Sean Hannity Show - A Stone Wall - 11.28

Nov. 28, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:35:12

A Stone Wall - 11.28

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So Dow, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	My friends at MyPillow, my buddy Mike Lindell told me he was coming out with a brand new product.
	It's called the New Mattress Topper.
	So I got the new mattress topper immediately, and I've been sleeping on it now for a couple of months.
	It's the best thing you've ever felt in your life.
	Now you literally have MyPillow Foam for Support.
	It's a transitional foam that helps relieve pressure points, and it's ultra-soft, patented temperature regulating cover.
	And I got to tell you, it has a 10-year warranty, a cover that's washable and dryable.
	It's made in the USA backed by their 60-day unconditional money back guarantee.
	Once you try this new mattress topper, you put it right over your mattress, you will never sleep better.
	And right now, you, my radio listeners, you're going to save 30% off when you go to MyPillow.com and use the promo code Topper.
	And by the way, Mike will also give you two standard MyPillows absolutely free.
	All right.
	So try MyPillow.com promo code Topper.
	Promo code Topper for this great deal and the best night's sleep you ever had.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	We are loaded up today, and I am absolutely fascinated by what is developing with the Mueller witch hunt investigation and how that's going down.
	Uh Roger Stone, who seems to be a target of um Robert Muller and his merry band of Democratic donors and his pit bull, Andrew Weissman, genius that he is, cost tens of thousands of jobs at Enron accounting.
	And then of course, uh genius that he is loses in the Supreme Court 9-0, and then he puts four Merrill executives in jail for a year.
	And of course, that's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.
	And but the tactics that they're using are now finally coming into question.
	And this is an amazing phenomenon.
	By the way, we'll have Roger Stone on.
	We'll also I've talked to Andy McCarthy and Greg Jarrett both earlier today.
	They are they have an amazing analysis of all of this, in as much as there could be no possible crime as it relates to collusion for either Stone or Jerome Corsey.
	None whatsoever.
	And of course, the media's take on it is extraordinarily biased.
	Uh, Congressman Louis Gomer's gonna check in today.
	He actually says we can get full funding for the wall if the Congress, Republican Congress, and Senate in this lame duck session, would actually do their job, and that the plan would be to pay for a wall through the reconciliation process.
	And, you know, and he's absolutely right.
	You know, over the last 20 years, budget reconciliation has been used as a very powerful weapon to bypass filibusters where you normally need cloture and a vote of 60 in the Senate to advance legislation.
	In this case, you only need 50 because Mike Pence is the tiebreaker.
	And so when the president was elected, you know, there were already was an effort to move uh to reconciliation as a way to repeal Obamacare, and that's when we discovered that after seven and a half years and 60 or 70 votes to repeal and replace, that there were actually some Republicans that didn't mean a single word that they uttered on the campaign trail, and they were just gonna go rogue regardless, and they didn't have the stomach for the fight.
	And then we found out that the senators, some what, six or seven of them that voted in 2015 for straight repeal of Obamacare.
	Well, they decided when it actually mattered, knowing that Obama wouldn't support it, when it mattered, they weren't gonna vote that way again.
	It's unbelievable.
	And it in spite of all of that, still the losses, what, 38 or so now for Republicans in the House, but now with the big win in Mississippi by Hyde Smith yesterday, you know, now it's 5347.
	Mississippi came through.
	That was a big important vote that took place in that runoff election there.
	There's one more left, December the fourth, and I think it's for Secretary of State, Georgia.
	And my mind uh whatever.
	One one race is left, and it's in Georgia, and it's not governor or lieutenant governor.
	I think it's Secretary of State or whatever they call it.
	What's that, Linda?
	Yeah.
	All right, I am right.
	There.
	Thank you.
	But so there is no reason for the Republicans not to use the same tactics that the White House under Obama used, the reconciliation process, that was the only way they were ever going to get Obamacare passed.
	And they did it.
	That's not how you pass major legislation.
	Anyway, when the House now is back in Washington, why doesn't the Republican leadership in the House set up the 2019 budget resolution, alter the reconciliation instructions to provide $25 billion in new mandatory spending authority for the Department of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Committee and instructions provided to offset the new spending with cuts to other mandatory programs.
	Now, a reconciliation bill is look, it's just a complicated legislative process where Congress, it allows Congress to expedite passage of certain budgetary legislation on spending revenues, debt that limit a simple majority vote in both the House,
	218 votes, Senate, 50 votes, Senate rules prohibit filibustering, and impose a 20-hour cap on a total time for debate, motions, amendments related to reconciliation bills.
	The procedure also exists in the House, but the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate amendments, and so reconciliation has even a less significant impact in that body.
	And we can get all of that done.
	All of that can happen.
	Now, we have a lot of issues about the wall.
	You got 10,000 more migrants headed for the border.
	This has now become the situation we warned you it was likely to become.
	Although some people have turned around and figured out Donald Trump means it and they're going home.
	We went through a long laundry list of how many times Barack Obama as president.
	I mean, it's pretty outrageous.
	You know, everyone's so upset.
	They're using tear gas on women and chemical weapons, one person said.
	And where did the president get this great idea for tear gas?
	Well, he got it from Barack Obama, because Barack Obama did it again and again and again, and the media doesn't care about what the truth is.
	And you got the media's echo chamber in the media, they're spinning out of control over non-lethal tear gas to disperse crowds.
	In this case, a crowd that was trying to bust down a barrier and rush the border while they were pelting our border patrol agents.
	We've got the video with rocks and bottles and other debris.
	And even hitting a few of them.
	So you have thousands of migrants now, more and more keep arriving just south of San Diego and Tijuana, and based on the press, you can't ignore now what is a serious situation that is that is ongoing there.
	And all while assaulting border patrol with rocks and bottles, et cetera, and the mainstream media is doing anything and everything to vilify the president for doing so.
	However, as per usual, they have failed to tell you the truth, the whole truth, the unvarnished truth.
	You know, newsbusters pointed out that networks totally ignored the use of tear gas during the Obama administration.
	Then the Washington Times, we touched on it a bit yesterday, showed that the tear gas was used about once a month during Obama's time in office in order to stop migrants from crossing the border illegally.
	Isn't that pretty much all you need to know about your abusively biased destroy Trump, hate Trump, mainstream media?
	There's no monthly outrage over the actions of the Obama administration, no grandstanding, no, you know, it's sort of like this.
	We get this all the time, selective moral outrage.
	If, for example, the very people that said, I believe, as it relates to charges against Brett Kavanaugh in the case of Dr. Ford, Republicans handled it after with the absolute sensitivity a topic like this deserves.
	And then she had mentioned four I four witnesses, one eyewitness to what had happened, the alleged assault by Judge Kavanaugh.
	The witness said it never happened.
	Never.
	So do you believe in due process?
	Or Democrats didn't because they were kept saying, I believe, I believe.
	And then it gets worse.
	Then ending with Julie Sweatnik, and nearly every weekend there was a punch that was spiked, and young teenage girls drugged and girls put in bedrooms and boys lining the hall and waiting their turn to gang rape these drug girls, even though Sweatnik's story changed dramatically.
	Well, I never saw him do anything to the punch, meaning Kavanaugh and never saw him, you know, spike the punch, but I was once saw him with a red solo cup at a party.
	There's a shocker.
	And uh, well, he wasn't really standing in line, he was just in the hall.
	And then, of course, that fell apart.
	But you notice that many of the same people that wanted to really go after Brett Kavanaugh, they're the same people that were silent.
	That's a 36, 37-year-old charge.
	Silent about Keith Ellison's recent charge this year by a former girlfriend of abuse, repeated abuse, physical, and other abuse, or the charges against Michael Avanati abuse in that particular case, charges.
	Unlike them, I'm consistent.
	I believe in due process, presumption of innocence for everybody.
	But if they cared about the issue, they would have taken the same strong stand that they were taking against Kavanaugh against their fellow Democrats and the Bill Clinton that they love, worship, idolize, and adore.
	Now, let me um, you know, other things we have all these uh we have more people coming.
	There's another new caravan forming in Central America tonight uh from uh El Salvador, and we're watching that very closely.
	And if you thought Sunday's border patrol victory over the migrants trying to push down the wall and quote, invade, if you're gonna quote the mayor of Tijuana, but anyway, up to 10,000 more caravan migrants are still headed to the U.S. border.
	Then we have another caravan forming.
	Then we have the brother of the Honduran president indicted for importing tons of cocaine into the U.S. I've been to the drug warehouses.
	It's it's pretty fascinating.
	I gotta pull up that video and play it again on Hannity.
	Maybe I'll do it tonight.
	Republicans, you know, ignoring the reconciliation bill to fill it fully fund the wall.
	Why?
	It's very frustrating.
	All right, so we have really these are fascinating times.
	And and we have Roger Stone is going to join us later in the program, and we have Andy McCarthy and Greg Jarrett are going to join us in the program.
	Is it said the signpost that Muller is now in full acceleration mode as it relates to wanting to wrap this up?
	The president has given written answers.
	One of the questions apparently was leaked today in the president's answer, and we'll ask Roger Stone about it, and that was whether whether or not uh Roger Stone and he ever talked about any possible release by Assange and WikiLeaks, and I'm pretty sure that the answer is going to be no, but then we've got two people here.
	One is Jerome Corsey, and who's a friend of Roger Stone's.
	He's been offered a plea deal where he they would not oppose a sentencing of probation only.
	So, in other words, immunity, plea deal, you can get off with probation.
	I what is he, 70 years old, 71 years old, 72 years old?
	I don't know how old Jerome Corsey is.
	I know he fought in the Vietnam War because he was part of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and wrote the book with James O'Neill, unfit to serve about John Kerry.
	So I don't know how I'm and listen, he says some crazy stuff.
	He doesn't believe that the moon landing is real.
	I got it.
	I understand, but for this for the sake of this case, that's not what matters.
	And so they want him obviously to flip on Stone.
	Now the question is, what are they going to flip him on?
	In other words, is it a crime that they hear that maybe WikiLeaks has information that's damning to Hillary?
	Okay, well, I can guarantee you if you line up 435 members of Congress and 100 senators, and somebody tells them that there might be research on your opponent that's going to help you win the election.
	I bet you all 535 of them are going to ask, what do you got?
	And they were, remember, this is now post the DNC email dumped by WikiLeaks that led to the firing of Debbie Wasam and Schultz, et cetera, et cetera, and tons of speculation.
	Who's going to do what went in there?
	Is there more, you know, smoking guns that'll be coming out?
	Who knows?
	But the question is, well, we don't know.
	But where is the crime if you think that there's information available?
	I'm going to get into this through the historical judicial precedent of the Pentagon papers, because it really, I think fits in this particular case.
	And honestly, I think it's the best thing that could happen.
	And why they never asked WikiLeaks to provide where they got the information from is beyond any comprehension I have also.
	Only because I interviewed Assange.
	I went out to the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and I was there, and I interviewed him, and he's very clear.
	I'll play his answers later about this not being from Russia or a third party.
	Now, I have Intel sources that say, well, maybe it was a third-party Russian cutout, but it still came from Russia, whatever.
	Well, does that mean you know the Pentagon papers were stolen too?
	And they were published by the New York Times, and they were published by the Washington Post.
	And by the way, so was the WikiLeaks emails as well, published by most of these publications.
	So why is why would anyone be in trouble if they were looking or to try ascertain whether or not there's information about an opponent?
	And if it's stolen and you didn't encourage the stealing, which would be a conspiracy, and if it's stolen and, you know, like it was in the Pentagon paper case, it apparently doesn't make a difference if you're publishing it for informational purposes as some type of quote journalism.
	Hey, let me tell you something about smoking.
	Guess what?
	It's not about politics, it's about people.
	Now, there are about 38 million Americans that smoke.
	And I want to tell you about my experience switching to Joule.
	I used to smoke cigars.
	I smoked them regularly.
	I even inhaled them at times.
	Not good.
	Everyone in my family growing up, they all smoked.
	And now that I've made the switch to Jule, guess what?
	I have found the best alternative ever.
	Now, Jewel is designed with smokers in mind in terms of its form, technology.
	It's simple to use, no buttons, no switches.
	It is the satisfying alternative now for one in eight American adults who like nicotine, like me.
	Now to discover the smoking alternative that's nothing like any e-cig or vape you've ever tried, just go to jewel.com slash switch America.
	That's J-U-U-L.com slash switch America and learn more information at J U U L dot com slash switch America.
	All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show, all right.
	Roger Stone is gonna check in.
	Also, Andy McCarthy, Greg Jarrett, neither one of them think that there's any underlying crime.
	And what's fascinating is, you know, if Corsey is saying I'm not gonna sign a plea deal that would prevent him from otherwise likely going to jail.
	Because that's what the threat is.
	Either you were, you know, Michael Flynn, when he agreed to the plea deal, which was that he lied to the FBI.
	Remember, none of the FBI agents, nor James Comey, nor Peter Strzok, who was one of the agents that interviewed him, thought he lied.
	But here's a guy he's facing, you know, literally bankruptcy, having to sell his house.
	By the way, thanks for serving your country over three decades.
	This is how we pay you back.
	And probably the threat of, well, your son's in business with you, we're gonna have to be bringing him into this as well.
	And any loving father is gonna take the sword and fall on it fast, whether it's the truth or not the truth.
	And Corsey is saying, No, I'm not gonna do it.
	And that means that probably if he if he would willingly take the deal, the plea deal offered by Mueller, that would mean he doesn't have to worry for the rest of his life, which also included partial immunity, according to what he's saying.
	Paul Banafort, cooperating witness of Mueller.
	Now we find out both Corsi and Manafort have cooperation deals with the president's attorney with the White House.
	And the point is Manafort now being accused by Robert Mueller in this particular case of violating the plea deal that they had.
	And also sharing the information, what's Mueller looking for?
	So Mueller's now turning and tightening the screws on Corsey and on Manafort.
	Looks like, you know, Ecuador may turn over Julian Assange.
	By the way, he would be the one guy that knows where all this information originated from, wouldn't he?
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, just stick with me here.
	I know this gets a little complicated a little bit in the weeds, but it is worth the deep dive, especially knowing that the special counsel never had real interest in Russia collusion.
	Because if they did, they would have been very involved in, let's see, the exoneration of Hillary before the investigation.
	And then the same people that said, oh, Hillary should win $100 million to nothing.
	You know, go on this entire witch hunt about Trump Russia collusion, and there's been no evidence.
	And then, of course, the Clinton campaign funneling money to a law firm, legal cost that it's not fed to an op research group, fusion GPS, hiring a foreign national, Christopher Steele.
	Christopher Steele then, of course, putting together a series of papers that then become known as the dossier.
	The dossier's full of Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies.
	None of it verified, none of it corroborated.
	Even Christopher Steele in an interrogatory, he doesn't stand by his own writing and his own allegations under the threat of perjury.
	Oh, no, this is just raw intelligence, maybe 50-50.
	None of it is true that I know of.
	I can't say for sure.
	Well, then how did that then get used by in that particular case?
	Us by the used to obtain FISA warrants by the FBI and the Department of Justice, the bulk of information coming from the Clinton bought and paid for Russian lying dossier, and they present it to a Pfizer court, unverified, uncorroborated, and now debunked by even its own author, never telling the court, meaning the Pfizer court judges, as they're committing fraud on the court, Grassley Graham memo, Nunez memo, bulk of information is what was in the FISA applications.
	So they commit a fraud on the court, they get to spy on a on a former Trump campaign chairman or advisor on non-paid by the name of Carter Page.
	Then it's disseminated as outright truth to the American people before the 2016 election.
	That's called propagandizing.
	That's called lying.
	That's Russian lies paid for by Hillary to misinform purposely the American people that Donald Trump, you know, had two hookers in the Moscow writs urinating on his bed.
	This is where this is all gone to.
	And if we cared about Russian influence, if we cared about Russia chaos, if we cared about Russian collusion, they would also too have been investigating all of this, which they never have and probably never will.
	Lindsey Graham says he's gonna get to the bottom of it in the next congressional session, especially if House Democrats do what I predict they're gonna do, and it's gonna be destroy every second, every minute, every hour of every day.
	But they did that's where the double standard, a dual system of justice, no equal justice under the law, no equal application of our laws.
	And then even further, this information is used by top officials, FBI, DOJ, Bruce Orrett, the Department of Justice, demoted twice, his wife Nelly working for Fusion GPS, putting all this crap together.
	But anyway, he's still in contact with Christopher Steele.
	We have 302s that have yet to be released.
	Then we learn through struck page messages that they had a media leak strategy, and it was a circular leak strategy, which means that they take the same phony Russian dossier that's not verified, and they start feeding portions of it to the media, and then you then can make the case.
	Look, it's reported here and it's reported there, and it's reported over here.
	And people have seen, look at all the different sourcing on this, but it's all one source.
	And the one source is Christopher Steele's dossier.
	And then, of course, the insurance policy comes in because this then becomes, well, if by chance a 40-year-old drops dead of a heart attack, you want life insurance.
	Well, the insurance plan in this case is, well, Trump's never going to win, but if he does, we've got plan B, the insurance policy.
	They didn't care about any of that.
	Just like they don't care.
	They cared about the issues that they so passionately cared about when it's to take down a Republican, Justice Kavanaugh.
	Boy, they're all over.
	I believe.
	I believe.
	Do they believe Keith Ellison's accuser?
	How come they never believed any of the accusers of Bill Clinton?
	The many of them, including the charge of rape and groping and fondling and touching and kissing against a woman's will in the Oval Office, Kathleen Willie, or exposing himself as then uh Arkansas Attorney General De Paula Jones and saying, kiss it.
	Whatever else that, and he ended up losing that case and his law license, and he was impeached over it.
	So, you know, there's going to be a lot happening.
	So stick with me here.
	So what you've got is you've got now two and one more on the record.
	Roger Stone is quoted in the American Spectator and say, I'm innocent.
	I'm not taking a deal if Muller offers me one.
	Now, Roger Stone will join us at the top of the next hour.
	But what you've got here is obviously, remember Judge Ellis, you're going to put the screws to Manafort in the hopes that he sings or he composes, so then you can either impeach or hurt Donald Trump.
	Whole purpose of going after somebody's loan application forms from years ago or a tax violation that had already been put to rest in the Department of Justice.
	All right, he's found guilty.
	He works on a cooperation deal.
	That blows up.
	And now Corsey and in the case of Manafort, two guys that are basically saying, I'm not going to lie.
	We call it Testa lying.
	In other words, that you sit there and it's obvious if you tell us this, we'll get we'll go easy on you for cooperating with us.
	If you say these things, you'll spend less time in jail, maybe no time in jail.
	But you got to give us what we want to hear.
	And then people say, you know what?
	In the case of both of those men, they're older men.
	That's the rest of their life in jail.
	So often prosecutors and their zealousness, they lose any sense of proportionality, perspective, or prosecutorial discretion.
	They don't think they're live, they don't really seem to remember that these are real people, real lives that they're destroying.
	Forget that General Flynn served his country with honor and distinction for over three decades of his life.
	And nobody in the FBI thought he lied when he was questioned.
	Nobody.
	So how did he come to the plea deal admitting that he lied?
	Well, they basically said, well, first of all, he's getting bankrupt.
	You don't make a lot of money when you're in the armed services serving your country your whole life.
	So now he has to sell his house.
	And then I'm pretty certain, good educated guests, knowing how some of these prosecutors work, having read license to lie by Sidney Powell, especially how Weissman and Company work.
	Well, we're just going to have to go after your son.
	I know he was in business with you.
	It's sad.
	Well, you know, what's he going to do?
	What would you do if it's your kid?
	You're going to dive on the sword and die for your kid.
	That's what you're going to do.
	And that's what I think happened in his case.
	Or Papadopoulos, who's been more than angry leading up to his two weeks in jail.
	It'll be interesting to see what he says when he gets out.
	So you got Mueller's now tightening the screws on both Corsi, you know, saying that Manafort violated the cooperation deal.
	Corsi is a friend of Roger Stone who joins us at the top of the hour.
	Um, so charges apparently appear imminent.
	We're not sure.
	I actually I think why if they ever wanted to know, I flew to the Ecuadorian embassy in Great Britain.
	I flew there in one day and I flew back the same day.
	And I interviewed Assange in January of 17.
	We asked him on radio, we've asked them on TV.
	Did he get this from Russia or Russian sources or people connected to Russia?
	Asked him multiple times.
	He said, Well, we'll play it later.
	So now he might be out.
	But he would be, and I've noticed this.
	This has been a puzzling question in my mind.
	If you want to know, where did he get the information from?
	And I know some Intel people say, absolutely, it was Russia.
	Absolutely.
	Well, was it Russia?
	Or was it a third-party representative or cutout for Russia that maybe he knew or didn't know was a third-party cutout?
	Or was it something altogether different?
	Who knows?
	But I would assume that there's some type of evidence, considering it had to be electronically transferred, uploaded to the WikiLeaks Sassange computer at some point.
	So we'll see what happens in that particular case.
	Now we have reports that the Russian spy and this Maria Boutina woman is reportedly in talks for a plea deal.
	You got a number of Mueller's prosecutors, apparently even working on Veterans Day, when, and that's when Michael Cohn had taken the train to Washington to talk to Mueller's team.
	ABC reporting that an unusually high number, maybe three dozen sealed indictments have been filed over the course of the last year in D.C. 14 of those have been added just since August, and that's when Mueller's investigation was publicly quiet.
	And one thing they did do is they didn't get involved in the election, but we'll see.
	The president did turn in his long-awaited written answers to Mueller's investigations, or at least a version of it.
	That's locked in.
	And Trump, you know, what the media will tell you, well, that he's tacitly acknowledging Mueller's authority.
	The president said repeatedly he's not going to stop Mueller.
	And my prediction is that Mueller is going to be exactly the person we thought he was.
	He's going to go in and try and damage, destroy, delegitimize, hurt Donald Trump as much as he can.
	So that I've never had any doubt based on the team that he's put together.
	How do you hire Hillary Clinton's former attorney?
	How do you never hire a single Republican as part of this group?
	How do you hire Andrew Weissman, who was at Hillary's big victory party, and writing what was the woman's name that that was fired by the press, Sally Yates, you know, saying, great job, great job.
	The guy with Enron, losing tens of thousands of jobs 9-0 in the Supreme Court, losing, putting innocent people in jail, Merrill executives, four years, only to be overturned by the Fifth Circuit there.
	Well, it wasn't a year of his life in jail that he can never get back.
	So as you look at the timeline and the silence, I don't think anybody fully completely knows, but it's obvious that they're asking questions again about the Trump Tower meeting.
	And based on the court filing earlier in the week, Mueller apparently hopes this, you know, issue to issue in a report on Manafort's activities to the court, so we'll find out what violation he might be involved in.
	It's just a lawyer for Paul Manafort, you know, apparently they were had a cooperation agreement with the with the White House's lawyers.
	And so I guess in that particular case, Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, Rudy Giuliani acknowledging the arrangement yesterday, defending it, saying it gave Trump's legal team insights into what Mueller's investigation is about.
	What are they looking for?
	And two other people, familiar with the conversations confirmed the arrangement to the New York Times.
	It appears Corsi had the same arrangement.
	And the Times noted that some legal experts believe that this could have been a bid by Manafort for a pardon.
	That's speculation.
	And there was one report yesterday that said that that wouldn't even be, you know, completely possible as it relates to state charges where it wouldn't be applicable, a pardon.
	And Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing, met with Trump's legal team.
	But you don't break any laws if you have a joint defense agreement.
	That's allowed.
	Anyway, so you know, Giuliani has said Mueller's zeal to get Trump is prompting him to push witnesses to lie.
	That's what's happening here.
	Now you think about it, if you're facing you're 70 years old, you're facing however many years in prison.
	How appealing it must be as you sit at a table and they're saying, Come on, you know, you know what we want you to say.
	If you say it, we're gonna go real easy.
	You're gonna your life's gonna be golden.
	You'll be maybe a year max, maybe six months max.
	Yeah, we'll even fight for probation for you.
	Or you might die in prison.
	The fact that neither one of these guys was willing to take that, that is amazing to me.
	And, you know, as you have Stone, the campaign advisor Roger Stone releasing documents showing that as the presidential campaign heated up in 2016 in the summer, this is after the DNC convention, when I guess the first batch of WikiLeaks information came out.
	Stone tried to dispatch, in this particular case, his friend Jerome Corsey, into finding well, what is WikiLeaks even know?
	Because that might be damaging the Hillary.
	I was talking to Andy McCarthy today, said, Well, guess one thing, it's not, it's not a crime.
	So that's why, well, now we got to go after a perjury charge.
	Because Corsey said in an interview that he might be indicted on the charge of lying to federal investigators because he told them he refused Stone's request when in fact he passed it on to an intermediary.
	This is going back to 2016.
	Does anybody know what you did in 2016?
	I can't even tell you what I did last week or what I even talked about yesterday on this program.
	I'm just going at the speed of light every day.
	And it's how do you remember what you did or said in 2016?
	You forget something?
	That's perjury?
	No, it's not.
	It's called having a normal memory.
	Anyway, so the draft statement against Corsi, which apparently they were informed about, um, and people familiar with it are reporting about it.
	The New York Times had it, the Wall Street Journal had it, and other places have it.
	Spectator had a good article today.
	And they're saying that in it, prosecutors are claiming that Corsi understood that Stone was in regular contact with senior members of the Trump campaign, including with then Donald candidate Donald Trump.
	Now, I think he got off the campaign or advisement in 2015.
	Whether or not he talked to Trump, I have no idea.
	But we'll ask him because one of the questions leaked is that, well, did you have any contact with Roger Stone about Julian Assange and to get that information?
	I don't even think Trump knew about Julian Assange and the information or had any understanding of what it was, to be honest.
	He wasn't in this political world, deep weed world we live in sometimes.
	And that there might be events that, you know, at the at the end of this, then we're finding out all these, you know, secret criminal complaints are out there and indictments are out there.
	Who knows?
	I've never trusted this.
	Honor about July 25th, 2016, person one sent an email to Corsi.
	That would be Roger Stone who's gonna join us.
	Get the founder of Organization One.
	Get to the founder of the organization one at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
	Gee, I wonder who that is.
	And get pending organization one emails, they deal with the foundation allegedly.
	Okay, how's that different from the Pentagon papers published by both the New York Times and the Washington Post that were illegally obtained.
	They did it.
	And by the way, most of these newspapers publish the same thing WikiLeaks published.
	Where's the crime?
	Where's the collusion?
	Unbelievable.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941.
	Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
	So as now we know that the president has submitted written answers, what nearly 600 days into this Mueller witch hunt, and the fact that, of course, they don't they're not really looking for collusion.
	They're just looking for Trump Russia collusion.
	So far, no evidence.
	But in the final waning hours, days, months, uh, clearly some form of desperation has set in.
	What's been most fascinating is that Jerome Corsey has himself said that he was offered a plea deal that even could result in probation, no time in jail, and he has rejected it.
	Similarly, we now heard from Robert Mueller that the plea deal that they had, the arrangement that they had with Paul Manafort, all the same thing there.
	He has, well, and in both cases, by the way, they have joint defense agreements with the council of the White House, which is a pretty fascinating Development and makes a lot of sense if you're looking at it from the president's point of view, the White House's point of view.
	Um, but now it seems to be coming down to two people, and that would be Roger Stone and Jerome Corsey.
	And you know, supposedly, if you believe MBC News, Muller says he has emails from uh Corsey about the WikiLeaks Democratic email dump.
	Now, I don't know many other people in the media besides myself, who's actually taken the time to get in an airplane, fly across the pond and sit down and talk to Julian Assange himself.
	I was very specific.
	I wanted to know where this information came from.
	Did it come from Russia?
	Now, to be fair, I've had people in the Intel community say they're convinced they know it's uh certainty that at least was Russia or a Russian cutout, but that's not what Assange said.
	And let's listen to part of that interview.
	Russia give you this information or anybody associated with Russia.
	Uh Al Source is not a state party.
	Sorry.
	Uh the answer for our interactions is no.
	You did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails.
	Can you tell the American people a thousand percent you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?
	We we can say we have said uh repeatedly uh over the last two months, uh the outsourced uh is not the Russian government, uh, and it is not a state party.
	Uh our source is not the Russian government.
	So, in other words, let me be clear.
	Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC.
	That's correct.
	All right, joining us now is Roger Stone.
	By the way, Stone's rules, uh best seller, and um Roger also quoted as saying in the American Spectator today, I'm innocent, I wouldn't take a deal if Muller offered me one.
	Roger, welcome back to the program.
	Thanks for being with us.
	Thanks, Sean, for having me.
	I've got to imagine that there's a lot of pressure in your life right now.
	We keep hearing that obviously Robert Muller is after you and after Jerome Corsey.
	Uh why don't I just uh generally give it to you and tell our audience what you think is actually going on here?
	Well, Sean, first of all, I think I've been targeted because I supported Donald Trump for president and I helped defeat Hillary Clinton, but I violated no law regarding the 2016 election or anything else.
	Uh and the idea that I knew about the source or the content of the WikiLeaks disclosures, whether they were allegedly hacked emails or allegedly stolen emails of John Podesta, is simply false.
	Um I had a tipster who told me uh that after Assange went on CNN in June, uh and Fox in August and said that he had a trove of documents on Hillary Clinton.
	I had a tipster to tell me that they were devastating.
	A bombshell.
	Incredible, would end Hillary's campaign, and that they would be published in October.
	And I provided text messages only last week that proved that that source was Randy Credico, a New York-based progressive radio talk show host, and that his source was not Julian Assange, but a woman attorney who works for WikiLeaks.
	So now suddenly the media doesn't want to talk about Randy Credico anymore.
	Now suddenly they have a new narrative, which is the idea that I must have received these documents, uh, either Podesta's emails or the DNC emails from Jerry Corsey.
	That is also false.
	Uh the emails that uh the Wall Street Journal and others refer to are not a smoking gun.
	There's no smoking gun there at all unless political gossip is now been criminalized.
	Corsey predicts that uh that there are disclosures coming from WikiLeaks, uh, and he makes an oblique reference to the American people learning more about the Podestas.
	Nowhere does it refer to Podest's emails being stolen.
	So uh I thought this was about Russian collusion.
	I thought it was about WikiLeaks collaboration.
	I think we learned a long time ago.
	I think to be about a cardy trap for a 72 year old man.
	You know, let me you refer to the Wall Street Journal.
	They talk about your tweet on August the twenty first that said, trust me, it will soon uh the Podesta's time in the barrel.
	That's how I read it verbatim from their piece, not my words.
	And then weeks later, emails from Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta were dumped online by WikiLeaks.
	And I think we got to also put into context a little bit of the timeline because it was on the eve of the Democratic Convention when we got the DNC emails, correct?
	Uh the first ones, I think that's correct.
	But uh the significance here is that Dr. Corsi appears to have been pressured to say uh that my claim that that tweet was based on uh his briefing of me about the Podesta brothers' lucrative Russian business dealings in gas in aluminum and uranium and banking that I asked him to write a memo about so that I could retail it to reporters, was somehow a cover story.
	Well, let's let's examine that.
	My tweet was not controversial for six weeks and later when the Podesta emails were finally published.
	There was no congressional investigation, there was no Mueller investigation, there was no subpoenas, there was no media attention, there was no media controversy.
	So cover up for what?
	Why did why did why do they quote Corsi here?
	Jerome Corsi is saying that, as a longtime acquaintance of yours, that he's contradicting your version of a vent saying in an interview Tuesday that you called him on August 30th, 2016, nine days after the tweet and asked Corsi for help in creating an alternative explanation for it.
	What does that mean?
	Uh that that means that you had a 72-year-old man who was hotboxed by Mueller's investigators for 40 hours is what had that happened by that time?
	Uh by the time he's he only said that recently.
	At that time, first of all, he told me about the Podestas and their extensive Russian business dealings prior to the 21st.
	It took him until the 31st to get me the memo.
	Then he subsequently asked me several times in text messages and emails whether I had been successful in selling it to any reporters, which was the purpose of it.
	So there is no need for uh a cover-up story.
	Nothing we've done is illegal, number one.
	And he says that he told me that he had deduced that John Podesta's emails had been stolen, but he does not do so in email or text message.
	He says it was a phone call, which he now remembers, which I don't remember because frankly I never knew that until it was published.
	Well, what's what's weird about that article, though, is when he says what I construct, what I testified to with before the grand jury was that I believed I was creating a cover story for Roger because Roger wanted to explain this tweet, and uh apparently then he went on to say something quite chilling to me and anybody that believes in the Constitution and civil liberties that he believed that the special counsel knew this because they could virtually tell my keystrokes on the computer.
	That's a little that's a little scary big brother scenario to me.
	Well, look, five days before the famous Podesta tweet, which, by the way, the mainstream media always drops the word the.
	The Podesta's Sean refers to two people, John and Tony.
	But by dropping the word the, you can imply that it's a reference to John Podesta's emails being published.
	Shows you the dishonesty of the Wall Street Journal, for example.
	You know what's amazing though in this plan on this as well.
	Uh but five days prior, I I put out a tweet that says Paul Manafort makes John Podesta no, pardon me, John Podesta makes Paul Manafort look like St. Thomas Aquinas.
	Why hasn't he been investigated?
	Because apparently the same type of business and business dealings and lack of, I guess the requirement as it relates to, you know, foreign if you're doing any work politically for foreign countries, that he did he register as such an agent with the federal government.
	Uh I'm not sure I understand your question.
	In other words, we have the FARC laws, which may which they were making a big deal with with Manafort.
	Is Tony Podesta up to speed on that?
	Did he do it all those years?
	Tony Prodetta has violated the same law that Manafort's been convicted of violating.
	He didn't file under a FIRA registration either.
	But he hasn't been prosecuted.
	Isn't that strange?
	Yeah.
	You know, I find it interesting that Jerome Corsi, and and I really got to know him when he did he was part of the I think it was James O'Neill and they did uh Unfit for Command, a book about John Kerry and all the things that Kerry had said about his fellow Vietnam vets.
	Uh I know he takes some kind of bizarre positions on the moon landing and so on and so forth, putting that aside for a minute.
	But when you have two people that know as and they're both older people, Paul Manafort, who I I got to know during the campaign, and Jerome Corsey, that they're both offered in the case of Corsi and reports, maybe he just gets probation if he says what Weissman and Mueller's team want him to say.
	And he said, No deal, I'm not gonna lie.
	And then Manafort seemingly did the same thing.
	That means that they both might face the rest of their lives in jail, and they could have easily, you know, extricated themselves from that and given them what they wanted, and they would have benefited a lot personally by doing so.
	Absolutely accurate.
	Look, I I feel badly for Dr. Corsey, who I who I like very much, but I think he has been squeezed into giving them something, and the two things he has said about me are incorrect.
	The other ones, even more incredible.
	He claims that I had advanced notice of the so-called Billy Bush, NBC, grabbed them by the you know what uh tape, and that I asked him for whatever reason to contact Julian Assange to tell WikiLeaks to speed up the release of their documents to distract from that story.
	Sean, that is whole cloth.
	I knew nothing about this in advance.
	I was stunned when I heard about it.
	I was on the street in Manhattan, I heard about it around four o'clock in the afternoon.
	I rushed to a computer to read the Washington Post story on it, because I heard they had broken the story.
	So again, he has no evidence of this other than the fact that we evidently spoke on the phone that day.
	But that proves nothing.
	How do we how do we reconcile though?
	How do we reconcile the Julian Assange who published these things?
	Aren't they also published in the New York Times?
	Exactly.
	In fact, Assange was asked about Roger Stone.
	He said, Well, he is a cunning spin master, we've had no communication with him whatsoever.
	So I think Mr. Muller and trying to find somebody in the Trump orbit who received emails either stolen or hacked and passed them on to the candidate, and that just never happened.
	Here's what I never understood in all of this.
	WikiLeaks, Assange, Corsi, Guccifer, you name it.
	It just never happened.
	Here's something that I would have been very puzzled.
	If they really wanted to get to the bottom of was there any connection to to WikiLeaks and the releases that they had in the lead up to the 2016 election.
	Um I've got to imagine, and I've always felt that the person that could give them the most honest answer, probably with some real hardcore evidence, would be Julian Assange.
	Now, to the best of my knowledge, I don't know.
	You would think so, but all they're interested in doing with him is extraditing him and convicting him for doing exactly what the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal do, which is getting information from whistleblowers and publishing it.
	That's what journalists do.
	Not long ago, we were all celebrating the Washington Post in this movie, The Post, celebrating their publication of the classified documents, the Pentagon Papers, about the origins of the Vietnam War.
	So the left holds that out as a hero a heroic act, but they now want to uh to send Assange to prison for doing the exact same thing.
	Seems to me to be a great deal of hypocrisy there.
	I guess the question is what would the crime be if you did know that some something was going to be published?
	We do have a case called the Pentagon Papers, if you recall.
	Well, um I'd have to be in receipt of stolen material to have any kind of case made against me, and of course I wasn't.
	I was trafficking in political information.
	And yes, there's no question, Sean, I took a tip from Randy Credico that the Assange um held material was significant, and I hyped it relentlessly on tweet, not to aggrandize myself, not to suck up to the Trump campaign, but to try to drive voter and media attention to the disclosures when they came.
	Because I was assured by somebody I thought nobody was talking about that they would be Devastating.
	P.S. Have you have you ever done this and been wrong?
	No.
	No.
	But I'll tell you what is more amazing to me.
	Well, t hold that thought, because I'll pick it up there and uh we got a longer segment on the other side.
	Roger Stone, his book, Stone's Rules.
	Uh, we'll get to that, his relationship with the president, much more.
	On the other side, 800 941 Sean, toll free telephone number, quick break, right back.
	We'll continue straight ahead.
	They wanted, I had nothing to hide.
	I gave them to him immediately.
	And for having forgotten on day one, because I hadn't reviewed the emails, this particular email about Ted Malik, I'm now being charged with uh willfully and knowingly giving false information, which is which is nonsense.
	Do you think that your political views are playing a role in the decision of the special counsel to charge you with a felony?
	Uh yes, I think and also, by the way, they accused me of deleting emails, and I told them the restore, they restored the emails I supposedly deleted through the time machine.
	This is a political winch hut.
	All right, that was Jerome Corsey on uh Tucker Carlson show the other night.
	800 nine four-one Sean is our number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Um, and we now see that Jerome Corsey has rejected, according to his own words, a plea deal with Robert Mueller, uh, saying that he will not testify or admit to something he didn't do and lie, even though the prosecution apparently in their offer said they wouldn't oppose uh just a probation type of punishment in that deal, uh, which means that if Muller really goes forward, indicts Jerome Corsey that he could face potentially the rest of his life in jail.
	Uh clearly a lot of this centers around Roger Stone, who's on our newsmaker line, author of Stone's rules.
	Um, what do you make?
	What did you think of what he said there that the charges are nonsense?
	And do you think both Paul Manafort and Jerome Corsey are both pretty much doing the same thing, and that is refusing and and I think I don't think Michael Flynn we the FBI didn't even think he lied, Roger.
	They just they thought he was telling the truth, but he had no money, he had to sell his house, and at that point they were probably squeezing his own family and threatening his own son who worked with him.
	So I imagine he finally just like every father said, I'll fall fall on the sword instead, and and signed on to something that the FBI didn't even believe he had done.
	That's lied to the FBI.
	Well, only ten days ago, Vanity Fair had a headline that says Paul Manafort is dishing on Roger Stone.
	Well, obviously that's not true, uh, because and I have to assume that they probably did question him vigorously, but there's nothing to dish.
	I never got anything from WikiLeaks.
	I don't think Manafort and I ever discussed WikiLeaks.
	Here's what's amazing, Sean.
	At the same time, Democrats are demanding that acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker step down because of his previous political activities.
	The prosecutor leading the Inquisition into Roger Stone is Genie Ree, formerly the lawyer for the Clinton Foundation.
	Uh specifically in the matter of the Clinton emails, one of the matters in which I am being falsely investigated.
	I know nothing about Hillary Clinton's missing emails.
	Ms. Ree is also a fifty-four hundred dollar donor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
	Now I wrote the book, The Clinton's War on Women, using a lot of the seminal research you did about the victims of Bill Clinton who were intimidated by Hillary.
	The point is, my position on the Clintons is well known.
	Having someone who worked for the Clintons as a legal attack dog heading the potential prosecution of Roger Stone is a far more egregious conflict than anything Matthew Whittaker has.
	Let me go back to what what's happening with Jerome Corsey, because it does impact you and where they're where I think they're headed in this.
	And the draft court documents shared by Jerome Corsey, written by Muller's office to be filed in case of a plea.
	They quote emails from 2016.
	The Corsey says that he exchanged with you, and that is identified in the document as person one.
	And in emails, the two men discuss WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and their plans to release emails damaging him, Mrs. Clinton.
	The quote is word is friend in embassy plans two more dumps.
	Corsey writing August 2nd, referring to Julian Assange living in the Ecuadorian embassy in in London, what now for almost seven years?
	Uh one shortly after I'm back, uh uh the second in October.
	Uh impact planned to be very damaging.
	In the documents in the special counsel's office alleging Corsey knowingly and intentionally made materially false statements related to the emails.
	You know, it reminds me so many of so much of what has happened here, go back to Martha Stewart and many other people.
	It's they never get you for the underlying crime.
	And as horrible as the charges were against Denny Hastert.
	He didn't get that he never got charged with the underlying crime.
	It's more you get charged with lying.
	And I don't know the impact.
	What is your reaction to those emails that they say they have and that refer to you?
	Well, uh my lawyers, of course, have reviewed the emails and their characterization of them, uh I'd say they're mischaracterized.
	Uh and also point out that Jerry Corsey then subsequently on October 3rd, both in a text message to me and in a tweet says Assange has nothing.
	He was bluffing.
	He was full of BS.
	So if he knew this was coming, why then when Assange had his public event on October 2nd, it would be October 3rd U.S. time, um, did he say that Assange had nothing?
	I also have text messages from Jerry when the actual wiki leaks data dumps are done in October, in which he's clearly reading the material for the first time.
	So uh those emails don't prove anything.
	They certainly don't prove criminality on the But I remember at the time after the the pre-DNC emails released that there was all sorts of speculation all over the place that oh there might be more, there might be more.
	What's gonna come here?
	What's gonna come there?
	Remember?
	Absolutely.
	Every political and every political reporter in the uh in the country was following this story and wanted to know.
	Unless legitimate political inquiry has been criminalized, there's nothing in the emails between Jerry Corsi and I that is improper.
	The only thing that appears to be improper here is that they accused Jerry of erasing them, and then they accused him of lying on them.
	But it nowhere does it say John Podesta's emails have been stolen and would be published.
	It doesn't say that.
	It says the American people will soon learn more about Podesta.
	That's not the same thing.
	That's an inference, and that's quite a leap by the government.
	Now, how often I know you've known Donald Trump for 40 years.
	You're also viewed, and I think you know this is a very controversial figure.
	You have your whole career.
	I know that you weren't a part of the campaign, at least that I knew of at any point, were you?
	Did you talk to the then candidate at the time?
	I worked for the campaign until August of 2015.
	Um I left the campaign to publish the Clinton's War on Women.
	Right.
	And I think after that I worked as hard as humanly possible to elect Donald Trump president.
	I did uh uh uh not only did I produce the documentary we talked about, produced the Clinton's War on Women book, I did an enormous amount of surrogate speaking on behalf of the president.
	He was someone I've known intimately for forty years.
	He was at my wedding.
	I went to his parents' wake and their funerals.
	I knew them both.
	They were wonderful people.
	I have a real affection for Donald Trump and his family.
	Uh so uh while I had no official role, I really do think I've been targeted because of my loyalty to the president and because of my role in helping defeat Hillary Clinton.
	Now, in the course of uh when you left the campaign, you sound like you were very busy.
	Did you stay in touch with then candidate Trump?
	Uh I spoke to him uh more in 2015 uh and in the early part of 2016 than I did at the end of the campaign because frankly, once his platform was determined, and by the way, determined by Donald Trump himself, not by Roger Stone, not by Steve Bannon, not by some pollster.
	Donald Trump decides what he's going to say.
	By the way, I can confirm all of that is true.
	That is a hundred percent true.
	He listens, but then he makes up his own mind.
	Yeah, he's he he he'll listen to good advice, he'll ask tough questions, but nobody puts words in this guy's mouth.
	Nobody, you know, puts ideas in his head.
	He Donald Trump is responsible for Donald Trump's election, more so than any other individual on the face of the earth.
	He's not there is no Carl Rove in Trump land.
	It just doesn't exist.
	So um we kept in touch.
	We would talk sporadically when the president calls you, he does most of the talking, you do most of the listening.
	Uh but we never spoke about WikiLeaks, not once, which I said on Meet the Press, they asked me three times, Chuck Todd asked me.
	The answer was the same three times.
	CNN has just reported that in the written questions from Mr. Muller to the president, he was asked specifically, did you discuss WikiLeaks with Roger Stone?
	And the president correctly said no.
	And I And by the way, the president doesn't text and the president does an email that I know of.
	And I don't I don't think he ever has.
	That's that's my take on it.
	Where do you think this is gonna end?
	Do you believe uh like Paul Manafort, one morning there's gonna be a knock on your door and in they come?
	I haven't committed any crime.
	I mean, even the emails that they cite uh in the Coursey matter are not evidence of any crime on my part.
	Uh so uh no, I really don't think so.
	If the decision is made on the basis of facts and evidence uh and the law, then no charges will be brought against me.
	But look at the team that Muller's put together.
	Look at Andrew Weissman's track record.
	You mentioned Genie Ray earlier, who worked uh as the lawyer for the Clinton Foundation.
	Andrew uh Weissman, the New York Times dubbed him Mueller's pit bull.
	Uh let's see, he cost tens of thousands of Americans their jobs at Enron uh accounting back in the day.
	He was overturned by the Supreme Court nine zero.
	He put four Merrill executives in jail for a year.
	That was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
	Uh, and his tactics are, you know, if you look at license to lie, Sidney Powell, uh, you realize you've got somebody who's been pretty rogue their entire lives, and that these tactics are are pretty common.
	And you can indict a ham sandwich, you know it, and I know it.
	Well, they can certainly get an indictment, but I think there's more public focus on their activities and their partisanship now than there was even at the time that Paul Manafort went to trial.
	Sean, look, I have no choice but to fight.
	I set up a legal defense fund at Stone Defense Fund dot com, because this is this threatens to destroy me financially.
	I mean, it literally can bankrupt my family.
	I don't know how I'm gonna pay for Christmas because every dollar I have is going to the lawyers.
	But I've defeated a defamation lawsuit.
	I had a lawsuit by an Obama-backed group that accused me of Russian collusion, dismissed.
	I'm being sued along with Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee by the DNC.
	Uh I've asked to see their servers in discovery.
	They're not very happy about that.
	Uh I still have the U.S. How did the FBI not take those servers?
	How did they get to bring in their own company?
	Uh so I have the U.S. Senate Judiciary and uh intelligence committees uh inquiries to deal with.
	I have a newly energized Adam Schiff at the House Intelligence Committee who says he's reopening the investigation, and I have the on rushing troops of Robert Mueller.
	This threatens to bankrupt me.
	So I had to set up Stone Defense Fund.com to fight for my life.
	Let me ask you in light of uh of what we have been able to uncover, and I I'm pretty sure you're as aware as I am about all of these issues.
	You know, it's like uh if it's if it's Kavanaugh, Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats, Liberals, they they are dead set again.
	They're all for we believe, without any due process, any presumption of innocence.
	And that's why but yet if it's a Democrat, Keith Ellison, Bill Clinton, uh more recently charges against Michael Avenatti, they have no interest in ever talking about it, which tells me their interest was only political against Kavanaugh.
	And similarly, if they really cared about collusion with Russia, how do you ignore the Clinton bought and paid for dossier that with funneled money through a law firm to an op research group, to a foreign national, Russian lies that he wouldn't even, the author, Christopher Steele wouldn't even acknowledge to be true in an interrogatory in Great Britain under oath and threat of perjury?
	How do you not get into those Russian lies disseminated to the American people in the lead up to the 2016 election?
	I think you and I both understand the entire Russian collusion delusion is meant as a distraction from the largest political scandal in our country's history, and that's an abuse of a power in which the surveillance capability and authority of the state was used to spy on Donald Trump's campaign.
	And there are more than one FISA warrant.
	It's not just Carter Page.
	The New York Times reported on January 20th, 2017, that Paul Manafort and Roger Stone were also subjected to FISA warrants.
	And when I file a FOIA request to 30 different agencies of government, I get back nothing.
	Yeah, you'll get that 30 years from now when we're both dead.
	So the point the FBI efforts to infiltrate Donald Trump's campaign.
	Well, that's all true too.
	And and look at what we've got here.
	No evidence of collusion, but we do have a bought and paid for phony dossier that was used to propagandize and lie to the American people.
	We have that.
	We do have Pfizer court fraud committed four separate times.
	We do have an exoneration of Hillary with clear obstruction, clear violation of the espionage act.
	That exoneration uh put in written in May, early May of 2016, and she wasn't even interviewed, nor were 16 other main witnesses.
	And I never heard of an exoneration written before investigation.
	And I don't think if I did what Hillary did to subpoena emails, delete them, acid wash the hard drive and everything else, that I would survive.
	But we'll continue.
	More on the other side.
	Roger Stone's our guest.
	Uh Stone's rules as his book as uh we continue his journey now as he awaits the actions of Robert Mueller.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	Well, Sean, first of all, I think I've been targeted because I supported Donald Trump for president and I helped defeat Hillary Clinton.
	But I violated no law regarding the 2016 election or anything else.
	Uh and the idea that I knew about the source or the content of the WikiLeaks disclosures, whether they were allegedly hacked emails or allegedly stolen emails of John Podesta, is simply false.
	Um I had a tipster who told me uh that after Assange went on CNN in June and Fox in August and said that he had a trove of documents on Hillary Clinton.
	I had a tipster to tell me that they were devastating.
	A bombshell, incredible, would end Hillary's campaign, and that they would be published in October.
	And I provided text messages only last week that proved that that source was Randy Credico, a New York-based progressive radio talk show host, and that his source was not Julian Assange, but a woman attorney who works for WikiLeaks.
	So now suddenly the media doesn't want to talk about Randy Credico anymore.
	Now suddenly they have a new narrative, which is the idea that I must have received these documents, uh, either Podestas emails or the DNC emails from Jerry Corsey.
	That is also false.
	All right, that was just in the last hour, Roger Stone as now the mystery of what is going on, Paul Manafort, uh Julian Assange both denying the Guardian report that they had met on three separate occasions.
	Uh Jerome Corsey saying he will not sign something that is not true in some plea deal offered to him, he claims by Robert Mueller, uh, in connection with what he knew and what he and Roger Stone were communicating about in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election.
	And uh, on top of all of that, we just have you know what's gonna happen next.
	The president had put out answers to specific questions, one of them apparently having to do with whether or not the president had any conversation with Roger Stone about the issue of white what might be released by Julian Assange, Roger Stone just telling us moments ago that uh there was no such conversation, and the president answered correctly.
	Anyway, here to get to the bottom of this.
	Well, what are what are the legal aspects that are in play here?
	Because when Robert Mueller, if he's offering Jerome Corsey, is co- of course he claims some type of plea deal, then that's interesting to one count of perjury or lying and even the possibility of only probation.
	Um but he's not gonna sign something that's not true.
	Remember back, Lieutenant General Flynn said the the FBI agents and James Comey himself, Peter struck amongst them, all did not believe he lied to the FBI, but he was going bankrupt, had to sell his house.
	I believe the screws were being turned on him, probably pressuring him with some time for threat against his son who he was in business with.
	This happens all too often.
	And we call it as my friend Greg Jarrett, who joins us now calls it, Testa lying.
	Say what they want, you get off with no sentence, you get off with a light sentence.
	Uh but both Manafort and Corsi are saying no, we're not gonna play that game.
	Also with us Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor, columnist National Review, former, by the way, assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, uh, welcome both of you.
	You know, Andy, we've gone back and forth About this, and you know, it reminds me of like Sammy the Bull Gravano, who, you know, he kills what, 18, 19 people, and they make a deal, and he doesn't go to jail if he testifies against Gotti.
	Um, how do you trust a guy when you're bribing him with a uh get out of jail free card in that particular case?
	Maybe more dramatic, but do you see that happening here?
	Sean, the vital difference between what you just described in terms of of Gravano and what we're dealing with here is that Gravano actually pled guilty to a crime, that is to say, to a scheme, to a conspiracy.
	What a prosecutor does in a real criminal case when the prosecutor has an actual conspiracy that he's investigating is he brings the cooperator in, and the cooperator testify uh or allocutes uh in his guilty plea to the existence of the conspiracy.
	He says, here's the crime that we agreed to commit.
	Uh I was a member of the Gambino family of Costa Nostra.
	Here was the boss, here was the underboss, this is the crew I ran, these are the crimes I committed, and that way you have the structure of the criminal enterprise, you've got it all described, you have everybody's role in it, right?
	Here, what we're dealing with is an investigation of no crime.
	So they don't have what they're doing is they're investigating the seamy underbelly of American politics, the kind of stuff that goes on in campaigns.
	And even if Muller had his dream version of events here, let's say Waikey Leaks was in contact with Jerry Corsey, who was in contact with Stone, who told the president that they had Hillary Clinton or uh John Fatesta's emails.
	What's the crime?
	Because I don't think anybody knew it was there.
	So look, this is important because I'm I'm watching all of this and I'm asking myself, what is okay, somebody says that they have something that is damning op research that's gonna hurt the other party.
	Now, I think if 435 members of Congress, 100 U.S. Senators get a phone call, and the phone call says, No, we got information that is damaging to your opponent.
	Do you agree with me?
	Probably all 535 would say, What do you got?
	And go and meet such a person.
	Of course they would, because that's the way politics goes in America.
	But but but my point is that they are criminalizing something that is not criminal activity.
	That's the reason that they have to plead them guilty to false statement counts.
	I I agree with you that Sammy Gravano got a disgraceful sentence, but at least he pled guilty to racketeering.
	At least he pled guilty to the crime that they were investigating.
	Here, they're not investigating a crime.
	So they have to plead everybody guilty to false statements counts.
	And Sean, if you were a prosecutor building a case that you intend to have a big bang at the end, do you think the way you go about that is to plead all your important witnesses to lying to the FBI?
	You want you want to put people on the stand that the first thing that the jury's gonna hear, and the most enduring thing they're gonna hear is that the guy's a liar and can't be trusted.
	Nobody builds a case that way.
	Greg Jarrett.
	Well, Jerome Corsi sent me the plea offer that he received from Robert Mueller.
	And count number one, false statement.
	It begins by saying Jerome Corsi did willfully and knowingly, make a materially false, fictitious, fraudulent statement to wit, and then identifies three things he said.
	Those three things are different than emails that he happened to have.
	And the lawyer responded, uh, Chris uh Corsey's lawyer responded by saying my client did not have the benefit of reviewing his emails.
	And once he did that, he amended his statements to your office, and now you're asking him to uh admit that he lied when in fact he simply didn't recall uh a couple of the emails he's gonna be.
	Look at I'm much younger.
	If you asked me who was on my show next week, I I I I honestly don't think I could recall.
	I don't think I would.
	So I went back because I had some vague recollection that I wrote about WikiLeaks in 2016 during the summer.
	And it so I I research it, I go back through my emails, I go through my call.
	I wrote a column, which I don't remember writing.
	And by the way, Andy, you know that's true, right?
	How does anyone remember what the hell you did in 2016?
	I don't even know where I was.
	Wait a minute now, Sean and Greggles on emails and information that I sent out trying to get the same information from WikiLeaks.
	Now I don't remember sending them.
	So if I had testified yesterday, I'd be in the same position as Jerome Corsey.
	I want to Andy, you want to jump in on that.
	I just was going to say that uh uh, you know, I remember every word of every column, and I expect everyone else to remember every word.
	That's ridiculous.
	You do not.
	Anyway, the but let's go back to this document describing Corsi's activities, and look, I want to just ask if it's a crime.
	It says, honor about July 25th, 2016, person one, we believe now to be Roger Stone, send an email to Corsi with the subject line, get to the founder of organization one, we believe to be WikiLeaks, meaning Assange.
	The body of the message read, get to the founder of the organization, Organization One at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
	They're not really hiding it, and get pending organization one emails, they deal with foundation allegedly.
	So somebody gave him a it sounds like somebody gave him a tip hey, this guy might have information that deals with the Clinton Foundation.
	That's how I read it.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	And if it was a crime, they would have asked Jerry Corsi to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage.
	They're describing uh an operation to to get somebody's clause on opposition research, which people may think is icky, but is not illegal.
	And again, Sean, I come back to the same thing.
	The reason that they're pressuring him to plead guilty to a false statement is in order to camouflage what they're doing as if they were investigating actual crime.
	But what's going on here is they're investigating a non-crime, they trip people up and they get them to falsely explain, or as they put it, inaccurately explain what happened.
	And what the media then runs out and reports is that Mueller is doing an investigation of Trump collusion with Russia, and everybody's pleading guilty.
	Isn't this what we call a classic to that?
	Isn't this a classic perjury trap?
	In other words, you know, they can't get you on the underlying crime.
	So what it teaches, I guess everybody else is even though you might be inclined as I normally would be, if the FBI wanted my help, I would want to help them.
	But if I'm risking my own life and a charge of perjury, if I don't accurately remember something, I I don't I don't even know what I did on TV last night.
	And I'm like and and Corsi's mistake is twofold.
	First of all, he should not have uh volunteered to testify.
	He should have said no when he was asked.
	And second of all, uh he should have reviewed his emails before he testified.
	That's his mistake.
	But nevertheless, what if he didn't save them?
	Well, we he actually deleted them, but then he was able to gain access as you often are uh through deleted emails that are nevertheless kept.
	But I mean the point is that if Robert Muller decides to charge Jerome Corsey uh with making a false statement, he'll never be able to prove it, I predict, because he'd have to show that it was willingly and knowingly made.
	Well, you know, the defense of Jerome Corse as it is for many people, is that uh I didn't knowingly make a false statement.
	I didn't remember uh emails that I sent.
	But isn't it an act of bravery?
	I mean, pretty much what it seems Mueller's team was offering, you plead guilty to one count of lying, and we won't even we won't even oppose the possibility that you just get probation.
	So Corsey says, I'm not gonna lie.
	Manafort, he says, I'm not gonna tell you what you want to say.
	Greg, you coined the term, well, it's I've heard it before, test a lie.
	In other words, they're sitting there across the table from you, basically telling you what they want to hear.
	And all you have to do to save your own ass is say what they want to hear.
	And if you do, you're gonna benefit instead of the rest of your life in jail.
	Maybe it's gonna be, you know, two weeks like Papadopoulos.
	But to both of them to both say no because they can't go along with something that's false, they're both older gentlemen.
	It seems to me that that's a pretty principled stand, knowing that this might be the rest of their lives in jail.
	They're being principled and the special counsel is being unprincipled because he doesn't care about the truth.
	And he's using the tactics of of bribery and extortion to try to get somebody to capitulate.
	And Corsi and I think uh Manafort now are refusing to do so.
	The quick uh on answer on that, Andy, then we'll take a break.
	Yeah, to capitulate on what?
	That's the the I I mean what what Greg outlines sure, but the thing is, what if they admitted what Mueller wanted?
	It's still not a crime.
	What they're doing is they're criminalizing what they do in a political campaign.
	It's not like you know, somebody s agrees with Mueller's version of events and finally we have the big hacking conspiracy.
	They don't have to ask you about that when we get back.
	I want to ask you about because the New York Times also publishes information.
	As did other papers, other news sources.
	And uh there was a case uh in the past where it became a big deal.
	I'll explain that when we get back.
	Um let's talk about other publications that did the same thing that WikiLeaks did.
	They got the information, they got the emails, DNC, Podesta, they all didn't they all print 'em?
	They why are they less culpable than WikiLeaks doing it, Andy?
	They're not.
	They're uh we have a Pentagon.
	If we if WikiLeaks was involved, if the if WikiLeaks had an understanding with Russian operatives that there would be hacking and and WikiLeaks would take the hacked information and and put it out, then WikiLeaks may have a hacking problem.
	You know, they may be involved in the hacking conspiracy.
	That doesn't mean that other people who take what they have and run with it have committed a crime.
	You could, you know, I remember when this came out, Sean, Marco Rubio, I think came out and said nobody should y rely on this stuff and nobody should um you know publicize it because it's it's stolen material, and he wanted to be like the last honest man.
	But the way things work in America, everybody uses this stuff, and the media regularizes it by publishing it.
	I think that's a good point.
	And uh on the other side of the time, if you guys don't mind, I want to hold you over a few more minutes and get into his historically why they I think this is important and what it means for freedom of the press, and those that are given information like this.
	Uh 800-941 Sean.
	We'll continue more with Greg Jarrett and Andy McCarthy on the other side.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
	It's getting more interesting by the hour, by the minute, by the day, and Robert Mueller uh has had two setbacks now in the last couple of days, one with Paul Manafort, also apparently, along with Jerome Corsey had joint defense agreements with the White House, uh, which means a lot of the information was going back and forth.
	Muller's claiming the cooperation agreement with Manafort has been breached, and in the case of Corsi, he's saying that he refuses to take a plea deal in which he would be forced to lie about something.
	I want to get into the issue and maybe use the Pentagon papers as a case in point, Andy, to explain to people exactly why this is not a crime, even if it did happen as it relates to Jerome Corsi or Roger Stone.
	Why would you say it's not a crime?
	Well, Sean, maybe the best example for people would be like a diary, right?
	You have a diary in your house.
	I come in and I steal the diary out of your house, and I give it to Greg.
	And Greg runs with the information on it.
	Now, Greg didn't deputize me to go steal it.
	He, you know, he he didn't know I was going to take it.
	Um, but he finds the information interesting.
	He publishes it.
	Now, I've committed a crime because I stole it from you.
	Greg hasn't done anything wrong.
	Now you could say maybe he's done something unethical or uh something that you think is icky because you you've put personal information in your diary and he's not respecting your your right to privacy as as you see it.
	Um sure, fine.
	But he still hasn't committed a crime.
	Well, let me let me ask you specifically in this case, because I interviewed Assange on radio and on TV.
	And I asked him repeatedly, I'll play it for you if you want, whether or not he got this information from Russia.
	Now, one caveat and people in the Intel community, other sources I have said it absolutely was either maybe or maybe it wasn't directly from Russia or a state party, as he said, but it could have been a a a third party cutout, if you will.
	In other words, somebody that is not associated with them, but really is doing their bidding.
	Um but here's what Assange said.
	Russia, give you this information or anybody associated with Russia.
	Uh our source is not a state party.
	Sorry.
	Uh the answer for our interactions is no.
	You did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails.
	Can you tell the American people a thousand percent you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?
	We we can say and we have said uh repeatedly uh over the last two months, uh that our source uh is not the Russian government, uh, and it is not state party.
	Uh our source is not the Russian government.
	So in other words, let me be clear.
	Russia did not give you the pedesta documents or anything from the DNC.
	That's correct.
	All right.
	Now, Andy, just using your example of you giving something to Greg, and Greg maybe unethically but not illegally, you know, publishes that something, and maybe you're on the hook.
	Um, what if something is brought to WikiLeaks by whatever source, but it happens to be truth that they're publishing?
	You may not like it, it may be secrets, it might be you know, I personally I I can't believe we as a country have not developed cybersecurity.
	We get hacked all the time.
	It's insane that we have not built up a better defense system for our government, which also raises the question of Hillary's emails and how unsafe that was in a bathroom closet.
	But um when he says that, if what he is saying is true and this was offered to him, is he Greg using your analogy?
	Did he just receive it from somebody and he published what somebody gave him because he believed it to be true?
	The best example is the Pentagon Papers case.
	The documents about the Vietnam War were stolen uh by Daniel Ellsberg.
	They were given in the New York Times and the Washington Post that published them.
	The Post and the New York Times are insulated from prosecution.
	They're publishing something that's a matter of public interest, even though they were stolen.
	And that that principle of the Pentagon Papers case has stood for a very long time.
	We don't prosecute people uh for trying to find out information, especially news organizations that are in the public interest, even though they originally might be stolen uh information.
	Now the same can be said here.
	Um let's assume that the the documents were um were stolen and given to WikiLeaks and then they then publish.
	Of course he was trying to do exactly what you did, trying to find out information.
	Uh, if you read the count against him, it says he reached out to WikiLeaks.
	All right, so did you.
	So did I. So did hundreds of other journalists across America during the summer of two thousand and sixteen, because uh Julian Assange said he's got some stuff, and it's gonna be damaging uh to Hillary Clinton.
	So everybody was trying to find out what it was.
	Why then of course it's not crime.
	Why Andy then would, in the sense, if this is offered to WikiLeaks, and I know they view themselves as a news organization, if it's given to them, why wouldn't they be in the same position as the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Pentagon Papers case?
	Well, Sean, I don't know that I I accept Assange's explanation that he didn't get it from Russia.
	Um if you take it face value what he said, and if it turns out as you qualified before, if what he's saying is true, then I agree with Greg's analysis of it.
	He's just like a journalist.
	What if let's say his source was a Russian cutout?
	Let's say it's that.
	Does that matter who the where he got it from?
	I I think it depends on whether he knows and whether you have an arrangement that you can that you can properly describe as a conspiracy.
	How is that different though than the Pentagon papers?
	What do you mean how in other words?
	In other words, they were stolen, they were stolen documents, they were printed.
	Yeah, but if you're encouraging people to do the theft, and there's proof of that.
	Let's say he didn't let's say he didn't encourage it, somebody came to him and offered it to him.
	Well, that's a different thing.
	Right.
	That's like that's like somebody takes information.
	What uh what I'm saying is there's a lot of uh there's a lot of you know, this is not a one-off with wiki leaks, right?
	Uh they've had they have a lot of information that they've put out in the past, and there's a lot of people in the intelligence community long before any of this happened, uh, that thought that they were an arm of Russian intelligence, and I don't think that that's ever been disproved.
	It certainly hasn't been disproved to be a very good thing.
	Listen, I know people that believe that with all their heart and soul, and I I don't have an answer because it's it's way above my pay grade.
	Um but but then let me take it a step further and ask if in fact they got these this information however they got it and they published it, and if they didn't encourage it, you're saying there's no crime associated with that, and that that precedence of the Pentagon Papers would hold.
	Yes, if there's no conspiracy, Sean, I don't understand why giving it to WikiLeaks would be different from giving it to me.
	You know, I mean it's either a crime or there's not underneath it all.
	Yeah, and and Greg to take it even maybe a step further.
	If they really wanted to find out where they got it from, why didn't Muller and his well, first of all, why didn't you know the interesting thing is he never went after Hillary Clinton and real Russian lies really used uh to prop propagandize the American people,
	bought and paid for Russian lies, then a fraud committed on four Pfizer courts and four app separate applications, uh pertinent information withheld from those judges, and then of course he was exonerated and without an investigation, and then we've got surveillance and unmasking and leaking raw intelligence abuse here.
	But you know, let's just for the sake of argument here say that you know, in the case of WikiLeaks that they did what any other paper would do um or any other yeah and Mueller admits it.
	But why didn't they ask well here's my question why didn't they ask Julian Assange?
	Well they should have they the first thing you do is you ask Julian Assange.
	There's no indication anyone wouldn't he be the one guy, I'm sorry to interrupt.
	Wouldn't he be the one guy that knows where he got it from?
	And wouldn't he be able wouldn't he be able to prove where he got it from?
	He he would.
	But the uh on the statement of offense, first page, Mueller declares the theft of campaign related emails uh and other documents was by the Russian government's main intelligence directorate of the general staff, the GRU.
	So Mueller declares this was uh the theft was bothered.
	Okay, let's say that's true.
	But that that doesn't mean that's where they got it from.
	If if the Russians gave it to WikiLeaks, um and and Jerome Corsi and others, including yourself, try to find out information and details about that, you're not committing a crime.
	Uh the GRU committed a crime, but nobody else did.
	All right.
	Listen, you guys are both fascinating.
	I mean, this really is getting interesting to me, and uh it seems like there is a certain desperation to this that I've I think is going to be revealed in pretty short order.
	We'll find out.
	Uh Andy McCarthy, thank you.
	Greg Jarrett, thank you.
	We appreciate you guys spending the extra time with us.
	Um 800 941 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Uh our friend Congressman Louie Gorman of Texas, uh, their first congressional district.
	What what percentage of the vote did you get this time?
	Um it was uh only about seventy-two, seventy three.
	I'm never campaigning for you again.
	You don't need me ever.
	Are you kidding?
	It would have been a lot worse without you, Sean.
	Are you kidding?
	Uh listen, can I say one thing about Mueller?
	Uh Mueller investigation, we got Senator say the Moeller investigation got to be protected.
	Look, let me go on record.
	The Mueller investigation has got to be protected at all costs.
	I've been saying Mueller needed to be investigated for years now, and if there's an investigation of Mueller, it needs to be protected.
	This guy's dirty, he needs to be investigated.
	That's the Mueller investigation that needs to be.
	Well, that's not gonna happen, but you know, we are talking about a lot of different things here.
	Let me ask you this.
	Um now you have a plan that's gonna allow Congress to pay for the border wall through a reconciliation bill.
	Um that that would mean the House and Senate can do it with fifty-one votes in the Senate.
	Yeah.
	Uh or even fifty votes, because then we have a vice president that would break it for the president.
	And you know what?
	In September, we were told, look, let's don't have a fight for the wall now.
	Let's come back in December and do it then.
	And now there is no fight.
	And I got up today at conference and I was saying, look, guys, you said you were wanted to fight in December.
	Now is the time to fight.
	We we only have a couple of months.
	And Sean, you would have been so proud of the members that stood up and said, Hey, I I've been defeated, but I'm willing to stay here every day.
	I'd like to have Christmas Day itself, but I would stay here every day.
	People are willing to fight, rank and file, or willing to fight.
	And Paul says, Well, the Senate doesn't have the votes.
	We can do it through reconciliation.
	Brad Byrne has the bill.
	It's called a fifty vote for a wall bill because you don't have to have sixty.
	And it it could be done.
	Paul's been chairman of budget committee.
	He's done it before.
	He knows how it's done.
	Well, they don't have the votes in the Senate.
	Look, we have got to have people light up the Senate, light up the House members saying, Look, you got two months.
	Help the president.
	You didn't help him enough before.
	Now you got a chance before you go out.
	Help the president.
	We got a lot of people up because the fight is in a lot of members, Republican members here, just not at the end of the day.
	Why are they afraid to have this fight ever?
	I mean, this is it.
	I don't get it.
	I don't get it.
	It's it's if we don't have this fight, they may want Mitt Rodney for president next time.
	There will not be another Republican president if we don't do what we need to do to help Donald Trump protect our border, protect our country, not to stop immigration, but make sure it's legal.
	He's doing what he can.
	That's why his voters will come out in 2020.
	But uh we can do this.
	It's through the reconciliation process.
	And the Democrats can't stop it.
	We have the votes.
	What is Mitch McConnell said about it?
	Well, I haven't heard from Mitch, but I've heard from Paul and Kevin.
	Their position is, well, the Senate says they don't have the votes.
	Well, maybe they don't have Jeff Freight, but we could get 50 votes if there's enough pressure brought to bear on what's going to happen next year if they don't help out and get this done for for a while where we need it.
	I mean, we have slapped the president in the face figuratively speaking.
	It's time we can do this now, and and thank you for your fight.
	Uh this is a desperate time.
	And I don't normally get applause at conference, but when I said, guys, this little experiment in self-government is very in grave danger of coming to an end.
	Let's fight.
	Let's spend these next two months helping the president.
	And I got a bunch of applause.
	People are ready to fight, but the leadership is not.
	They just said, I'm gonna get Kevin McCarthy on the line and see if I can't talk to him about it because he's the guy that can make this happen.
	And he should make it happen in the need.
	I think you need to add look, you have a good relationship with the president.
	Why don't you have the president call Mitch McConnell and push him?
	Well, and that's the thing.
	If the House will do our job, then the president has incredible leverage against the Senate to get it done.
	But if we don't even fight to do it in the House, well then there is no pressure on the Senate.
	We got to get it done.
	We're gonna work on that the rest of the week as it unfolds uh Louis Garmoard, thank you, my friend.
	800 941 Sean told that's what it's simple.
	They have the power, all they have to do is the work.
	Not that hard.
	Keeping promises.
	The American people will reward you politically for that.
	All right, that's gonna wrap things up for us here today.
	Wow, what a show we have on Hannity tonight.
	Uh, by the way, I just see Jerome Corsey has now said that his attorneys uh prepared it.
	Looks like they filed a criminal complaint with the acting attorney general Whitaker on Mueller's special counsel and the DOJ.
	Now both Jerome Corsey and Roger Stone will join us tonight.
	Hannity tonight, nine Eastern City D VR.
	We'll be back here tomorrow.
	See you tonight.
	Thanks for being with us.
	We'll be right back.
	What smart political talk without the meltdown?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markovich.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally it's about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeart Radio app Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.

▲