Sean Bigley, a partner with Bigley Ranish, LLP, joins Sean to discuss the special Federal Security Clearance Defense that was granted to his client, Adam Lovinger. Lovinger, who lost his security clearance after Stefan Halper complained about him, had his life ruined because of his efforts to protect American taxpayers. This is a must-hear story about pure government waste and the damage that can happen if you try and stand up to the Deep State. 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.
If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what?
That's not fun.
You know, I tried everything.
I couldn't get a good night's sleep.
And this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
That's right.
It is my pillow.
Mike Lindell invented it, and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and it's changed my life.
I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
And the good news, you can too.
Just go to my pillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
You get 50% off to my pillow premium pillows, two go anywhere pillows.
Now, my pillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money back guaranteed, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow, tossing internal that's not working for you.
Just go to my pillow.com right now.
Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two go anywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and restful and comfortable and deep healing and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
MyPillow.com, promo code Sean.
All right, happy Monday.
Glad you're with us.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
We got a busy newsday today.
It's 800-941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, you know, this media freak out over John Brennan, the single most political radical ever to hold the position of the CIA director is getting more fascinating by the day.
Now, answer this question.
Now remember, in spite of what he's saying, and in spite of what your idiots in the media are saying, well, we've actually taken the time to go and look at CIA protocol.
And if somebody is to retain or would like to retain their security clearance, they must act in a manner that is consistent with how a current CIA employee would act.
Now, is John Brennan with all of his inflammatory rhetoric in any way acting like any CIA employee that you know?
No.
Does he deserve to lose his clearance?
Yes.
Should we really be asking how he ever got a clearance in the first place?
Yeah, I think that's a probably a really good question.
And how is it if you want to just look at, you know, the deep state and what a lot of what we have exposed has been proven true to all of you.
We've got James Comey fired.
McCabe fired.
That's the director and the deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Again, I'm not I'm not talking.
No right really rank and file guys, none of them are gone.
Now that's the interesting part of this.
And what they tell me privately is mind numbing.
They want to get to the bottom of all this more than anybody.
Then you can add to departures, Peter Strck, fired.
Lisa Page resigned.
James Rabicke resigned.
James Baker resigned.
And there are others.
But all told, then when you look at FBI, either firings, uh departures, or demotions.
I can name 25 top officials.
This because the evidence is overwhelming and it's incontrovertible.
You know, look at the DOJ.
Sally Yates fired.
Bruce Orr, Deputy Associate, Deputy Attorney General, fourth in line, fourth highest ranking official of the DOJ.
He's demoted twice.
And the president, rightly, will Bruce Orr, whose family receive big money for helping create the phony, dirty, discredited Russian dossier ever be fired from the Jeff Sessions Justice Department.
And Trump rightly writes a total joke.
It's not a joke.
That's the problem.
The problem is it's corruption.
There's enough evidence here at this point with what we pointed out last week in the correspondence with Christopher Steele, both before and after the election, before and after the firings of Christopher Steele.
Before Steele testified that he wouldn't even stand by his own dossier.
They were still pushing this phony thing.
And using it, A, to stop Trump from getting elected, B to hurt the incoming administration, and C, really to take him down.
And they They're conspiring to do so.
We've got the emails.
Why do you think that Christopher Steele was so afraid of quote, and this is from last week, being exposed and hoping the firewalls hold up that he was discussing.
Well we got 25 high-ranking FBI and DOJ departures, firings, demotions.
It's all happening.
And one of the big things that people are saying, well, what about Brennan?
And well, frankly, anybody that's fired ought to lose their security clearance.
And you're saying, well, Hannity, why would you do that?
What if we ever need them?
Well, we could always reinstate it, number one.
But number two, I don't think this president is ever going to ever want the advice of John Brennan, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, or Peter Strzok or Sally Yates.
Let's be honest here.
And it's it, and the idea that this has happened before but was never reported on is also a big issue.
Now, one of there was a great exchange on fake news CNN.
I know it sounds like a contradiction.
It was a great exchange because I never saw anybody.
This is I look, I watched this guy.
Phil Mudd.
And anyway, there's a guy by the name of Paris Denard.
We should get him on the radio program.
I don't know.
I guess he is he worked for CNN fake news.
I mean, he tore this guy apart.
Not once, not twice, not three times.
He points out that in the private sector, that having a security clearance is worth a lot of money.
And he directly asked Phil Mudd about it.
And Phil Mudd three separate times turns it into I've never ever indignant, outraged.
I've never used this for any governmental contract.
And he keeps saying, I didn't ask you about a government contract.
Now, I don't know anything about what Phil Mudd does or doesn't do if he has a consulting firm.
It's neither here nor there.
But if you want to talk about this show being ahead of the curve, well, remember last week we took time out of our busy schedule to tell you about a pretty important book.
And it's called Compromised.
And this is put out by the Government Accountability Institute.
They're the same people, Peter Schweitzer's group that were involved in exposing so much about the Clintons, so much about what we then built on as it worked for uranium one.
You know, imagine this.
We actually we actually got to the eyewitness in the FBI that was inside Putin's network inside the United States, bribing, extorting, money laundering, racketeering, all of that.
And the informant saw it and reported on it.
Who was the FBI director at the time?
Robert Mueller.
And in the meantime, all those crimes were being committed.
The FBI is being told about it, and yet they're continued to allow to operate inside the United States, and they're successful.
The whole purpose was to get their, you know, to for Putin's thugs in the United States to get their greedy hands on America's uranium.
So that which is the foundational material for nuclear weapons.
And we're told, but none of it ever left the country.
Well, that turned out to be a total crock, also, because that wasn't true.
But what Paris Denard is saying in this debate, I'm going to play it here, and I want you to keep one thing in mind is that security clearances are worth money.
And by the way, and I'm not necessarily against it.
You know, you build up a certain amount of sacrifice, your government, you work for the government.
There's a literally for many people they'd make a lot more in the in the private sector.
For me, these the numbers sound pretty outrageous to me, but I'm not against the idea of people getting outside of government, using their professionalism, the experience they have garnered to get into the private sector and make money.
I'm a capitalist.
But we do know that James Comey's net worth, according to compromise this book, How Money and Politics Drive FBI corruption, that his net worth skyrocketed 4,000% between leaving the DOJ in 2005 and returning in 2013.
One thing that caught my eyes in this, and we discussed it last week.
Again, we're ahead of the curve because now are these security clearances worth something?
Yeah.
And Comey made $6.1 million after Muller's FBI granted Comey's employer.
In other words, they're the ones paying him.
Lockheed Martin, largest contractor in history, a billion dollar boondoggle.
And under Muller's direction, the FBI granted multiple spy contracts to Lockheed Martin while Comey advised them on the legality of the operations.
Comey also, according to the book, got another six million dollars working for one of the world's largest hedge funds and an additional five hundred thousand dollars for quote unused vacation time.
And then it goes into Mueller.
You know, he cashed in as well.
And in 2013, when Comey took over the FBI, well, Muller left to start a consulting firm, made more than three and a half million dollars a year and giving speeches, representing clients who had previously uh enriched as FBI director.
Look, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it.
This revolving door in government is what it is.
I don't like it.
Just generally it the stench goes to high heaven.
But the fact that we keep getting intertwined between these two and others is uh beyond a coincidence to me and troubling in light of where we now are with the deep state.
But just listen, this is this guy Paris Denard is is right.
By the way, I didn't watch fake news CNN, I saw it on Media Height.
I was reading, you know, this media's one of these websites that chronicles, you know, all the all the intramural fights and moments on cable news, which but then they do a good job.
Anyway, here's the exchange.
A lot of these people that have these security clearances, and this is the secret in in the swampy Washington, D.C., they have them and they keep them because it's profitable for them after they leave government.
Because if you have a security clearance, especially high-level security clearances, your contracts and your consulting gift pay you a lot more money because of the access that you have.
I hope the president continues to do this, and I hope he adds Amarosa to the list because if she has a clearance, she too, because of her actions, uh, should have it revoked.
Well, I don't know if I'd put Amarosa in the same category of the 75 people who signed those letters, but Phil Mudd, uh I imagine you want to react.
Profitable Paris, when I am requested to sit on an advisory board, let me ask you one question.
How much do you think I'm paid to do that at the request of the U.S. government at the request of the government?
You got 10 seconds.
How much?
I'll give I'll ask you a question.
How much are you paid for your acting gig for for being a force?
I have more contracts with the U.S. government that pay my and this is the thing.
I'm not talking about the federal advice from the US government.
If you're not zero, that's be honest.
I'm not talking about your role with the federal government.
I'm talking about the contracts and gigs that you get from being a consultant and a contractor.
The consulting firms that they form and that you all get is because you get more money when having a consultant before having the security clearance.
That's not acts like that doesn't happen.
I have to do that.
That's zero consulting relationships with the U.S. government.
Zero.
I'm not talking Phil, that's a good talking point.
I'm not talking about relationship with the government.
I'm talking about in the private sector.
When you have a security clearance, I have to make sure relationships with the private sector that involve my security clearance.
Zero.
I get zero dollars from consulting companies that deal with U.S. government.
Are we clear?
Well, I will be clear and saying that everybody in Washington, D.C. knows if you don't want to be honest about it, that's on you.
All right, so the point is now maybe Phil Mutt doesn't.
But certainly this book compromised is pointing out that Comey does, and that all these other people, because of their background experience and yes, their security clearance.
Yeah, they've all they've all benefited.
Now I gotta tell so I think that that was a great nobody else is picked up on this.
This book is really full of, yeah, follow the money type of information.
Now, I guess if these guys were friends with Donald Trump that they probably could expect Robert Mueller to be knocking on their door and asking a bunch of questions, and if they paid taxes on it in in 2005.
By the way, we still have no verdict in the Mueller in the uh Manafort case.
Third straight day of deliberations.
Now, Linda and I are disagreeing on this point.
I th I think that they only asked what.
No, no, you know what, you're right.
Say that it's for Pete Todd.
I didn't hear it.
Do you want to hear the breaking news sounder, Jason?
Yeah, I think no, we don't need the breaking news sounder.
I'll just say it again.
Breaking news.
I'm always right.
Go ahead.
Linda McLachlan is admitting that Sean Hannity on his own show is right.
Well, no, because I said because you had said to me Friday, Linda, I will put this out ahead of time.
You said that you thought no way Manafort's gonna get a conviction.
And I said the odds are against them.
If there's there's six women and there's six men, and if they're gonna be honest, and they're literally just looking at the evidence, which I know it's hard to put up aside personal bias, he's gonna walk.
The only thing we didn't see is the follow the money charts.
That's the only and then by the way, that that's a key part of this.
And you were also right that they only asked it's a good day for you.
It's a very good Monday for that.
They only asked once for the only asked once for that.
Yeah, the questions that they asked was about reasonable doubt which happened on Thursday.
That was Thursday, yeah.
So now it's their third day so far of deliberations.
They they may go into the night tonight if they think they're closing.
All right, we got that.
Okay.
Thank you.
I was talking, but all right.
I have to go to a break.
I have to tell everybody about my class.
Oh, you do?
Oh, okay.
Public Wi-Fi.
If you're reclaim it, you can't reclaim anything.
It's Sean Hannity show.
For decades, credit cards have been telling us buy it now and pay for it later with interest.
Despite your best intentions, that interest can get out of control fast.
With Linding Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Since 2007, Linning Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans.
No trips to a bank, no high interest credit cards.
Just go to LinningClub.com, tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you, and if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
Linding Club is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over 35 billion in loans issued.
Go to LinningClub.com slash today.
Check your rate in minutes and borrow up to 40,000.
That's LinningClub.com slash today.
LinningClub.com slash today.
All loans made by web bank member FDIC, equal housing lender.
So this big uh New York Times uh report this weekend about um why would the White House counsel, Don McGann, ever give a single solitary second to Robert Muller and his team.
Now, according to this report, now I I understand what the strategy was.
This is when the president, I guess, had his original lawyers, Ty Cobb and John Dowd.
I don't why would they have ever waived attorney client privilege?
And by the way, only the president can waive it, not his lawyers, and they decided to hand over.
They wanted to be cooperative with Mueller.
A lot of, and I know there was talk.
Well, it's all gonna be over by Thanksgiving of last year, 2017.
Now, we'll be lucky if it's over by Thanksgiving of this year.
Then it was gonna be over by Christmas, then right after the new year, then March, then May, and here we are.
But the fact that in the article, I I mean, ethically, I just cannot understand.
You know, this is this this is not only the office of the president, but it is the president's counsel.
And um, why that would ever be waived is is it's unimaginable to me.
And that you know, McCann goes on to give 30 hours of testimony to Robert Mueller and his team.
Now, there is another sign of this that maybe strategically, maybe they're smarter than I am, because that has never happened before.
And, you know, maybe maybe that's the interview that they got.
They don't get the president, they got his lawyer.
Because the only reason at this point that I could ever see Muller wanting the president in is to find well, what are your thoughts on firing?
It doesn't matter what his thoughts are.
If he got a full accounting from the president's attorney, well, that's gotta be the president's accounting.
And by the way, it's if they're bringing him in because they set a perjury trap.
Well, what you said is different than what your lawyer said.
Well, this is what Rudy was saying.
It'll be the special counsel.
If there are two versions of events, they will decide which one they think is the truth.
That's what Rudy was saying.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
Remember, FBI departures.
Comey, fired.
McCabe fired.
Struck, fired.
Page demoted, resigned.
Rabicky resigned.
Baker resigned.
In total.
Then you got the DOJ departure.
Sally Yates fired or demoted twice.
And so many other high profile people, 25 in total, that are now out.
And then, yeah, this guy Paris Denard is right that yeah, there is a value on the open market as it relates to the marketability of a security clearance.
Because, you know, that's the only way that James Comey can represent or be a part of a group that represents Lockheed Martin and can go to Mueller and offer his recommendations about, you know, how to look at the legality of bidding for, you know, contracts with the government as it relates to what the FBI is spending on spy material, et cetera.
And I'm not saying there's any necessarily anything nefarious in it.
But there is a revolving door issue here.
And, you know, if you're fired, why wouldn't you lose your security clearance?
I, for the life of me, don't understand, except and unless the thinking of Cobb, Ty Cobb and John Dowd were that, okay, if we give you 1.4 million documents, and we also allow the White House counsel to speak to you for 30 hours, then that basically he's speaking for the president because he's the president's attorney.
I just, but for me, ethically, it's problematic well beyond a privilege issue.
Now, and I don't see why anybody would waive that privilege.
And if you go back and in past instances, I mean, that would never have happened with Clinton lawyers.
And um, you know, McGann literally has his loyalty to act in his client's best interest at all times.
So why they would waive this privilege, I don't know.
The president in his official capacity is his client.
And according to the article, McCann had his own lawyer, and his lawyer suspected, well, maybe they were making him the fall guy, and they devised their own strategy that was in the best interest of Dan Don McGann.
At least if you believe the New York Times.
Mueller probably was, you know, barred from eliciting or receiving this information from McGann, and as well as knowing McGann was the president's lawyer.
I mean, there actually is an ABA formal opinion, my friend David Schoen sent me over the weekend, that probably applies right on to this and would have prohibited McGann and Mueller from ever engaging in this conduct.
And then it raises questions about what did Don McGahn say.
But if it's used to say, well, you talk to the president's attorney, we gave you 1.4 million documents.
This is look at the team.
It's there's no evidence of any Russia collusion.
And if you're trying to create a perjury trap for the president, basically, if he says one thing that contradicts what Don McGann does, says, well, who's the one that decides which version is correct?
And this is where Rudy got into a little bit of maybe it was inarticulate, but inarticulate in the sense that it was very legalistic what he was saying.
He actually used the phrase truth isn't the truth.
What he was saying is you have two versions of testimony that will be given to the special counsel on say any given issue.
Who decides what version is right or what version is truth and what version is it?
It would be the special counsel would make that decision if there was a conflict.
And so, you know, his years as a prosecutor, that was what Rudy was referring to.
That they will be the ones that decide who they decide to believe it.
But we already know they're prejudiced against the president.
We already know they don't like the president.
It was inarticulate.
I'm not going to sit here and defend it, but I think what he was speaking more legal jargon to, I guess, Chucky Little Todd over there at uh conspiracy TV, he'll never be Tim Russett ever, might have the show, but he won't be Tim Russert.
He was an original amazing man.
I love Tim Russert.
Um, I'm gonna have to be rushed into having him testify.
Why?
So that he gets trapped in a perjury?
And when you tell me he should testify because he's gonna tell the truth that he shouldn't worry, well, that's silly, Rudy said, because it's somebody's version of the truth, not the truth.
And in other words, truth is truth, Chuck Todd said, and he said, No, it's not.
Now, Giuliani was saying, and he said, truth isn't the truth.
Mr. Mayor, the truth is the truth.
This is going to be, you know, bad for you.
And he's like, run, and in a sense, he's right.
But what he's saying in this statement is very clear to me, and I think would be clear to most lawyers.
What he's saying here is that, okay, if there are conflicting versions of a story, big item, small item, it doesn't matter.
If you're under oath and you say something that conflicts with what the lawyer said, they are going to be the ones that make the determination of who they believe and which one they believe is telling the truth.
Now, maybe, maybe they're both wrong.
Maybe it's somewhere in the middle where the actual truth lies.
But I'm assuming McGahn, when he speaks under oath, is speaking the truth, as I would suspect the president would be.
And then Giuliani responded, he said, you know, he said, I didn't talk about Flynn with Comey.
Comey says, You did talk about it.
So what's the truth there?
And I thought that was a pretty good comeback on Giuliani's part.
They have two pieces of evidence, Giuliani said of Muller's team.
Trump says, Well, I didn't tell them.
The other guy says he did say it, which is the truth.
Maybe you know because you're a genius, but that's the point, is that would be the special counsel that would decide what they ascertained to be the truth.
And they have a prejudgment and a bias against Donald Trump.
Look, they don't like what Donald Trump is doing.
I mean, the president went on a tear this weekend that this is Mueller's team as a national disgrace.
And frankly, any team that would hire Andrew Weissman is a national disgrace.
How do you hire a guy with his track record?
How do you hire a guy that lost 9 0 in the Supreme Court that cost tens of thousands of fellow Americans their job in the Anderson accounting issue?
That literally put four innocent people from Maryland jail for a year.
That was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
Who loses 9-0 in the Supreme Court?
Not many people.
And that's part of his team.
And by the way, what does any of this have to do with what Paul Manafort has been charged with?
I find it fascinating.
It is this now goes, you know, I by if they wrap up like they did on Friday at 5 o'clock, this will be three full days, no verdict in the Manafort case.
I'm not in I'm not reading into anything here.
Let me be very clear.
The odds for Manafort are not good.
But you have to see this for what it is, and that was he was singled out for one reason is that he worked for Trump.
The judge in the case knew it.
The judge said, look, let's let's not kid ourselves here.
We all know what this is about.
You don't really care about Paul Manafort's tax issues.
You're putting the screws to him, so he sings or composes as it relates to Donald Trump, so you can prosecute or impeach the president.
Let's just be honest about what it is happening.
The judge was right in this particular case.
People were wondering, well, why was the why was Judge Ellis tough on the prosecution?
Because he sees through this.
He was singled out to be prosecuted for the purpose of putting the screws to him.
Manafort, you know, had said, I have nothing to say about what you're looking for.
He worked for the president like a hundred days.
And so they brought up this old tax and loan issue case or whatever.
So that's what, you know, this is this isn't justice.
And meanwhile, it has nothing to do with Russia, nothing.
Nothing to do with collusion.
It has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
It has nothing to do with the campaign in the election.
So then you must ask yourself.
Remember, the judge made a big deal about wanting to see Rod Rosenstein's mandate.
And the mandate is so broad that it includes a 2005 tax case.
Well, that means basically anybody can be indicted through this special counsel.
And nobody's really paying a lot of attention as he's now literally, you know, handing out work all over the place, you know, ferreting out this one and that one.
And, you know, it's just unbelievable.
Okay, where's the Russia collusion in this?
Well, we do know that Russian misinformation, Russian Propaganda, Russian lies were paid for by Hillary and the DNC, whose finances she controlled, according to Donna Brazil.
They funneled the money through a law firm.
They fired, hired Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, his group, and then they hired Christopher Steele.
Christopher Steele's also being paid by the FBI.
And we know that Christopher Steele didn't even believe in his own dossier, we've come to find out.
We find out that under oath, under the threat of perjury in Great Britain, he said, uh listen, this is raw intelligence.
I have no idea if any of this is true.
50-50, maybe, I don't know.
Okay, then how did it possibly become the basis of four Pfizer warrants?
And how did they not verify it?
And how did they not corroborate it?
And how did they not tell the judge or the four judges in the original application, three subsequent applications?
Hillary paid for it.
How is it that Hillary got off when it's the biggest slam dunk obstruction of justice case we've ever seen in history?
And a clear violation of the Espionage Act.
How did all that happen?
And what we're discovering is that's why the 25 people that have either resigned, have been demoted or fired from the FBI and the DOJ.
It's not by accident that these people have been exposed.
And what are we finding?
Fix was in for Hillary.
That Hillary, like she rigged the primary against poor Bernie Sanders.
Nobody ever seems to care.
I care.
I don't know why.
I just think in America rigging primary shouldn't happen.
And then they use then Hillary tried to do it in the general election.
She pays for these Russian lies.
The Russian lies that disseminated through the American to the American people.
This phony witch hunt begins, and all these people in all these different spots that we we interconnect in all this.
We have Russian influence that was actually bought and paid for.
We have Pfizer court judges that were that a fraud was committed on them.
We've got it all.
We have Christopher Steele in the fourth highest ranking twice demoted, Bruce Orr.
When is he ever going to be fired?
We have a communication stream back and forth before the election, after the election.
I hope the firewalls hold.
And uh, boy, I'm getting a little nervous here and worried we might be exposed.
Then you go to Struck and Page and all that corruption.
I mean, it stinks to hide.
Ivan, why do any of these people have any security clearances?
And so the president's pissed off.
When is Bruce Orr going to be fired?
You know, when is uh when is Jeff Session's Justice Department going to fire him?
Remember, Bruce Orr.
He's talking to Steele about the dossier.
Steele had already been fired from the FBI.
He's fired from the FBI, but the bulk of the Pfizer warrants are Steele's dossier.
Russian lies.
And yet we're we're dealing with a 2000 whatever tax case a Paul Manafort.
No Russia, none.
No collusion, none.
No Trump, none.
No campaign, nothing.
This is what it's all become.
And this is equal justice under the law.
This is equal application of our laws.
Now, this is a travesty.
This is a witch hunt.
I don't blame the president for being pissed off.
He has every right to be pissed off at this point.
And he keeps going on and on and on.
And then his own attorney, the White House counsel, is talking to Mueller.
And then it gets into, and John Brennan can say whatever he wants about the president of the United States.
no ramifications with his security clearance, and that was the case people are trying to make.
You know, where is the evidence of collusion?
Well, we got collusion.
Somebody paid for Russian lies and used Russian lies to get a FISA warrant four times.
These are unbelievable times we're living it.
You have a former top defense official, This is on Fox News Sunday, Admiral Michael Mullen, you know, risk damage.
Brennan was risking damaging America's intelligence community with his anti-Trump comments.
Even Brennan said he's a way over the top.
You know, we've got uh, remember back the weekly standard, November of 2013, they pointed out that it was Brennan that tried to uh, you know, not we know he lied to the Senate and Tel Committee as well as the American people uh about spying and so on and so forth,
and illegally spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee issue of 2014, Bretton, but actually tried to silence the heroes of Benghazi, keeping them from telling the truth about what happened over there because he was afraid it would expose the Obama administrations and Hillary's big Benghazi cover-up.
Remember, they wanted these guys forced them to sign non-disclosure agreements.
By the way, even the Washington Post people forget July 31, 2014.
They call for Brennan to be fired.
Interesting.
Quote You know, the accusation, Washington Post points out that John Brennan was asked by Andrea Mitchell whether the CIA had illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers to thwart an investigation by the committee into the agency's past interrogation techniques.
The accusation had been made earlier in the day by Diane Feinstein, who said that the CIA violated separation of powers principle.
Brennan said, as far as the allegations, you know, CIA hacking, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth.
It should surprise nobody when the truth came out.
Brennan was exposed as a liar.
And it goes on and on.
It's like, are we the only people that don't do any investigative reporting?
You're not a reporter, Hannah.
Yeah, we do reporting.
A lot more than they do.
By the way, 61 people shot over the weekend in Chicago.
What are we doing?
When is that going to be fixed?
I can't believe this is allowed to continue in this great country.
It's unbelievable to me.
We've got to protect the people in Chicago.
Is that so hard to understand?
Put the resources on the ground.
Dead fish isn't gonna do it.
So John Brennan's threatening to sue.
Okay.
Sue.
Love to get, you know, discovery into his emails, etc.
Text messages.
All right, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Greg, much more than an exclusive interview coming up.
All right, glad you're with us, Hour Two.
Write down our toll-free number.
It's 800 941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, I pointed out that Don McGann, the White House counsel, it's I I can't even fathom why this happened, but it did.
Um, although there's been I have known about this for a period of time, uh, that he had given some 30 hours of testimony as it relates to what he saw and heard in the White House.
The White House handed over 1.4 million documents as it relates to this witch hunt.
Now the the White House special counsel represents the president and the office.
And he gave 30 hours of testimony.
But with that said, uh Newt Gingrich, who joins us now, I think rightly points out.
Well, now that there's no not only he testified, the president's lawyer for 30 hours, there's no reason at all for Mueller to even ask to interview the president, which I think is a thousand percent right.
The only reason, Mr. Speaker, would be to me, it seems that it would be a perjury trap.
Oh, well, your lawyer said this, and you say that, and one of you are lying, and we're gonna determine who the liar is.
I think it's uh I talked to three national class more than yesterday who were just astounded by the New York Times article and thought that it clearly indicated the end of the Moore investigation.
All right, we're having a hard time hearing you.
I don't know.
Are you on a sports illustrated football phone?
I'm just asking.
We don't have the no, no, I'm not.
You remember they used to give out the we're gonna reconnect with you.
Hang on, we'll see if we can get a better line.
Remember Sports Illustrated years ago.
If you order a subscription, we'll send you this really cool football phone.
And I'm like, okay, who wants you who wants a football phone?
Well, I guess probably Jason is the biggest NFL.
No, I don't want a football phone or a sneaker phone.
None of those craps.
Or get or get smartphones.
If only.
Yeah, if all well, listen, or maybe a Dick Tracy watch that you can talk into, which by the way, we actually now have.
It's called uh an iWatch or what.
No, that's true.
Uh all right.
Do we get the speaker back or are you calling?
Yeah, we got to get a better line for the speech.
Did you want to talk to me about that?
No, I don't actually.
I'm just wishing you'd dial faster because I'm done talking about football phones, but I can I can fill the gap because the president's right.
With the NFL going down, I doubt they would give those.
I can't even you know, I'm trying to watch this year.
I can't oh excuse me, I'm sorry, I have the guess ready.
Go ahead.
Mr. Speaker, okay.
You think Mueller has nothing now after the cooperation.
Go ahead.
No.
Well, well, what I was talking about, I'm not a lawyer, as you know, I'm a historian, but the three lawyers I consulted with yesterday all said on just flat out, when when you give up executive privilege, which the president did, and you give up lawyer confidentiality,
which the president did, and your top attorney, who's the guy who was in the room all the time, spends thirty think about this 30 hours talking to Mueller's team and saying to them, based on the New York Times coverage, that as a lawyer, he did not believe Trump did anything illegal.
Now, at that point, what's Mueller's case for just not closing up shop, writing a report and going home?
I mean, this is over.
Only only a crazed fanatic like Brennan would think that there's anything left in this story.
And the truth is the time has come to just close it down, go home, realize that it was a dry hole, there ain't nothing there, and they're never going to get Donald Trump on these issues.
You've lived through this.
How many ethical charges were thrown at you and and I think all but one, you know, and even that one I think eventually was thrown out.
How many total?
Well, I had I had 83 ethics committee charges.
We beat 82.
The 83rd was a lawyer, a letter my lawyer had written that was technically wrong, but it was my fault because I did sign it, but it was written by the lawyer.
Uh that's the only thing out of 83.
I then have an attack by the Internal Revenue Service under Bill Clinton and an attack by the Federal Election Commission.
And after two years of fighting in courts, we won both of those.
And the judges in fact chastised both the IRS and the FEC and said that they were clearly false attacks done for political purpose.
By the way, I've had the same thing happen in my life.
I wonder if this is a coincidence.
And then you spend how many, you know, thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees.
There's no choice, there's no option.
And uh, and after that, but what it does is it effectively distracts you and prevents you from putting your full focus on the job you have.
Muller's been at this, you know, since what m April of 2017.
I think it's, you know, high time or sixteen, whatever it was.
No, seventeen.
I mean, it's high time this goes away.
It's a year and a half.
What does he have?
Look, beyond that, you have to give Trump enormous credit.
You're exactly right.
I mean, it was pretty tough for me to be the speaker, negotiate the only balanced budgets in your lifetime, negotiating welfare reform, negotiate the largest capital gains tax cut, and do all of that while having this kind of a fight underway.
But to watch the president calmly live through all this, uh, right in the middle of a constant brawl, uh, and not back down, not get tired, not get weak, uh, it's an amazing performance on his part.
Listen, I I tend to agree with you.
And and in the sense that uh I think this is an important overall lesson for everybody in terms of all right, what do they have here?
Now, what frustrates me, and that we're now in day three, still no verdict in the Manafort case.
It has nothing to do with collusion, nothing to do with the campaign, nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia.
But this is what Mueller and his team have focused on, and I believe that the Judge Ellis is correct, and that this was to put the screws to manifort, that he was literally singled out because of his his role for a hundred days working for Donald Trump.
And I think that all of that is true.
And I guess now the big question is, well, what about the real Russian lies that were propagated to the American people that Hillary paid for that phony dossier that even still admits he never verified that were fed to a Pfizer court and four applications and a fraud committed upon the court?
How come we have all this Russia stuff that they could be looking at?
And then we have literally Adam Schiff on tape talking to a Russian about Naked pictures of or who he thinks is a a Russian uh source giving him information about Donald Trump and Naked Pictures.
And that evidence is there.
Nobody talks about the real Russia collusion.
Look, I think we've learned how really sick the national establishment has been, and how bipartisan some of that sickness is.
And I think we've learned that if Hillary had won, uh all of this would have been swept under the rug, none of it would have ever come out in the open.
And we're, I think, only in the opening stages of a five or ten year process of taking apart things that are going to just shock us.
And we're going to look at them and we're going to think it could really have been this bad.
And could they really have been this sick?
Uh but I I think that not just the point you're making.
Think about Monafort for a second.
I mean, whether you like Paul Manaboy, you dislike Paul Manafort.
From the time that they invaded his house at three in the morning with him and his wife in the pajamas and had armed federal agents, could for no practical reason there's no reason to do this, except intimidation and the the sheer power of a tyranny.
Then Manafort's been sitting over here, and I've recently started writing some letters to some experts.
He's sitting in in isolation.
But 23 hours a day.
I think he has no television.
I mean, I mean, this is a sort of thing which is considered a punishment.
Uh if you know, if he were a terrorist and he was at Guantanamo, we'd have outrage about the way he's being treated.
And yet what you've seen is that Muller has been willing to use the power of the government to go after an individual in order, frankly, to talify everybody else.
His real signal here is not about Manafort.
It's about everybody else you might go after.
To put the screws the the judge said it to put the screws to Manafort so he sings or composes so they can prosecute or impeach Trump.
The judge had this from day one.
And I've got to imagine that this is why this jury hasn't come back yet.
I can't believe they're not back.
I wouldn't read into it.
I think the odds are against Manafort.
95% conviction rate in federal court.
But it's a very catchy call to not bring in any witnesses and just say, the federal government's not proven its case.
It was a gutsy call, I agree.
Let me go back to one other thing.
James Comey fired.
Andrew McCabe fired, struck uh fired.
Page demoted, resigned, Rabicke, Baker, and then if you go to and you include FBI and DOJ departure, Sally Yates fired, Bruce Or demoted twice, associate deputy attorney.
You got 25 people in total that are involved at the highest levels in what are nothing but deep state shenanigans.
Why aren't any of these people indicted and why would any of them ever deserve to keep their security clearance?
And and when are the House and Senate Judiciary Committees gonna take seriously their responsibility to have Watergate-style hearings out in the open and bring in all of these people and lay out the case, not just as you point out, not just about Trump, but all the way back to how the Clintons have been handled.
I mean the Clintons and their allies have been protected in ways, given given immunity in ways that are astonishing.
And if you put up a chart and you showed the treatment of the Clinton team and the treatment of the Trump team, you understand how thick the deep state is, and that this is not just some random language.
But over the last 40 or 50 years, we've seen the growth of a bureaucracy which thinks it's above the law, it's above accountability, and it gets to define press.
And if you if you look at uh again at Brendan for a minute, who who believes that he can say the president is a traitor, and then with a straight face say, no, I'm not political.
And you have to think this is a guy who either has very serious mental health problems or is just a compulsive liar.
Well, I just want to know.
I mean, uh you know, uh why anyone would think it's right to keep fired or resigned people that resign under a cloud or demoted people that somehow they deserve to keep their security clearance.
You know, there's a new book out, and um I had the authors on last week.
It's called Compromised, How Money and Politics Drive FBI corruption.
Now it's put out by the government accountability institute, that's Peter Schweitzer's group, and uh he wrote the forward and Seamus Brunner wrote the book, but among the other findings here is that security clearances we discover worth a lot of money.
Points out James Comey, for example, made six point one million dollars after the FBI granted his employer, Lockheed Martin, who is, I guess he was representing at the time a billion-dollar boondoggle.
Under Muller's direction, the FBI granted multiple by contracts to Lockheed Martin while Comey was advising them on legality of their operations.
He got another six million dollars working with one of the world's largest hedge funds and another five hundred grand for unused vacation time.
Now, I'm not saying there's anything nefarious here, but I am saying that those security clearances are worth money.
Your thoughts.
Well, of course we're worth money.
And the fact is that there is no, you know, this is not an automatic earned right.
This is not an aristocracy.
You get the clearance for the purpose of serving the country, and when you're no longer serving the country, you give it up.
I had clearances that were very, very high when I was speaking.
But it would never have occurred to me to try to keep clearances at that level once I quit being speaker.
The ironic thing is that we found a provision within the CIA that says that, well, the only way you keep your clearance, if you act in a manner as a current CIA employee.
Brennan is not meeting that standard.
Uh if you listen to the media, 538, other places, uh, the Democrats are going to take over the House.
Uh I uh would like to think that's not true.
Well, first of all, there's a fascinating new book coming out by the head of polling for CBS, who starts with the whole notion of how wrong they were uh when they tried to call the election in 2016.
And he goes back and says, you know, there's some really painful lessons to be learned uh by how how wrong we were.
And his conclusion was uh that they didn't look in detail at what was really going on.
Uh he has a brand new book out, which I recommend everybody.
His name's Anthony Salvanto.
And this is one of the points he makes that I think normal establishment types don't get.
He said what was happening the last six weeks of the campaign was that everybody who was on decided was splitting for for Trump.
And the reason was that they'd all had years and years and years to decide they liked Hillary and they just couldn't do it.
And Trump ran this very aggressive, very intense campaign, as you'll remember, five or six major rallies a day, and each of those rallies had 20,000 people, and each of those people took pictures with their smartphones and sent it out to 20 or more of their friends.
So each rally was a 400,000 or million person event in terms of impact.
She was doing one of that a day for 1500 people.
And and so Vonta's point is that when you looked at the momentum underneath, all of it was going towards Trump.
So here's here's my prediction.
If the Trump team, including the president, and the Republican National Committee, which has done uh under uh Rona's job, she has done an amazing job as the chairman of raising more money than anybody in history, uh, obviously with enormous help from the president.
Uh if that team working with the House and Senate committees runs a very issue-oriented campaign in September and October, we're gonna have an upset as big as 19 as 2016.
I mean, everybody who told you in 2016 that Hillary was clearly going to win, everybody who went into 2016 election night buying champagne as a good liberal, they're gonna be as shaken come election night.
And I'll give you two quick examples.
Um every Democratic Senate incumbent sponsor the bill.
Okay, as co-sponsored the bill for open borders, and I doubt if 25% of the countries for open borders.
So if they go and try to defend that, they're in deep trouble.
Sanctuary cities are worse.
84% of the country thinks they increase crime.
So if we have a very issue-oriented campaign this fall, you're gonna be very happy on election night.
Let's hope they listen to you.
One of the smartest guys in politics, Newt Gingrich, thank you.
We have an exclusive breaking story next, and Sarah and Greg, straight ahead.
We'll be right back.
Didn't the IRS scandal and the NSA atrocities convince you?
You need a watchdog on Washington with insider sources.
You need Hannity every day.
Do you think that John Brandon's hyperbole is an issue here?
Is one of the reasons we're having this crisis?
Well, I I think it is.
Uh I think John uh is sort of like a free train, and uh he's gonna say what's on his mind.
Uh I think, though, that the common denominator among all of us that have been speaking up, though, is genuine concern about the the uh jeopardy or threats to our institutions and values.
And although we may express that in in in different ways, and I think that's what this this really is about.
But John and his rhetoric uh had become uh, I think uh an issue in and of itself.
Uh you indicated that you've had lawyers contact you about possible legal action.
It's 48 hours later.
What would that look like?
Is that something you're serious about?
Well, I have been contacted by a number of lawyers, and they have already uh given me their thoughts about uh the basis for a complaint and injunction to try to prevent him from doing this in the future.
Uh uh if my clearances and my reputation as I'm being pulled through the mud now, if that's the price we're going to pay to prevent Donald Trump from doing this against other people.
To me, it's a small price to pay.
So I am going to do whatever I can personally to try to prevent these abuses in the future.
And if it means going to court, I will I will do that.
This is a dictatorial exercise of power that should frighten and call on all Republicans to say, Mr. President, you cannot do this.
You are trying to inhibit the free speech of people who may be in opposition to you to use this kind of punishment to chill speech is a violation of the First Amendment.
I mean, this is a uh striking move towards authoritarianism.
You know, this is what dictators do.
They shut down the press, they shut down dissent, they jail their opponents.
Or in this case, they steal their security clearance.
What happened here was a pure authoritarian act from an intemperate president who wanted to punish one of his critics.
nothing more, nothing less.
The White House is threatening him right now by taking away security clearance.
But they've already taken it away from from John Lynn.
So doesn't that say to everybody else?
Shut your mouth.
A lot of these people that have these security clearances, and this is the secret in in the swampy Washington, D.C., they have them and they keep them because it's profitable for them after they leave government.
Because if you have a security clearance, especially high-level security clearances, your contracts and your consulting give pay you a lot more money because of the access that you have.
I hope the president continues to do this, and I hope he adds Omarosa to the list.
Because if she has a clearance, she too, because of her actions, should have it revoked.
Well, I don't know if I'd put Amarosa in the same category of the 75 people who signed those letters, but Phil Mud, uh I imagine you want to react.
Profitable Paris.
When I am requested to sit on an advisory board, let me ask you one question.
How much do you think I'm paid to do that at the request of the US government?
Give me one answer and you got 10 seconds.
How much?
I'll give I'll ask you a question.
How much are you paid for your cases?
Answer the contracting gig for for being a foreign.
I have no contract with the US government that pay money.
I'm not talking here, and this is the thing.
Let's be honest.
I'm not talking about your role with the federal government.
I'm talking about the consumer.
That's talking about getting a consultant and a contractor.
The consulting firms that they form and that you all get is because you get more money when having a consultant for having the security cleaner.
I have zero consulting relationships with the US government.
Zero.
I'm not talking Phil.
That's a good talking point.
That was a phenomenal debate, believe it or not, on fake news CNN.
Now, I wasn't watching fake news CNN.
I saw it on media because they had the clip up.
Uh Paris Denard clobbering this this anti-Trumper uh Phil Mutt.
I never I tell me what what contracts I had with the U.S. government.
That's not what he's talking about.
I told you about this new book last week, and we had Peter Schweitzer on and Seamus Brunner on the program, and it's called Compromised How Money and Politics Drive FBI corruption.
Now what are these security clearances worth?
Now the book points out that James Comey's net worth skyrocketed over four thousand percent between leaving the DOJ in oh five and returning to the FBI in twenty thirteen.
The book chronicles how Comey made six point one million dollars after Muller's FBI granted his employer.
In other words, Comey's working for Lockheed Martin, which is the largest contractor in history in what was m many described a billion dollar boondoggle, and under Mueller's direction, he was the FBI director at the time.
The FBI granted multiple spy contracts to Lockheed Martin while Comey advised them on the quote, legality of their operations.
That's six point one million dollars we're talking about.
It's a serious amount of money.
Well, what are they paying for?
They're paying for contacts, which by the way can be totally completely legitimate.
But the point is that security clearance is worth something.
And that's the point here.
And to have Clapper even recognizing that the rhetoric of Brennan is so over the top is unbelievable.
But this isn't the first time that this has happened.
Sean Bigley is a partner with Bigley uh Ranish uh LLP specializing in federal security clearance defense, and you represent Adam Lovinger, who lost his security clearance after Stefan Halper complained about him, and you wrote an op ed uh about your client.
Why don't I just let you tell our audience what you uh found and what you said?
Hey, Sean, good to be with you.
That's right.
Uh I do represent uh Mr. Levinger, he's a longtime uh defense department employee uh who is uh very strong supporter of the president, and uh in twenty sixteen he complained numerous times to his superiors, uh all of whom were Obama appointees at the Pentagon about these egregious contracts that were being awarded to Stefan Halper and also to a uh close friend of the Clinton families,
and uh subsequently several months go by and his mysterious uh his security clearance is mysteriously revoked, and he's now uh sitting at home uh trying to figure out ways to feed his family.
All right, so now this is fascinating.
So when did this happen?
What year?
So the complaints originally were filed in the fall of twenty sixteen, right around the election cycle, and they were ignored.
And uh subsequently the administration comes in, he uh moves over to the White House as a by name request from the new administration.
They had heard about his uh reputation and wanted him serving in the White House, and by May first, he had been recalled to the Pentagon and his security clearance had been stripped.
You know, when you look at all the FBI departures, for example, and the reasons why, whether there are people are fired like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, fired, Peter Strck, fired, then you got the resignations.
Lisa Page, she got out while she could.
James Rabicke, James Baker, uh, and and others, and then you look at the others in the DOJ, the number of people that have resigned, people aren't even beginning to pay attention to any of this, but you got a a list between the DOJ and the FBI top people that have either resigned, been fired, or demoted twice like Bruce Orr.
But the reality is uh these clearances are worth money in the private sector.
And I'm not even saying that anything nefarious necessarily goes on, except it's all this they're all the same people all the time.
Why is it Comey is getting paid all this money from Lockheed Martin, according to this book compromised, at a time when Muller is the FBI director.
I mean, these I mean we can keep running into the same group of people.
Seems to me like who you know matters in Washington.
Oh, absolutely.
And I mean, I think a lot of people outside the Washington DC beltway may not understand that really a security clearance is a meal ticket.
It's the equivalent of uh a professional license for a doctor or a lawyer, and without it, you're not gonna work in the field in which you practice.
And so for somebody like a Comey or a Brennan who's spent their career in government and who's gonna go on to lucrative uh consulting gigs or sit on boards at various defense contractors, without that clearance, they're not as valuable.
And and the same thing, the reverse goes for somebody like Mr. Levinger.
He's stripped of his clearance, he can no longer work, and now we're fighting that on appeal.
Uh, and meanwhile they are do pulling out all the stops to make sure that he doesn't get his due process.
It's really outrageous.
Let's go into your original article, how the Pentagon bankrolled an alleged uh spy inside the Trump campaign and other sordid tales.
Um because you you literally write, you know, chapter and verse on this.
So I want you to explain it in detail.
Sure.
So uh back in 2016, Mr. Levinger started to notice that uh Mr. Halper and others in this office were really getting uh very, very generous contracts to do what he perceived as very little.
Uh the contracts were kept very close to the vest, they were run by people who were uh ardent Obama and Clinton supporters, uh including one of whom was a vocal anti-Trumper, and he started raising issues and saying, look, you know, there this is a perception of impropriety.
What are these people doing for the money?
These are taxpayer funds.
Why are we bankrolling to the tune of millions of dollars people to go out and conduct research studies on things like whether or not there's enough coastal elites in the national security bureaucracy?
I mean, ridiculous, patently ridiculous subject matters that do nothing to inform anybody, and we're being paid hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to perform this work.
On top of that, he also said here's a specific statute, a specific federal law that prohibits contractors from being used to conduct foreign relations, which is precisely what he perceived them as doing.
And he was completely ignored, completely shut down on multiple levels.
Uh he goes off to the White House, and I think they viewed him as a threat there and uh essentially did whatever they had to do to yank him back, strip him of his clearance, and shut him up.
And you know, Sean, this is a real problem.
It's not just Mr. Lovinger, it's an epidemic across the government.
I have people who I represent in the administration on multiple different levels, very senior folks all the way to lower level folks, and their experience is probably experiencing this problem right and left.
It's a tool that the the deep state is essentially weaponized.
It's the low-hanging fruit, if you will, to keep people out of government, to keep the president's appointees out who are going to effectuate his agenda.
And it's something that they've been doing over and over and over.
Who are the people responsible?
Because you wrote another great column on that, how the deep state has weaponized the vetting of Trump appointees.
And I know numerous people that have incredible qualifications, and it seems the only strike against them is that they recognize that there are either holdovers from the Obama administration or people that are at odds with the current administration that are inside these important jobs.
Oh, absolutely.
And you know, we're DOD is the tip of the spear on this.
I mean, let's be clear.
There are a good half dozen folks at the Department of Defense who are actively out to thwart the president's agenda and who are using this process as the means to do it.
But it's also happening in the State Department, it's happening at Homeland Security, it's happening in a number of places government-wide, and they're they're doing it in very sneaky, very technical ways that that they they use to sort of keep people out.
And and you know, here's another irony, too.
Under Brennan, the CIA was one of the worst and remains one of the worst defenders as far as due process.
I have people who have literally put their lives on the line for this country, who have been frozen out on bogus security clearance concerns, one of whom was been sitting since 2014 and is now working the drive-thru at Chick-fil-A to make m ends meet.
So, you know, for him to turn around and whine about essentially him being mistreated is really ironic.
Well, let me go through because you went through all of this.
Our friend well, I got to take a break here.
I'll ask you my friend Rowan Scarborough had a great piece on this that we'll get to uh as well.
800 941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
And as we continue with Sean uh Bigley, and uh by the way, he represents Adam Lovinger, he's the guy that lost the security clearance after Stefan Halper complained about him.
Uh you know, I read the piece, your pieces, and then I also read Rowan Scarborough, I've known a long time and respect a lot from the Washington Times, and he's pointing out your client, which, by the way, a uh Pentagon analyst stripped of his security clearance by Obama appointed officials after he complained of questionable government contracts that Stefan Halper had.
Now, this is what, over four hundred thousand dollars, which we're talking about.
And anyway, Adam Lovinger, your client is a twelve-year strategist at the Pentagon's office of net assessment, and he complained to his bosses about these Halper contracts, and uh then they yanked his security clearance.
How often is this happened that we don't hear about it?
Maybe not as high profile as say John Brennan.
Yeah, it's it's definitely happening uh on a pretty consistent basis, not so much in the whistleblower retaliation context as it is in the political sphere.
Uh in other words, if you uh are somebody who identifies as a you know supporter of the president, uh somebody who maybe the president has selected to fill a specific role.
Uh we've seen case after case where uh there are entrenched bureaucrats, many of them Obama holdovers, uh, at various agencies who are pulling out all the stops uh from a security and a vetting standpoint to prevent people from getting in.
And I'll give you a couple of examples.
Uh we've had some agencies where they have essentially instituted a a policy that says we're not going to give uh what's called interim clearances anymore to political appointees.
We're gonna give them all day long to to career officials, but we're not gonna give them to people who the president appoints because we just don't trust them.
We've had other agencies that have essentially a year after somebody has been onboarded and started work, come back and said, you know what, uh that little minor uh thing that you self-reported, maybe you had a DUI a few years ago, or some other minor thing that we didn't think was a problem when we hired you.
Now it's an issue, so now we're gonna kick you out to the curb.
So it's that kind of behavior that's happening over and over and again.
Again, and really the only conclusion that you can draw on a systemic level is that this is a a coordinated effort to essentially prevent the president from effectuating his policy agenda because as we know, you can't you can't you don't have people to execute the policy, you can't execute it.
And I think that's precisely what the what the idea is.
All right, Sean Bigley, uh keep up the good work.
We'll continue to follow the story, and we're gonna continue to investigate the investigators and follow the money, which now is becoming more interesting by the day.
Uh 800-941 Sean, toll-free telephone number, news roundup information overload is next, and then we'll check in with Greg and Sarah straight ahead.
Regret essentially accusing the president of treason.
Do you do you regret some of the things you have said?
I called his behavior treasonous, which is to betray one's trust and to aid and abet the enemy, and I stand very much by that uh claim.
You are the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United States.
It's not a private citizen.
A lot of people hear the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United States of treason.
That's that's monument that's a monumental accusation.
Well, I think these are abnormal times.
And I think a lot of people have have spoken out against what Mr. Trump has done.
And maybe it's my my warning training as an intelligence professional.
I have seen the lights blinking red in terms of what Mr. Trump has done and is doing and is bringing this country down on the global stage, and he's fueling and feeding divisiveness within our country.
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.
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 as deliberately.
His rhetoric is so outrageous, so over the top, so absolutely rooted in insanity and politics.
It's so personally divisive.
This is a former CIA director, former communist.
How we ever got this position is something we really need to examine and to listen to this rhetoric day in and day out, And this absolutely ridiculous argument that somehow he has a constitutional right to a lifelong act to lifelong access uh as it relates to a security clearance is absolutely false.
Now we have gone over in great specificity what the CIA itself even mandates in terms of their rules.
If he's not acting, the only way he gets to keep his clearance, if he's acting in a manner consistent with a current CIA employee, which he's not doing.
Never mind all of this.
It's a patently absurd argument about the first amendment.
Our friend Greg Jarrett pointed out the U.S. Supreme Court case, Navy v.
Egan, where a president has the authority to revoke any clearance with or without a stated reason.
And the idea that this is about free speech, no, this guy has more speech than he's ever had in his life.
He has more notoriety than he's ever had in his life.
He has more platforms than he's ever had in his life.
To spew his hate, his politics is vitriol.
And he's doing so freely, every day.
Nobody's stopping him.
But to have a security clearance is very, very different.
Now we have uh Greg Jarrett, three weeks and running now, number one New York Times bestseller, his book, which is the Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump and Sarah Carter is with us, Fox News investigative reporter and contributor.
And Sarah, by the way, is even breaking more news that in the summer of twenty sixteen, then FBI director James Comey had been advised that former Senate majority leader Harry Reid would be sending him a letter, which he did send, asking to investigate allegations that President Trump's campaign had colluded with Russia, according to documents now obtained by Congress.
And this was written several days after John Brennan had met with Harry Reed.
And by the way, most investigators believe that Brennan privately briefed Reed about the dossier.
Uh it's in Greg's book, by the way, and we'll get to whether or not that it actually happened.
Sarah, why don't you give us more details and why that would be relevant the timing of the heads up that Comey had.
Well, it was extraordinarily relevant, uh, Sean, because it would tell us whether or not Brennan, the CIA, was working with the FBI during that summer with regard to the dossier.
And it seems like it would make common sense because if we think about it in terms of of the dossier, this is a foreign uh spy, Christopher Steele, who put together these sixteen part memos that compiled the dossier.
Uh, and it would be uh extraordinary if the FBI was investigating this without making contact with the CIA.
What makes this important is the fact that Brennan had briefed the gang of eight that summer, and then Reed had called him in for basically a private meeting on August 25th, 2016.
So he met with Reed.
Two days later, a letter goes to Comey.
Now, documents that have been obtained by Congress show that Comey was expecting this letter even before he received it.
He goes, so here at Brennan is now talking to Reed.
This is on August 25th.
Two days later, Reed gets this letter, right?
Sends this letter to Comey.
Two days after the letter goes to Comey, it gets leaked to the New York Times.
And on August 29th, and then the story comes out.
It fleshes out even more.
This is right before the election, where they're accusing Trump and people in his campaign of colluding with Russia.
And I think there's a lot of concern among congressional officials.
We know that Judicial Watch now has sued for all of the communications between Brennan and Comey.
I mean Brennan and Harry Reed, and they want to know what those connections were, what his connections were with Comey as well, and how this all evolved.
Were all these agencies in collusion with each other?
Were they involved with the DOJ?
Was the CIA involved in the FBI's investigation?
And I think that's going to be very telling how far these people were involved in in this alleged Russia Trump collusion case.
Well, and then it goes that pushes the date back earlier.
And then remember this is July or the the summer of twenty sixteen.
And uh remember, we now believe it all started even before they ended the Clinton investigation, as evidence points out.
Greg, you write about this this Brennan Harry Reid meeting in your book.
I want to go over it specifically.
We know that meeting took place, correct?
Yes, it's actually on page one hundred of my book.
They meet on the twenty-fifth.
Harry Reid sends out a letter to James Comey on the twenty-seventh in an obvious attempt to influence the election.
Uh he claims Trump Russia collusion.
And they purposely did this, Brennan and Reed to leak it to the media to uh uh harm President uh or then candidate Trump in his election bid.
And so uh they it didn't work.
Only the Washington Post picked up on it.
And so uh then Harry Reid doubles down and does it again.
He sends another letter about a month later, just before the election, to harm Trump.
Uh and once again he alleges Trump Russian collusion.
And John Brennan, as I identify in the book, was the instigator.
He did more than anyone to propagate and promulgate the uh the Russia hoax.
He's the guy who was peddling this false dossier.
And James Comey was in on it all along.
I tweeted out earlier today that it it it is always amusing when Comy uh weighs in as he did over the weekend about lies and lying people, because this is a guy who sermonizes about it in the book, and yet he's the guy who basically conjured out of thin air the Russia hoax all by himself, with some help from John Brennan, James Clapper, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and others, as I explained in the book.
So uh Brennan is not the kind of person who should ever be close to classified information.
The president was correct in making sure that he had his classification revoked.
And so too Comey and all of the other people I just named.
They should never be anywhere near classified information.
You know, look at all the people, Sarah.
Comey fired, McCabe fired, struck fired, page resigns, Rabicki resigns, Baker resigns, uh and and other FBI uh departures that have taken place that are are under scrutiny at this particular time.
Then you got, you know, Sally Yates fired, Bruce Ord demoted twice, and then you know, all told between the FBI and the DOJ, twenty-five people resigned, fired or demoted over all of this.
Uh and then you have you know, the news media still ignores the insanity that has gone on here at the top levels of the FBI and the DOJ.
I I think it's incredible, Sean, uh, that this is possibly one of the biggest scandals in modern political history, and the the mainstream media and audiences that watch the mainstream media or read the mainstream media are really blinded by what happened because the information is not getting out there.
This is so important.
It it sits on everything our Constitution stands for because it talks about the weaponizing of our intelligence community, our privacy rights, uh the ability for people within the government to try to unseat a duly elected president.
Uh you can't get a story bigger than this.
And just to clarify on one thing, because in my story I did reach out to John Brennan uh numerous times, and I did get a response.
This guy Shapiro former yeah, his former chief of staff, Nick Shapiro, responded on behalf of Brennan.
This was his former chief of staff at the CIA, and denied any allegations, suggesting that he knew about the dossier before December 2016.
The contents of the dossier.
Now, when I pushed on it and said, look, you know, I knew about the dossier during that summer.
Uh, there were rumors all over Washington, D.C. that somebody was peddling some kind of information about a report of Trump in Russia.
How could I know about it and the head of the CIA not know about it?
And then he went back and said, Well, he had heard about its existence, but hadn't seen the content.
Did that'sn't been briefed on it.
Okay.
So he didn't bring this up with uh Harry Reed.
Is that what he's claiming?
That's what he's claiming.
He is claiming that he didn't have a lot of people.
And how many days after after he met with Harry Reid, did Reed send uh Comey the memo or the letter?
Absolutely.
He said that Reed had asked him to brief him uh Reed had asked him permission uh to basically put in his letter the contents of the briefing that he gave to the gang of eight on Russia, uh, and that he had denied uh Reed that that I guess that permission to put the contents of what he had briefed the gang of eight on, but Reed had sent the letter anyways uh regarding whatever he knew about the dossier.
Don't we have evidence too that that Brennan was involved in spreading this false dossier information to the media and so according to sources, Brennan was actually involved in spreading this dossier and rumors about this dossier.
Now, remember this is Washington DC, and people say a lot of things.
That's why I reached out to Brennan personally.
Now we have Brennan on the record saying this.
But what we don't have is all of the communications which the CIA has denied, and they probably will deny on a national security basis to uh that were requested by Judicial Watch, which would be those communications between uh Brennan and Reed, between Brennan and Comey, uh, between Comey and Reed.
That would be interesting to see as well, because there is a lot of suspicion that when he had that briefing with Reed on August 25th, that the contents of the dossier were discussed.
And Comey was well aware that a letter would be coming from Reed.
So it appeared that they all knew what was coming down the pike, and it appeared that they all knew that it was related to this dossier.
All right, let me take a break.
We'll come back more with Sarah Carter.
We'll have full coverage of this tonight and the reasons laid out in specific detail why Brennan does not deserve a security clearance, and by the way, neither do all these other fired uh former officials.
All right, as we continue, Greg Jarrett, number one, New York Times bestselling author, The Russian hoax, the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton, frame Donald Trump.
Three weeks in running now, number one on the New York Times list, Sarah Carter, Fox News contributor, investigative reporter.
Uh Sarah has a new story out.
Let me go back to what Brennan knew and did, and Greg it if if so he's meeting with Harry Reid in late in August, right?
We believe, and Harry Reid gets the details August 30th, 2016.
What do we know about Director Brennan's briefing that it had taken place just a couple of days prior to that?
And similarly, what do we know about Brennan using the dossier to disseminate false information?
Well, he clearly had uh the dossier in his possession.
He admits when he testified, and this is also in my book, um, when he testified before Congress, he said he knew of Trump Russia uh connections and conspiracy incollusion.
And he knew that in the summer of two thousand and sixteen.
So there's no question that he knew about that.
That's documented in my book.
It's well sourced.
And it's in fact his uh under oath testimony.
So he meets with Harry Reid uh in late August, and it's no coincidence that Reed sends out a a uh letter to James Comey.
It was all a con job.
They they both knew that on the thirty-first of July, Comey had already launched officially by signing papers under the name of Peter Strzok, the Trump Russia collusion case.
But the media didn't know it.
So they were looking for an excuse to let the media know about it, to run with it.
To harm uh Trump in the election and help Hillary Clinton.
So Harry Reid leaks his letter alleging Trump Russia collusion, the Washington police, he's never gonna tell the truth either.
Because no, of course not.
He has a long and distinguished history of lies.
He's one of the most prodigious prolific liars in all of uh Congress.
Let me uh give let Sarah have the last word, only because we're running out of time.
Both of you will join us on Hannity tonight, but I want to make sure we get uh Sarah's last words in here, Sarah.
Well, I think there's uh there's very there's a lot of concern here.
What we need to find out, Sean, is how deep were the other agencies involved in this investigation into uh President Trump, what were their actions, what took place between them, what was the information shared between the FBI and CIA?
I think that's very important.
I think that's very telling, and I think that's direction Congress is going to take right now.
All right, thank you both for being with us.
Uh Sarah, Greg, we'll have more details tonight.
Quick break.
Your calls are next.
You know what's amazing.
I think we've done a better job on TV, and maybe it's just because uh you can see it, but the day today to day today, issue to issue to issue, the feigned moral outrage of the day, whether it's Russia, Russia, Russia, or Paul Manafort or Amarosa, it doesn't matter.
I mean, it is literally issue to issue to issue.
The one thing they don't do is report on the biggest abuse of power scandal in history, and all these FBI and DOJ officials That abused power and were fired or resigned or were demoted, and there's a ton of them.
And then they sit so they're feigning outrage now.
Oh, Brennan lost the security clearance.
I mean, you watch this guy, he is totally, utterly, completely unhinged.
How this man ever became the CIA director is something we've got to ask the question.
And all these people, all of a sudden you get fired, you get to keep your security clearance.
The purpose of keeping your clearance, just so you know, is if we ever wanted a you know, to bring back some people for additional insight into the issues of the day.
You lose that privilege.
It is not freedom of speech being squashed as the media is portraying this, and that Brennan is a great victim here.
He's not.
He earned the removal of his security clearance, and all these other people did too.
Anyway, let's let's just remind you how how this media in this country works on any given day.
This is a dictatorial exercise of power that should frighten and call on all Republicans to say, Mr. President, you cannot do this.
You are trying to inhibit the free speech of people who may be in opposition to you to use this kind of punishment to kill speech is a violation of the First Amendment.
I mean, this is a uh a striking move towards authoritarianism.
You know, this is what dictators do.
They shut down the press, they shut down dissent, they jail their opponents.
Or in this case, they they steal their security clearance.
What happened here was a pure authoritarian act from an intemperate president who wanted to punish one of his critics.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The right line threatening him right now by the way he said it clearly.
It doesn't influence.
But they've already taken it away from from John Biden.
So doesn't that say to everybody else?
Shut your mouth.
He's basically sort of delegitimizing our system of government.
Maybe this is the beginning of a new Saturday night massacre.
And one has to wonder whether Mr. Trump is feeling the pressure of the Manafort trial.
It looks like he may very well have obstructed justice in this particular case.
That's why I find it particularly ironic that he seems to be, you know, continuing to try to obstruct and and and end this case so publicly.
They're starting to feel the collusion investigation closing in a little bit more.
We're getting Donald Trump's uh most overt and obstructionist tweets to date.
Um it's not a surprise.
Just around this little incident will be a strong mini case of obstruction.
Also briefly on special counsel Robert Moore's Russia investigation, the Russian investigation, the whole Russian investigation.
It is Russia investigation from all things Russia investigation.
A major development potentially in the Russia investigation.
Russian affair and Russian investigation from the Russian investigation who would hinder the Russian investigation in the Russian investigation, Russia investigations, the Russian investigation.
From the Russian investigation, the Russia investigation the Russian investigation of the Russian investigation breaking news this morning on the Russia investigation.
A major new development in the Russian meddling investigation, breaking news in the Russian investigation, the Russian meddling investigation, Russian investigation has recused himself in the Russian investigation, the Russian investigation and the Russia investigation.
It's part of the Russian investigation of the Russian investigation, Russia investigation, Russia investigation.
Russian investigation, Russia investigation.
The Russia investigation.
A massive Russian investigation the Russian investigation.
Is the Russia investigation now heating up?
The Russia uh investigation.
The Russia investigation.
The Russian investigation.
From the Russian investigation off and the Russian investigation.
This is actually about the Russia investigation.
The Russia investigation.
Breaking headlines in the Russian investigation, a lot of developments in the Russian investigation.
In the Russia investigation.
We're following breaking news in the Russian investigation, the Russia investigation.
Russia investigation.
Part of the Russian investigation and the Russian investigation.
Lots of big revelations in the Russia investigation.
Big news tonight on the Russian investigation.
A lot of major new developments tonight.
Out in these districts when you talk to people about Russia, and that's all we talk about at CNN.
You know, then this weekend, I'm watching uh, what's his name?
Paris Denard over its just clobbering.
Now we pointed out the amount of money last week that all of these people, they leave, you know, government with their security clearances, then they go work for contractors like Lockheed Martin.
Now do I think that's a bad thing?
Not necessarily.
I don't mind people making money and using their expertise, their background, their experience, uh, to advise companies on what's good, right, just, etc.
But, you know, when you see Comey is getting huge contracts, and Mueller is the FBI director, and the amount of money is staggering, well, then it becomes a bit of an issue to me.
And then I think legitimate investigate the investigators follow the money questions do need to be asked.
Now the fact is, this guy, Paris Denard was right.
Philip Mudd had a meltdown, and he kept shifting the issue.
Tell me where the U.S. government paid.
I'm not we're not talking about that.
Paris Denard was not talking about that.
He was rightly pointing out, and this new book now highlights it that we had on Friday.
That, yeah, there is this industry that exists for people with security clearances.
Listen.
A lot of these people that have these security clearances, and this is the secret in the swampy Washington, D.C., they have them and they keep them because it's profitable for them after they leave government.
Because if you have a security clearance, especially high-level security clearances, your contracts and your consulting gig pay you a lot more money because of the access that you have.
I hope the president continues to do this, and I hope he adds Amarosa to the list because if she has a clearance, she too, because of her actions, uh, should have it revoked.
Well, I don't know if I'd put Amarosa in the same category, the 75 people who signed those letters, but Phil Mudd, uh I imagine you want to react.
Profitable Paris.
When I am requested to sit on an advisory board, let me ask you one question.
How much do you think I'm paid to do that at the request of the U.S. government?
At the request of the government.
Ten seconds, ten, nine.
I'll give I'll ask you a question.
How much are you paid for your question?
I have no contract with the U.S. government.
With the government.
That's not what he's talking about.
When I'm not talking about offer advice to the U.S. government, I let's be honest.
Let's be honest.
I'm not talking about your role with the federal government.
I'm talking about the contracting gigs that you get from being a consultant and a contractor.
The consulting firms that they form and that you all get is because you get more money when having a consultant.
For having the security clearance.
That's not acting like that doesn't happen.
I have zero consulting relationships with the U.S. government.
Zero.
I'm not talking about the government.
He didn't say the government.
Notice three times now.
I'm talking about in the private sector.
When you have a security clearance and you keep it-I have zero relationships with the private sector that involve my security clearance.
Zero.
I get zero dollars from consulting companies that deal with U.S. government.
Are we clear?
Well, I will be clear and saying that everybody in Washington, D.C. knows if you don't want to be honest about it, that's on you.
All right.
So now maybe Mud doesn't have those, but he's funny that he didn't answer the guy's question.
Now we know from this new book that wait a minute, this is an industry that none of us really knew about.
That, you know, I guess if what's his name?
Comey can go work for what?
Uh Lockheed Martin and make six million dollars according to this book, Compromised how money and politics drive FBI corruption.
And Mueller at the time is the FBI director.
I mean, okay, no wonder they're all friends.
I mean, it's so incestuous.
That's the problem.
That is what's wrong here.
Anyway, let's get to our busy.
Well, the one other thing.
Do we have to tape a Florida Democrat or old impeached friend Al C. Hastings trying to, you know, quote joke about Trump drowning in the Potomac?
But I will tell you one joke that I learned from Aaron Silva, who's father is uh former state legislator and is a robot very silver.
But I already asked the audience the other night in Palm Beach County.
He said, Do you know the difference between a crisis and a catastrophe?
And no one held their hand, so Aaron answered for us.
He says, a crisis is if Donald Trump falls into the Potomac River and can't swim.
And he said, and a catastrophe is anybody say it's his woo who the president drowning in the Potomac.
Really getting those lines going there, getting that crowd revved up.
Well, the next thing we're gonna hear is impeach 45 again.
Reclaiming my time.
Impeach 45.
Get, you know, let's go.
I say keep going.
Democrats, this is what you want to run on.
And how many short days do we have?
Seventy-eight days.
If that's what you're going to run on, good luck to you.
We're going to hit this very hard right after Labor Day.
This is the most important midterm in your life.
And I'm going to tell you right now, you want all progress to stop.
If you want investigations, galore, then stay home.
If you want the president's agenda literally to stop in its tracks, then stay home, because that's what the Democrats plan.
That's what they will do, and they will try and use that to stop and stymie all the good that we've now seen in the last, you know, twenty months or so.
All right, Cindy is in Michigan.
Cindy, hi, how are you?
We're glad you called.
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
Hi, Sean.
I hope you're well.
I am calling today about the term fake news.
I think it really is yellow journalism, and it's a language of half truth, innuendos, and outright lies.
And I can't imagine how thick President Trump's skin must be to listen to what he must hear all day long.
And I I just don't think that people have the right who have access to the press, CNN, John Brennan, all these people, that they have the right to say or print lies that blacken a person's name and cause pain.
And I think that's what they do.
And I people that support in the what what I was hearing with John Brennan just infuriates me.
And I wonder do people just derive pleasure from the pain it might cause somebody else, especially President Trump, and do they listen to it, support it, because it's not happening to them?
Listen, you gotta understand something that's very profound here.
They hate this president.
They think they did everything they could do to stop this president.
They never thought this president would win.
They did things that were frankly uh untoward and illegal.
And some of them are in legal jeopardy.
And look, I I don't know I I've never seen a media so complicit involved in a cover up of monumental proportions.
We have the evidence.
These people have been fired.
These people have resigned, these people have been demoted, and it's all over the place.
And in the meantime, then they then we're learning that not only did the president and his attorneys hand over 1.4 million separate documents to Mueller and his merry band of witch hunters, but then they even allowed the White House counsel, which is unprecedented to talk to this guy for 30 hours.
That's it.
Case closed.
Nobody lets their attorney Clinton, nobody would let their attorney speak to the uh special counsel like this.
So now they want to bring the president in.
Why?
Because he may contradict one or two things that that was said by his attorney, the White House counsel, and they can say, and this is what Rudy was trying to say, the truth is not the truth.
What he's saying in that statement, and it it sounds to the average person like a dumb thing to say.
What he's really saying is the people that get to determine if you have two different bits of testimony, it will be the special counsel that decides what is the truth, even if they may be wrong.
That's that was the essence of his state, maybe inarticulate, a little bit more of I would say, special counsel legal jargon uh that most lawyers would understand, but it's going to be them that decide.
And yeah, you can indict a ham sandwich.
It's kind of scary.
Um, thank you so much, Cindy.
Michael in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, WFLA.
What's going on?
God God bless Sean.
Honored to speak to you because you seek the truth.
I just wanted to roll this out about Strzok, who's I think you'll find it's a direct link to Brennan.
But how does somebody raise $400,000 in 24 hours?
When Molly Tibbetts with national news took three weeks to raise that kind of money.
That GoFundMe page was set up inside the 54 square miles of insanity, surrounded by reality, and somebody is paying that guy off.
And and and you'll see that those names are anonymous and they should be investigated.
Who gave him money?
And I think people are trying to pay Strck off because he knows where everything is buried.
I don't know.
You mean with the high amount of money that's going into his defense fund?
I don't know.
I'd have to look at the people that are putting it in there.
I just assume there are enough Trump hating liberals out there that would pay any amount of money.
Because remember, their agenda is about destroying Trump.
That's gonna wrap things up for today.
All right, we have breaking news tonight.
Uh also Sarah and Greg will join us on the breaking news.
Jim Jordan, Alan Dershowitz.
Why did McGann testify for 30 hours?
George Papadopoulos' wife wants her husband to withdraw the plea.
And we are watching all the breaking news on every other issue.
