, somebody that embezzles, somebody that admits multiple felonies, somebody that's facing over a hundred years in jail, and you sit him down and you say, okay, you tell us about your partner, you won't go to jail, but he will.
Uh, what do you need?
What do you want me to say?
Say it's all his fault.
You don't think that happens?
Happens every day.
I talk to more lawyers.
And look, some of you say, well, that's the only way you're gonna get information on bad people is from other bad people.
There's got to be other ways.
And to me, in this particular case, you know, you probably could have just used the numbers.
Use the accounting, use, you know, if it's about bank fraud, if it's about a tax issue and not paying taxes, I don't know.
It's just the whole thing leaves a horrible taste in my mouth.
But that's what my guess is.
But the media will go nuts.
They'll act like it is the biggest conviction in the history of mankind if it does go down that way.
And what you're gonna know, because you listen to this program is what we've been saying.
How did we get from an investigation in a special counsel that's supposedly looking into Russian collusion in the 2016 election?
And how did we go so afar from that mandate to end up with a 2005 tax issue and tax case and tax, you know, going into other years as well, dealing with a guy that worked for Trump about a hundred days and was the former campaign manager.
You don't think he was, you know, singled out for prosecution, persecution, because this had already been resolved.
They literally pulled this case out of mothballs, and it had pretty much been resolved that they weren't gonna prosecute it.
But because of the connection of Donald Trump, the name of Donald Trump, the fact that he worked for Donald Trump, they went full bore.
The case has nothing at all to do with Donald Trump.
Nothing.
Case has nothing to do with collusion.
The case has nothing to do with Russia.
The case has nothing to do with the campaign.
Then you have to ask yourself, well, why is it such a big deal?
And why are they covering it on TV all the time?
Because the guy worked for Trump for a hundred days.
So that's you know, that's the benefit you get if you want to put yourself in the public arena and for politics, they they want to get a name so they can see we we convicted somebody of what?
What in this particular case?
You know, Ken Starr, everyone forgets got Webb Hubble.
Remember back in, he actually had some substantive results in the case.
Anyway, we'll watch, we'll wait, we'll let you know.
It is interesting.
Zogby has poll numbers out.
Remember, Trump hit over 50% in the Rasmussen poll.
He's been around 50% now for some time.
Rasmussen who got it right, by the way, in the 2016 election.
I think the American people are seeing the success and a different view than the average news media person.
On top of that, Zogby shows by a pretty wide 45 to 34 margin that uh voters find Donald Trump more likely to grow the U.S. economy.
And by a similar margin, they also trust Trump to keep America safe.
Well, the first one was trust Trump to grow the U.S. economy.
Both cases, the Trump approval numbers show steady gains.
Democrats are pretty much flatlined in this.
That's going to mean a lot in 82 days.
I think the most important factor you're going to have to understand, or people are going to have to get, and I'm a little concerned 82 days out.
Number one, I don't see the sense of urgency.
Not that I would necessarily expect it in a midterm election year, but I don't see the sense of urgency for people that like the president's success and like the fact that things are getting better and you know, millions of jobs are created and burdensome regulation has been decimated and taxes have been lowered,
and you know, millions more Americans are back to work, and the president's lobbying, you know, big corporations to build their factories and manufacturing centers here in America, and he's incentived other incentivized others who literally have parked their money overseas because of ridiculously high taxation.
They now have an incentive to bring that money back to America to create American jobs.
We see it in the manufacturing sector every day.
I think we're going to see the biggest energy boom the country has ever had, but unfortunately, the lead time to build up to the new environment is difficult, but I think we're going to get that done.
And I think that's going to be great for the American people.
And, you know, watching Maxime Waters have her birthday wish to impeach Donald Trump.
You know, she was, I'm sure they've talked at length with her and on others who are saying it, don't say it.
We'll do it, but don't say it, which is pretty much a lie to the American people.
It's not like they can run on the eight years they supported Obama's mess.
It's not like they can run on Obama care.
It's not like they can really run.
I mean, I I'm not sure how you make the case that the tax cuts that Americans see in their in their checks every week or every other week or every month, depending on how they get paid, that somehow they're not looking at those thousands of dollars as crumbs.
They're looking at it as real money in their pocket that helps their families.
And interestingly, they were defined as crumbs by Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren.
Well, if they're just crumbs, why are you fighting to get them back so badly?
Why do you want the crumbs?
You like crumbs?
So I think uh that's revealing.
Or getting rid of ice and eliminating the protection of our borders seems like a pretty dumb idea.
Then you got the hard left taking over as, you know, any chance you hear them, it's kind of scary.
I mean, uh, you even have uh Andrew Cuomo.
Now, this guy thinks he's gonna be the president of the United States.
He does believe it.
He does have presidential aspirations for his life.
Andrew Cuomo giving a speech yesterday.
This is what he said.
America was never that great.
Here's what he said.
Look, the simple point is all this comes down to this.
We're not gonna make America great again.
It was never that great.
We have not reached greatness.
We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.
Oh, and ever America's never been great.
I think it's true.
I think there are legitimate criticisms.
America's not a perfect country.
There's been no perfect country ever in the history of man, and I stand by there's never been a country that has uh accumulated more power and abused it less than the United States of America, or that has used its power to protect and serve and advance the human condition the way the United States of America has.
Yeah, we could talk about wrongs and injustices and and also if we're gonna look at the full historical context, how in their brilliance, our framers, our founders, they created a system under which we can change things for the better, and we've proven we do change things for the better.
And uh, but I think if you look at America's pivotal Role in numerous conflicts around the world.
It's America that takes on radical Islamists more than anybody.
We're paying the price for that.
And we've lost how many American, you know, how much of our American treasure, our sons and daughters.
How many other people have been disfigured and lost limbs and legs and arms and have sacrificed for the for the cause of liberty and freedom in other countries as well as our own.
You look at America beating fascism.
America led the way and defeating the tyranny of communism and the tyranny of fascism and the tyranny of Nazism and Imperial Japan and, you know, what would the world look like but for the United States of America?
America was never that great.
Well, I'm sorry, but I actually think, yeah, America is pretty great country.
And I'm I'm proud to be a part of it.
And I'm thankful and I'm appreciative.
And when you really get down to it, we all should be humbled that so many others before us were willing to risk everything so we could have better lives.
And we could live in freedom and have discussions like this, although there's plenty of people that would like to shut programs like this down.
America was never that great.
Anyway, CNN, uh, yeah, even one of their, I don't know, I guess one of their political analysts.
I never heard of Angela Rye.
She's echoing those comments.
I mean, there are a few radical leftists that are slamming it and a few people that are speaking out against it.
One is, I guess, uh, his opponent, Cynthia Nixon, who is mocking him for what he said.
And uh in his what, you know, she called a failed attempt of sounding like a progressive.
She's trying to unseat.
She's best known, I guess, from uh what's the name of that show that she was a part of that sex in the city.
She's running.
They didn't give a very good campaign speech when I saw her recently.
I was like, oh, good grief.
She's running to the left of Cuomo.
That's even worse.
You know, we've got a lot of work to do in this country.
Um, one thing I do want to talk about, though, is uh there are a lot of people that need to lose their security clearances, like John Brennan.
John Brennan never deserved a security clearance.
How he got one, I think is a question that needs to be examined in and of itself.
How did this guy ever get a security clearance?
Now, the federal courts have no jurisdiction over an executive branch decision.
This is an Article II issue of the president to revoke's security clearance.
Uh, Greg Jarrett's point out there's even a Supreme Court decision on such Department of Navy versus EGI.
Now, there's some limited recourse for procedural claims if it wasn't, if it was done improperly.
I think we were the only show on television last night to actually take the time and read to people what it actually says in terms of CIA policy.
It's very direct.
I mean, if you want to keep your security clearance, well, you have to do certain things to keep it.
And the CIA rules say that such in the case of former directors.
Well, that would be Brennan.
The agency holds their security clearance and renews it every five years for the rest of their lives.
However, that requires former CIA directors to behave like current CIA employees.
Well, I mean, we have example after example of how Brennan and people like him have lied.
And in the case of the dirty dossier was spreading false Russian lies to influence the American people in a lead up to an election and other issues as well.
We're going to get into, I think there's a whole list of people that we ought to just get rid of all their security clearances based on their conduct.
It should be standard operating procedure.
If you get fired, like uh James Comey or Peter Strzok or Andrew McCabe or Sally Yates, and you get caught lying and you're involved in improper conduct, you you ought to lose as a matter of course your security clearance.
James Clapper's insane rhetoric, he's another one.
Susan Rice, Lisa Page, Bruce Orr.
You know, what was the Samantha Powers?
Why was she unmasking as a UN ambassador, 300 people in an election year?
You know, I'm just going to be very honest here.
People lose their security clearance because they're a national Security risk.
It's an honor to have such.
Now, if you're out there insinuating uh that the president of the United States is treasonous, or you know, you're making claims as a former CIA director.
Oh, Donald Trump colluded with Russia.
There's tons of evidence.
And there's no evidence.
And you lie to Congress, which by the way, a lot of these people have lied to Congress and have lied so repeatedly.
I mean, this media meltdown about John Brennan.
Yeah, well, he did accuse the president of treason.
You know, and he's getting paid by a so-called news agency to do so.
And, you know, Brennan, you know, is is frankly, I think he's a little unhinged.
And his erratic conduct and behavior, I suspect he knows that a lot of this is going to come back to him.
And I think there's fear in John Brennan's heart for the things that he knows that he's done and that it's going to be proven.
You know, I also think, and nobody seems I can't believe the country does not get outraged that Bernie Sanders was robbed in a primary.
I really for the life of me, I don't get it.
I mean, this is the United States.
You rig a primary, you try and rig an election.
That ought to be problematic.
You know, the whole issue of the dossier and and people like Brennan propagating that phony unverified dossier.
He is the CIA director.
And he's literally purposefully misinforming, propagandizing the American people because he wants a said candidate to win.
And he's out there calling the uh president a traitor and accusing him of treason.
I want to know Clapper's role in all this.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of people that should lose their clearances.
We'll maybe name those names when we come back.
A lot to get to today, 800 941 Sean.
25 till the top of the hour.
800 941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
The manager of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, now warning fellow Democrats, do not campaign with the Democratic National Committee co-chair Keith Ellison.
After now two women have accused Ellison of domestic abuse earlier this week.
Minnesota Democrats have largely been silent about the Keith Ellison domestic abuse allegations, but not former Clinton manager, Robbie Mook.
And he had the following exchange uh on CNN fake news, and he says, to your point, I think it's still very early.
I think we need to let the process play out to look and see if this is true.
And if it's true, I think he needs to be held accountable.
And I don't think people should be campaigning with him.
Apparently, there's a tape of this that goes on for some two minutes.
You know, a blanking B is, you know, in that type of language, and physically, you know, pulling this woman off a bed, according to one.
Matt, the only thing I would say is a lot of you probably haven't heard about it because Keith Ellison, top-ranking DNC official, is not Donald Trump or anyone associated with Donald Trump.
Because, of course, at that point, it would be, well, a different ball game.
Sunday, a former Ellison girlfriend claiming that in a fit of rage, he dragged her off the bed feet first, saying some pretty awful things.
Two days later, a police report emerged documenting claims by a second woman who alleged that Ellison visited her house uninvited, assaulted her, causing her to call 911 and report the domestic assault, which is now a matter of record.
So we'll see.
I guess you're only in trouble in life if you're if you're a conservative or a Republican.
Doesn't matter if you're a Democrat at all.
I want to go back to this John Brennan thing because the media, we have the media freak out montage over this whole Brennan issue.
Let's play that and and just set the table because this is their their outrage of yesterday.
And my hope is that Brennan is just the beginning.
Let's play it.
This is without precedent in in modern American history.
I mean, security clearances have never been used to punish people for speaking out.
This is nothing short of extraordinary, and we should all be scared about the state of our democracy.
The president sent his White House press secretary out there today to basically poop on the people from the press secretary podium and for not only threaten, like they didn't just make a threat, it was a promise.
They're snatching John Brennan's national security clearance.
We begin tonight with a chilling action taken by the president of the United States that looks something like something you might see out of a dictate dictatorship or authoritarian regime.
Trump is under fire for Nixonian enemies list tactics.
Those are the accusations of at least one former FBI official after the White House is publicly admitting that it is retaliating against former CIA director John Brennan.
Um I think what John Brennan did more closely associates what they did in the former Soviet Union, as he was the one that leaked the unverified dirty Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier for the purpose of really swaying in a an American election.
Why else would you do that?
You didn't verify it, you didn't corroborate it, you didn't do any of those things.
You just handed it off to Harry Reid.
Harry Reid writes a letter to Comey.
now becomes a big deal.
The salacious details leak in the hopes that Hillary's lies, Russian lies that she paid for, then used to influence the American people before they go to the voting booth.
Excuse me.
I would say that is the far bigger problem by a long shot, if you're gonna be honest.
And uh again, nobody seemed to care that Bernie Sanders.
I care about it, hear a lot about it.
You know, and John Brennan himself goes on uh, you know, fake news uh MSNBC.
And by the way, we have some of his lowlights.
Let's play John Brennan and who he is as a commentator, the former communist, whoever how he ever became a CIA director is mind-numbing, but here's some of the crazy stuff he said.
Donald Trump has badly sullied the reputation of the office of the presidency with his invective, with his constant um disregard, I think, for human decency.
He is, I think, the most divisive president we've ever had in the Oval Office.
He is feeding and fueling uh hatred and animosity and misunderstandings among Americans.
I think there's a big question, first of all, in terms of those who are on Mr. Trump's national security team, whether they can continue to serve in good conscience, an individual who basically betrayed his nation.
What Mr. Trump did yesterday was to betray the women and men of the FBI, the CIA, NSA, and others, and to betray the American public.
And that's why I use the term that this is nothing short of treasonous.
I think he's afraid of the president of Russia.
Why?
Um, well, I think one can speculate as to why uh that the Russians may have something on him personally, uh, that they could always roll out and make his life more difficult.
Mr. Trump continues to have his uh ignorance of the facts or willful disregard of them.
Again, just to uh follow through on these campaign promises that really were uh very flawed.
I and so many other former national security uh officials are speaking out because of the uh abnormal and aberrant uh behavior uh of uh Mr. Trump.
This is a very large and painful national kidney stone.
The relief we feel afterward is going to be just exhilarating.
I've seen this from despots and tyrants, uh John Brennan goes on to say in his paid gig over at fake news uh conspiracy TV MSNBC.
Um, speaking of Yanking security clearances, it did look like the Obama holdovers at the Pentagon, they didn't have any problem pulling a whistleblower security clearance when his complaints threatened to expose the spy operation that they were running against the Trump campaign.
Yeah, but Trump supporting Pentagon analyst was stripped for his security clearance by Obama appointed officials after he complained of questionable government tactics as it relates to Stefan Halper, the FBI informant that spied on the Trump presidential campaign.
Adam Lovinger is a 12-year strategist in the Pentagon's office of net assessment, complained to his bosses about Halper and contracts in the fall of 2016, said his attorney.
And then on May of 2017, his supervisors yanked the security clearance and relegated him to clerical chores.
And there's been other cases as well where, you know, Paul Wolfowitz and others, they were never brought in for anything.
The question is, why why do we say that it's okay?
We know what we know what Brennan has done over the years.
We know his background.
We don't I don't even think he ever should have had one.
I read to you earlier what the CIA, you know, protocol and and statute says.
It says in the case of former CIA directors, the agency holds their security clearance and renews it every five years for the rest of their lives.
However, that requires former CIA directors to behave like current CIA employees.
Well, we know that's not true.
As far as the law is concerned, I mentioned this a little earlier.
The federal courts have no jurisdiction over any substantive decision by the president.
This is an Article II power of his to revoke a person's security clearance is some limited legal recourse for procedural claims that it was done in properly, but that applies only to agency decisions to revoke, so that has no application in in this particular case.
But the president does retain his own inherent authority derived from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the vesting clause, and his broad authority to provide for the common defense and protect national security because the president has unfettered authority over national security matters.
He's permitted to revoke for a stated reason or no reason.
Person who loses their security clearance by presidential order has no due process rights whatsoever.
He is the commander in chief.
And just as the president can classify and declassify any information he wants, he gets the control who has access to top secret information.
And the granting of a security clearance, well, is not a right.
It's given to you, and the president has the full power for reason or no reason, stated or not stated, to revoke it.
It's not a he's not depriving anybody of any right they have.
So let's be clear here.
Now, because you know, it just is uh and I mean it'll be interesting.
I'm sure there'll be a lawsuit here, but John Brennan didn't deserve in the beginning.
He was on the wrong side of the Cold War for crying out loud and supporting communism at the height of the Cold War.
You know, uh my friend Greg Jarrett put out in a column today, you know, Brennan Brennan's partisan attacks against the president create the very real risk that the former CIA director might improperly use classified information to damage Trump for political reason and jeopardizing national security in the process.
And Brennan has repeatedly shown how unhinged he is, and that he can't be trusted with classified or top secret information, how he has a history of leaking, and that makes him a massive national security risk.
And the same thing would apply to Clapper.
You know, he's got the same inflammatory rhetoric problem.
That's a risk.
Again, they might use uh utilize this information improperly.
And we already know, according to information uncovered by the House Intel Committee, the Clapper was involved in leaking the dossier to the media and specifically CNN.
And we know Brennan leaked the dossier, Russian lies to Harry Reid.
Clapper also lied to Congress about the NSA's metadata collection on millions of Americans.
That's a proven lie.
We know James Comey, you know, seriously.
Already he's had access denied, but as far as I know he's still eligible, he should have it revoked also.
Why?
He was fired for misusing his office and leaking such information to his uh Columbia professor buddy, who then leaked it to the New York Times for the stated purpose of getting his friend as the special counsel.
And by the way, it was Comey that cleared Hillary Clinton, exonerated her with Peter Strzok with an exoneration before an investigation.
You know, that's obstruction of justice.
I don't care what anybody says.
If uh any of you in the this audience did what Hillary did, you'd be in jail.
Remember, he also stole government documents, presidential memos.
Uh that was not his property.
That's what he leaked to the professor that leaked to the New York Times.
That's the theft of government property.
That's a crime.
Any of the documents uh were classified As Senator Grassley has stated, well, that's a violation of the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793.
The very thing that Hillary was guilty of violating when she put her top secret classified information on an illegal server in a mom and shop bathroom closet.
You know, or knowingly removing classified documents with the intent to retain them.
Well, Comey did that too.
And Comey signed off on the Pfizer Warrant application.
Remember, you're signing off on something.
You're verifying it.
You're saying you have confirmed and corroborated it yourself.
That would fit for Sally Yates.
That would fit for Rod Rosenstein.
That would fit for people like James Comey and others.
And you got Peter Strzok.
Why do Peter Strzok was just fired?
They should have fired him a long time ago.
And by the way, as part of anybody's firing, you would think it would be standard operating procedures for everybody to take away their security clearances.
We know Peter Strzok did.
We know we used his position in the FBI to clear his favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Absolve her of her crimes for political reasons.
Part of the exoneration before investigation.
Go ahead, try and take subpoenaed emails and erase them.
And then uh acid wash your hard drives with bleach bit and bust up your devices.
Yeah, no, that's not obstruction of justice.
I don't know what is.
And he played a continuing role in using this phony dossier himself.
All part of the attempt to get a Pfizer warrant, which became a fraud on Pfizer courts and four separate Pfizer judges.
It would be deprivation of rights under color of law.
18 USC 242.
Conspiracy to defraud the government.
While we're at it, we ought to take Andrew McCabe's as well.
You know, lying to the DOJ inspector general.
There's an obvious reason you can't be trusted with classified information.
He signed one of the Pfizer warrants, which is a fraud on the court.
Sally Yates fired for insubordination for failing to carry out a presidential directive.
Oh, I'd say she's a security risk.
Take hers.
Susan Rice.
Yeah, I would take it as well.
Um, you know, didn't she lie on five separate shows when we knew otherwise?
You know, Lisa Page, Bruce Orr, and the list goes on.
Take them all.
Why is that a big deal?
President, the president has the absolute power and authority to do it.
These are all people involved in an effort in some way, shape, matter, or form, to propagate false information of the American people vis-a-vis Pfizer, which was the paid-for dossier that was the basis of that warrant that was used four times on top of, you know, circular uh reporting to the judge by you know, vis-a-vis Christopher Steele to Michael Izakoff and acting as if it's an independent source when it's not.
And then, you know, literally standing up for Christopher Steele, even after he's fired for the FBI.
And by the way, the FBI paying him 11 separate payments.
It's unbelievable.
All right, we're gonna get to the bottom.
Sarah Carter's article from uh yesterday, which I think is so damning.
Yeah, what did uh why was there so much contact between Christopher Steele and Bruce Orr.
Hey, wondering if you have any news.
Obviously, we're apprehensive given the scheduled appearance of Congress on Monday.
That's two days later when Comey was going before Congress, hoping that important firewalls will hold.
Uh-oh.
Or writes back.
I don't believe my earlier information is still accurate.
Really?
What are the firewalls?
Also, Brennan loses his security clearance.
Who else should lose it?
Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, Ram Paul, much more coming up.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity show.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Two big issues we're still following today.
All right, it's official John Brennan stripped of his security clearance.
How the former communist ever had a security clearance is a question we're going to get into here in a second.
And Sarah Carter's big discovery that I think is a blockbuster and frankly a game changer.
This is now we now know about Bruce Orr, his contacts never ending with Christopher Steele, and the desire for Christopher Steele to get this information, working with Bruce Orr to the special counsel.
That would be Robert Muller.
That is the unverified salacious dossier that he himself wouldn't even stand by.
And then, of course, a series of 70 plus contacts, including text messages and meetings and emails, etc.
anyway what is what is really fascinating in all of this is this last round that Sarah had just picked up yesterday uh where they're talking about remember you gotta put it in a context the most important aspect of this is a firewall the next smoking gun but you know it was two days before that the uh or two days after that there was going to be the testimony in fact of uh James Comey before Congress.
So then the question is okay well can you explain when he says hi I'm just wondering if you had any news obviously we're a bit apprehensive given scheduled appearance uh before Congress on Monday hoping the important firewalls will hold or writes back no I believe my earlier information is accurate.
I'll let you know immediately if there's any change.
Sounds to me like I haven't heard anything else I assume the firewalls are holding.
Remember he was afraid of of Senator Grassley's inquiries about Steele.
He was afraid of the Senate Intel committee's inquiries into Steele.
Steele was afraid of media coverage of him and anyway so the questions we've got to really get some answers to why was Monday so important?
Monday was the day Comey was going to testify before Congress.
They're nervous here.
We're a bit apprehensive about this what are they apprehensive about?
What are the firewalls that they're talking about holding?
What does that mean?
What are they trying to cover up here?
Sarah Carter who broke this story, Fox News investigative reporter and contributor Greg Jarrett, three weeks and running now the number one New York Times bestselling book in the entire country the Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump, attorney David Schoen, civil rights attorney, liberties attorney and criminal rights attorney Sarah I've just gone over this again and again and again in my mind and to me the firewall is that basically everybody has come up with a story and they're all gonna stick to it.
Exactly and this is exactly why Congress has to question everybody involved not just Bruce Orr, but today George Toskis is being questioned and remember he was the DOJ head of counterintelligence also involved in this I'm sure they're gonna be asking him a lot of questions how was Bruce Orr involved in this how who authorized Bruce Orr to be the back channel for Christopher Steele uh in the DOJ.
And then who authorized the FBI to continue to use Christopher Steele through Bruce Orr.
And this firewall bombshell which it really is suggests that they had put in place parameters, methods of protecting themselves from Congress, from the government you know hiding this information and and it's not surprising Sean because all you have to do is look at the foreign intelligence surveillance uh warrant that was taken out on Carter Page uh which was originally written about uh by the House Intelligence Committee in their Russia report and later you know released in a redacted
version to the public and to Congress where you can see that they never mentioned that Bruce Orr is being used as a conduit.
They never mentioned that they had fired Christopher Steele and that he was no longer uh supposed to be a part of the Bureau's investigation because he basically broke all their rules uh but they continued to use him and where they never really at all mentioned that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee was using their uh Perkins Couie cutout their law firm to pay for this information.
I mean there's just so much here and let's not forget that Bruce Orr's wife Nelly was working for fusion GPS in 2016 and now there's stories out there that she got a ham radio that year and there's curiosity about that in Congress.
Why would she be using a ham radio to communicate all of the sudden you know uh what was she worried about so there are a lot of questions out there there are a lot of significant uh information in these text messages and in these emails that were eventually given to Congress and I'm sure they're gonna be asking those questions.
Greg Jarrett let's go to you and my interpretation is pretty clear on this and you know what are the firewalls plural and what does it mean that I believe my earlier information is still accurate and why was he so apprehensive because Comey's testifying on Monday.
Well Christopher Steele knew that he had committed uh various acts of illegality He had uh used a phony document that he just made up, frankly, because he had a stated purpose.
The purpose he told the Department of Justice was that he would do anything to stop uh Trump from becoming president.
And you know the govern our government knew this.
The FBI knew it, the DOJ knew it, and they didn't care.
They were more than happy to use a phony document that was preposterous on its face.
So Steele, once uh Trump gets elected and things begin to unravel and his name emerges in the media by March of two thousand seventeen, he is frantic that he's going to be exposed for his illegality.
So in one text message he tells Bruce Orr at the Department of Justice that Senator Grassley's letter may implicate him.
Uh in another text he he's worried about Cummy testifying before Congress and exposing him.
In still another he's fretting about the Senate Intelligence Committee contacting him with questions that he can't answer honestly with a without admitting to his illegal conduct.
What let me throw one question back to Sarah.
Would Orr have written three oh twos on the context that uh or the conversations or the con maybe just the e person or person contacts that he had with Christopher Steele.
Would that be standard operating procedure?
I would assume that those 302s were all written by the FBI when they interviewed Orr.
Now, Orr, I would think, would have standard operating procedure.
I think it would be a shame if he did not take notes when he was talking to Christopher Steele because he wanted to document them.
And that's why we see these law enforcement-sensitive documents where Orr had basically written down notes every time he was conversing with someone or meeting with someone.
And there's some 13 requested 302s as it relates to Orr and steel, if I'm not mistaken.
Because those are, as they're related to Orr and steel, because those are the ones that the Congress wants.
Now, Greg may have different information here on this.
Those were the ones, from my understanding, that the FBI, when they interviewed Orr, had on him.
And those were the conversations in which, in the Russia document, which we see the Russia report handed out by the House Intelligence Committee, which revealed that Christopher Steele had told Orr that he would basically do anything to ensure that Trump would, was not elected president.
And that was so important because why at that moment knowing the bias of this foreign uh spy, why at that moment would they continue to work with him without any actual evidence of any type of collusion or any type of connection between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Why were they willing to continue to take this and I think we know the answer to that is because they were also willing Sean to do anything to ensure that Trump would not become president.
Let me bring in David Schon as you read these words you've done a lot of criminal cases in your life and a lot of text messages and emails come back to haunt people I've got to imagine when he's talking about we're apprehensive about Comey's testifying in two days and hoping the fire walls hold and uh so on and so forth.
Why is it so important?
What does that sound like to you?
Well apprehensive sounds like petrified to me frankly um I I could not agree more with your characterization of this whole new chapter here.
Uh this brings the your investigation frankly of the Miller investigation and what's been going on to a completely different level.
Nobody in the country should be able to say now that we don't need a special counsel to investigate or should someone should go begging to Muller to call it off.
Call all bets off because the can of worms has been open now with this or business that's look you you already proved all that you needed to prove with the Comey, the Strook uh the Rosenstein all of the misconduct that's gone on but this is this is beyond the pale.
This is now a Justice Department official this is his wife that's not an afterthought of course the her GPS fusion um connection this is really heavy heavy stuff.
I don't think you have any sense yet of how big this could be.
And now you know if there are any question remaining why these documents have been withheld.
I think what we're gonna discover we still have to get the unredacted Pfizer applications, and I think we're gonna find, as we have already learned, but now we'll have the proof of it, that it relied heavy heavily on this unverified salacious dossier that Hillary paid for with Russian sources,
uh, that they basically recycled the same information to the court vis-a-vis uh Michael Izikov, and that they probably defended Christopher Steele's character, even though they had ended up firing him uh for lying among other things and leaking.
So by the way, what you what you you know, what you also know now is what a joke it is to suggest that the footnote in the FISA application uh was sufficient in any way to discuss the ability.
They knew Hillary paid for it.
It was it was a lie by omission and a fraud committed upon the court.
And I think all of this now is gonna come into the forefront.
Let me just jump in with uh one thing here.
I have among the sixty-three pages that I have of Bruce Orr, his texts, his emails.
Uh I also have thirty-two pages of his handwritten contemporaneous notes of all of his conversations or most of them with Christopher Steele.
Uh they're dated, and they're some of them are very hard to understand.
He has uh really poor handwriting, like a doctor, and and some of it is is cryptic.
But you know, in one case case, I'm just reading one of them right here, uh, he's talking about how Christopher Steele is worried about Comey and Comey testifying before Congress.
And so when Orr testifies behind closed doors on the twenty eighth of this month, I am positive that the questioners will ask him to decipher line by line all thirty-two pages of his contemporary contemporaneousness.
What is this line mean?
What did this sentence mean?
What is this even say?
And it's gonna be a very difficult, laborious process, but it needs to be done because I suspect it will be very revealing.
All right, we're gonna pick up our discussion.
Also, Brennan loses his security clearance.
Who else should be losing those clearances?
Why is that important?
Uh, we'll get to all those details as our panel continues.
Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, Sarah Carter, 800 941 Sean is our number.
All right, as we continue with Greg Jarrett, three weeks in a row now.
His book is number one on the New York Times list, The Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton, frame Donald Trump.
David Schoen, civil liberties attorney, criminal defense attorney, Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor.
I I want to go back to this Trump Tower meeting and fusion GPS, and we have Sarah, the fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson.
Their meeting with this Russian woman, you're really good at saying her name much better than I am.
I just say the Russian lawyer.
Um I may say a wrong, Sean, who knows?
Okay.
But they met they they met before the Trump Tower meeting and after the Trump Tower meeting, and we find out now that she's a client of Fusion GPS.
And in other words, Fusion GPS has Russian clients.
Yes, so she is she is actually a client through uh Previson Holdings, which hired Fusion GPS, a man by the name of Dennis Katyev, who was uh who was actually barred, he was considered an oligarch, uh, connected to the Russians and the death of uh Sergei Magnitsky,
who remember was uh William Browder's partner, and this was part of this whole thing about the Magnitsky Act, where we barred oligarchs, uh Russian oligarchs, uh, from the U.S. from owning homes or in our banking systems or conducting business here.
And we also uh which set off this big battle between us and Russia, and then the Russians stopped the adoption of Russian children.
And this was apparently what was supposed to be discussed at this meeting at Trump Tower.
What we find out is is that Natalia Veslanitskaya or Veselnitskyya, uh however you want to pronounce it, she was the uh Russian lawyer that basically was supposed to have this information on Hillary Clinton, and she came to the tower uh to speak with Donald Trump Jr. and the others, and along with her, was actually a Russian intelligence officer, a former Russian intelligence officer by the name of Renat Akminishan.
He shows up as well.
Now he's living in the United States, and there's some suspicion that Renat Akminishon may have something to do with Christopher Steele, and that he was actually supplying a lot of the information to Christopher Steele, a lot of this erroneous information.
Now what we know is that the night before and the night after, she had been meeting with Glenn Simpson.
And according to her own testimony.
Now, whether or not this is true, who knows this is what she stated, is that she was given pointers on what to discuss when she went by Glenn Simpson when she went to Donald Trump to meet with Donald Trump Jr.
And remember, he didn't reach out to her.
It was some it was through uh a familiar uh friend uh that reached out to Donald Jr. and said that this Russian attorney wanted to meet with him.
I wanna uh I mean this is yet another cor connection, if you will.
His Russian connections all over this, except none of them have to do with Donald Trump.
We'll have more with Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter, David Schoen, and we'll be getting to your call.
Senator Rampall just back from Russia.
He'll tell us about the meetings that he had.
He went on behalf of the United States to uh talk to these officials.
Uh that more as we continue the Sean Hannity show.
Donald Trump has badly sullied the reputation of the office of the presidency with his in effective with his constant um disregard, I think, for human decency.
He is, I think, the most divisive president we've ever had in the Oval Office.
He is feeding and fueling uh hatred and animosity and misunderstandings among Americans.
I think there's a big question, first of all, in terms of those who are on Mr. Trump's national security team, whether they can continue to serve in good conscience, an individual who basically betrayed his nation.
What Mr. Trump did yesterday was to betray the women and men of the FBI, the CIA, NSA, and others, and to betray the American public.
And that's why I use the term that this is nothing short of treasonous.
I think he's afraid of the president of Russia.
Why?
Um, well, I think one can speculate as to why uh that the Russians may have something on him personally, uh that they could always roll out and make his life more difficult.
Mr. Trump continues to have his uh ignorance of the facts or willful disregard of them.
Again, just to uh follow through on these campaign promises that really were uh very flawed.
I and so many other former national uh officials are speaking out because of the uh abnormal and aberrant uh behavior uh of uh Mr. Trump.
This is a very large and painful national kidney stone.
The relief we feel afterward is going to be just as delivered.
This is without precedent in in modern American history.
I mean, security clearances have never been used to punish people for speaking out.
This is nothing short of extraordinary, and we should all be scared about the state of our democracy.
The president sent his White House press secretary out there today to basically poop on the people from the press secretary podium and for not only threaten, like they didn't just make a threat, it was a promise.
They're snatching John Brennan's national security clearance.
We begin tonight with a chilling action taken by the president of the United States that looks something like something you might see out of a dictat dictatorship or authoritarian regime.
All right, there's the insanity, the reaction uh to John Brennan, the former communist CIA director, stripped of his security clearance, and you know, some of the unhinged comments he's been making about the president, even calling him a traitor.
The the coverage in the uh in the news media is so abusively biased and corrupt, it's it's hard to even really describe it to you because we've now had years of serious misconduct uh from this guy.
We know that he is in many ways nothing but a liar.
Uh we know that he's lied to Congress.
We know that the he's made accusations of treason against a sitting president.
Uh we know what the CIA statute says.
You know, during his time as Obama CIA director, he was responsible for the proliferation of Christopher Steele's dirty dossier.
He's the one that gave it to Harry Reid in the hopes that it would be leaked to the American people, which it was, and a letter Reed wrote to James Comey, and the purpose of which was to purposely misinform and propagandize the American people to influence the outcome of an election.
I mean, this is right out of the former Soviet Union KGB type of book, Lie to the American people with a brazenness that we've never seen before.
And he held perpetrate this lie.
That is a gross abuse of power.
And then he used the federal government, weaponizing what is the Clinton campaign opposition research against Donald Trump.
And he did it both before the election and after the election.
And then after stepping down as the CIA director, well, he's now getting paid by a so-called news organization, you know, conspiracy TV, MSNBC.
And uh look at his conduct.
He's anything but nonpartisan.
Now, the the problem is one question is how did a former communist ever get a security clearance?
They're not particularly easy to get.
Okay, he's Obama's CIA director.
He gets through.
But as it relates to CIA directors that retire and their ability to keep their security clearances, well, there are direct rules that the CIA has put out.
I'll read it to you.
In the case of former director, the agency holds their security clearance, and they renew it every five years for the rest of their lives.
However, that requires the former CIA directors to behave like current CIA employees.
Now there's nothing in the behavior of John Brennan that represents how a current CIA officer would behave.
And on that, for that reason alone, it is a slam dunk case.
Anyway, we continue now.
Uh Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor, David Schoen, Civil Rights and Liberties attorney, criminal defense attorney, and now three weeks in a row, the number one New York Times bestseller, Greg Jarrett, the Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
David, let me bring you into this.
The president has every right to revoke the security clearance.
Frankly, I think a stronger question is why did he have one in the first place?
Right.
Look, I'm gonna I'm gonna try to encapsulate this issue in just a couple of seconds.
The president, you're absolutely right, has absolute authority, comes under Article II as an executive power, and specifically the court has said under his power as commander-in-chief.
There's the United States Supreme Court case, Department of Navy versus Eagan, which they said flatly.
No one has a right to a security clearance.
Uh, it's at the discretion of the president.
Listen, the best argument the other side has that they keep rehashing here is well, it's always been done.
Donald Trump wasn't elected to keep business as usual.
It had to be examined.
There's no reason for someone like Brennan to have a security clearance, and he has abused it.
When he says things like Trump is afraid of that the Russians have something on him, people see him as a former CIA director with access to security clearance, and therefore he must know what he's talking about.
He doesn't know what he's talking about, and he just continues to talk.
By the way, no more than he knew what he's talking about on policy issues.
Remember, he was a person in 2016, 2010, who gave a speech as the Obama CIA director that Hezbollah uh was a moderate group that we should try to incorporate into the Lebanese government.
That was his position.
He undercut attacks on Hezbollah and so on.
So he's not a person of judgment in the first place.
But the courts have said over and over again that the merits of security clearance decisions are insulated from judicial review.
Alan Dershwitz last night said maybe the ACLU would sue if he's being singled out because of his criticism of the president.
So that would be so-called you know viewpoint discrimination.
Listen, the courts, not in security clearance issues, but on other issues have said you can't, even if there's no right, you can't uh exclude someone because he or she is black or green or whatever, or um, you know, a gay person, something like that.
That's not this.
And this isn't about a viewpoint.
This is reckless talk.
This is calling the president of the United States treasonous when there's no treason.
Uh, it's an open and shut case.
And and my commentary last night, and I stand by this today is well, who should have their security clearances revoked?
It shouldn't just be Brennan.
I think James Clapper is one, and James Comey is one, and Peter Strzok is one, and Andrew uh McCabe is one, and Sally Yates is one, and people like Susan Rice and and uh Lisa Page and Bruce Orr, just to name a few.
Greg Jarrett.
You're absolutely right.
And you know, John Brennan was an obvious case.
Uh, I wrote a column about it today.
His partisan attacks on President Trump create the very real security risk that the former CIA director would improperly use classified information to harm Trump for political reasons.
This is a man who has a history of leaking.
And he's disposed to exploit confidential material for partisan purposes that would jeopardize national security.
But you can say the same thing Sean about many of the other people you just listed.
Clapper, same reason.
Inflammatory rhetoric he he's a risk that he's going to utilize classified information improperly.
Comey's actually already had his access denied but he is still eligible, which means he could regain access.
People like Comey struck McCabe, these people were fired for misusing their office.
So there is a real and distinct risk they'll misuse classified information.
Well I agree Sarah.
I I also am in total agreement with Greg and I just want to go back to Clapper really quick.
Remember Clapper is being investigated also by Congress because there's insurmountable evidence that Clapper was the one that actually leaked the dossier, the contents of the dossier to Jake Tapper.
So I mean he's another person that uh abused his power and and to many bel many believe that he actually set up that meeting that briefing with President Trump and put together uh the pieces of that uh that brief that was given to then uh President elect Trump so that it would be leaked to the media to give it validity so that it can be leaked.
And let's go back to Brennan really quick.
Sarah one more before you get back to Brennan I one quick question.
The fact that they have a security clearance does that mean at any point any time they want to go look at something they have access to it or they can just demand access to it have they been taken advantage of that or is it only if they are brought into something?
I think it's compartmentalized Sean so it's only if they're brought into something if they're asked something but remember they have access to all the previous information if they so choose that they were involved in that was an issue also with Susan Rice.
It's called historical information and they have access to it.
I think some other people that we haven't mentioned is Samantha Power as well remember there was over three hundred unmaskings with her signature on it and nobody's gotten to the bottom of that.
And the number of unmaskings that occurred with Susan Rice as well and that was looking at those uh very private tech cuts or conversations that people had that were intercepted by the NSA overseas.
So these are issues that still haven't been brought to the forefront that still need to be investigated.
And going back to Brennan, who, of course, had access to all, I mean, one of the highest levels of access to classified information.
He did.
He voted for a communist.
It's been very curious to me that in the 1970s, remember, this was a different time.
Russia was Russia.
The KGB was in full force.
And here was a man who supported the Communist Party.
And I have never gotten a straight answer from anyone as to how John Brennan made it through his success.
security clearance to work for the Central Intelligence Agency when one of the main questions asked by the Central Intelligence Agency during a poly or or any of that is have you ever belonged to or supported a communist party?
How did Brennan pass through that?
I will never know and I will never understand that because it would be like saying I was a terrorist but I'm no longer a terrorist and I'd like to come work for the CIA.
All right Sarah you're right uh stay right there.
We'll continue more with Sarah Carter Greg Jarrett David Schoen on the other side as we continue.
All right as we continue Greg Garrett is the author now three weeks in a row the number one New York Times bestseller, the Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton frame Donald Trump, David Schoen's civil liberties attorney, criminal rights attorney, Sarah Carter investigative reporter, Fox News contributor.
Greg, what as far as everybody that gets fired here, w whether it be you know look at look at Clapper and his inflammatory paid for rhetoric now or Comey being fired or struck being fired or Yates being fired or McCabe being fired or you know to me it would you would think with the firing comes an immediate you know end of any access to confidential top secrets that we might have and and their security clearance would be taken away at the time.
Why isn't that part of the firing?
It it really is, and it it is really the underlying basis and reason for revoking the security clearance.
Uh Sally Yates, for example, was fired for insubordination by failing to carry out a presidential directive.
So she's automatically a security risk to the president who fired her because she refused to carry out an order.
Um if she has access to classified information, just like John Brennan, she might use it to try to harm the president politically.
She was a hyper political partisan.
Why should the nation be put at risk?
And I don't think that Donald Trump is ever going to seek or request at any point their help and assistance on any matter.
No, so as a practical matter, nobody's going to contact these people for any assistance.
And you know, I just want to follow up on something David said.
The president has unfettered authority over national security matters.
He has broader authority under the Vesting Clause, Article II, but he is permitted to revoke for a stated reason or actually no reason at all.
Yeah, something we're not hearing in the media.
It's shocking.
David, we'll give you the last word today.
No, look, both of these stories you've covered today are finally important.
But as for the security clearance, this should be a no-brainer.
Again, it's not a matter of tradition here.
Yeah, we we got rid of uh these folks in public policy positions for a reason.
They were voted out.
To operate now as a shadow sort of a cadre of former intelligence officers and Justice Department officials holding fourth on policy matters is inappropriate and they don't deserve the access.
And by the way, Obama cut off the access of people who whose viewpoint he didn't care for.
That was Tennett, Wolfovitz and others.
They weren't invited to any of the briefings anymore.
That is absolutely correct.
So ostensibly cut them off.
You're absolutely right.
Sarah, we'll give you one more final thought also.
Well, I think the final thought here for me is Sean, finally we're getting to the crux of the matter, and more and more evidence is coming forward, and eventually the American people are going to seek the truth.
And I've been told by a number of sources that there probably is a very good chance that the president will intervene and declassify uh those pages of the FISA that the House Intelligence Committee uh wants in order to tell the public once and for all what actually happened.
All right, we're gonna leave it there.
Thank you all for being with us.
Very important questions.
We're still waiting and seeing uh if uh Manafort verdict comes in.
We'll have full coverage of that.
Also, Rand Paul when we get back, he just uh made a recent trip to Russia, and uh Russia's agreed to come to the United States to meet with our government.
Some of you why would you talk to them?
Why would we talk to Kim Jong-un?
Why would we say to the mules in Iran, you better take down your nuclear facility or we'll take it out?
out tonight in the Russia investigation.
And then, of course, there's stormy, stormy, stormy, and then of course, shall shull, you know, and it goes on from there.
And now it's lately the Amarosa reality show, 24-7, 365.
Every minute, every second, every hour of every day, every month, every year.
This is what they do.
They feign moral outrage and never talk about really anything of substance.
They just doom and gloom and fear mongering and zero talk about major significant improvements that the country is uh making.
Great strides we're making.
Anyway, glad you're with us.
800 941 Sean is our toll free telephone number.
Uh joining us now.
He just got uh back from Russia is the Senator from the great state of Kentucky, Rand Paul.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Sean, thanks for having me.
All right.
First, let me say you are one of the few outspoken people that took a victory lap after Brennan's security clearance was revoked.
Uh, I can't believe he kept it as long as he did.
Uh we know he he literally propagated false information, leaked that dirty dossier with Russian lies to Harry Reed, which became a letter to Comey.
So the American people were fed these lies to influence the outcome of an election and the nefarious work that he did both before the election And after the election, in terms of uh his deep state involvement and undermining both candidate Trump, President elect Trump and now President Trump.
Yeah, I think that uh John Brennan should have had his um privileges, his security clearance revoked long ago for cause.
I think he's a risk to our national security, and I think he's uh been a risk to actual agents in the field.
In two thousand and twelve he revealed to the media and to ex CIA officers that there was a double agent in Yemen when we discovered the underwear bomber.
Right.
He put this agent's life at risk and showed just as callous disregard for you know, things that the head of the CIA ought to know you cannot reveal while an agent is in the field.
He also was involved with spying on uh senators' computers when they were doing an investigation of the CIA.
So yeah, time after time he's shown himself not to be a responsible keeper of national security secrets, and so I don't think we should let him within a mile of anything that is uh top secret.
All right, you were by the way, and I gotta give you credit.
You had filibustered Brennan's nomination ahead the CIA.
You had his number as early as twenty thirteen.
What uh what was it at the time that bothered you besides the incident you mentioned?
I was very suspicious about him.
That incident was one thing, but also I was suspicious that the CIA was uh using drones without sufficient uh understanding of who they were actually killing.
We were killing people at the time through what are called signature strikes.
So if a line of trucks were leaving somewhere, we just suspected they were terrorists and we'd kill them with a drone, and I think that's a little bit sloppy and leads to uh a backlash and and unfortunately may lead to more terrorism.
So there were a lot of reasons I didn't like John Brennan.
Before I get to the issue on your trip to Russia, I saw you put out a tweet yesterday as it relates to WikiLeaks Julian Assange and that he should get immunity i in exchange for the information that he has.
Now it seems to be, you know, pretty much a consensus belief that m even though I interviewed him, he said he did not get the the emails, etcetera, from Russia or any state party um pretty adamant about it, and I asked him a couple of times about it.
So but I would think that he would have evidence of where he did get it from.
He'd be the one person that would have the evidence, wouldn't he?
And it seems like, you know, if we're gonna do Russia collusion, that that would be one guy that you'd want to talk to.
Why haven't we even why isn't anybody ever talked to him?
Well, because I'm not so sure people really want the truth.
The truth in the minds of the liberal media is they just want to get Trump any way they can.
They don't like the president and they want to get him.
I think if Mueller really wanted to get to the truth, of course he would offer Assange immunity in order to testify because Assange knows where he uh I would presume he knows where he got the information.
And you're right, he said over and over again he didn't get it from the Russians.
Now everything has to be taken with a grain of salt, but I think you could get to the truth or closer to the truth if he were offered immunity in exchange for his testimony.
Well, you could even b ahead of time, don't you come up with a proper agreement that you're gonna agree to say A B C D E and F and provide evidence to such or there's no deal.
I mean, that's all negotiated.
Yeah, a lot of times an immunity deal they already get to see up front what it is.
You just send testify to it.
So uh yeah, no, I think that we ought to keep an open mind on that, because I think that uh if we really wanted to get to the truth, um that'd be a good idea.
I just have not seen the f evidence.
I mean, I know it's basically anyone I talk to, that's they always say, No, it's we know it's Russia.
Well, was it Russia and China?
Was it Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran?
Uh we know Hillary was hacked, her email server was hacked by multiple foreign intelligence agencies.
And to me, if if again we wanted to get to the bottom of this, and Devin Nunes and people like him and people like yourself warned about the Russians and and others and election hacking because it had happened in the past and it was Barack Obama and by the way, under his watch and everybody that worked for him's watched that all of this nonsense happened, and he told us it could no serious person would believe it could happen, that Trump needs to stop whining about it.
Well, it turned out it did happen.
I think what people need to realize is look, I've said that the Russians should stay the hell out of our elections and that they should be informed that it's made relations a lot worse.
I think they do understand that now.
But I've also said that we should uh protect our elections.
You know, we're instead of having this big debate over partisanship and trying to blame President Trump for something that happened under President Obama, we should be trying to protect our elections.
I'm a big believer of having a paper ballot as a backup.
I'm a big believer in having election judges at the local level, know the exact number of people who voted and know the outcome in their precinct and check it after it's recorded, you know, and sent to a a state capital.
There are a lot of ways we can make sure our elections are secure.
And so we ought to be doing that instead of getting lost in this.
But one of the things I did, you know, I had an amazing conversation with Gorbachev when I was in in Russia.
And a lot of people have forgotten that Ronald Reagan, you know, one of our greatest, most conservative presidents, did have the courage to defy orthodoxy and sit down with Gorbachev and reduce nuclear missiles by 2700.
This is an amazing feat.
Twenty, seven hundred less nuclear tipped weapons because of the conversations between Gorbachev and Reagan.
And Gorbachev's point is we still need to have those conversations.
We still have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 100 times over, and we still could have conversations and should have conversations with Russia about reducing this.
Let's talk about how this meeting came about and who you met and what you discussed.
I know part of the outcome of it is that in fact uh Russian lawmakers have agreed to visit Washington.
Uh tell us the other people that you spoke to when you were there, and but how did it come about?
We had about an hour long conversation with uh with Michael M Mikhail Gorbachev.
We also met with the foreign relations committee of their upper house, which is called the Federation Council, and their lower house, which is called the State Duma.
So we had three big important meetings as well as meeting with their foreign ministry.
And the bottom line is is that nuclear arsenals, nuclear armaments, nuclear weapons control came up in every meeting.
Sharing of information on terrorism came up.
The Russians remember well that they tried to give us information on the Boston Marathon bombers that you know our FBI act on.
Yeah.
But uh they did try to help us.
And actually earlier this year, we helped them toward a plot in St. Petersburg by giving them information.
My goal is that we should continue to have conversation with Russia so we can share information on potential radical Islamic terrorism, and they have information to help us, and we need to make sure we have good enough relations that we are helping each other.
Let's talk about what the long-term prospects are.
I couldn't understand the reaction of everybody when Donald Trump took on Kim Jong un North Korea.
We have seen we've seen a lot of benefits from that relationship.
One is nobody's firing missiles over Japan.
He's not threatening to hit the continental United States.
Uh missile testing has stopped since last December.
Uh hostages have been released.
The remains of our soldiers have been sent home.
Uh I don't know uh obviously the details uh have to be hammered out, but there is a possibility.
They at least have brought up the idea of do denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Um I think the president keeping his promise on Israel and making Jerusalem the capital is another example of the president doing what he said he'd do, getting us out of that horrific Iranian deal.
That was a good idea.
And he's he doesn't seem to be trying or attempting to bribe dictators with cargo uh planes full of cash and other currency.
And that to me seems like a position that Reagan would support, and that's peace through strength.
Yeah, and I think there are some analogies between Reagan and uh Trump.
For example, Reagan called the Soviet uh Union an evil empire.
He said Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall.
He wasn't afraid to call them out, but then he was also unafraid to actually sit down with them.
And you needed to be able to do both.
Both call out someone for the what their their faults are as we see them, have uh uh a strong military that is the backup military force to your words, but then also at some point in time you need to be willing to sit down with your enemy.
And the fact that uh Trump has had strong words on North Korea, but then he's been willing to sit down with them actually reminds me a little bit of Reagan sitting down with Gorbachev.
Well, let me go back.
I mean, you know, everybody in the on the left seems to be pretty hypocritical here.
I mean, I we've got the image of that dopey, you know, exchange with Hillary, uh handing over the the red reset button.
By the way, it looked like a button you'd hit to launch a nuclear weapon, so it looked pretty stupid to me.
But anyway, she went over there.
Didn't Bernie Sanders have his honeymoon over there in the USSR?
And you know, is it such a bad thing that we're gonna improve relations so we don't have to send young Americans to fight, bleed, and die in a in a war like in the what that one that we're never gonna finish because it eventually gumped becomes politicized, like Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam?
Well, I think we're gonna have some breakthroughs.
You know, some from my trip and a lot obviously from Trump uh being willing to meet with Putin.
But I've already been talking with Democrats in the Senate about forming a bipartisan committee that will look into nuclear arms control and begin the discussions with Russian legislators to try to uh de-escalate the tensions between our countries and I've already found some people that are very open to it.
And I think in the next week or two we'll be able to announce the formation of a new group that will be getting together with the Russian uh legislators as early as November.
Yeah.
What do you think?
What is your impression of Putin?
I think he's a bad actor.
I think I think Russia's been a hostile regime.
While I while I know that Robert Muller's indictments of these bot companies and their equivalent of the KGB are never going to come to any fruition of any kind.
I do believe they they want to create chaos in the United States and they're hitting hitting us with cyber attacks.
But then I look at you know we I mentioned Julian Assange earlier he was sixteen when he hacked into NASA and the DODs now in his what late forties.
You know at some point what when when do we start defending ourselves and hire the right people so they can't hack into any of our systems.
Seems to me now that's our responsibility to defend ourselves.
That is exactly my point.
I think we are so distracted by the partisan politics of this and all the ranting and raving I mean you got people on on some of these networks that are saying oh my goodness it's the end of democracy as we know it.
Authoritarianism is coming and it's like are we really so weak that the Russians buying some Facebook ads is the end of the American Republic?
That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
People laugh around the world thinking oh America's so weak that you buy some Facebook ads and our democracy and our republic's going to crumble that is just so naive and simplistic that I can't believe that that's all over television.
If you watch some of these networks it's from from morning till night saying that you know Trump is a dictator and the you know American Republic is in demise because the Russians have have taken over and it's like my goodness what wake up people we are a much stronger country than that and much more resilient and we will survive all of this.
Yeah I think you're right.
What's the latest with your relationship with the president it seems to be extraordinarily good.
Well I'm hoping to see him in the next couple of days and uh well he speaks about you often fondly I mean we talked about the trip you know the Russia trip before I left I took a letter uh from the president to Putin and see him I'm open to see him in the next couple of days the president and talk to him about the Russia trip.
All right hang on more with Rand Paul on the other side 800 nine four one Sean is our number.
All right as we continue with Senator Rampall so you took a letter from the president and what hand delivered it to Putin's office but you didn't get to see Putin while you were there.
You saw Gorbachev and members of their legislature.
I met with uh the deputy minister uh for foreign affairs it was a letter that uh was uh open for us to see and uh we discussed so you read the letter can you share any of the contents of it?
Yeah and and it's it's a letter that I would say has nothing that's really secret.
I can tell you in general what it is and the White House can r release it if they want to but in general it said that we need to look for areas where we can engage in dialogue that is beneficial to both countries.
This would be things like uh obviously terrorism, nuclear arms, uh you know uh legislative exchange meaning that our legislators should talk to each other and this is one of the problems that we've found with the sanctions the current sanctions the chairman of the foreign relations committee in Russia is not allowed to visit the U.S. because of sanctions and I have I think that's not I think that backfires.
I don't think we should put their legislature in sanctions because how are you going to complain to him or how are you going to have any kind of dialogue or try to improve dialogue if you if you're not allowed to if he's not allowed to travel to our country.
Well I yeah I mean I think at the end of the day do we really want to have uh a better relationship and I think the answer is yes.
All right Rand Paul the good senator from Kentucky you don't mind me saying that do you mind being called good I said the the good Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul 800 941 Sean toll free telephone number you want to be a part of the program uh all right we got Andrew Cuomo's insanity and yeah uh NBC's insanity like you never end insanity over at MBC it's 24 seven twenty five till the top of the hour uh eight hundred nine four one Sean,
if you want to be a part of the program.
So Andrew Cuomo, who does have presidential aspirations uh for later in his political career, makes the statement America was never great.
An outburst yesterday.
I think probably ended his presidential ambitions once and for all.
He never had a shot anyway.
Nobody needs seven bullets to kill a deer.
It's simple.
No one hunts with an assault rifle.
No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer.
Sorry, ten bullets.
Then we had to go down to seven bullets.
Then we went back up to ten bullets if you have a uh carry permit in New York.
Nobody needs ten bullets to kill a deer.
Good luck with that as your slogan.
Every single ad that is now running in New York as he's up for his uh third election now, uh, is about him saying uh he wants to put the NRA to bed.
And uh, you know, thoughts and prayers if you end up be not being an organization anymore, thinks he's being a wise ass.
But anyway, so literally, apparently, you know, I guess this is getting picked up.
Because over there at fake news CNN, they had a commentator, somebody named Angela Rye, who I've never heard of before, uh, ended up saying America has never been great.
And I go back to what I said yesterday.
Name one country in the history of the world that has accumulated as much power as the United States has and abuse that power less.
No, we're not a perfect country.
Or name one country on the face of this earth that has accumulated more power and used it for the advancement of humankind more than us.
Anyway, here's what Cuomo said yesterday.
Look, the simple point is all this comes down to this.
We're not gonna make America great again.
It was never that great.
We have not reached greatness.
Anyway, joining us now, we have Jonathan Gillam.
Remember his best-selling book, Sheep No More, Danielle McLaughlin, attorney, constitutional expert, left-wing radical.
Thank you both for being on the program.
Hey, Sean.
Is America great, Daniel?
Is America a great country?
America is a great country, and I say that as an immigrant and somebody who works every day um to get my little piece of the American dream.
Uh I want to defend Cuomo and I want to put what he said in context.
You know, number one, I think he was attacking the slogan of the president.
We all know that Cuomo is not a big fan.
And what he was talking about, and it's a huge guess, and this is going to be, you know, tattooed across his forehead for years to come.
He was talking about the fact that the long arc of America uh and our progress is we're still getting where we need to go.
Um, but I understand people are upset.
I don't think that you can look at him as someone who has been a lot of time in public service and really believe that in his heart he doesn't think that this country is a really great place to live.
No, it kind of sounds like you know, I did there is something revealing when, you know, in Peter Strzok's voice.
I always thought that Jonathan, he thinks he's a super patriot that knew better than we smelly Trump Walmart people, or that Hillary's irredeemable deplorable comments or or Obama spread the wealth and you know, a bunch of bitter people clinging to their god guns, religion, and Bibles.
Uh, I think these are very revealing moments about the contempt that the left has for, you know, the people that are the ones that really make the country great.
It's not the politicians that they do the worst job of anybody.
But the people that get up every day and work their 14 hours, take care of their kids, pay their taxes, obey the laws, and contribute to society by producing goods and services that we all want, need, and desire.
Yeah, let me first say, you know, if Cuomo meant to say one thing, he would have said that thing.
What he said, though, was so detrimental and insulting to everything that this country is about, to everything that the that the uh the men and women that risked and gave their lives, uh, the founding fathers to come over here and everybody that's ever fought or defended this country since then.
I think it's it's almost unforgivable for what The guy said, because in a political arena, when you say something that inflammatory, uh, it is it's really a disgusting uh just throw in the face of all these people who serve.
So I don't I don't think Cuomo said anything other than what he meant.
And as far as people like Peter Strzok and uh and the rest of these individuals, I don't separate any of them from Brennan and this this thing with the security clearances and all these people.
These are uh uh elitists who have no vision.
They either never had it or they lost a vision of what America's about.
And in the case of Cuomo, you know, this is a guy that's wanting to use that type of language that he is using is similar language to people when you're going into foreign countries when they've been take taken over by a dictator.
When these people roll into power, uh they use this type of language where they try to make it sound as if they're gonna take care of the communities and take care of the people when really he's just trying to get himself into a position of power.
Well, Danielle, I mean, the facts speak for themselves.
I mean, Obama added 13 million Americans to food stamps and eight million more Americans to poverty, and he's the only president never to hit three percent GDP growth in a year, and he literally took on more debt than every other president before him combined.
Now Donald Trump.
Well, what do you mean?
Yeah, these are facts.
No, no, eight years, that's what his record is.
His record is also that he halved black and Hispanic unemployment, and now they're not a good thing.
Excuse me.
What you're saying is false.
Excuse me.
We now have under Trump the lowest unemployment levels in the Hispanic and African American communities.
Right.
And Obama halved those numbers and Trump dropped them by one percentage point.
So we have to be intellectually honest about failures and security.
Well, we well, then how do you explain we have millions of Americans now that have left the food stamp rolls, millions fewer in poverty?
We now have we went from the lowest labor participation rate in the 70s now to the highest labor participation rate ever in history since Donald Trump's become president.
And how did he do it?
He cut taxes, he allowed for repatriation of trillions of dollars overseas.
He ended all the burdensome regulation that was stifling business creation in this country, and he personally lobbies companies to keep their factories and manufacturing centers here, jobs that Obama said would never come back.
Oh, we have nearly a million more of those, thanks to this president.
And you can't even give him credit for that.
No, I can't.
And I will give him absolutely I will give him credit for economic growth for the stock market, but I want him to be honest about the trends that were happening before he took office.
You know, those tax cuts, about five percent of Americans either got a you know, a raise or got a bonus.
And we did see a huge amount of benefit went to big corporations, right?
And we care about individuals and we care about and we should care about small business owners.
Um and I want to go back to this idea that you know uh what Cuomo said is sort of unheard of.
You know, at his inauguration speech, Donald Trump talked about American carnage.
He tells people he tells us that the world is laughing at us.
Like he's not immune to kind of this these kinds of criticisms.
Um, so it's not just Cuomo.
It's not just Cuomo.
No, that's that's different because when when Trump is talking about that, he's talking about the position that the country has been put in by politicians.
He's not talking about that the country has never been great.
I mean, that that's totally different.
He was talking about uh he was talking about inequality and the fact that we haven't been out to solve that, right?
He was talking about the fact that women earn so much less than men, even in 2018.
He wasn't attacking American people.
He was, I think, attacking the fact that politicians had failed and that we still have so much more to do, collectively and politically.
That's how I saw it.
You realize that if we're gonna go down that road that the whole world had to evolve into the modern era that we are now of equal rights and opportunity.
I would never say equal opportunity because there's no such thing as opportunity.
What you make of it is what you get.
But if the founding fathers and these individuals had not stepped forward, we wouldn't have women voting.
We would we would still be oppressed.
We would still be under a monarchy.
America has been great, and these people have been given the opportunities because of these great founding fathers and because of this great country.
Let me give another example.
Let me give another example of of the type of thing I'm talking about.
And again, irredeemable, deplorable, smelly want Walmart people, bitter people clinging to God, guns, Bibles.
And uh this one comes courtesy of the liberal Joe show over at the conspiracy TV MSNBC and John Heileman.
Uh I want you to listen to what he says about Trump voters.
Listen to the United States.
I would like a pollster to test this question.
How many people in the Republican Party think that it would be okay for Donald Trump to dissolve their own grandparents?
I'm virtually certain that if it was a Donald Trump related question, you get like 10% that would be like Donald Trump has the power to whoever he wants, including kill my parents.
You know, like that's the spread to which I'm I I'm being hyperbolic.
Don't make it look so appalled.
I'm not just working through what I'm saying.
I'm trying to make the point of it.
I think it's just uh I think it's kind of a it's a test.
There are certain things that that there is some number of people who they to Noah's point that they just hear the question as the media's try to test my loyalty to Donald Trump.
And if it's a question of whether Trump has the authority to do anything, they will say yes no matter what that thing is.
Well, it's actually just the opposite.
I mean, these people in the media are so fixated in their hatred of Donald Trump and their derangement syndrome.
You know, Donald Trump daily makes them bubble and fizz predictably, feigning moral outrage over a tweet, a word, and they go, you know, that that becomes the daily uh, you know, outrage of the day, whether it's amarosa, amorosa, Marossa or Stormy, stormy, stormy or Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, and it just goes on.
There's nothing this guy, if Donald Trump cured cancer, they wouldn't like him.
I mean, I don't I there are words that I can't say on radio that I would use to describe that guy.
So I I I you know, I'm not gonna support it.
I think that's horrendous.
Um, yeah, I'm not gonna defend it because it's indefensible.
But I also think that we should expect from our commander in chief, and I would hope it and I think about it the way I raise my my three-year-old.
Like, don't call women dogs, you know, don't criticize women's faces.
Like I know people love his policies, I know people love him as a man and as a president.
I want him to succeed, but I don't want to hear that stuff.
I don't want to hear that.
But you know what?
If we look at if we look at this president, and and I know a lot of people that have voted for him that didn't like uh some of the things that he said as well.
Um, but that's the difference between those with Trump derangement syndrome and somebody who is a conservative and is looking for effective thinking.
But if we if they are willing to criticize this president, I think that's what makes it so great is that you have a president that you could say, this guy's not perfect, but he does some amazing stuff.
And if you look at uh the quality of work that we say this is a problem, how do we fix it?
That's the way he is faced these things, not what is best for my party.
He looks at the problem, he says, This is the problem.
We got to fix it.
And I think the uh they don't see this on the left.
They will they for some reason they can't even fathom the fact that he's done something correct.
And it's uh it is and I've never really tried to, you know, having a degree in psychology.
I've never really tried to entertain this thought, but it really is some type of illness where they cannot see what's going on.
They just be now uh the president has his uh he's over 50 percent, or has been this week, over 50 percent on the Rasmussen poll, which was the most accurate in the 2016 election.
People seem to forget Zogby has a poll out, pretty wide wide percentage margin, 45 to uh 34, and it found that voters trust Donald Trump more to grow the U.S. economy.
And by the way, by almost the same margin, they also uh trust Donald Trump to keep America safe.
And in both cases, the Trump approval numbers show steady gains.
Democrats are flatlined, and they can add to that the 29% approval rate that the president now has with African Americans.
I think it is directly related to the better economic environment that this president is creating jobs that again we were told to never coming back, and his policies are working, and nobody seems to want to pay any attention to it in the media because they just hate him and and you know they fixate on ridiculous questions like liberal Joe.
Yeah, I mean, I agree that the um if everything is an outrage, then nothing is an outrage, and I can completely understand how this gets a bit much.
Uh but you know, Jonathan, you talked about this illness where no one where people are looking at Trump and they can't find a single good thing.
But you know what happened to Obama as well.
You know, this guy, this is the president who got Osama bin Lada.
This is the president who pulled us from an incredibly bad economic situation.
And we're still getting out of that.
But you know, what he faced on the first first day of office was was complete and out of economic collapse.
And yet there were plenty on the right, frankly, who could never give him credit for any of those things.
So this is this is politics.
All right, last word, Jonathan Gillam.
Well, you know, I there were a lot of people that would that were conservative that would agree with some of the things that Obama did.
But in in the totality of the circumstances, the majority of things that people were angry about with Obama, they were justified in their anger.
And it wasn't a syndrome where they were just absolutely having parties talking about how bad Trump was.
You know, real quick, we there was a couple that were killed because they they decided uh that uh human beings are not evil by nature, so they're gonna ride their bikes around the world.
They were they went into an ISIS-controlled territory and they got killed because they were they had this fake belief that human beings are all good, and they paid the price for it.
And I would say that the the liberals in this country are doing the same thing when they believe what the Democrat Party is saying to them.
They're being drawn into a lie that is deadly.
Well, it is deadly.
All right, uh Jonathan Gillam, uh Danielle McLaughlin, thank you both for being with us.
appreciate it 800-941-SEAN is our toll-free number you want to be a part of the program All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
Let not your heart be troubled.
We're watching for a Manafort verdict.
Uh, if it comes in, the jury can go long, uh, the judge said today.
Uh Joe DeGenova, Sarah Carter on her blockbuster find.
Hey, uh, I'm hoping these important firewalls hold.
Greg Jarrett joins us.
Michelle Malkin is in tonight, and an important monologue, why everybody should lose their security clearances.
In other words, the opposite of what everyone else has say.
