Andy McCarthy, Fox News Contributor, columnist for National Review and former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, takes a close look at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. McCarthy stands by Judge Kavanaugh is disgusted by the treatment he has received for the sake of party politics. Sean and team break down the latest on the fight to bring Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show Podcast.
All right, who's anonymous?
Who is it?
We need, you know, there's a really dangerous, sick, ugly side to all this that nobody in the media wants to talk about.
Oh boy, Joe Biden, who can't control his temper.
You can't go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts, unless you have a slight Indian accent.
I'm not joking.
We got the first sort of mainstream African American who is articulate and bright.
Articulate, right?
Clean.
Clean.
Nice looking guy.
Clean.
I mean, that's a story, bro.
Three-letter word, Jobs.
J-O-B-S.
Whoopsie-daisy.
Oops.
Well, here's the latest Uncle Joe, crazy Uncle Joe.
You're a real beep.
Kind of street vernacular for male genitalia.
Let's put it such a good guy.
I want to take the president out behind the schoolyard.
I'll take him on.
I'll fight him.
Which is a joke.
Tough guy, Joe Biden.
Good luck.
I hope he's running for president.
That ought to be fun to watch.
We have a lot of news today.
We have four big stories that are now unfolding.
There is a grand jury investigation into the deep state.
All the issues we've been talking about confirmed today.
It's all about to hit the fan.
The president on the verge of releasing documents that's going to take the whole house of cards and blow it away.
We've got all of that.
We've got the anonymous.
And the danger of anonymous is much deeper than anybody is talking about in your news media.
And we'll blow that out of the water.
We have incredible economic news.
Yeah, 49-year low, jobless claims and other great data that we'll share in the course of the program.
Little Rocket Man, Fire and Fury, my button's bigger than your button.
Looks like Kim Jong-un has now again responded to President Trump's strength because he pulled the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from a meeting that they were going to have.
And now Little Rocket Man says he wants to denuclearize the Korean peninsula during President Trump's first term.
Oh, excuse me.
If you listen, you know, this is part of the lie that was in this anonymous piece, which really, you know, look at that.
I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration.
Well, the person, Mr. Gutless, Mrs. Gutless, whoever it happens to be, says, take foreign policy.
President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators like Vladimir Putin of Russia, North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un.
Okay, let's just take that one statement because this person that's not elected, that is not held accountable, that has no respect for the democratic constitutional republic that we are, and thinks that they are smarter than you, the American people, that they're going to take it upon themselves to be the resistance.
Or if you look at some of the other terms, it gets downright scary from my perspective on all of this.
That now, quote, they're talking about in the Washington Times, sleeper cells have awoken inside the country.
Sleeper cells?
What, people that are active in trying to undermine an American president that was duly elected?
This is really scary.
And there's lines in here that makes me wonder whether or not the Secret Service is going to get involved in this because I think they really do need to get involved in this.
If you look at the quotes, you know, for example, after dismissing the use of the 25th Amendment, the anonymous author goes on to say, what is the line one way or another?
So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until one way or another it's over.
One way or another.
What does that mean one way or another?
What does the other way mean?
Are you talking about elections?
Are you talking about a threat to the president of the United States?
Because I would think that the Secret Service now needs to get involved.
What is one way or another?
We'll remove him one way or another.
Well, let's say somebody said it about me.
We'll get him out one way or another.
Let's say it about, you know, Godfrey, you know, I've always said during the Obama years, nobody remembers, nobody wants to remember.
We've got to protect our president.
Jason has a thousand tapes of me saying it a thousand different times.
Protect the president of the United States.
Whether you agree, whether you disagree, doesn't matter.
It's we the people, the people choose.
I'm part of the resistance.
Let's see, one way or another.
I don't know.
I'm one of the resistance.
Anyway, so the guy goes on, or the woman goes on, whoever it happens to be.
A preference for autocrats and dictators.
The person that has put the toughest sanctions on Russia was not Barack Hussein Obama.
It was Donald Trump.
And literally, you know, the Russian economy is collapsing.
Little Rocketman is back at the table because his economy is collapsing.
The Iranian economy is in tatters now because the president has pulled out of that ridiculous deal that John Kerry is, you know, bragging about as the greatest things in sliced bread.
The Iran nuclear agreement, I say this straightforwardly, is the strongest, most intrusive, most accountable nuclear agreement that we have anywhere on the planet.
So this administration's position is wrong.
I think the administration has made a terrible mistake.
I think it's me.
Yeah, okay, we'll drop $150 billion on the tarmac to Iranian mullahs that chant death to America, death to Israel, burn our flag, burn the American flag.
That's a really brilliant idea.
Now, as it relates to North Korea, what have we had so far?
Since December, we're in the fall.
It's September.
Remember, we were having all those rockets being fired over Japan, and Guam was threatened.
The entire region was threatened.
He talked about fire and fury and his button that he's going to press and we're going to get a nuclear weapon landing on the continental United States or somewhere else in the world.
None of that is happening anymore.
Well, that would mean that the president, because he was strong with Kim Jong-un, we've gotten hostages returned.
The remains of Americans that have been lying in North Korea since 1953 have been returned.
You got Kim Jong-un today talking about, oh, we can now talk about denuclearization of the entire Korean peninsula.
One of his launch pad areas or testing facilities has been taken down.
And to me, well, that's all a good sign.
Then we've got this person that literally is making the case.
Although he was elected a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives.
I've been a conservative my whole life on radio.
I know some people at one point are liberals, then they become libertarians, then they become conservatives, then they become liberals, and then they go with the wind.
I've stayed consistent.
You know, the things, let's see, is Donald Trump a conservative?
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court and conservative justices, originalists.
He's proven that he is a conservative.
The biggest tax cut in history, that's a conservative principle.
Ending burdensome regulation, that's a conservative principle.
Security at our boards, that's a conservative principle.
Opening ANWAR, that is something we conservatives have wanted forever.
Building the pipelines, that's a conservative principle.
Energy, all of the above, coal, fracking, drilling, all of it, even looking into new technology, that's a conservative principle.
So, you know, all of this garbage, this is written by an anti-Trumper, somebody that thinks that they are above the rest of the country, and there's a danger to this.
What if this person, now it can be any number of people, hundreds of people, what if this person hears the president talking about a potential military action against an American foe?
Is he going to, or he or she going to undermine that?
Or what if they hear the president talking about sensitive intelligence information?
Are we going to put sources and methods in jeopardy?
What if this person is being paid?
What if this person doesn't even exist?
You know, if you look at the New York Times, I know bookies are having a good time with this.
They're putting odds on anonymous White House officials.
Anonymous White House officials could be anywhere.
Washington Post refers to it as sleeper cells have awoken.
What do we refer?
We talk about sleeper cells.
Well, terrorist sleeper cells.
What does that mean?
Sleeper cells, the resistance opposite.
Why are you working in a White House?
You have the honor of working for this president and you want to serve your country.
You're there to serve the country, not your own agenda.
Not unelected, not unaccountable bureaucrats that feel that they are above.
This is like an unelected cabal.
If there are a lot of sleeper cells, as they call them, in the Washington Post, well, what does that mean?
That they're going to awaken and take over the government and they're going to have a coup?
I mean, it's insanity.
What if this happened during Obama's term?
Some conservative stood up and said, wrote a letter to the New York Times.
You think the New York Times would have printed it?
I doubt it.
And by the way, this is not, the New York Times has been caught making up stories many times over the past years.
Maybe it's only a 10% chance.
It's probably somebody.
It could be one of 600, 700 people that fits under that title.
Anyway, but, you know, the New York Times has their MO.
They've been caught making up stories many times over the years, and it's not insignificant stuff like the resistance fantasy that they're publishing.
Does the name Jason Blair ring a bell to any of you?
2003, young New York Times writer, so impressed the paper's then editor Howell Reigns.
Reigns kept Blair on the payroll even after he warned Blair that he was making crap up.
Many of Blair's fraudulent reports ended up on the New York Times front page.
After an internal investigation, the New York Times reported on Blair's journalistic misdeeds in an unprecedented 7,000-word front-page story in May of 2003.
Times reporter who resigned leaves long trail of deception.
Well, the New York Times has been wrong.
Story called the affair a low point in their newspaper's history.
But anyway, they found an internal investigation.
36 of 73 national stories filed with the paper over a six-month period marred with errors, false date lines, evidence of plagiarism.
Executive Director Harold Raines faulted for continuing to publish Blair after the paper's Metro editor sent him a memo urging him to stop Jason from writing for the Times right now.
But he didn't stop.
Is anybody going to believe a newspaper that continued to publish news after they discovered that he was printing false news, fake news?
You know, a lot of people have talked about, you know, people's memories are short here.
I know you bookies having a great time.
Who is it?
Who is it?
You understand, though, that if it's national security issues, issues of war and peace, intelligence issues, sources and methods issues, this is a clear and present danger to the United States.
And if the Washington Post is right, sleeper cells have awakened in the United States, and they're all little spies within the Trump administration to make him look bad.
We've got a big problem.
No nation can govern under these circumstances.
Now, I just want to just stand back and think for a minute.
What does a president have to deal with every day?
National security issues, peace and prosperity, free world?
If you're surrounded by snakes and backstabbers and people that are, quote, the resistance or sleeper cells, as the Washington Post says, and you got enemies that are taping you inside of the White House, it is dangerous for the whole country.
Now, Hannity, you wouldn't feel this way if it was Barack Obama.
Yeah, I would feel that way, actually.
Just like when Barack Obama was president, I said, we've got to protect our president.
Mr. Speaker, you're going to have strong feelings about this.
We've now learned that this guy that broke into the White House, not only did he get in the door, but he knocked down a Secret Service agent, went into three different rooms of the White House, and passed the stairs that would have gone right up to the residence of the Obamas.
That is extraordinarily chilling to me.
I mean, you're talking about protecting the president of the United States of America, and it's just there's no room for error.
You've got to protect our president.
That represents the free world.
So they've got a very difficult job.
They've got to almost be perfect.
And anytime any incident happens, lately it's becoming pretty high profile.
And if we're not protecting our president, we're not protecting our leaders.
We've got a big problem.
The rest of the world is watching this.
Oh, I said that when Obama was president.
I guess I'm pretty consistent on this.
Whoopsie, Daisy.
How many times do you have you said you put a montage?
He's got about 100, he's telling me.
You protect your president.
You protect your politicians.
And this is just a really scary time that they're unelected, unaccountable people that have the honor and privilege and pleasure.
And obviously, by the way, when they say and suggest he's not a conservative, they're lying.
He's a conservative on judges.
He's a conservative on health care, a conservative on taxes, a conservative on repealing regulations, a conservative on energy independence and immigration, conservative on even foreign policy issues.
He doesn't support dictators.
He's making the world safer.
Are we alienating, what, our friends by saying, stop ripping us off with bad trade deals and negotiating better deals?
That's good for the American people.
Just like it's good to say to NATO, stop making Putin rich and billion-dollar deals with Putin for your energy supply and letting NATO pay their fair share when we're paying 70-plus cents of the bill.
There's nothing bad about any of that, one way or another.
Interesting.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
All right, so we had, well, I think that John Cornyn, the senator from Texas, had it right when, well, we had the theatrics of Corey Booker during the Kavanaugh hearings earlier today, and he's threatening to release documents that he says that they're hiding from the American people.
And Corey Booker said running for president is not an excuse for violating the rules of the Senate.
And he said, well, you can come after me.
I know.
I'll count me in on all of this.
Little problem with Corey Booker and the Senate refusing to release the documents.
They already released them.
But anyway, why get in the way of great, you know, a great let me run for president and make my main name known moment?
Here it is.
But if somebody's going to land those charges, I hope that they will follow through me and Senator Durbin.
Yep.
Senator Coons, Senator Whitehouse.
Come get us.
We're breaking the rules.
Senator Hirono, Senator Blumenthal, now Senator Feinstein.
Feinstein, I hope that they will bring charges against us.
And I'm ready to accept the full responsibility for what I have done.
But I'm done.
The consequences for what I have done.
And I stand by the public's right to have access to this document and know this nominee's views on issues that are so profoundly important, like race and the law, torture, and other issues.
Mr. Chairman, Mayor, may I make you, may I read the Senate Rule 29?
Anyway, then he goes on to read the rules, which obviously, come after me.
Well, it turns out running for president is not an excuse for violating the rules of the Senate.
One itsy bitsy, teeny weeny little problem in all of this.
Now, Booker, by the way, who we know has aspirations to be president, like Camille Harris and some other people, I guess crazy Uncle Joe called the guy a you're a beep earlier today.
Whoopsie daisy, crazy Uncle Joe slipping away, one.
You know, you can't go to a Dunkin' Donuts or 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.
And talking about a buddy, he's clean, he's articulate.
Wow, unbelievable.
Anyway, it turns out Booker 2020 Presidential Hopeful released an email.
This is about the closest I'll probably ever have in my life to an on-Spartacus moment.
Sadly, it turns out the major problem for Mr. Spartacus.
Turns out that they cleared the documents already.
They'd already been cleared.
And this is all a bunch of nothing about nothing.
Yeah, according to Bill Burke, who is the George W. Bush records representatives that led the review of the Kavanaugh hearings and records, which they did in an expedited fashion.
And we were surprised to learn about Mr. Booker's actions this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly.
So we already knew.
This was a show for nothing.
In fact, we have said yes to every request made by Senate Democrats to make documents public.
All of this drama this morning, apparently for nothing, except that he wants to run for president.
There you go.
It's all about how do I look?
How do I look?
How do I look?
How do I sound?
What do I appear to be?
Strong, tough.
I'll take on that Donald Trump guy any day of the week.
We have a lot of deep state news, and this is now a really, this is now getting to the, we're about to have a major, major, massive breakthrough on the deep state.
Let me put it that way.
According to my sources, well, Hannity, you say you're not a journalist.
No, I'm not a journalist as defined by those idiots a biased liberal and the rest of the media.
I'm a talk show host.
Let me put it this way.
So a journalist says they do news, fair and balanced and objective.
That's what they do, news.
If you're a talk show host, you're kind of like the whole newspaper.
Like we'll talk about Colin Kaepernick.
We do some sports.
We do news.
We do local news, national news, regional news, international news.
We do news.
Now we do journalism.
Sometimes we're just straight up, all right, let me tell you what's happening today.
This is what is in the news today.
And we do opinion.
We're the opinion page.
We're the news page.
We even do investigative journalism.
We've broken more stories on the deep state and the biggest abuse of power scandal in American history.
And the rest of the media, you know, they're out there with their usual, you know, oh, stormy, stormy, Russia, Russia, Woodward, Woodward, Michael, Wolf, Michael, Wolf, Michael, Wolf, and Peach, Impeach, and Peach.
And S-hole, S-hole, S-hole, S-hole, S-hole.
It's dizzying 24 hours out of the street.
No, no, we won't do it right now because we got too much to get to.
So they're basically that.
So they think they do journalism, but they're liars.
They're really just opinion people posing as journalists and a bunch of sheep that regurgitate the same nonsense.
What we do on this program is we're like the entire newspaper.
Same on Hannity.
We do journalism.
We do news.
We do straight news.
We do opinion page news.
We do controversial debates and subjects.
Sometimes we do sports and sometimes we even do gossip.
We're the whole newspaper.
So in that sense, I'm a talk show host.
And that means, yeah, journalism is part of my job.
Opinion page journalism is part of my job.
Sports, sometimes, Colin Kaepernick is part of my job.
Sometimes we give opinion or just straight news.
Sometimes we do investigative reporting a lot more than they do.
That's all part of being a talk show host.
That's what the definition is.
We do it all.
Fortunately, they can't do anything right.
We'd like to think that we do their job better than they do on that part of our job.
So let me tell you what's happening.
Even the Washington Post now jumping on the Hannity bandwagon, the Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter, John Solomon, everybody's bandwagon.
They have now for months, we discovered today, according to the Washington Post, there is a grand jury that has been summoned.
Witnesses have been summoned.
The headline is, prosecutors use grand jury as investigation of Andrew McCabe intensifies.
Joe DeGenova last night said that Rod Rosenstein was under investigation.
It appears that everybody that signed the fraudulent FISA warrants, plural, original application, three subsequent applications, well, that would be Comey.
That would be Sally Yates.
That would be Rod Rosenstein.
That would be Andrew McCabe.
They're all under investigation now.
You see, finally, maybe we'll actually get to some truth.
If we're really going to get to the truth, that would also include Hillary Clinton.
John Solomon is about to break a story tonight.
Now, we have been telling you all about the connections and the relationship.
How after Bruce, after Christopher Steele was fired, he was fired for lying and leaking.
Well, then Christopher Steele, the conduit for him to the FBI, then became Bruce Orr.
70 contacts, handwritten letters, texts, emails, meetings, they had them all.
And now we know that that, if you take it from the beginning, the Steele Orr connection leads right to Robert Mueller's special counsel.
Remember, we learned, we saw in the last couple of weeks the text message exchange, handwritten message exchange between Orr and Steele.
Oh, are you passing it on?
Have you passed it on to your friends at the SC?
SC is special counsel.
Now we know that Orr and Steele were funneling information to Andrew Weissman, who, of course, is Robert Mueller's pit bull.
Now, where did all this information they're funneling come from?
So Hillary Clinton, let's go all the way back.
First, they exonerate, they don't investigate.
So she gets a pass to stay the preferred presidential candidate, Strzok and Page and Comey, they all hate Trump.
Christopher Steele is on record hating Trump.
So she gets a free pass that would have put all of us in jail.
She continues her campaign.
Hillary, her campaign, and then the DNC, they funnel money through a law firm, Perkins Cooey.
Well, that means probably a campaign finance violation.
Perkins Cooey then hires the op research firm Fusion GPS.
Bruce Orr's wife, Bruce Orr, the fourth highest ranking member of the DOJ, works for Fusion GPS.
Fusion GPS hires a foreign national, Christopher Steele, ex-spy, MI6.
I thought foreign nationals weren't supposed to impact American elections.
They did.
Then Steele goes and puts together these phony dossiers full of Russian lies and nothing but salacious rumors about Donald Trump, most of now which have been debunked.
That information is used to lie to you, the American people, before you go vote.
That's called propaganda.
That's called misinformation.
That's called distortion.
That's called outright lying in order to impact a presidential election.
And they're using Russian lies to do it.
Then it gets worse because the bulk of information for the FISA applications, there were four of them, the original application, the last subsequent application signed by Rod Rosenstein himself, Mr. Conflict.
All of them used the bulk of information being the Steele dossier.
Oh, all four?
Then it turns out that not only did they use it to spy on a Trump campaign associate, well, then all that information is now being funneled over to the special counsel Robert Mueller through their conduit Bruce Orr.
Now, this is getting worse every day.
So it's good that there's a grand jury investigating what is the biggest abuse of power scandal in American history.
Here's where it's now all going to get very interesting.
The president now may, in fact, declassify the FISA documents that Congress has been requesting.
Now, among such things, that would include the missing pages and all the footnotes, pages 10 to 12, pages 17 to 34.
I know the exact pages we're looking for.
All the footnotes, there are 12 specific Bruce Orr 302s that would have been written about Christopher Steele.
Apparently, there's exculpatory information in them.
Then, of course, we have the so-called Gang of Eight documents.
That's the same binder of information that was briefed to Congress this summer as a result of the subpoena.
But they didn't release it.
They don't want to release it.
Where's Corey Booker when we need him?
Maybe he'll fight to have him released.
And then, of course, we've got this other bucket of information that probably includes things like, oh, exculpatory evidence as it relates to Carter Page that was purposefully withheld or what they did to Papadopoulos that nobody knew in the Trump campaign.
That's only a small part of it.
And the FISA court approving the FBI's application to spy on the Trump campaign, they didn't hold a single hearing.
And there's no indication that any verification of the information that was a fiction novel that even Christopher Steele himself can't even stand by his own dossier.
The FBI was paying him for part of this dossier work, as was Hillary Clinton, as was the DNC, whose finances Hillary Clinton was, in fact, funding and controlling.
So all this, he says, under the threat of perjury, I don't know.
I mean, it's raw intelligence.
What the hell do I know?
I can't say that I know that this is true.
Well, then, still, the Steele hating, you know, Steele, who hates Trump, is now backdooring his information to the special counsel.
Guy that lied and leaked.
There's no evidence to back up any of this phony dossier, and he doesn't even stand by his own dossier.
Judicial Watch has a report.
New FBI records reveal that Strzok authored the initial draft of the Comey letter.
Oopsie-daisy.
That's because they took it out of the hands of the real FBI agents, the guys that we love and trust, the field agents that would have done their job.
The first indication that things were going awry is when you take it out of the field office and you put it right in the hands of the upper echelon at the FBI and the DOJ.
That was a big deal.
And of course, I'm not so sure this story is true, that Bruce Orr and Christopher Steele tried to get that Russian oligarch, you know, to give us dirt on Trump or give them dirt on Trump.
And that's Oleg Daraspotska.
That never turned out to be, you know, that's a big deal.
Now the question is, now that it's right in the wheelhouse of Robert Mueller and you got a connection that we now know Steele was feeding information to Bruce Orr, who was feeding it to, oh, Andrew Weissman, is that the reason why all of a sudden that Robert Mueller may accept written answers from Donald Trump?
Does he want to land the airplane and get this over with because it's looking really bad after the headline?
DOJ's Bruce Orr kept Mueller deputy in the loop about the anti-Trump dossier.
That's Andrew Weissman.
You know, he's the guy that lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court.
He's the guy that got tens of thousands of Americans in the Enron case to lose their jobs at Anderson Accounting.
He's the guy that put four innocent Merrill executives in jail for a year.
That was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
He's the guy that's leading the charge and all this Russian collusion about, oh, I'm sorry, loan applications from years gone by, tax returns from years gone by.
The big victory of Mueller comes from Andrew Weissman.
How did this guy, and Jeannie Ray, who was the lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, get on Mueller's team?
It's disgustingly corrupt.
But I'm told that if this information comes out, these 302s are released, this gang of eight material is released, and yeah, the FISA warrants unredacted are released 20-plus pages, 10 to 12, 17 to 34.
How do you know that, Hannity?
Oh, because I do journalism.
I have sources, and my sources tell me information.
That's what I do.
That's my job.
I know the media, they're probably breathing about anonymous, you know, every day.
Something.
Yeah, that's an Obama supporter.
We operate in the Department of Justice.
If we can accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
And we have to affix our signature to the charging document.
That's something that not everybody appreciates.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is.
If you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
That person is going to face consequences.
Rod Rosenstein, five months ago, glad you were with us.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show.
Write down our toll-free number.
It's 800-941-Sean if you want to be a part of the program.
We have three big issues that are developing as it relates to Deep Stategate.
Sarah Carter rightly pointing out that the president may declassify some 20 FISA documents, pages of documents, but also much more potentially could be released.
That is the 302s, the group of eight details, and much more.
We'll get to the details on that in a second.
We have a breaking article.
Even the Washington Post has to get in on the Hannity train, albeit 18 months late.
But they're pointing out the prosecutors are using our grand jury as we speak as an investigation into Andrew McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official.
This is under James Comey, is now intensifying here.
And apparently, a grand jury's been summoned and they've summoned witnesses, and the case is ongoing.
And obviously, I think the issue of who signed FISA warrants that were never corroborated or verified and glaring omissions that dealt with politics were in each of the four FISA warrants.
Interesting that Rod Rosenstein says, oh, you need a career law enforcement.
You know, to the best of his knowledge, this has to be true.
Well, the problem is the dossier was never true.
Even Steele himself wouldn't stand by his own dossier.
Then we've got the mystery that is unfolding, which is, okay, leading from Hillary Clinton right into the office of special counsel Robert Mueller.
And it goes this way: it's Hillary and the DNC funneling money through a law firm.
Law firm then transferring the money over to Fusion GPS, an op research firm.
Could be a campaign violation, but putting that aside, they go out and hire Christopher Steele, foreign spy.
He uses all his dubious sources, puts together this series of papers, if you will, referred to as the dossier.
Then, of course, there are 12 separate Bruce Orr 302s.
I believe most of them dealing with Christopher Steele, if I'm not mistaken.
Also, what we call or qualify as the Gang of Eight documents.
That's the same binder information that was used to brief Congress this summer as a result of the subpoena, of its subpoena.
And, of course, then we've got other apparently operational plans and exculpatory information that also exists.
Tell me what I'm missing.
You're not missing a thing, Sean.
And I think that what we don't know is what's going to be most explosive in those documents.
Remember, a few people have seen those documents.
They are highly classified.
They are not allowed to speak about it.
But what we do know, what I know as journalists snooping around in Washington here with everything going on, is that these documents will be vital, that there will be information in them beyond what we already know that will be explosive and shocking, and that there was a fraud perpetrated on the court on the highly secretive court that David Show knows so much about, and he can talk on the legal side of that.
But that there was a fraud perpetrated on the court and that they withheld evidence from the court, exculpatory evidence.
We've heard Devin Nunes say this to you on his show, the chairman, and we know his committee has been fighting this tooth and nail.
And now we look at Rosenstein's memo, right, the FISA, the Rosenstein FISA.
That was the last FISA renewal on Carter Page.
And here we have, you know, the Deputy Attorney General signing off on a FISA warrant on an American citizen.
And he should have known, based on all of the previous renewals, what was going on here.
But he signed off on it anyways.
And this is the guy that's supposed to be overseeing the special counsel and Robert Moeller.
And you said right on today, McCabe, the news is out.
We've been talking about it for months that his grand jury investigation into this.
And I'm telling you, it's much deeper than just McCabe lying.
This is a grand jury investigation into everything that has been going on.
And that's what the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, is looking at.
I know that he has been collecting.
Who would have convened this grand jury?
Well, we can definitely look at Prosecutor Huber for this, John Huber and others.
Remember, Jeff Sessions said, the Attorney General said that they would be looking into this.
And this is what Michael Horowitz made this criminal referral to the Department of Justice.
We know there's a lot of other cases that they said they would be bringing for us to the DOJ.
I mean, there's been a lot of criminal referrals.
I remember when Congressman DeSantis had made a number of referrals to the Department of Justice.
But this is the first time that we see that there is a grand jury that they are investigating.
And McCabe is a central player in all of this.
And so is Andrew Weissman, who is on Robert Moeller's special counsel, who was in communication with Bruce Orr consistently through 2016 before he ever joined the special counsel.
So there's going to be a lot of questions here.
There's going to be, I believe, a lot of answers in the near future.
But the most important thing is that President Trump, and hopefully he does, as sources have been saying, declassifies this information.
He needs to declassify the FISA information that's being requested.
We need the Bruce Orr 302s, and we certainly need the Gang of Eight binder, the document that a few people were able to review with the Gang of Eight.
Remember, they kept out the congressional investigators from that meeting.
They did not want them looking at it.
And what I was told is during that meeting, they never even bothered to open up that binder because everybody was fighting back and forth.
So those are the three main chunks of documents that they're going to need.
Unbelievable.
Let me bring in David Schoen and get your ⁇ if a grand jury is convened ⁇ well, you know the old saying, you can indict a ham sandwich, but there seems to be a lot of meat on the bone here.
And if that grand jury is in fact convened, and I got to imagine now that the Washington Post is nearly two years late to catch up with the Hannity show, but they now see the severity, I think, and they're trying to play catch-up.
Right.
You can indict a ham sandwich, but you have to want to.
You know, there's been a referral now from the IG and then through Mr. Sessions to two different U.S. attorneys from two different districts, plus the U.S. Attorney and the District of Columbia.
We've asked the question on the show, what's happening with those referrals?
Why haven't we seen anything?
And the action on them.
So now we are.
Listen, Sarah Carter's report on all of these subjects, but especially on this declassification issue, is fascinating and vitally important.
Let me say this.
You know, I have in front of me two letters from Judge Collier, the presiding judge of the FISA court, dated September 15, 2018.
One to Congressman Goodlatt, one to Congressman Nunes.
They're copied to Congressman Nadler, Schiff, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Fay.
And here's what the FISA court says, the presiding judge, on this declassification issue.
Thus, by the way, you have all of these so-called scholars and pundits and people passing as journalists saying, oh, the president can't do this.
He doesn't have the authority.
Well, he has the authority.
And what Judge Collier says is the FISA court does not object to any decision of the executive branch to release any FISA materials to Congress.
She also writes, the executive branch has great interest in national security and to maintain the integrity of any ongoing law enforcement investigations.
Therefore, the Justice Department has the right to release the documents, but the authority rests in the executive.
This is what Article 2 is about.
You know, last point I'm going to say.
Well, the president has the ability and the power to unredact all this information.
And let me just shift to Sarah.
If he does that, Sarah, you know, my sources say, and I hate when I hear this from Washington because they always disappoint and they always overplay their hand a bit.
But I'm told over and over that it will be devastating and exculpatory to the president, and the whole House of Cards can come tumbling down now.
I believe that is absolutely true.
And why do I believe this, Sean?
Because this was such a gross violation already.
The information that we have already shows such a gross violation and fraud perpetrated on the court.
It's a gross violation of our constitutional rights.
I mean, this was spying on an American, not just an American.
They spied on this American because they were connected to the Trump campaign.
That means they were collecting not just the information on Carter Page.
It's not like they're just listening to him.
They're listening to everybody that Carter Page is speaking to.
And guess what?
They're listening to everybody, those people's conversations with other people.
So it's secondary and tertiary conversations.
This is why this is so important.
You know, we are, there has to be a reason.
There has to be reasonable evidence that could lead the government to spy on you, to listen into your private phone conversations.
We have to ask ourselves, how many more people did this happen to?
This is just what we know about.
We just know about Carter Page.
This is one of many, because remember, we forget that all of this started with us, Sean, way back when, when we were uncovering story after story on the unmaskings of Americans.
I mean, like Samantha Power unmasking, let's see, almost at a rate of one a day and a 350% increase on unmasking of Americans.
Oh, in 2016, the election year?
You mean that charge that we've not seen?
Exactly.
That's what I mean exactly, Sean.
And because we've been so inundated with so much news and because we're just so swamped with all of this breaking news and new layers of the onion, we forget where we started.
What has happened with that investigation?
What have they been doing to find out why was the UN ambassador then?
Why was Ms. Powers unmasking over 300 people towards the end of her tenure?
Yeah, let me bring David back in.
No, that's all, these are all issues that we're going to return to at some point.
But you're right.
There's been so much breaking news and so many other new aspects of this to follow.
I didn't mean to interrupt you, David, but I just wanted to get to how serious this information would be if the president doesn't unredact this information, which he apparently might do.
He said it now in at least two instances that I know of.
Right.
And Sarah's report on this is scintillating, frankly.
What I'm looking for next, though, is an interview with Senator Corey Booker demanding that these things be declassified and published on the internet because, after all, he's in favor of transparency.
Oh, you mean their little grandstanding episode today, and it had turned out, by the way, that that had been released, the very thing that he was saying wasn't released, that he was willing to go to jail over.
Yeah, that was already released publicly.
Thank you very much.
Here's what's so troubling to me, I think.
You know, I carry every place I go a copy of the Constitution with me.
I even uploaded the most recent version because I think it's changed somehow.
There seems to now be, for all of these scholars and journalists and a Mueller investigation exception to Article Authority.
Article 2 has authority in the executive branch.
It spells it out.
The Department of Justice is part of an executive branch.
All of a sudden, since the Mueller investigation has been going on, it seems that the executive doesn't have the authority anymore to determine who's going to be the head of the Justice Department.
It doesn't have the authority now, we're told maybe to declassify documents that the FISA court itself has said the executive branch has the greatest interest in and has the authority to release.
So I haven't been able to find the Mueller exception in my copy of the Constitution.
And I really would challenge some of these folks to tell me where it is.
No, I think it's a great point.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back more with Sarah Carter and David Schoen on the other side than Andy McCarthy at the bottom of this next half hour.
As we continue with Sarah Carter and David Schoen, what do you make?
You know, in the middle of all of this with the president, we now have Mueller saying, oh, we might just accept the idea that we can get written answers and it's only on the Russia, not on obstruction.
Why do I believe now that Bruce Orr, which we now know has been the conduit, the back channel to Christopher Steele, and that Christopher Steele is talking about passing on and apparently has successfully passed on information to Andrew Weissman, who is Mueller's pit bull and number one at the special counsel's office.
And there's even handwritten notes that mention this at this point.
Now that the phony Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies are directly being fed from a guy that lied and a guy that won't even stand by his dossier.
Is Robert Mueller feeling the heat of hiring people like Weissman and Jeannie Rae, Sarah Carter?
Oh, yes.
Oh, yes.
He's feeling the heat and he's worried about his legacy.
And look, he's got a couple of chinks in his belt, but they're not really that worthy.
They have nothing to do with Russian collusion or Russian involvement with the Trump campaign.
So you think he wants to end this?
Oh, I think he wants to wrap.
If he's a smart man, he wants to wrap this up quickly.
He knows he's not going to find anything.
Well, is he going to write a roadmap to impeachment for Democrats if they win the House in 61 days?
I don't know if he'll be able to do that.
I don't know if he'll be able to do that.
Remember, because it's going to be challenged in the courts whether or not, you know, there's certain things that may prohibit him from doing that.
But I think what's happened here is that he's seeing the forest through the trees now.
And we've got all of this information coming out on Bruce Orr.
And how can he even go after the president on obstruction when Rod Rosenstein himself, who's the deputy AG, was the one that wrote the letter originally asking the president to fire Comey?
I got to run only because I'm out of time.
We'll have a lot more.
And John Solomon has more on the steel or and yeah, special counsel Mueller office connection that is going to blow this wide open.
But if the president does, in fact, unredact all this information, it's going to be a game changer.
There's no doubt about it.
Sarah, thank you.
David Schoen, thank you.
800-941-Sean, our toll-free telephone number.
We'll take a quick break.
We'll come back.
Andy McCarthy at the bottom of this half hour and much more.
Straight ahead.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
Our toll-free telephone number is 800-941-Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, a lot of breaking news as it relates to the deep state.
It's getting deeper and deeper now, and it looks like many of the indictments that we've been wondering if and when they're possibly coming of some of these deep state actors.
Well, there's a Washington Post report.
Finally, they're getting on the Hannity train.
They're only 18 months late, but reports the headline is prosecutors use grand jury as investigation of Andrew McCabe intensifies.
Many of us have been wondering, well, how is it possible that we know crimes and frauds were committed against the FISA court and judges?
How is it possible that nobody gets indicted for that?
There's FBI protocol involved.
There's the FISA law itself that is involved.
And I don't know anybody that gets away with committing a fraud upon a court.
Now, if you really take it, it starts with Hillary and the DNC paying a law firm, which, by the way, could be a campaign finance violation if we're worried about people putting out false statements on loan applications from years gone by.
Then you would think that this would then be a big issue.
Item seven and eight in the Cone Plague deal, you know, dealt with campaign finance issues.
But Hillary Clinton and DNC money goes to a law firm, goes down as a law expense, but then gets funneled to an op research firm.
They hire a foreign national, and I thought foreign nationals weren't supposed to impact our elections.
But in fact, Christopher Steele then gets Russian phony sources, salacious details about Donald Trump.
Not only was it used to perpetuate lies and distortions and misinformation against the American people in the lead up to an election to impact how people vote, but then it was used as the bulk of information presented to the FISA court judge in not only its original application, but three subsequent applications.
We also have a story that is breaking from John Solomon tonight that Bruce Orr trying to influence the investigation.
It actually began in August before the election in 2016 while his wife Nellie was working at Fusion GPS on the op research on Donald Trump.
Ord, get this, met Steele, then met with McCabe, Page, and Strzok.
And by the way, that might be the insurance policy that we were all wondering, what does that mean?
We'll stop him.
That's when the insurance policy kicks in.
And also, the FBI pivoted from Papadopoulos, switched their focus to Steele because of information that Orr had.
We know 70 contacts with Steele and Orr, and then we've learned that Steele and Orr and part of their contacts are saying, well, did you get the information to the SC?
The SC's the special counsel.
And the answer to that question is, yes, they did.
To Robert Mueller's pit bull, Andrew Weissman.
And Andrew Weissman was getting Steele information.
The problem with Steele's information is in an interrogatory in a court case in Great Britain, under oath, threat of perjury, Christopher Steele didn't stand by his own dossier.
I don't know if it's true.
This is just raw intelligence.
Maybe 50-50.
Well, that was the information used to secure Pfizer warrants and to propagandize the American people in a lead up to an election.
Anyway, what does this all mean?
There's only one guy that can sort this out legally for us.
Fox News contributor, also a columnist.
He's been phenomenal on all of these deep state issues for national review.
He also is, well, a prestigious attorney in his own right, working for the Southern District of New York for some, what, 20 years.
And he worked on the World Trade Center bombing case, the first trade center bombing, and then, of course, the Blind Shake case and other cases involving terrorism.
And former Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York, Andy McCarthy, is with us.
How are you?
I'm doing great, Sean, except that when you so nicely summarize my Southern District experience, it reminds me that this year is the 25th anniversary of the World Trade Center bombing.
So we're defeating ourselves here, Patrick.
No, Dave, this was the first Trade Center bombing, and you got convictions in that case.
Sure did.
Yeah.
You know, I mean, this is when the work of real prosecutors and FBI officials, we can't thank them enough.
You know, Andy, I got to tell you, I don't like being on the side of having to talk about a few bad apples in the FBI, a Department of Justice.
That's not who I am.
You know, my dad was a family court probation guy.
My mom was a prison guard for 25 years.
My family was all cops and firemen and everything else.
Yeah, Sean, I agree with you about that, but I really think that those of us who really care about law enforcement, just like those of us who care about anything else, if you really care about something, the best disinfectant for it is to identify what went wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again.
And that's what we're trying to do here.
And it's not the rank and file.
I mean, if you look at, for example, the Clinton email investigation, it was taken out of the field offices of the FBI, which is highly unusual in itself.
Yeah, that's going to turn out to be, I think, when the history of this is finally written, one of the big things that should have been a blazing red signal that something was wrong here is that the FBI and the Justice Department,
but the FBI in particular, always wants investigations handled at the field office level throughout the country rather than Washington precisely to give the investigators some insulation from the political environment of Washington.
And these investigations were run out of headquarters, which is highly, highly unusual and to my mind, highly inappropriate because headquarters is supposed to exist so that it can kind of oversee and be removed and objective about investigations.
When you're conducting an investigation, you can't have that mindset.
But you've never heard in all your years that you served the Southern District of New York, which is probably the most prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the country.
And I'm not saying that to flatter you.
It's just a fact.
They're great at what they do.
And they have done really big, big, important cases that have kept this country safe.
So I have great respect for the people that work there.
Rudy used to work there.
But my question to you is, have you ever heard of an investigation, an exoneration letter written months before they even talked to the main people involved in the case?
Sean, we don't do exoneration letters in the Justice Department.
You can even start with that irregular.
Well, no, listen, I mean, this is an important thing because when you close an investigation, first of all, investigations are supposed to be done under the radar to begin with.
But when you close an investigation, you don't issue a letter ordinarily or make a public statement that an investigation has been closed because a lot of times the reason you close an investigation is you end up thinking, well, the guy probably did it, But we don't have enough evidence to prove it in court, which means if you get one other piece of evidence or one other witness comes forward, all of a sudden you have a case where the day before you didn't have a case, and then you're rolling again.
So there's no reason to come out and make a statement.
If you don't, you know, the government should only speak in court when it's formally ready to file charges and when somebody who gets charged has all the due process rights that the system gives you.
Other than that, the government's supposed to keep its big old mouth shut.
But in all, but based on all objectivity, if I did the things that Hillary did as it relates to the email server itself, what we found on the email server that we know that we found, classified top secret information, and then I went about the effort of deleting subpoenaed emails and or having aides do it, and then, of course, bleach bid and then busting up devices.
I don't think I'd get away with it, Andy, even if I hired you and Dershowitz and Levin and every other great attorney, Greg Jarrett, to help me.
No, you wouldn't.
In fact, before you ever got to the classified information, Sean, which is kind of a complicated charge, although I think it's a slam-dunk charge on her, the fact that these documents were destroyed and the fact that that was done when a subpoena was issued, you wouldn't even get out of the blocks on that.
Do you remember when I said you remember when I said hypothetically when it was a news article that Robert Mueller wanted the phones and devices of everybody that had testified?
And I'm like, well, if, if, I said, if I ever said to them to do everything she did, if, I said, it's not going to work out well, but if I said it, and the media went nuts saying Hannity is telling people to obstruct justice.
And I'm like, just the opposite.
I was saying, don't do it because if you do, it's not going to work out well.
And I actually use those words.
Yeah, they're much interested, much more interested in something that they can twist into obstruction to justice than the actual obstruction of justice, staring them right in the face.
All right, quick break.
More with Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor, columnist, NRO, and former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
I've got Andy McCarthy with us, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Fox News contributor, NRO editor and columnist.
Let me ask you this: then we have the issue of FISA.
If you look at the people that signed off on the FISA applications, and that, as far as we know, the last one, meaning the third renewal, but the fourth one issued, would be Rod Rosenstein.
Then you have Sally Yates signing off, and we believe James Comey and Andrew McCabe.
We now know that the information, not only that they presented the bulk of the information to obtain the warrant, was the Steele dossier.
He doesn't stand by his own dossier.
We know that there's certain omissions that they didn't, things they didn't tell the court.
I would argue lie by omission.
That Hillary had bought and paid for it.
That was a fact that they had known.
And all of the questions surrounding it, they knew it was circular reporting as it relates to Michael Izikov's article because he was fed the information from Steele.
Steele was also fired and let go.
And I don't think they still vouch for the guy.
They had paid him 11 months.
Are those people in legal jeopardy?
Well, they're potentially in legal jeopardy, but it's important to recognize that there's a difference between flatly lying to a court, which is certainly a felony, and then either omitting to provide information that should have been provided or asserting information that hasn't been verified, but that you can't say is false, but you really can't say it's true either.
Those are in the nature, Sean, of abuse of power that could be prosecutable, but I think more importantly, should be a basis for removing people from their own.
Wouldn't they have to show that some effort was made to verify independently and corroborate independently?
Let me play words from Rod Rosenstein back in May.
The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
And we have to fix our signature to the charging document.
That's something that not everybody appreciates.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application is.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
It's wrong, those people are going to face consequences.
If the information, you know, we're swearing the information is true and correct.
Don't we need to know now, wouldn't there be some type of record of any effort that was made to verify or corroborate the Steele dossier?
And if there was no effort made whatsoever, and this was a guy they fired for lying and disseminating information to the media, wouldn't that then therefore be a reckless disregard for their job and more importantly, that they committed a fraud on the court, perhaps even knowingly?
Well, Sean, I think the record that we have is actually worse than that.
The record we have, according to McCabe's testimony to the House committee, Devin Nunes' committee, is that they did make extensive efforts to corroborate and they weren't able to corroborate it.
So they went sheerly on Steele's own reputation with them under circumstances where, as you've outlined, Steele himself didn't claim that this stuff was true.
He said it was raw intelligence that needed to be investigated and verified.
Now, as far as Rosenstein is concerned, I think that the clip that you played, number one, he's right when he says that there's consequences.
They may not be consequences in the nature of an indictment.
They could be administrative consequences up to being fired.
But about the farmer, but Rosenstein's remarks there are very self-serving, Sean, because what he knows is that he signed off on the last warrant.
And what I think he's trying to say there is: if I did that, I relied on a career agent, and that's why you ought to forgive me for signing off on this thing that turns out not to have been verified.
What usually happens in a court case is that a defendant can get the warrant suppressed, can get all the evidence suppressed.
It doesn't mean the agent ends up going to jail over that, but the agent could get fired over it.
Well, it's going to be interesting to see.
I think if I purposefully withheld exculpatory or important information to a judge, I don't know, Andy.
I think that I'd have the, I live in a life, you know, it's like, well, what did we learn from the Michael Cole Manafort cases?
Pay your taxes.
I've always told my accountants, pay more.
Don't lie on loan applications.
It's never going to work out well.
You know, certain things you don't do in life.
One of them is you don't lie to a judge or withhold information from a judge.
But I've got a run.
You've been tremendous on all of this.
Our good friend Andy McCarthy, thanks for being with us.
All right, news roundup information overload hour.
You know, I've explained many times on both radio and TV that the media in this country, they are the willing accomplices, basically the propaganda arm of all things liberal, socialist, Democratic Party.
And it doesn't matter.
They wake up every morning with a hatred, a contempt for the president.
I use the analogy.
They're like a bunch of drug addicts, and their drug is Trump hate, and they feed off Trump hate.
And every day we go from crisis to crisis to crisis to crisis to crisis to crisis to crisis.
And they fixate like the sheep that they are.
And literally, it doesn't matter if it's Russia, Russia, Russia, stormy, stormy, stormy.
It doesn't matter if it's Michael Wolfe, Michael Wolfe.
Bob Woodward, Bob Woodward, Bob Woodward, Bob Woodward.
Mr. Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous.
New York Times, they cannot control themselves.
Just listen.
Anonymous thing in a stunning new op-ed in the New York Times.
Now, this op-ed in the New York Times, written anonymously.
An anonymous op-ed.
An anonymous person wrote this.
This senior official has written an anonymous op-ed.
This anonymous op-ed.
An unprecedented op-ed from an unnamed current Trump administration official.
An anonymous op-ed.
Who wrote this?
Anonymously anonymous.
An anonymous anonymous op-ed.
Bob Woodward's explosive new book, Fear, Undeniably Gripping the White House.
All talking to Bob Woodward.
This book from Bob Woodward.
According to Woodward's reporting.
Bob Woodward.
Woodward.
Woodward.
Bob Woodward.
Woodward.
Bob Woodward.
Woodward.
Woodward.
Bob Woodward.
Bob Woodward.
There's really a full court press to try to push back against Bob Woodward's book.
The Bob Woodward book.
Bob Woodward.
Bob Woodward.
Woodward.
Bob Woodward.
Woodward Woodward.
Woodward.
Bob Woodward.
Then we read it in the Bob Woodward book.
A dizzying 24 hours in the Russia investigation.
Russia, Russia.
Russians.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
Russia.
Russia.
Russians.
Russian government.
Donald Trump has turned the Oval Office into a hole.
Polars built this country 110 years ago.
Whole country's whole whole whole holy house.
Do you think these countries are every hour that passes, we get more from Michael Wolfe.
I read this book, and we're going to talk about it.
This book, Fire and Fury.
Michael Wolfe, author Michael Wolfe.
Michael Wolfe.
Michael Wolfe, his new book.
Michael Wolfe.
The stormy saga takes a dramatic turn.
Stormy Daniels, Stormy Daniels, Stormy Daniels.
Stormy Daniels, Stormy Daniels.
Stormy Daniels.
Yeah, he said, she said between the president and Omarosa.
Omarosa, Manigalt Newman.
Omarosa.
Amarosa.
Amarosa.
Omarosa.
Omarosa.
Omarosa manigalt newman.
Omarosa.
Omarosa.
Omarosa manigal-newman.
The likelihood of impeachment.
I'm not saying it's high necessarily, but it certainly went up.
Is itself an impeachable offense?
Consider something as serious as impeachment.
Impeachment.
Impeached.
Impeachment.
Impeachment.
Impeach.
Impeachment.
All right, joining us now to discuss, we have Jonathan Gillum, author of the newly released book, Sheep No More.
That's the media, sheep still.
And Danielle McLaughlin, attorney and constitutional expert.
How are you?
Welcome both to the program.
You never hear the litany of success of the president ever.
You never hear a single thing.
Like, for example, we have news out today.
Oh, a 49-year record low in terms of applications for unemployment.
Why would we ever want to talk about something like that, a jobless claims 49-year low?
Why would we ever want to discuss something as important as that when we can obsess about anonymous, anonymous, anonymous?
Oh, and basically, it's somebody that is trying to cowardly undercut the president, which puts the presidency in jeopardy.
What if this person is hearing the president talk about war or intelligence or plans for war, and that this person is openly trying to undermine the duly elected president because they think they know better than the American people, and they think they'll take it upon themselves to be president on their own without any accountability to the electorate that put the real president in office?
Danielle.
Hey, Sean, how are you doing?
Hey, Jonathan.
You know, I do agree with you that this anonymous New York Times op-ed is somewhat cowardly, maybe for different reasons than you.
But if you have a problem with the president, I think you should put your name to it and you should be willing to risk your job.
I think it leads people who are possibly trying to do their best under the circumstances, open to attack.
And I think people are not going to believe this person necessarily.
As it relates to economic news, yes, jobless claims, Lewis, they've been, it's incredible good news, but I think that we need to be able to walk and shoot them at the same time.
I think the Kavanaugh hearings are taking up a lot of the airwaves.
But I do agree that a lot of these economic successes are maybe not played off as much as they should be.
On the other hand, no, they're never talked about because the media, like the sheep that they are, forget about sheep no more.
They live in this bubble, and they literally need, they wake up in the morning, they open their eyes, how can I hate Donald Trump today?
And if they can't get a tweet or if they can't latch on to something from one of their other colleagues, because they all sort of circulate in the same circles and they just regurgitate what everyone else says, then they just sort of break out into sweats and they're like addicts and they need a fix.
And they're praying and hoping that Donald Trump says or does something that they can hate, you know, with the intensity that I've never seen before in the history of politics in my 30 years of covering this.
My good friend Jonathan.
You know, Sean, there's a good side to this.
And I'll tell you what the upside is: is that these people, and I've been saying this ever since the election, these people are exposing themselves and they're exposing their relationships and they're exposing their agenda.
And I think, you know, whether we're talking about the way CNN runs things, Jake Tapper out there, full of opinions on Twitter and things like that when he's, you know, putting himself up there as this reporter who's a fact-based driven reporter, people like that, whether we're talking about the Colin Kaepernick ad with Nike, I think what we see in these people is that they have, in the case of Nike, they've budgeted for these commercials and for the loss.
In the case of CNN, they don't really care what you and I think anymore.
What they're doing is they're going all out with their message with this quote-unquote resistance in an organized fashion.
And that's what people need to realize.
They're organized and they are pushing forward on their agenda.
And right now, their agenda is to continue what Obama was doing, which was moving their socialistic, communistic ideology forward.
And Trump stepped in the middle of that.
If they did a show that was nothing but about what Trump has done right, people would be blown away by this on the left.
They'll never do that.
And so what you see is an organized push that's going forward.
And the upside, like I said, is that they're all exposed.
But here's the thing.
They'll obsessively cover, quote, anonymous, which it could be hundreds of people.
There's no telling who this might be.
But yet they don't cover.
U.S. jobless claims fall to a 49-year low last week.
We have the Fed in Atlanta.
They are forecasting right now 4.7% GDP growth for the third quarter.
Trump scoring a major budget breakthrough.
And literally, they're going to right pass spending bills and broken the federal budget logjam, which was decades worth of growing deficits.
And they're actually going to do the spending bills the way they're legally supposed to.
And that's department by department rather than one big massive package.
That's a big deal by any objective analysis.
Then I can give you the list of accomplishments.
4 million fewer Americans on food stamps.
4 million new jobs created.
The greatest growth in manufacturing jobs in 30 years in America.
We have consumer confidence all-time high.
Everything's happening that's good for the country.
You never hear about any of it from your side, your friends, your Democratic buddies, Danielle.
You know what?
There's also plenty that's not good that needs to be talked about.
We have children in cages in the southern border, right?
We have children in the city.
Okay, excuse me.
Let me correct the record because the person that stopped the practice that went on during the Obama years would be Donald J. Trump.
So if you're going to talk about the separation of family issues, let's talk about under Obama and George W. Bush because it happened under them too.
Then when it was brought to the attention of the president, the president fixed the problem, something nobody else before him did.
As of today, you could say thank you, President Trump.
Go ahead.
As of today, the Trump organization, listen to me.
The Trump administration decided it was going to ignore a 1997 court order, and it was going to hold women and children basically in prison indefinitely until their asylum claims are held.
It's good that families are now being kept together, but there are still about 500 kids who are either whose parents are.
Okay, let me repeat.
I didn't hear you once during the opening.
The person that stepped up, and honestly, what he did was kind of unconstitutional, if you want to know the truth, because he's defying what is federal law, but he did it because it was the right thing to do because Congress can't get off their lazy asses and go do their job.
So if we're going to be blunt and honest, let's tell the whole truth.
But it was an interesting diversion away from all of the success economically and otherwise of the president for you to do this.
As we continue with Jonathan Gillum and Danielle McLaughlin.
Let me go to this Colin Kaepernick ad that is going to be running during some NFL games, I guess, this weekend.
And actually, whenever they're going to be running them, I'm not going to be watching because Saturday is my football day now.
I'm just not interested anymore.
I'm sick and tired of all of it.
But anyway, Colin Kaepernick, the face of Nike, just do it 30 years in.
Don't believe you have to be like anybody to be somebody.
If you're born a refugee, don't let it stop you from playing soccer for the national team at age 16.
Don't become the best basketball player on the planet.
Be bigger than basketball.
Believe in something.
Even if it means sacrificing everything.
Let me ask you, Danielle.
So there's a guy that had socks depicting police officers as pigs.
Would you pick him to be the face of your company, the representative of your company?
I'll say this.
I understand.
I'll say this.
I'll say this.
Did I ask you if it's controversial?
I asked if you owned a company like Nike, would you pick Colin Kaepernick, who wears cop socks depicted as pigs, as your representative?
Yes or no?
Maybe I would, because you know what?
Wearing socks one time does not make a man.
President Trump said some terrible things about women.
Why do you have to turn everything into Trump?
Nike's paying Colin Kaepernick.
By the way, do you know what Colin Kaepernick's record was the last two years in his NFL career?
No, I'm not.
3-16.
He went 1-11.
Now, do you think that sounds like a good NFL quarterback with that type of record?
Well, you know, we're going to find out because he just won a motion to dismiss, and we're going to get all the discovery to figure out whether the NFL.
I didn't ask you.
Does that sound like a quarterback if you're an NFL owner that you want on your team?
No, but there's plenty of others.
No, I don't know.
No, okay.
It's not the worst quarterback.
So if you wouldn't want him on your team, maybe the owners decided they didn't want him on his team.
What do you think, Jonathan?
Yeah, and we're going to find out.
Yeah, I think the record speaks for itself.
You know, let me just say this real quick.
You know, again, when you ask me a question, I try to answer that question.
I don't try to bring it just back to a politician and blame them for every single thing in the world.
Daniel, I'd love to see you do that.
Answer the question.
And the people on the left and people that play these political games, answer the question.
Because what you're seeing is when, you remember CNN was doing that commercial for a while about this is an apple, it's not a banana, so on and so forth.
Sean, here's the real lie.
It's not whether an apple is a banana.
It's whether or not an apple is a red, juicy apple, a red, delicious apple, or a Fuji apple.
What they're doing is they're lying to you about the type of apple.
That is how they confuse the people.
There are things going on and they skew the facts or they have anonymous people come on or they have Colin Kaepernick come up here and do things when he's wearing Shea Guevara shirts who is a communist, socks that depict cops as pigs.
When you look at the totality of the circumstances of all the things that these people are doing, it's misinformation.
It's lies, and it's all organized.
Can I respond?
Because this is really important to me, and I don't want you to think that I'm always trying to turn this on his head.
The reason I give you another example is because I'm trying to understand where you're really coming from.
So I understand, Jonathan, that Kaepernick wore some socks that you don't like, and he wore some clothing that you don't like.
This is about giving the benefit of the doubt to people that you would otherwise support.
There's plenty of things, and the reason I talk about the president is there are plenty of things that well-meaning people.
I asked you about, do you support Castro and you turned it into Donald Trump?
You can't help yourself.
You're like a Trump drug addict.
You can't help it.
No, I'm not a dramatic of any kind of drug addict.
What do you think about people that wear t-shirts that honor murdering dictator thugs?
Would you ever wear one?
And what do you think about people that do wear them?
I think it's stupid, but I think there's more to college.
I'm going to ask if you think it's stupid.
Why would somebody honor a murdering thug dictator?
I don't know.
Ask him.
But there's more to him.
You're the one that's defending him and you're defending Nike's decision.
Now, look, I don't support boycotts.
Nike can do what they want.
And I can buy Adidas Aribak.
I mean, I can do what I want.
And I'm going to watch college football and not pro football, but that's my choice.
I don't urge anyone.
Everyone makes up their own mind.
You have a choice in life.
Absolutely.
I'm pro-choice.
This is the market of ideas.
I choose to watch college football.
What do you choose to watch, Jonathan?
Well, I want to ask Danielle something.
You know, if she was in court as a defense attorney and her client walked in wearing a bright red, I love communist China, or I love Kim Jong-un, and she's trying to defend them in some kind of thing that has to do with import-export stuff.
I mean, do you think that a jury or a judge would not look upon that person and say, that shirt directly reflects the person that he is and the values that he holds?
Wouldn't you think that if they walked in there for a while?
But we're actually in agreement.
Of course, I would say that.
Of course, I think it's stupid to do that.
But we have to think about what he wears.
And that's what I'm saying.
We've got to end it there.
Thank you both, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program at the bottom of this hour, Peter Schweitzer.
Wait, do you hear how creepy places like Google and Facebook are?
That's next.
Google and Facebook, they don't sell you anything.
They sell you.
These are all free services, but obviously they're not.
Your interaction with them is governed so that it will generate revenue.
You give Google a lot of information.
You're searching for the most private stuff on Google.
Things that your wife might or your spouse might not want you to know about.
Facebook constantly manipulates their users.
They do it by the things that they insert into the news feeds.
They do it by the types of hosts they allow their users to see.
They can suppress certain types of results based on what they think you should be seeing, based on what your followers are presenting.
It's what Google and Facebook are doing on a regular basis by suppressing stories, by steering us towards other stories rather than the stories we're actually seeking.
That's the real manipulation that's going on.
I was a design ethicist at Google where I studied how do you ethically fear people's thoughts.
It will always favor one online music service over another and one candidate over another.
Google and Facebook.
Has the power to undermine democracy without us knowing that democracy has been undermined.
There's what I call the creepy line, and the Google policy about a lot of these things is to get right up to the creepy line but not cross it.
Google crosses the creepy line every day.
All right, that's the trailer for, by the way, 25 till the top of the hour for a brand new documentary.
It's called the creepy line.
Now, that was an actual statement that was made by Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google.
It was quoted in the New York Times back in March.
I mean, that is creepy that we go up to the creepy line.
And, you know, with all the hearings that have been taking place, most Americans have no idea.
How does Google make their money?
How does Facebook make their money?
Do you think, oh, I get a free Gmail account?
Oh, I get a free internet search.
I just bring up Google.
I don't pay anything for it.
I don't pay a penny for it.
Yeah, you do.
How much do you pay?
How do you pay?
How much privacy are you giving up in exchange for the opportunity to Google search anything that you want and have at the tip of your fingers any information you want?
Anyway, the title for this documentary comes from the 2010 speech by Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, said the company's policy was to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.
Well, how do you determine a creepy line?
You know, you say, well, pornography, I know it when I see it.
Is the creepy line something you know when you see it?
Anyway, it interviews in this documentary several high-profile figures, including a Canadian clinical psychologist by the name of Jordan Peterson, who explained how these tech giants really hold great power that threaten the fabric of society.
These services that they say are free are obviously not because your interaction with all of these services is governed so it will generate revenue.
Anyway, joining us now is Peter Schweitzer.
And Peter, of course, with the Government Accountability Institute.
Good to see you, my friend.
Now you're moving into the movie business again.
Great to be here with you, Sean.
Thanks for having me.
Because a lot of people, I think like myself, I go to Google.
I Google this.
I Google that.
I'm in the middle of my show.
Somebody will ask me, what did so-and-so say back in 2010?
I can Google it and I'll find it.
Right.
Great service.
I like it, appreciate it.
I mostly now let my social media be guided by my team.
And I don't have late-night Twitter rants and fights like I used to because it takes too much time and effort.
It's gotten too ugly, frankly.
And where it used to be fun, it's not.
But let's walk through how deep they get into our lives in the process of giving us something, quote, for free.
That's a great question, Sean.
And the bottom line is Google, this large corporation run by these individuals, knows far more about you than the most intimate person in your life.
Your parents, your spouse, your boyfriend or girlfriend, they know everything because they know if you're searching for medical information, if you're searching for.
Do they put the name with the person?
They do.
They do.
They know who the person is.
They know based on the prints of Sean Hannity.
Correct.
Although the problem is I have my staff using my accounts all the time.
Right.
Right.
So, but whoever's connected with the IP address.
So if Sweet Baby James is looking for creepy things on the internet, I guess if he's doing it in my name on my account, that makes me look bad.
That's right.
They're going to finger you, Sean.
That's exactly how that's going to happen.
Spanger's been with me for 27 years, and I know he looks for creepy things on the internet.
Yeah, but I mean, this is the problem.
These companies know these things.
And, you know, some people in the younger generation say, I don't care about privacy.
But here's the issue.
It's not just that they have the information.
It's that they can use that information and weaponize it against you.
And this has already been done.
You see people that have been banned, that have been blocked.
You've seen instances where information about people has been leaked based on their search history.
So you're vulnerable.
And the question is, are you going to trust this large corporation that not only has the interest of all corporations, which is making money, which is great, they have an agenda.
They have an agenda that's very clear and specific.
It's embedded into the company.
And that agenda really runs contrary to a lot of the beliefs and ideas that most Americans have.
For example, Jack at Jack at Twitter, he actually sat down, did an interview with us.
We talked a lot about privacy and shadow banning and some of the other practices.
He was very honest in this sense by admitting they have not perfected any of this by any stretch.
And so much of what they do, for example, on Twitter is these algorithms that they put together.
Right.
But you're saying it runs deeper than that.
So if somebody works at Google and hates Sean Hannity, they could get into my Gmail account.
Yes, absolutely.
They could see every email I've ever sent or received.
Yes, I am somebody who has used Gmail for years.
I'm going to stop using, I have stopped using Gmail because here's I'm going to use the email that's associated with my organization.
You can use something like, you know, go old school and use AOL.
You can use other entities.
You don't want to use Gmail.
Do you think all of those things are safe?
Is AOL safe?
Yes, a lot of.
Yes.
Apple, for example, does not monetize the use of your information.
Google's entire business model is based on collecting all this information about Sean Hannity and then either selling it to advertisers or using it in a way that they can monetize.
What if you set up a fake Gmail account?
You can set up a fake Gmail account and it really depends what IP address it's associated with.
If you go on your laptop or you go on your iPhone and you access it, they figure out who that is, absolutely.
That's a mess.
Yeah.
So what are the safer places then for people to do email and so on and so forth?
You know, because most people I don't think are like me.
Right.
Every one of my accounts is open to everybody that works for me.
Right.
And in other words, it could be any person that is writing or texting on my behalf.
Right.
That's it.
I mean, And I literally have given up private accounts.
I've given up phone numbers.
I've given up everything.
This is a man who trusts his staff, by the way.
That's what I'm seeing.
That's good.
Well, I'll find out within my staff who did it.
Right.
But the key thing to keep in mind with Gmail, for example, is Gmail not only knows all the emails you've sent, all the emails you've received.
Let's say you wrote a rant in an email and you decided I'm not going to send it.
And it's just as a draft.
They've read that.
They know what's in that draft.
What do you mean they've read it?
They read them.
They scan them.
They scan them.
They electronically scan them.
So, for example, if you, I mean, I'll pick a commercial example.
If I were to send you an email and say, Sean, I'm thinking about buying a Toyota.
Yeah.
Google knows that and will sell to Toyota advertising space based on the fact that they now know that I'm looking for a Toyota.
All right.
That's past the creepy line.
Yes, it is.
It is.
But is it actual people or is it just a program that they use?
Well, it's an algorithm.
It's machines.
It's machines that are scanning and they're looking for certain keywords, but also human beings can intervene.
So we talk about Jordan Peterson, this professor at the University of Toronto, very famous now with a lot of things that he's done on YouTube.
In his particular case, he took a stand against a law in Canada that was going to force you to use the preferred gender identifier for a person that they wanted.
And he objected to this law on First Amendment grounds.
You know, very calm cerebral guy.
He took that position.
The next day, Sean, he was locked out of his Gmail and his YouTube accounts were shut off.
And what he was basically told was, yes, a machine did it, but then a person sort of backed up that decision.
So based on his political beliefs, they shut him out of his Gmail account and shut him out of YouTube.
He ended up getting it restored because he had friends in the media and he created this.
But the point is, there are employees at YouTube and elsewhere that can make arbitrary decisions.
I don't like, you know.
Why doesn't Eric Schmidt, I mean, I guess it's part of the user agreement that nobody ever reads, right?
Right, right.
That's exactly right.
They have the right to censor all the tools.
Do they share this information with the government?
They can, yes, absolutely.
And who are the companies, I think it's best for people to know what are the safer companies for people to deal with?
Because, you know, look, I just got a copy of The Creepy Line, and I know it's a documentary.
Where are people able to see this?
So it's going to be released September 17th.
It's going to be available on iTunes and elsewhere.
You can purchase it.
We're doing a screening in New York and D.C. as well.
And we expect there's going to be a lot of interest in Washington on this.
But look, if you want to do search, use something like DuckDuckGo.
Do not use Google.
Do not use DuckGo.
I never heard of DuckDuckGo.
What is DuckDuckGo?
DuckDuckGo.
And I have no financial interest in this company.
DuckDuckDuckGo.
Is that like Yahoo?
Is that like...
Well, see, here's the problem.
Yahoo uses Google for its search.
So you're not getting away from them by doing it.
So the best one is DuckDuckGo.
They don't practice these things.
That's right.
How do they make their money?
That's one example.
They do it.
You'll see ads on the side, but it's not based on the...
It's not based on taking your information and selling it.
That's right.
What about email?
So email, Apple products are very good.
Apple does not monetize.
So anything in Apple.
I don't think Apple has an email address.
Well, you can with certain iCloud, for example, and other entities.
An iCloud account.
Yes, you could do it through an iCloud account.
Don't they save that information forever?
Apple does not.
Apple does not monetize emails, and they delete that information after a while.
Because Apple is primarily, they're selling products, right?
They're selling cloud services and products.
What about, you mentioned AOL.
Why are they safe?
Well, AOL is safe because, again, they don't have the same business model that Google does.
Google basically says we're going to give you a lot of people.
So they don't look at your information.
No, they don't scan the information.
And they have the best safety technology.
For example, it's so hard the FBI couldn't even break into Apple.
If you want, yes, that's right.
But if you want to go the hyper-encryption rate, there's an email service called ProtonMail.
Proton.
Yeah, which is very, very good out of Switzerland.
But the bottom line is people need to be aware of this, and people need to be aware.
It's not just a privacy issue.
They will know your political profile of your beliefs, and they will filter information to you to steer you in a direction that you may not be inclined to.
What about these encryption services?
What do you call them?
Signal and all that stuff.
Those are very good ways to communicate as well.
And that information is not retained.
Now, Proton may also.
When you say it's not retained, they don't retain it at all.
It's gone.
That's right.
What about Snapchat?
Snapchat, same thing.
That basically disappears.
Yeah.
Which one do you use?
I'm just curious.
I use Signal and I use ProtonMail.
Okay.
then the server that we use for the government accountability institute we do not use google technologies there are people but the bottom line is look google makes it attractive because it's low cost or free uh and it's very very useful But people have to redo it.
DuckDuckGo, is that well, in that particular case, I mean, you get the same service?
Is it as good?
Yeah, the search is not quite as good.
I mean, that's the problem.
I mean, Google is the big monster here.
But my point is— I'll just make my staff do it, and then it's going to show up on their accounts.
Yeah, I mean, my point is, if you're going to do a sensitive search on subjects that you don't want Google to know about, do it on something else.
You could do it on Firefox, but of course, Firefox sometimes uses Google.
But use Firefox or DuckDuckGo.
Do not use Google for sensitive searches because they will maintain that information on you.
All right.
So the documentary, it's called The Creepy Line, and you got to see it.
And of course, where's the best place to get the trailer?
We'll put it up on Hannity.com.
Yeah, the Creepy Line documentary.
This is brought to you by Google, apparently, unbeknownst to me.
And honestly, I think it's an opportunity for people to understand just how intrusive this all is.
That's exactly right.
All right, Peter Schweitzer, Government Accountability Institute.
Thank you for being with us.
Thanks, Sean, as always.
All right, 800-941.
Sean, take a quick break.
We'll come back.
An incredible Hannity tonight, breaking news all over the place.
John Solomon will be breaking a story.
Sarah Carter's breaking news tonight.
9 Eastern on Fox.
Pfizer search warrant.
You need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is.
If you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
All right, that's Rod Rosenstein.
We're going to have a lot more on all of this new breaking developments.
This House of Cards about to literally fold as the president contemplating releasing all these important documents.
We'll have the latest on Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
We'll load it up tonight.
Greg Sarah, John Solomon with his breaking news report we'll get to tonight.
Mark Penn, Newt Gingrich, Dr. Gorka, David Schoen, Saeed DVR, Hannity.
