Monica Mastal, joins Sean to talk about her friendship with Judge Kavanaugh, whom she has known since she was 12 years old. She was one of 65 signers of a letter to both Senators Grassley and Feinstein that detailed just how straight-and-narrow Judge Kavanaugh was in High School. The judge categorically and unequivocally denied allegations that he assaulted a classmate in high school. 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 MyPillow, and it's changed my life.
I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
And the good news, you can too.
Just go to mypillow.com, promo code Sean, and take advantage of one of Mike Lindell's best offers, his special four-pack.
You get 50% off to MyPillow Premium Pillows, two GoAnywhere pillows.
Now, MyPillow is made in the USA, has a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee, no risk to you, and a 10-year warranty.
You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a pillow tossing in tourney that's not working for you.
Just go to mypillow.com right now.
Use the promo code Sean, and you get Mike Lindell's special four-pack.
You get two MyPillow Premium Pillows, two Go Anywhere pillows, 50% off, and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful, restful, and comfortable, and deep healing, and recuperative sleep you've been craving and deserve.
Mypillow.com, promo code Sean.
I actually think it's 51 days.
I'm not sure.
Anyway, glad you're with us.
Two big stories we are following.
Obviously, the Kavanaugh case, this last-minute accusation against him that this woman has made that was in the Washington Post yesterday.
And of course, Kavanaugh is denying it.
So is another person that was in the room.
The woman's name is Dr. Christine Ford.
She is a professor.
I'll give you the allegations.
We'll give you all the news, what Republicans and Democrats are doing here.
Why this happened last minute is a legitimate question when Diane Feinstein knew in the early summer.
She had the letter in early summer that Christine Ford had made these allegations when I guess some 36 years ago when Judge Kavanaugh was in, I guess, 11th grade.
This woman, Professor Ford, was in 10th grade.
She made the allegation that Kavanaugh, reportedly with another person in the room, had groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers, clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing that she wore over it in what she described as a rape attempt.
I thought he would inadvertently kill me.
He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.
Now, the judge himself has categorically denied the accusation, said it's absolutely nuts.
There are two other, the two were classmates.
This other guy that was in the room at the time, this guy by the name of Mark Judge, the woman claimed that he jumped on them when that stopped the incident.
And anyway, 65 women on the other side of this, contemporaries of his during high school, have all come out and said that Brett Kavanaugh was and is a man of character and integrity.
Now, after the history of Bork and Clarence Thomas, just to remind you, what should happen next?
That's the big question.
But this is Ted Kennedy.
Remember, this is the guy that left a woman in a car after he drove off a bridge in Chappaquittick.
Didn't tell anybody.
Went home.
And he's lying about Robert Bork at the time.
This is where the term Borking has come from.
And then, of course, Clarence Thomas with Anita Hill and his strong defense of himself.
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions.
Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters.
Rogue police could break down citizens' doors and midnight raids.
And school children could not be taught about evolution.
Writers and artists would be censured at the whim of government.
This is a circus.
It's a national disgrace.
And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.
And it is a message that unless you cow town to an old order, this is what will happen to you.
You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S., U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
I mean, that was just powerful testimony.
And obviously, Justice Thomas has gone on to be one of the, in my opinion, finest Supreme Court justices we've ever had in history.
The sad thing about this is when you really look at the allegation, it is so outrageous and so egregious that nobody, you can't ignore something like that.
But if it's like in the case, I look at Ted Kennedy as a case where I think that everybody has to be at least objective.
What does objective mean?
Now, do I think this woman has a right to be heard?
Yeah.
Is her attorney somebody that didn't believe Paula Jones and was outspoken about that case?
That's all true.
Is the attorney very political?
That's all true.
Did the attorney stick up for Al Franken, not having to leave the Senate?
That's all true.
I don't know about all these rumors about a social media scrub about the woman, that she's very left-wing.
I can't get a straight answer from anybody about it.
We do know that there was one individual that was in the room.
His name is Mark Judge.
And while the professor is claiming that all of this happened, that this guy was in the room at the time, and Judge has said, not only Kavanaugh's categorically denied the accusation, Judge has said, Mark Judge, it's absolutely nuts.
And the two were classmates at what was known as the prestigious Georgetown Preparatory School.
We have Senator Grassley ripping the ranking committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein for sitting on the story that she was first made aware of early in the summer and said if the Democrats took it seriously, it should have been brought to his attention much earlier.
Dianne Feinstein did meet with Judge Kavanaugh on a couple of occasions, as I understand it, and she obviously had more than a few opportunities to question him during the hearings that took place.
One of the things that when you read something like this, it causes everybody to pause, and that's exactly what the Democrats want to do.
But I think they have some explaining to do as to why they didn't do more investigative work since they had it.
It's now the middle of September.
They had this, you know, I'm told in either late June or early July.
Why didn't they investigate it?
Why didn't they bring Senator Grassley in?
Why wasn't the woman given ample opportunity during this period of time to tell her side of the story?
Now, Dianne Feinstein was saying, well, she didn't want to come public.
But then Diane Feinstein, it seems in many ways by making the story known, put her in a position where she had to.
So I don't know what the answer to all of those questions are.
And, you know, there's certain things I know.
I look at her letter.
I mean, and it doesn't mean that.
I mean, when you go back 36 years, I think people's memories, I don't know if you remember exact dates and times.
I can barely remember what I did on Friday night on my TV show, if that means anything.
On the other hand, I can cite every successful record of Ronald Reagan.
But anyway, I read very closely the account of Professor Ford detailing these allegations when she was a sophomore in high school and Brett Kavanaugh would have been a junior in high school.
And she said she didn't seem to recall exactly when the allegation or the alleged attack took place.
And she didn't remember the actual year.
She said she wasn't sure what year it was when all of this happened.
She said she believes it might have been 1982, but she isn't sure.
Quote, after so many years, Ford says she doesn't remember some key details of the incident.
She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 around the end of her sophomore year.
Apparently she went to an all-girls Holton Arms School in Bethesda.
Kavanaugh would have been 17, ending his junior year at Georgetown Prep.
And she didn't tell anybody until she went into couples therapy, according to the report.
And she decided to talk about what had happened in 2012.
And she said she told nobody of the incident in any detail until 2012 when apparently, I don't know what couples therapy even, I guess they just go to counseling.
Maybe not that they're necessarily having problems or anything.
And the therapist notes were also released.
She apparently also did a lie detector test.
And at the time, she reported that she was attacked by students from an elitist boys' school who went on to become a, quote, highly respected, high-ranking member of society in Washington.
And the notes say that four boys were involved, which was a discrepancy she put on the part of the therapist's part.
She said there were four boys at the party, but only two in the room.
And the other one is this guy, Mark Judge, who I mentioned just before.
And she did say that she did tell her husband that something bad had happened in the past.
She didn't go into detail.
Her husband didn't press the matter any further.
And she got married in 2002.
And apparently early in the relationship, she said she had been a victim of physical abuse.
And then it was a decade later in 2012 when he learned of it.
Then you've got to weigh all of this against the other side because none of us were there.
This is 36 years ago.
So the one guy that was in the room, apparently, though, Mark Judge has admitted that he had alcohol problems at the time and blacked out on occasion.
But he says he didn't believe this in any way, shape, matter, or form.
And he was pretty adamant in his denial that it didn't happen, used varying terms about how it didn't happen.
And then you have, if we're going to look at it, you know, why at this point, everything else you see about Judge Kavanaugh's life in his church, in his community, is a guy that spends a lot of time feeding the homeless.
I mean, he actually is the real deal in terms of helping people in his life now and throughout his profession.
You got 65 women who were contemporaries during his high school years.
They all have come out and said that he was a great guy, a person of great character and great integrity.
That's at the time.
One of those people that knew him will join us a little bit later.
Then you have many women that have known Kavanaugh personally, professionally, spanning over three decades now, that have all testified to his respect for women, his character, his integrity.
I don't know if Dianne Feinstein didn't believe the allegations were serious or credible or relevant enough to share with the FBI before this.
She's had it for months.
That part of it to me doesn't add up.
Why did she hold this?
And the Democrats' history of borking, allowing Ted Kennedy to say the horrific untrue things about Judge Bork at the time.
I've interviewed before he passed away, Judge Bork, a number of times.
I've met Clarence Thomas.
By the way, the president is now weighing in on this and saying that the Democrats should not have waited.
He said, if it takes a little delay, it takes a little delay.
Here's what he said.
Playing it back for us.
Let's listen.
Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people that I've ever known.
He's an outstanding intellect, an outstanding judge, respected by everybody.
Never had even a little blemish on his record.
The FBI has, I think, gone through a process six times with him over the years where he went to higher and higher positions.
He is somebody very special.
At the same time, we want to go through a process.
We want to make sure everything is perfect, everything is just right.
I wish the Democrats could have done this a lot sooner because they had this information for many months and they shouldn't have waited till literally the last days.
They should have done it a lot sooner.
But with all of that being said, we want to go through the process.
One thing I will say is that as I understand it, Judge Kavanaugh spent quite a bit of time with Senator Feinstein, and it wasn't even brought up at that meeting, and she had this information.
So you would have thought certainly that she would have brought it up at the meeting, not wait till everything's finished and then have to start a process all over again.
But with all of it being said, we want to go through a full process.
I have great confidence in the U.S. Senate and in their procedures and what they're doing.
And I think that's probably what they're going to do.
They'll go through a process and hear everybody out.
I think it's important.
I believe they think it's important.
But again, he is one of the great intellects and one of the finest people that anybody has known.
You look at his references, I've never seen anything quite like it.
So they'll go through that process and we'll get it done.
I don't know.
It depends on the process.
I'd like to see a complete process.
I'd like everybody to be very happy.
Most importantly, I want the American people to be happy because they're getting somebody that is great.
I want him to go in at the absolute highest level.
And I think to do that, you have to go through this.
If it takes a little delay, it'll take a little delay.
It shouldn't certainly be very much.
But again, this is something that should have been brought up long before this.
They had the information in July, as I understand it.
That's a long time ago.
And nobody mentioned it until the other day.
It's very, you know, it's very unfortunate that they didn't mention it sooner.
But with all of that being said, it will, I'm sure, work out very well.
You're talking about an individual who is as high a quality individual as you'll ever see.
Have you spoken to?
I have not spoken to Judge Kavanaugh.
Do you know anything already with that long from the process?
Has he offered to withdraw?
Next question.
What a ridiculous question.
He's not getting out of the combination.
Do you think his passport confirmation is on track?
Oh, I think he's on track.
Yeah.
I mean, I think he's very much on track.
If they delayed a little bit just to make sure everybody's happy, they want to be happy.
I can tell you, the Republican senators want to be 100% happy themselves.
They're doing it very, very professionally.
Again, this should have been brought up a long time ago.
Thank you.
All right, that's the president from earlier.
We got to take a quick break here.
We'll come back with more on this.
Another top big story we are following today is duly released testimony from Lisa Page undermines the legitimacy of Robert Mueller.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
A lot coming up today.
With only a kite, a house key, and wet hemp string, Benjamin Franklin captured lightning in a bottle.
Over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it.
Ensuring Americans have the energy they need whenever they need it.
Learn more about the nation's leader in energy storage at NextEeranergy.com.
I may surprise some of you with this, but my attitude is I believe that she should come public and go before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There's plenty of time before the vote on Thursday, and her and a lawyer can come in.
It's not like something you would have to prepare for, I don't think, you know, considering she's now written her story and told her story, and I guess they can ask questions surrounding it.
It should be done in a respectful manner.
And I also believe that maybe some of the 65 women that knew Brett Kavanaugh in high school, they could testify too, saying that he was always kind and humble and accessible as, you know, one of his female classmates at Yale.
He's always treated women with decency and respect, the 65 women that knew him at that age.
I mean, I would let everybody come out.
We also have letters from women that work from him, colleagues, female colleagues that work with him in the Bush White House.
And he has a strong record of supporting women, a letter from some of his former female law clerks, also some of the girls, the parents of girls that he's coached in basketball, and some of the, you know, a letter from classmates of his at Georgetown Prep and his intellect, letters from Kavanaugh's former Harvard law school students.
And then, of course, his courtroom behavior.
You know, let everybody talk and let the American people watch and let them decide.
I believe the American people are smart.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
We have a lot.
I'm going to peel back this onion.
George Papadopoulos joins us later in the program today.
Also, we are going to be joined by a panel, Greg Jarrett, Carrie Severino, and David Schoen on how do you handle these allegations.
One thing I did forget to bring up, look, there's a lot of things floating out there that I have not been able to confirm.
I have, for example, everyone said to me, well, look at what the reviews of this teacher are on the professor in this particular case, this woman that's making the accusation.
And I'm like, slow down.
It turns out there's another Professor Ford that is out there, and some people have put that up.
We've been hearing all day that there's been a social media site scrub of Professor Ford, and I don't have any evidence of that either.
If that happened, that would be interesting.
Why would they try to do that?
What would they not want people to see?
But usually it's very hard to scrub any social media postings because there's usually some track record someplace somewhere of it that people can have.
There was the report that Kavanaugh's mom presided over a 96 foreclosure case involving the parents of Professor Ford.
That seems to be true from everything that we've been able to gather.
I haven't confirmed it 100%, though.
Anyway, we're going to get into that.
We also have newly released testimony from Lisa Page undermining Robert Mueller's legitimacy, which we're going to hit pretty hard today.
And you'll meet one of the 65 signers of the letter in support of Judge Kavanaugh.
But if they, if Professor Ford and her lawyer, who is pretty radically left, Professor Ford's lawyer didn't believe Paula Jones and was outspoken about that dramatically.
That kind of says, okay, well, if you believe in one case, you don't believe another case.
It shows there might be a political bias on the attorney's part, nor did she want what happened to Al Franken to happen, which was pretty creepy on his part.
Anyway, let's go to Joe Bistardi.
The fallout from Hurricane Florence has been pretty severe, as we predicted.
Now the flooding aspect of it has gotten really bad in some areas in North Carolina, and they're even expecting more flooding in the days to come.
Why is that?
Because the rivers obviously are rising.
Why is there that delay, though?
I think most people want to know.
Well, the larger the river, the more all the tributaries have to pour into it.
So it's not just the rain that has fallen in and around the areas in southeast North Carolina, but all the rain upstream.
And the difference between Matthew and this is Matthew came along the coast and went out.
And, you know, that devastated southeast North Carolina and the coastal South Carolina.
This one kept coming inland and kept slamming heavy rains well back to Charlotte and places like that.
And it takes a while for that water to come downstream.
And basically for North Carolina, this is their harbor.
Same kind of very, very slow-moving storm.
And, you know, it's a different proportions, of course.
But it's a different.
When you look at the neighborhoods that are impacted badly by flooding, how many people do we think now are going to have big flood problems or are having them at this point?
Well, it's probably a half million to a million people that are affected some way directly where they've had some damage.
I haven't done the exact count on that because it varies.
You know, you get back up in those mountains, and there's other things that are going on up in there.
Fortunately, and the real good news with Florence is that there's no other system feeding into Florence to amplify precipitation.
So she's in West Virginia now, coming through Pennsylvania tonight, through southern New England tomorrow.
And chances are she's not going to cause the kind of disaster that Diane, for instance, 1955, after hitting in a similar place in North Carolina, done 15 to 20 inches of rain in southern New England.
So there is a bright spot in this in the end game.
But what we have to understand is that this water has to come downriver and into these areas.
By the way, my fear is, and we said this last week, that the season would shut down.
The entire globe is void of tropical activity right now.
But in about 10 to 15 days, we're going to have to watch the Western Caribbean and Gulf.
And it would not surprise me if we're not done yet.
There'll be one more spurt, and then we'll put the end to this hurricane season.
And I am concerned about that area of the country.
But for now, you've got to deal with what's going on here.
And again, put it in perspective.
In 1955, that same area of North Carolina got hit by two hurricanes in five days, Connie and Diane.
And so you can see North Carolina has been hit 56 times in the last 100 years by hurricanes.
So it is something that business there.
But as far as rainfall goes and the disaster in these areas, this is their benchmark storm around that Wilmington area up to Cape Lookout and back inland about 50 to 100 miles.
Well, Joe Bistardi, our chief meteorologist here on the Sean Hannity Show with Weatherbell.com, you've done a great job as always.
And I know you're watching other storms, and I have no doubt we'll be having you on in the days and weeks ahead, unfortunately.
Well, Sean, I hope not because you've got a lot on your plate.
I have a feeling there may be one more time, but I hope not.
Hopefully I'm wrong about what a couple of weeks.
But I hope the hurricane season is put to bed now, okay?
All right, my friend.
Thank you for your good work.
You're saving people's lives.
You're in our thoughts and prayers, all these people in North Carolina.
Listen, first we have to save your life and tell you to listen to your local authorities.
The next thing is, I know dealing with property damage is horrible.
It sucks.
It just is the worst.
Look, I'm not complaining, but I've had twice in my recent years frozen, busted pipes.
One day, one time it literally busted and leaked, and I was away on Christmas vacation, and I came home to a staggering amount of damage.
I mean, it's horrible.
And, you know, when people have their homes flooded, and then you got to rebuild, and you got to get stuff, and then you're fighting insurance companies.
It's a pain in the neck.
By the way, the one insurance company after that claim, they dump me.
They say, we're not covering you anymore.
I'm like, it's my fault that the pipe burst.
It wasn't my fault.
Anyway, so they're a pain in the neck.
All right, I'm going to get some calls in here.
A lot of you are standing by.
Let's say hi to John as a new Joysee.
What's up, John?
How are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Thank you for taking my call.
I appreciate it.
I wanted to make a comment, but before I make the comment, I wanted to say that Ms. Ford should, you know, if this really happened, she should go before Congress and she should, you know, testify and get it out in the open instead of lollygagging.
Well, I don't even think it was her.
I mean, I guess she did tell Dianne Feinstein she didn't want it to be public, but in the last hour Feinstein released it, which, you know, if she had it in July, I think she had an obligation.
Now, Judge Kavanaugh has been, they've done deep background checks on him.
He's in, you know, a circuit court that's the second most powerful court in the land.
And, you know, he's had many, as many as, I think I read today, six deep background checks for each new position he's gotten.
And none of this has ever come up before.
I don't know why Dianne Feinstein held it for so long.
She had an opportunity to ask him directly alone.
She had an opportunity also to ask him in the public hearing.
She failed to do so.
And I think that now if the professor, Professor Ford wants to testify before Congress and the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, I think she should be allowed.
I also similarly think, and some of you are saying, well, why this last-minute attacks, this and that.
And I'm like, because anybody that is in the public eye, this is what you just have to accept if you're in the public eye.
We live in a time where the country is so bitterly divided.
There's no way if you take a strong political position that people are, there's going to be some people that just hate your guts.
And if Professor Ford wants to testify and tell her story from when she was 15 and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old, 36 years ago, I think she should be allowed to testify and then let the American people, let the Senate watch and view the testimony themselves, ask questions.
I think they should also allow the people that have worked with Judge Kavanaugh as clerks and colleagues and people that have been with him in the last 30-some odd years of his life and people that knew him back at that age in his life.
They too should be allowed to testify.
And then the Senate and then the American people will have to make a decision at that point.
There's never been anything that I've seen about him that in any way, I mean, his behavior seems exemplary in every other aspect all through these three decades of his life.
And it seems inconsistent with the person that we've seen in the last three decades of his life.
I do think that if you're in the public eye, you got to be prepared to be smeared today in this political environment.
It is what it is.
I mean, that's why we use the term borking.
That's why when it was first announced, I played what Ted Kennedy said about Robert Bork.
I do believe people have the right to the presumption of innocence.
And I also think if you're an accuser, you have a right to confront those people you want to accuse.
And I think at that point, then people are going to make decisions.
I think they'll look at the totality of one's life, like in the case of Justice Thomas.
And we rightly, I believe, made the decision that Justice Thomas ended up being one of the best justices we ever had.
Is it pleasant?
Was it pleasant for him?
No, listen to what he had to testify to and the things that were said about him.
It's not pleasant being in the public eye.
Everyone thinks being in the public eye is the greatest thing in the world.
It's not.
And I'm speaking from personal experience.
It's not what it's cracked up to be.
But if you want to serve in the public eye, you're going to get, in this political environment, you're going to get hit hard.
And if you don't have the stomach for it, get off the field.
So I don't have a problem with Professor Ford testifying at all.
And I think that also that the attorney Katz seems very political, taking sides in these types of cases.
I think that shows that she has a political bias, but that doesn't mean Professor Ford does in any way.
And I think we should get to the bottom of it.
And it would only, all they have to do is they can come in tomorrow or the next day, and then they can still have their vote on time.
Let's go to, because sitting on this was the wrong thing to do, period.
Let's go to Jeff is in North Carolina.
Jeff, sorry what happened to the great state of North Carolina, and I know that there's supplies and help coming.
Yeah, thank you for saying that, Sean, because I was going to encourage also your listeners if they can, because I'm in Smithfield, North Carolina, so we've got some flooding, but certainly nothing as bad as it is 20 miles to the south and to the east of where I am.
Yeah, but it's horrific, so that it's going to continue.
So I'm begging your listeners to please donate to the American Red Cross to support.
Listen, I personally like Samaritan's Purse.
That happens to be Franklin Graham's group.
But Samaritan's Purse, Red Cross, whatever people can do, I'll be checking in with Reverend Graham this week.
I'll make a donation myself.
I'm not going to ask people to make donations that I don't make.
And whatever people can do, we need to be there for you.
I do know that the federal government supplies are there because they were pre-positioned, which is really good news.
But we still have the rising rivers, and flooding is going to get worse in some areas.
It's not done.
That's the hard part.
I'll tell you, Sean, briefly, I just want to say, so as far as the Kavanaugh thing, I hope that, regardless of your political bent, that every person sees this for what it is.
The timing of it is just ridiculous how you can sit on this information for since July and not bring this up during several, no one, but several meetings between Diane Feinstein and Justice Kavanaugh.
It wasn't just one meeting.
And the fact of the matter is, is that for anybody on the left or in the middle who thinks that this is, I mean, it's all part of the narrative that the Democrats want, that the Republicans are women that want, you know, they're anti-women and they want to continue this narrative.
And as long as we get the vote before November, but I think that in one way or the other, unfortunately, the Democrats have already won in one respect.
They've changed the narrative.
They've energized their base even more.
And those that are in the middle are going to get shied away from kind of the elections a little bit even more.
What do you think?
Well, look, there's a lot at stake in this election.
There's no doubt that two years of nonstop bashing and beating of Trump from the media and Democrats, it has an impact on some people.
But for those people that like the president's policies, that want to continue the success of the country, you know, if the Democrats get elected, even if Robert Mueller's whole thing goes away, it's going to be two years.
They don't have an agenda.
The only agenda is to destroy Trump.
It's going to be two more years of that.
But if Professor Ford testifies, well, so too, I think, should Kavanaugh's former Harvard Law School students.
I think they should.
Or classmates at Georgetown Prep where he went to high school.
Those people should be allowed to testify.
The 65 women that knew him from his early life should be allowed to testify.
The parents of girls that Judge Kavanaugh coached over this 30-plus year period.
Think they should be able to testify.
So should the former female law clerks of Judge Kavanaugh be allowed to testify and former female colleagues that served with him in the Bush White House be allowed to testify.
And, you know, some former Yale College female classmates, they too should be able to testify.
If you're going to do it, bring people in and let everyone have their say, and then everyone can make a decision.
I'm not against, and some people say, well, why would you let this go on?
This is the reality of public life today.
And if you don't believe it, just on any given day, watch the news about President Trump or any conservative for that matter.
It is standard operating procedure.
I warned everybody before once the announcement was made, there's an opening on the court, and Justice Kennedy got off.
I said, let me tell you what's coming.
And I played Judge Thomas having to fight back after the allegations made against him.
I played Ted Kennedy.
The lion of the Senate left a woman to die in a car after he drove the car off a bridge.
He didn't tell anybody.
He went home to bed, and the woman's in the car, you know, Chappaquittick River is a man of integrity.
We know what he said about Robert Bork.
No, I'm all in favor.
Let everyone testify.
We'll get a full range of perspective of Judge Kavanaugh.
And I think if that happens, it could be done expeditiously, then I think the vote should take place on schedule.
Senator Susan Collins is now weighing in on this case.
She's asking some tough questions.
What's puzzling to me about the Democrats is why did they hold it this long?
And why did this surface?
They put forward this information earlier.
Is it they didn't believe Ford?
Why did they do it at the 11th hour?
It's not fair to either of them the way that was handled.
Hour 2, Sean Hannity Show, toll free.
Telephone numbers 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, the big news from the weekend is this newly released testimony from Lisa Page.
Remember, there's 50,000 emails.
Release the information.
And what are we talking about?
Let's see the FISA memos or the FISA court applications that were made to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate.
What we're even finding out now with Lisa Page, I mean, I went over their testimony last week with the latest Struck Page memos.
Now, what has previously sealed congressional testimony that we now have is Lisa Page raising doubts about the entire legitimacy of the special counsel Robert Mueller because she told Congress back in July at the time of Mueller's appointment that the FBI wasn't even sure any crime had ever been committed.
Now, think of the timing of all of this.
Now, Page had admitted earlier in the summer that more than nine months into the federal Russia probe, nine months that investigators had found no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
None.
He said, quote, I think this represents that even as far as May of 2017, we still could not answer that question.
Anyway, so Page goes on to admit, I think as far as May of 2017, we couldn't answer the question.
Now, this Robert Mueller is now investigating this.
On May 18th, one day after the special counsel was appointed, Strzok texts, you and I both know the odds are nothing.
If I thought it was likely, I'd be there, no question.
I hesitate in part because my gut sense and concern is there's no big there there.
And Page goes on to explain to Congressman Ratcliffe: well, it still existed in the scope of possibility that there'd be literally nothing, she said, before qualifying.
Probably not nothing as we probably knew more than that by that point, meaning there was nothing.
Top FBI lawyer, remember, she was McCabe's lawyer, admitting that evidence was still inconclusive, saying that maybe an unwitting person was in fact involved in the release of information, but it didn't ultimately touch any senior people in the administration, meaning the Trump campaign or campaign.
Then Ratcliffe said, Paige left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russia collusion case, her boyfriend Peter Struck, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly an entire year of investigation.
And Newton has now wants to release all the deposition before the election, which I think is a good idea.
Now, one person that did get caught up in this, George Papadopoulos, now he was interviewed, and apparently in this interview, didn't tell the truth.
And George Papadopoulos has now been sentenced to 14 days in jail.
It could have been five years.
And that George Papadopoulos, this guy downing from Australia that we've told you an awful lot about, and this professor apparently that I had a relationship with, you know, resulted in him being questioned about what he knew.
And he joins us now to talk about it.
How are you, George Papadopoulos?
Sean, thanks so much for hosting me.
I mean, I guess you probably hate it that me and others said, well, you're just a low-level campaign person.
And I'm not trying to be rude by saying that, but I was around all the campaigns for all that time, and I did not know you at that time.
Yeah, I mean, look, Sean, it's obviously all relative.
Of course, I wasn't, you know, a campaign chairman or senior advisor to the candidate himself.
But, you know, I certainly, you know, did my best to help the candidate.
You know, I helped organize a meeting between him and the Egyptian presidential assembly.
So, you know, my focus actually was predominantly on Middle Eastern issues and NATO.
I had absolutely no background whatsoever in the U.S.-Russia relationship.
All I knew about Russia and candidate Trump was that if he was elected president, he wanted to work at some level, generic level, with Putin.
That's all I knew.
And that's actually what I was going into these meetings with these so-called Russian intermediaries trying to do.
Let's talk about this professor that you knew from your time in Great Britain.
Tell us about him.
Yeah, so it's a very the whole setup with the meeting with him was it's very strange.
Looking back, of course, during the time I was interviewed with the FBI, there was a lot of confusion.
But now that I have a more clear picture of what I think was going on, it looks incredibly suspicious.
I was working in an organization named the London Center for International Law Practice in London.
This is an organization that has deep ties to Western intelligence in the UK.
They then take me to a university called Link Campus in Rome.
This is after I notified them that I would be leaving their organization and joining the Trump campaign and moving back to the United States.
I don't know why they decided to take me on this so-called business trip to this university in Rome, which is known as a spy school that trains Western intelligence.
Nevertheless, I thought it's a quick trip to Rome and I'd just be leaving to the United States afterwards.
I don't know if the stars aligned the way they did and I was supposed to meet Joseph Mipsud at this spy school in Rome or if it was by complete coincidence.
Nevertheless, I meet him in Rome and immediately he takes a liking to me and starts saying that he can set up a meeting between Trump and Putin and various other diplomats.
At the time, you know, he presented himself as this mid-50s former diplomat with extensive ties to the State Department in the United States, Western think tanks in Europe, and nominally to Russia and various governments.
I took him up on his offer to meet in London a couple weeks later.
Did he ever at any point mention that he can get a hold of Hillary Clinton Dirk for the Trump campaign?
So here's the misunderstanding.
About a month after I'm talking with him, he sits down with me over breakfast in London and simply states that I have information that the Russians have Hillary Clinton's emails.
He said he's coming back apparently from Russia.
I never saw emails.
He never followed through with this.
He dropped a bomb on me and he basically went his own way, which for me is incredibly suspicious.
It made absolutely no sense.
And here's why it also didn't make sense to me, Sean.
This is a person who apparently has the keys to the kingdom, the one secret that everyone in the world apparently wanted.
And if I recall correctly, that was all being discussed at that time.
Who has the emails, right?
Absolutely.
It was a public record, and my wife herself has mentioned that it was speculated all over Europe at the time.
Now, here's the problem I had with this individual.
At the time, around those months, I was trying to leverage what I thought were his contacts with Russia to meet the Russian ambassador in London.
This individual could not even introduce me to a single Russian diplomat, but he apparently had this information.
For me, it made no sense to me, and it still does not make any sense to me.
All right.
And even before you got sentenced, this guy had spoken out and said you didn't do anything wrong and that he didn't offer you or give you any of that information.
All right, let's fast forward.
Now, all of a sudden, all this information, I guess, gets released, and you become a subject of the investigation.
How did that happen?
Walk us through it.
Well, I mean, I'm just following what I've been reading in the news, like I guess everyone else has.
Alexander Downer gets into the question.
You meet this guy in a bar.
You guys having drinks together.
You were drinking gin and tonics.
You might have had a little buzz on.
Tell us about that.
I think it's very important for me to contextualize what this meeting with Alexander Downer was, which I felt was a complete setup, and I still do to this day.
Alexander Downer did not randomly reach out to me.
There was a process leading up to this meeting, and I've been tweeting about it recently.
There was an Israeli diplomat named Christian Cantor, who I knew in London, who just hated Trump.
He hated his guts.
All of a sudden, he decides one day to introduce me to his so-called girlfriend, who just happened to be an Australian intelligence officer and the assistant to Alexander Downer.
Now, once I was in the British press demanding that David Cameron apologize to Trump about calling him stupid for his idea about the Muslim ban, all of a sudden, Alexander Downer decides to meet with me at a bar.
At this meeting, he begins to take his phone out, what seemed to be recording my conversation with him.
I was so suspicious, I actually notified the FBI about this encounter.
And he basically tells me that your boss and you better stop bothering my good friend, David Cameron.
It seemed like a threat.
I have no recollection whatsoever talking about emails.
I remember a lot about this meeting, and it was one of the most strange meetings I had during the campaign, along with Stefan Halper.
Okay, so let's get to Robert Mueller and company.
When did you get called by the FBI?
You contacted them over this.
When did they talk to you?
And what was that interview like?
I can't really get into details about what was said in my interview, but all I can say is that they contacted me in January of 2017.
And I mentioned it in court that the discussion in my first interview in general terms was about Sergey Million, who was apparently outed as a dossier source a week before.
If I was being cultivated by the Israeli government to work as some sort of spy, because actually most of my business contacts were in the energy industry in Israel before I joined the campaign.
And generally, if I knew things about hacking and Russian interference, of course, I had nothing to do with Russian interference and hacking.
And I simply told the FBI at this interview that Joseph Mipsud told me that he had that information.
Okay, so then why did you lie to the FBI?
Because you admitted when you were being sentenced that you lied.
You were embarrassed.
You even tweeted such out.
Why would you lie if you didn't have the information?
Well, look, I think Michael Flynn as well did not do something illegal, but you lie, but you still lie, and that's a crime.
So even if I didn't do anything illegal, lying to the FBI is illegal.
Right, I understand that.
But why would you lie?
You had nothing to hide, you're saying.
All I can say about it is, Sean, and as I said on your show, it was a chaotic moment, and I have not pleaded guilty to collusion.
I pled guilty to lying.
But did you consciously know you were lying?
And why were you lying?
I'm trying to understand.
If you didn't do anything wrong, why would you lie?
Or if you didn't think anybody did anything wrong, why would you lie?
I can't really get into too many details about that.
All I could say is obviously it was a stupid mistake and it's costed me a lot.
What was the specific lie about?
As far as my understanding is, and the public record states today, is about the timing of my encounters with this Maltese professor, Joseph Mipsud, and the extent of my contact with him.
And do you think that they had tape conversations and they set you up in the interview?
I have no opinion whatsoever about any setups, but I do understand that there was a recording of my conversation, yes.
With the professor.
Well, that's called a perjury trap.
If they have all the information, then they're asking you questions.
Let me ask you this.
Go ahead.
Say what you're going to say.
Sean, what?
Oh, no, no, no, nothing, nothing.
What did you mean when you tweeted this weekend?
There's a lot to come.
What I meant by that is that if I'm going to be under scrutiny for my interactions with a Maltese professor, the fake niece of Vladimir Putin, which this Maltese professor introduced me to, and a think tank analyst in Russia, then certainly my interactions with Western intelligence officials, Western diplomats who encountered me in incredibly suspicious circumstances, including Stefan Halper,
definitely need to be discussed at the congressional level because I don't think my story should simply be quantified as meeting this Maltese professor.
He tells me this information, and that's what George Papadopoulos was doing.
My story is much larger than that and in substance and in scope.
And I think the American public deserves to know the truth.
Do you believe you were set up then?
In what sense exactly?
I certainly believe that Alexander Downer was setting me up for something.
I don't know what, but I think that, well, Halper, obviously, it's public that he was setting me up for something.
I don't know what he was doing exactly, but it's public knowledge that he was part of some operation in London, which I believe the British had to be part of, because why would this operation be targeted against me in London if the British were not aware of it?
And I'll tell you another fact.
The same day that I met Stefan Halper in London, the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs invited me to tour their offices and to meet with their diplomats.
Unless they were completely aloof as to what was going on in London the same day Stefan Halper was interacting with me, then I think it makes no sense.
You have to spend 14 days in jail.
How do you think Mueller and his team treated you?
I think, you know, I did my part.
I'm certainly going to just give my part of the story I did, and I just hope that the truth all comes out in the end.
That's all I can say.
Do you think if the truth comes out in the end, will it exonerate you?
All I can say is that I'm looking forward to testifying on Capitol Hill.
I'm very enthusiastic about it, and I hope my testimony leads to a certain other doors opening.
Well, I mean, that's kind of mysterious.
It's sort of like there's a lot to come.
Do you have a story to tell about the special counsel and how they treated you?
I certainly have a story.
It's a very interesting story, and I'm actually in the process of writing a book about it right now.
So it's going to come out.
I, of course, don't have an opinion about it right now.
There's still an ongoing investigation, but I believe my story and my real opinions about everything that happened will be coming out very shortly.
When are you going to spend your 14 days in jail?
I think my understanding is probably next month or sometime around then.
So we're just, my wife and I were looking forward to getting that done with and moving on with our lives.
But certainly there's a lot.
There was a lot more than me meeting with an Australian diplomat regarding my story.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
Sorry, all that.
You seem to get caught up in something that the only thing I don't understand is why you would lie over something you didn't do.
But we'll get that story when you write your book.
We're looking forward to it.
Thank you, George Papadopoulos.
I wish you and your wife the best, and we really mean that sincerely.
Thank you so much, Sean.
I appreciate it.
We both appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
So let me just go back here.
This is breaking news right now.
You are going to declassify your depositions of some 70 individuals related to the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Yeah, so some of them are not even classified.
Some of them are just held at the committee.
So matter of fact, I think 70 or 80% of them are not classified.
The ones that are classified, we will have to send to the Department of Natural or the Director of National Intelligence to declassify, but we hope that that would only take a matter of days and they don't do their normal foot dragging where they slow roll and we don't get these before the election.
But just for the sake of full transparency, because there's so much that's out there that's misinformation or disinformation on this Russia Gate fiasco, that we needed this information out before the election.
And that's why we've been asking the President of the United States to declassify many more documents as it relates to not only Bruce Orr, but also with the Carter Page FISA.
Will the president declassify those documents before the midterm elections?
Well, look, I think he doesn't have any choice.
Well, and what you see is the mainstream media and even Strzz's attorneys have said, no, no, no, he actually wanted to get to the bottom of leaks.
He was really worried about getting to the bottom and making sure nobody was leaking.
That's not what was happening.
What was happening here, and this ought to scare American people.
It scares me to know that the FBI and DOJ would go out and leak fake news stories in many cases, plant them in many cases, and then pick up those fake news stories to use it as a pretext.
And that's the word that they use in their text, in one of their text messages, a pretext to go out and interview American citizens, knock on their door and say, look, we read these three news stories that we're not going to tell you we actually planted with the news, and we want to talk to you about these news stories.
All right, 24 now till the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, Devin Nunes going over the new developments, the page struck text that we told you all about last week.
And, oh, let's use this.
First, we'll purposefully leak phony information to our friends in the media as part of a, quote, media leak strategy.
And then we're going to use that information as a pretext to go interview people about the Justice Department's decision to appoint Robert Mueller.
It was one exchange where Strzzok and Paige are talking about right after the firing of James Comey.
Oh, let's make sure Andy starts an investigation fast, quick, before somebody replaces him while he's still there, meaning he's in charge after Comey got fired.
And Paige admitted earlier this summer that more than nine months into the federal Russia probe in a text May 18th, that's one day after the special counsel was appointed, Strzok texts her, you and I both know the odds are nothing.
If I thought it was likely, I'd be there in no question.
I hesitate because my gut sense and concern, there's no big there there.
And then when she was asked about that by Congressman John Ratcliffe, it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would literally be nothing, she said, before then saying probably not nothing, as we probably knew more than that by that point.
The top FBI lawyer admitted the evidence was still inconclusive, saying that maybe an unwitting person was in fact involved in the release of information, but it didn't ultimately touch any senior people in the administration or in the campaign.
Anyway, Ratcliffe said Lisa Page left me with the impression based on her own words that the lead investigator of the Russia collusion case, Peter Strzzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year.
When you tie it all together, it all starts with Hillary Clinton getting an exoneration after committing multiple felonies, the most obvious case of obstruction ever.
Hillary gets to continue her campaign instead of being held to the same standard we would have been held to.
Then, as she moves forward, after she steals the primary from poor Bernie Sanders, well, then Hillary funnels money through her campaign in the DNC through a law firm, which, by the way, is a campaign finance violation.
They didn't want it on the books as a campaign expense, so they made it a legal expense.
They funnel it through Perkins-Cooey.
Perkins-Cooey hires an op research firm.
Why didn't they just pay the money directly?
That's a good question.
Then they hire Christopher Steele.
Now, of the thing that we see with Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Paige, Bruce Orr, Fusion GPS leader, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele himself, they all hate Trump.
The one thing they all have in common, that's when the phony dossier gets paid for.
Steele himself won't stand by his own dossier, and it gets worse than that.
Then that phony information is leaked before the election to hurt then candidate Trump.
Then it's leaked after the election to take down Trump, and they still didn't have information of any evidence whatsoever, but a special counsel was appointed, and now it's been 18 long months of nonstop lies and BS.
Now the question is, there are some in the media that say there's no such thing as a deep state.
Well, I beg to differ.
And Jason Chaffetz, former congressman, Fox News, now a contributor, he begs to differ.
He's written a book about it.
It's called The Deep State, How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is working to destroy the Trump agenda.
Aren't they really working to destroy Trump?
They are.
And one of the things I detail in the book, The Deep State, is when the FBI came in and told us that there were five people in the Clinton investigation who got immunity.
And when we went to go see those immunity agreements, they only brought in three.
And then I just happened to ask, I said, is this all of them?
And then she reluctantly said, oh, there's actually two more.
And then we found out that two of the most senior people to Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, also had immunity agreements.
And you know what's fascinating about these immunity agreements?
There's no paragraph in there where they have to cooperate with the government.
And people like that have looked at these.
So they get a sweetheart deal, unlike, say, what Paul Manafort can't write a book.
Paul Manafort has to hand over money.
Paul Manafort actually has to testify without his lawyer if they want him to be a witness in something.
And so in the Clinton investigation, not having interviewed dozens of witnesses, not having gone through the full investigation, not talking to the subject of the witness themselves, they hand out these immunity agreements with no cooperation needed with the government.
And look at how differently they're treating Donald Trump.
That's how this deep state works.
They work behind the scenes, and that's what I detail in the book.
Isn't there a certain extent with the constant never-ending drip, drip, drip, drip, drip that it seems that they have created enough chaos, enough of distraction that people think, oh, there's smoke, there's got to be fire, but there's never been any evidence of any Russia collusion at all.
Well, and that's why Devin Nunes is right.
You need to release the documents so that everybody can look at what they're seeing and more.
But I think it's, you know, somebody in the White House holding it back.
There's probably some attorney in there that's holding this information back.
But that information needs to be released.
You know, we're open and transparent in this country, and that's why you need good oversight because you had people run amok.
How would you define the deep state is the title of your book.
What is the deep state?
People ask me all the time, and I give my answer, but I want to know yours.
They don't hide in some corner.
They're open.
They're brazen.
They don't like exposure.
They don't want accountability.
But there are people within the bureaucracy that do not want to be held accountable.
And one of the stories.
But isn't it more than that?
Aren't they working actively to undermine the case of Trump?
Didn't they actively support Hillary's candidacy and work actively to undermine the candidacy of Trump?
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, the overwhelming majority of them are Democrats.
They wanted a bigger government with more power, less accountability, and they're brazen about it.
The security leaks, for instance, to go after Trump, even before he's even sworn in, you start to see things going out the door when he's out there talking with world leaders, and suddenly that information is out there.
Prime Minister, conversations.
When did that ever happen in American history, right?
It never happens, but it happened to Donald Trump because he's a disruptive president.
It's exactly what the deep state doesn't want.
Well, so when you look at all of these names that we're talking about that we keep bringing up, I think some of the most frightening stuff is the Pfizer warrant abuse because they used a phony dossier to get it.
The irony of it all is it's a Clinton bought and paid for phony Russian dossier.
Everyone wants to talk about Russian collusion, but it was used at the highest levels to spy on a Trump campaign associate.
And we also had a spy inside the Trump campaign.
And there might have even been more Pfizer warrants I'm hearing.
Is that true?
The name that we're not talking about, because it all ties back to this, is Mark Elias.
Mark Elias is general counsel involved with Perkins Cooey, involved with Podesta, involved at the DNC, involved with Hillary Clinton.
This is the attorney that sits in the middle of this universe and is moving these dollars by the millions of dollars that then generate this product that's fiction that is then used to generate stories, which are fiction.
They're fake to justify action by federal bureaucrats.
So we now know that this was all under a phony pretext, the whole Trump-Russia investigation.
Well, why is it allowed to continue?
Believe me.
Why haven't people been held accountable for fixing investigations, for spreading false information to the American people, to Congress?
Why, if you lie to a FISA court judge, why do I think I'd be put in jail and never see the light of day again?
Well, we've got one of the weakest attorney generals we've ever had in my lifetime.
And as long as Jeff Sessions is the attorney general, I think we're going to continue on in perpetuity with these problems.
I really do think that that is a major impetus.
I do believe, and you and I have talked about this, I do believe the Inspector General, I do think, and I hope he's making progress, but I worry that they're not willing to prosecute their own.
In the book, The Deep State that I wrote, I talk about it from the EPA to the Department of Interior to the Department of Justice to the State Department.
They never prosecute themselves.
So you're saying that guys, like, even though we do know there's a grand jury convened as it relates to Andrew McCabe, what about everybody that signed on to the phony FISA warrants?
Because that's committing a fraud upon the court.
That would be Comey.
That would be Sally Yates.
That would be Rod Rosenstein himself.
Rod Rosenstein should not be involved.
He should be recusing himself.
He signed that document and he signed the document to make the recommendation to the president to get rid of Comey.
So how is it that he can oversee that investigation?
How come they're never indicted?
How come that side?
I mean, you go after people's, and I think everyone should pay their taxes.
I think you can buy on a bank loan application.
Oh, totally understood.
But none of that would have happened had we not had this.
I mean, if that's what this became, where's the Russia collusion part?
Oh, that's the thing: all these counts and all this stuff has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.
It has nothing to do with so-called collusion.
And there has to be some evidence of a so-called crime in order to generate this, but it hasn't happened because they can't point to a single thing.
You think they'll all get away with it or some of these people going to jail?
I can only hope and pray, Sean.
And so much of my belief is in this Inspector General because they have been able to look under the hood.
They were able to generate these text messages, but somebody has to have the actual guts to pull the trigger and say, not only just going to fire them, but we're actually going to prosecute them.
That is rare to none in this government.
All right.
All right.
We continue with Jason Schaffetz, fellow Fox News contributor.
The Deep State, how an army of bureaucrats protected Barack Obama and are working to destroy the Trump agenda.
It's now in bookstores around the country, Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
And as we continue, Congressman Jason Schaffetz in studio with us, The Deep State, how an army of bureaucrats protected Barack Obama and working to destroy the Trump agenda.
It seems that everything is hinging upon one thing, and it's very simple: that the president needs to unredact the FISA warrant memo, the FISA warrants, especially the last one, pages 10 through 12, 17 to 34.
Why do I know that?
Because I have a lot of sources.
What's in it?
I have no idea.
I've never seen it.
And also these 302s, which are, I guess, their specific form that is filled out in this case by Bruce Orr about his connections and contacts with Christopher Steele.
And even Christopher Steele was saying, hey, get my information to the special counsel's office, even though he didn't believe in any of his information.
And also, there's 50,000 struck page emails and texts, and we don't have just a small sampling of them, and they're all pretty bad.
Why would it be important for the president to do that?
And what's taken so long?
It takes a long time because there is, again, a deep state at the Department of Justice and within the intelligence community.
He doesn't need that permission, does he?
He doesn't.
But with this Mueller probe, he has been to a fault almost, hands off.
He's been more than a distance away from it, but he does have the ability to unilaterally make that decision.
If that happened, what do you think we're going to see?
Well, we're going to see the truth.
And the closer we get to the truth, the more we're going to see that there was this conspiracy, I believe, put together by these higher people up in the upper echelons of the DOJ, FBI, CIA.
Yes, that they were intelligence community.
That they were using these unique police powers.
Not rank and file, but the people that had the most power.
Yeah, not the people that are in Oklahoma City working their butts off to protect our country.
We're talking about.
You think they all committed crimes for the most part?
I think there's a lot of evidence that says that many of them did.
And there are several names that we have not yet heard of that were using their position as attorneys to take that action.
Remember, the inspector general took some criticism because they said, well, it didn't influence the prosecutorial decisions, but many of these people didn't have the opportunity.
Well, how long is it going to take Horowitz to get the FISA investigation?
It took him 18 months the last time.
It's been going a long time, and I do think that's why you're seeing a grand jury, at least one that we've at least read about, moving forward.
Now, again, until that is exposed and it goes to the full gambit, then we're not going to get there, but it is moving forward.
All right, it's called The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is working to destroy the Trump agenda.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz, BookstoresEverywhere, Hannity.com, Amazon.com, and we'll see you.
I think you're on our show tonight on Hannity.
We'll see you then.
Quick break, we'll come back.
News Roundup, Information Overload Hour, Sean Hannity Show.
Greg Jarrett and David Schoen among our guests.
Straight ahead.
All right, news roundup and information overload hour, Sean Hannity Show.
We continue with our coverage of this last-minute attack.
And, well, I mean, I don't even know what to make of it by this last-minute accuser.
Her name is Christine Blassey, as it relates to Judge Kavanaugh when she was 15 years old and he was a teenager, and that it had taken place.
And there was another witness in the room, but apparently that person says it didn't happen.
We know that, in fact, that Judge Kavanaugh himself has said that it didn't happen at all.
We know that the lawyer for this woman has deep ties to being against not only Judge Kavanaugh, but a pretty strong leftist individual that over the years has contributed almost exclusively to Democratic candidates.
She was hostile to Paula Jones' claims, said against President Clinton that they were weak, not enough.
She also, at the time, didn't think that Al Franken, what he did, constituted a reason to get thrown out of the Senate or have to leave the Senate.
So she seems to be very political in her point of view.
We do know that there is a group of 65 women that have known Brett Kavanaugh from back in those days when he was this age that this woman is talking about that all say that he treated women with respect and decency.
65 individual women who knew Brett Kavanaugh when he was in high school, that he was, quote, always humble, kind, accessible.
One letter from a former Yale College female classmate.
He's a man of the highest integrity.
Other colleagues who served with Kavanaugh in the Bush White House, Kavanaugh has a strong record of supporting women, some of his former law clerks, and we can go on and on and on, but we do know that Dianne Feinstein had this back as early as July, maybe even June.
And in fact, she held on to it.
She had multiple opportunities when she talked to Judge Kavanaugh individually.
And, of course, the Kavanaugh hearings.
And this is being brought up as a last-minute, oh, can we stop Kavanaugh?
And I think a lot of fair questions are being asked about and the comparisons made about how, well, this seems exactly like what happened to Judge Clarence Thomas.
And when you read through the firsthand account of Chrissy Blasi Ford is her name, who detailed this assault allegation with Brett Kavanaugh, and she put it in the Washington Post, and she didn't remember exactly when the alleged attack occurred.
I don't mean the exact time of day.
I mean the year.
She wasn't sure what year it was, even though she claims that it was almost rape.
She believes it might have been in 1982, but she's not quite sure.
Another thing that came out to me in the letter, which was she didn't tell anybody, only when she went to couples therapy in 2012 did she talk about what had happened 30 years earlier, which, by the way, it couldn't happen.
Now, the question is, what should the Senate Judiciary Committee do?
Democrats want to put a stop to any vote that would take place, which was scheduled for this week.
And anyway, here to dig into this more deeply, Carrie Severino is with us, who is the chief counsel policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network and also Fox News legal analyst, author of the number one book, The Russian Hoax, New York Times.
And also, we have criminal and civil liberties attorney David Schoen is with us.
Carrie, let's start with you today.
All these women have come out in favor of him.
The woman tells a story where there was another man that was in the room at the time.
He said that I don't recall anything like that ever happening, but apparently he had issues in high school with drinking, but he was pretty adamant in his denial.
All these other women over the years have said that Kavanaugh is just a great guy.
What are we supposed to do with something like this?
Well, and then you add in, he's been in the public sphere, been public service for 25 years, undergone six different FBI background checks, never had a whisper of any kind of misconduct and all of that.
The ABA also, when it did its evaluation, they interviewed tons of lawyers and judges that he had worked with.
All of them said their summarization was, on integrity, he doesn't get an A plus, he gets an A ⁇ .
So it's a real challenge because it is absolutely at odds with the Brett Kavanaugh that everyone who knows him seems to know, with this one exception, doesn't seem to add up.
And as you pointed out, Senator Feinstein's behavior doesn't add up at all.
She sat on this and sat on this.
Did she not think it was credible?
Did she not think it was serious enough or relevant, Kenithan?
Or was she just holding it in her back pocket to use as a political weapon later on?
It's very hard to understand.
I think what does make perfect sense, though, is you're seeing the same Democrats who, even before Kavanaugh was nominated, were calling for delay.
And this is just the next in their ever-shifting reasons for delay.
Either because he's not Merrick Garland, so we have to delay, or because we're not getting documents fast enough, or we're not getting enough documents, or we think he likes baseball too much, or the reasons have shifted.
But this is just the latest in that.
So it sounds to me like the Senate Judiciary Committee is working to make sure that Ms. Ford does get an opportunity to share her perspective.
And then Judge Kavanaugh will get an opportunity to also refute that and give his testimony as well.
But what I don't think we should see is this being used as a cynical delay device.
And it seems like that's exactly the kind of politics that were being played with the way that this was leaked at the very last moment, right before the hearing.
That doesn't strike me as someone who's really interested in finding out the truth.
That's someone who's using this as part of their political agenda and just trying to do character assassination at the 11th hour.
Let me go to David Schoen here.
I mean, this is such a serious allegation, but it goes back 35 years with the many numerous people that have come out and said this is not the guy that we knew in any way, shape, manner, or form.
You're a criminal defense attorney.
You have one guy that says I have no recollection of that.
And supposedly he was in the room at the time this happened, which would have been groping and fondling this woman against her will.
What are we to make of it?
Look, as a criminal defense matter, if a criminal defense lawyer couldn't win this case for a judge soon to be Justice Kavanaugh, he or she ought to give up the license.
It wouldn't hold up in court.
No prosecutor would prosecute the case, of course.
Look, it's a very difficult situation because of the inflammatory nature of the allegation.
And that's what Senator Feinstein knew.
And we've seen grandstanding at one level or another between Spartacus and now Senator Feinstein.
That's the unfair situation that was created for this Professor Ford.
It's what these senators did by waiting until the last minute, by presenting this thing under this veil of mystery to tantalize and that sort of thing.
That's the real crime here that happened, it seems to me.
If they're going to go forward, she supposedly has agreed to testify under oath.
They should take that testimony, but it's very difficult.
Certainly, you can't prove that allegation to anyone's satisfaction, seems to me.
And on the other hand, one might say they should move forward, assume that something she said is true.
Would they still confirm Justice Kavanaugh if this were an incident that happened in high school and even as described by Professor Ford?
What is your take on it when you read the piece in the Washington Post?
Greg Jarrett?
Well, unlike Clarence Thomas, this alleged incident did not happen in the workplace as adults.
Instead, 36 years ago, teenagers at a House party in which it allegedly happened.
That's point number one.
Point number two, I think it is fair to examine the political motives of those involved in this, including the accuser and her lawyer.
But finally, it's inevitable that a hearing will take place.
And that's probably right and fair.
It will test the credibility of the witnesses, the accuser, the accused, and the only other witness, if he's willing to appear, Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge.
If there's no corroboration, Sean, it would be unfair to allow a single unproven, unverified accusation to ruin Kavanaugh's career.
And so I think that's the bottom line.
Well, I would argue that, look, we've seen what has happened.
You know, we have a principle in this country that people are innocent until they're proven guilty.
I know everybody wants to rush to judgment.
We've got to stop the hearing.
We've got to do this and that.
Why didn't Diane Feinstein bring it up earlier, number one, when she had it?
Number two, I mean, I think we've got to look at the entirety of this man's life and career.
And when you do, this is totally contradictory to the person that we now see today and throughout the many, many years that he's been there.
Then you have another issue, which is a little dicey, and that is that apparently the mother of Judge Kavanaugh ruled on a case involving her family.
Is that a problem?
Carrie.
Yeah, I don't even know.
I mean, that's really developing just now: this other case issue, and how could that play into it?
But I think it is just looking at, as you pointed out, Senator Feinstein's behavior.
She keeps on saying, well, I was trying to protect the confidentiality of this woman, but she had so many opportunities that were confidential and that were, you know, that were dealing with FBI background check information on the phone.
They had her private meeting in her office.
She could have said, sent everyone out and said, look, I have this.
Let's talk about it.
Just you and me confidentially.
That would have been totally fine and a reasonable thing for her to do.
She didn't do that.
She is not treating this as if she thought it was a serious, credible, relevant allegation earlier.
So it's hard to believe now when she's saying, oh, this needs to be investigated.
No, this is just another plank in your argument for why we need to delay this nomination.
And it just doesn't ring true what she is saying here.
Is it fair to bring up David Schoen the fact that Kavanaugh's mother was a judge against her parents in a foreclosure case in 1996, or is that irrelevant?
Absolutely, it's fair.
It's relevant and it's fair.
It goes to motive.
All of these things are.
And as does the failure of the report.
Listen, nobody wants to take the position, especially these days, of impugning a potential victim's credibility in this kind of area.
However, when it comes to an evaluation like this, you have to balance all of the facts.
And what you have on the one side that may be true, we can't say the professor is lying.
We don't know all of the facts.
Nobody else was there.
But this is what happens in a trial, also.
The jury is not an eyewitness to what happened.
And therefore, you have to weigh all of the facts.
And so you have an unreported incident with facts that vary from the therapist's notes to the account that we're hearing now.
And I know the professor said, well, the therapist just misrecorded what was said to her, how many people were present.
There were four people.
There were two people, what year it was, et cetera, as you've already said, against this record that we have.
And that's what Senator Graham has said.
Senator Grassley, I believe, has said, we'll take this person's testimony and we will balance it against all of the other record evidence that we have about Judge or Justice Kavanaugh.
We don't know what happened then.
We maybe never will know, but we have to be fair both to the potential victim and to the candidate here who's had a very distinguished career, both personally and professionally.
All right, as we continue with Carrie Severino and David Schoen and Greg Jarrett are with us at the bottom of the hour, by the way, somebody that knew Judge Kavanaugh from that time period when he was young will join us.
Why is this?
We've been hearing reports all day of a social media scrub.
From my understanding, nobody is really capable of scrubbing any social media site, but there's a record of it someplace somewhere.
Carrie, have you found any evidence, in fact, that scrub happened?
I haven't looked into that.
It seems to me that probably she took down her site and did what she can.
The problem is, this whole thing reads a little bit like a campaign, especially in the way that the Democrats fit just into their technique they have used so far.
Senator Schumer said, I will do anything it takes to stop this nomination.
And maybe we should have taken it even more seriously than we did.
It's already been a circus up until now.
You had the Spartacus moment.
You had Kamala Harris suggesting she had information she didn't and that was going to be negative about him.
You had threats and bribery against Senator Collins, people saying they want her staffers to be raped and people should be spitting in their food everywhere.
I mean, this is ugly.
And it's unfortunately, this just seems like the next ugly chapter in what has been a horrible process so far, so much so that Justice Ginsberg herself said, we need to step back.
And this is not how things should be done.
And I think she was absolutely right.
This process has become uncivil and it's not proper for our government to get this nasty in political.
The only eyewitness, Greg Jarrett, is a guy by the name of Mark Judge, who's a writer in Washington, D.C., who reiterated his strong denial of the allegations as that he had watched this alleged sexual assault take place.
And he said, quote, now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement.
I have no recollection of any of the events described in today's Post article or attributed to her letter in a statement.
And before Ford's name was released, we know Judge Kavanaugh strongly denied it.
This guy, Judge, said it's absolutely nuts.
I've never saw Brett act that way ever.
Should this woman be allowed to testify in the next day or two if she wants?
It's pretty clear that you've got people like Senators Jeff Flake and Susan Collins who've insisted that there needs to be a hearing and that the people involved need to testify.
So even Senator Grassley, chairman of the committee, has now acknowledged that that will occur.
The form that it occurs, we just don't know yet.
There may be some interviews by staff members and then a public hearing that may be limited and confined.
But again, as I said before, you know, the value of that is to test and judge the credibility of the witnesses.
Clarence Thomas came across as angry in his denial, and it seemed to win the day when he, you know, he said this is a high-tech lynching.
Judge Kavanaugh comes out and vigorously and vehemently denies that this ever happened, that this is not the person I am or was.
If Mark Judge is a good witness as the only independent witness, then I don't see that Kavanaugh's hearing will in the end be defeated.
All right.
Thank you all for being with us, Craig Jarrett, Harry Severino, and David Schoen, 800-941.
Sean is on number.
Monica Mastall will join us, and she's going to talk about her long friendship with Judge Kavanaugh, whom she's known since she was 12 years old, one of the 65 people signing a letter in favor of and in support of the character of Judge Kavanaugh.
We'll get to that next in your call straight ahead.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean.
Now, we have Dick Durbin and Deborah Katz.
Katz is the lawyer for this woman making this accusation from when, I guess, Judge Kavanaugh was a junior in high school some 36 years ago, and she was a sophomore.
Listen to what they are talking about.
Number one, why did they wait so long?
The attorney for this woman, Christine Ford, is a pretty hardcore left-wing activist and didn't believe Paula Jones, and she didn't think Al Franken really did anything wrong, so she seems political in a lot of ways.
But here's what they both had to say.
Senator Feinstein received the letter transmitted through another member of Congress and immediately the next day took it seriously and called Dr. Ford.
And Dr. Ford made it clear she wanted this to remain confidential.
She was not ready to go public with it.
So Senator Feinstein was in a dilemma.
Here's an important allegation, which may or may not be true, and a complaining person who doesn't want to be publicly identified.
So she is trying to respect this woman who may or may not have been victimized and to do it in a thoughtful way.
She struggled with this for weeks to try to figure out how to get to the bottom of it, talk to Dr. Ford and to her lawyer, and even contemplated the possibility of an outside investigation looking into it.
The decision was finally made just a week ago when all the members sat down.
Let's turn everything over to the FBI.
And it was redacted, but turned over to them, and then it has progressed from here.
And it was Dr. Ford who chose to come forward this week.
And it wasn't until Dr. Ford chose to come forward that her name was not made public.
That's exactly right.
And Senator Feinstein was respectful of the fact that she, if the allegations are true, that she was victimized and did not want her name disclosed.
Will your client, Christine Ford, be willing to testify in public to the Judiciary Committee?
The answer is yes.
She is willing to do it.
Has she been asked by any of the lawmakers to do that?
That's interesting.
The answer is no.
She's not been asked, but she is now willing to do so.
Is she in conversations with people?
Have people, have the lawmakers reached out and tried to talk to her via phone?
We've heard from no one.
We've seen various statements made on television, but in statements that are being bandied about for political reason, but no one's asked her.
No.
There was a great deal of ambivalence about whether she wanted to be publicly associated with these allegations.
And essentially, that choice was made by her to remain confidential.
She asked Senator Feinstein to keep her letter and her allegations confidential, and Feinstein agreed to do that.
And that decision was essentially taken away from her as those allegations were leaked.
And it resulted in a great deal of pressure from members of the media who knew who she was, who then started really invading her privacy, showing up at Stanford where she teaches, and leaving her notes and emailing her and calling her.
And she knew that she was going to be, her allegations were going to be outed.
And that, in fact, is what occurred.
And as a result, she decided to take control of this and tell this in her own voice.
It took her a while to use the term attempted rape.
It took her years to use that.
But she stands by this account that I've just read.
She does.
And just to be clear, the reason she felt that he might inadvertently kill her is he had his hand over her mouth, and she was having a difficult time breathing.
And he is larger, and he was pressing his weight against her and so inebriated, he was ignoring the fact that she was attempting to scream and having a difficult time breathing.
And she believes that but for his inebriation and his inability to take her clothes off, he would have raped her.
All right, joining us now is Monica Mastel here to talk about she's had a friendship with Judge Kavanaugh.
She's known him since he is 12 years old, one of 65 people signing a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that means both Senators Grassley and Feinstein.
Thank you, Monica, for being on the program.
How are you?
Good, Sean.
Thanks for having me.
Yeah, I'll just give you a little background of how I know him.
I actually, my sisters both attended high school with him, were very good friends with him, so I knew of him while he was in high school.
But then I did, my daughter was on his basketball team for two years, and so I testified of my opinion in that regard for him last week in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
So you knew him at and around the age that this woman is making this accusation?
Well, I would say I was probably about 12, so I didn't know him exactly at that time.
My siblings did.
My two sisters, one was in his class, one was just a year behind him.
And so they knew him very well at that time.
And they both signed this letter agreeing how honorably and respectfully he's always treated women and wholeheartedly support him.
I know you're not a public figure, and I know that the 65 women aren't public figures.
And here it is that talking about something 36 years ago, it's being brought up in the last minute.
Apparently, Diane Feinstein had this in the early summer.
And I know people want to be fair in case somebody acted horribly when they were in their teenage years.
And it's such an important position, but he served on the second biggest court in the country for all of these years.
Everybody from the people that he's known when he was young up until everybody that's worked with him over the years, they all paint a picture of a very different man than this one woman Christine Ford paints.
How do you think people should sort through all that?
Well, the majority of the people, whether you're male or female, have wholeheartedly supported him, whether they were in the White House with him, knew him personally, high school years.
It just is overwhelmingly in his favor of what people think as to his character and integrity.
I don't want to discount this person individually.
I don't know her, but the vast majority feels the exact opposite.
I mean, and you feel so strongly, like your family that knows him feels strongly that this is a good man and a good person, and his entire adult life does not reflect the character that Ms. Ford is describing.
100%.
And whether I didn't testify in a political position with him, more as a parental and personal friend, but there are plenty of people who testified him who were from both sides of the fence, you know, whether they were partners in law firms or, you know, other attorneys in other ways that have appeared before Judge Kavanaugh.
Just either side, male or female, have just attested to his integrity and how honorable he is in treating everyone.
You know, there are certain things that if you accuse people of them, and, you know, one of the things I'm always suspicious only because, well, the political timing of it is horrible.
And this is not my first rodeo in following these Supreme Court nominations.
And I guess I'm revealing my age here as well.
But I remember the horrific things that Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy said about Robert Bork.
I remember the last-minute allegations against Clarence Thomas.
And I've watched this entire process with Judge Kavanaugh devolve into a circus.
So, I mean, it doesn't mean that something horrible couldn't have happened when he was a teenager, but I also know that Democrats play politics and there is no level to which they won't sink.
I'll give you an example by playing you the two people that I just mentioned.
And that would be, well, first I'll play Ted Kennedy making accusations against Robert Bork and then Judge Thomas, Justice Thomas, having to defend himself against Nanita Hill.
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions.
Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters.
Rogue police could break down citizens' doors and midnight raids.
And schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution.
Writers and artists would be censured at the whim of government.
This is a circus.
It's a national disgrace.
And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.
And it is a message that unless you cow town to an old order, this is what will happen to you.
You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S., U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
When you hear those two things, as I do, what goes through your mind?
Because I know what goes through mine.
Well, I just believe that, you know, knowing Brett personally, that it is being made a circus, but as he's proved for 12 years, he decides everything, every case on the merits as it should be.
And it's not political when you're in the courtroom.
It's about the merits of the case.
And he's proven as a federal circuit court judge already that that's how he sees things.
And that's why he's highly respected by everyone in the legal community.
Yeah, it's look, it's very interesting that it always comes down to what I take from Ted Kennedy in particular.
And listen, the courts have an impact for generations on the country.
There's no doubt about it.
And it's a very, as part of our checks and balances, co-equal branches of government, it is a very important leg of power.
And I just have, what we've witnessed in the past, especially by Democrats, has so crossed lines of what is real and what is not.
What was said about Robert Bork was a lie.
And it was said by a guy that left a woman at the bottom of a river after he drove his car over a bridge and he went home.
He didn't do anything, tell anybody that this woman was still in the car.
And of course, he becomes the respected senator from Massachusetts.
So I really don't like getting lectured by Ted Kennedy.
And anyway, I don't want to drag you too much into the politics side of it, but I do appreciate your point of view.
I think that Judge Kavanaugh deserves people that knew him at the time that want to speak out on his behalf to be heard also.
I don't know if you remember me from years back, but back then I was an independent, and I came over to your side.
And thank you for opening up.
Well, welcome back, Chuck.
I'm glad.
Have I changed much over the years?
Not really.
No, no, no, no, not at all.
Not at all.
You've been the same unbiased.
No, trust me.
You've been the same unbiased person all this time.
You've not changed.
Well, my political views and principles have not changed, and that's who I am.
And some people say all the time, oh, you're changing.
I'm not changing.
They're changing.
Exactly.
I want to comment on this Kavanaugh thing.
I think when this is all said and done, Senator Feinstein needs to.
I don't know what the process is.
I don't know if it's called impeachment on the Senate side, but she needs to be removed from the Senate.
Wouldn't you agree?
Listen, it's never going to happen.
And, you know, it's so poorly mishandled by her.
But you've got to understand because this is a position at the Supreme Court, the left is lauding her now for finally doing this.
They were excoriating Chuck Schumer and her and others for not fighting hard enough and not smearing Judge Kavanaugh enough.
And that's what the hardcore left wing in the country wants.
I mean, the allegations are serious.
You've got to take them seriously.
The timing of it, she had it in July.
I don't know why she would have held on to this, not answered questions of Kavanaugh related to it when she met privately with him, why she didn't ask him when they had public hearings on it, why she held it to the last minute.
There's got to be some reason.
And I have my own suspicions.
I'll keep them to myself.
But I think if she wants to testify in the next day or two and go to Washington, she does have a very left-wing lawyer that didn't believe Paula Jones and supported Al Franken, which tells me that at least a lawyer is very political.
I don't know about the scrub of social media, whether or not that has occurred.
I haven't gotten a full answer on that.
I keep reading it, but I haven't seen it.
And I think the American people have to decide for themselves.
But there's been now a lot of people, 65 women in particular, and every adult that apparently this man Kavanaugh has come into contact with his entire life just says just the opposite of him.
And it just doesn't, you know, she accused him of groping her, quote, over her clothes, grinding his body against hers, and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing that she wore over the bathing suit.
And, you know, I thought he might inadvertently kill me.
He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.
That's what she says.
She says another person was in the room.
That person doesn't recall it at all.
And then the first thing people say, well, he had drinking problems.
So I don't know.
I mean, I don't know what to think, but I am very suspicious in light of past behavior when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.
And I think everybody has a right to the assumption, presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
And if this is a political attack, it is of the worst nature and reminiscent to me of what I told you would probably happen.
They're going to try and bork this guy.
I brought up Clarence Thomas and Judge Bork numerous times because of the past history of Democrats.
So if the woman wants to come testify, I think they should give her an opportunity, and I think the vote should then occur after that.
This is huge.
The White House has announced they will unredact.
That means the FISA applications, the 302s we've been talking about, 50,000 page struck text messages and emails and other information that I've been told repeatedly are going to be massive when it gets revealed.
Now, is it happening tonight?
I don't know, but we'll know more when we get on Hannity tonight by 9 o'clock of the latest on Kavanaugh as well.
We've got a big show tonight.
Say you DVR, Hannity 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
