Sean Hannity Show - Are Impeachments Coming? - 12.10

Dec. 10, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show

01:31:51

Are Impeachments Coming? - 12.10

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.
	What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
	Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
	From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I have to admit, I'm not convinced that Trump is guilty of committing a crime, but it sure seems like Individual One is.
	Because he is Individual One.
	Get it?
	I think what this totality of today's filings show, that the House is going to have little choice the way this is going other than to start impeachment proceedings.
	This is the most consequential political scandal in American history.
	Big news tonight is not about Michael Cohen.
	It's not about Paul Manafort.
	It's about one person, Donald Trump.
	And this filing that you just started to highlight that was made today in the Michael Cohen case really does, for the first time, you have federal prosecutors essentially saying that Donald Trump committed a felony.
	You know, even if a sitting president can't be indicted, he's got to know his future looks like it's behind bars unless he cuts some sort of deal with the prosecutors.
	And so if history means anything in the Trump era, if precedent means anything in the Trump era, Donald Trump will be, must be impeached because of the crimes prosecutors say he committed in the Michael Cohen case.
	What I hear you saying, Jeffrey, is that when the president's lawyers, Rudy Giuliani and others and the president himself, when they read this document that Robert Mueller, the special counsel, provided to the court today, they should get very, very nervous.
	It's hard not to see that as some form of an attempted collaboration.
	Synergy is...
	Synergy sounds a little collusiony.
	I think it's the Harvard Business School term for collusion.
	Right.
	Yes.
	It's the Hollywood term for collusion.
	But this goes back to why this is, I mean, this is politically very damaging for the president.
	I think that we need to...
	You think this actually could stick?
	I think this could stick.
	That's why I believe this Supreme Court, if faced with this question, I think they are going to be faced with this question, ultimately will have to decide that this president has to be indicted because of the connection with the crimes which actually helped him get elected.
	I think really you're hearing sort of the death rattle of this presidency, of this administration.
	I don't know that we need to call the Undertaker yet, but it's certainly time to pick you out in the cemetery.
	It certainly looks like they are the kind of offenses that would call for impeachment hearings into the conduct of the president of the United States.
	There's something much more important than just impeachment going on, and that is the fact that Donald Trump, for the first time in his life, is cornered.
	But it's clear that Mueller is now connecting the dots between a massive obstruction intended to hide the truth about the Trump campaign, Trump, his business organization, and his family from the investigators.
	All right.
	All of those voices you heard, you do know that they are the voices that have been literally trying to stir this pot for the longest period of time.
	There's nothing in what they're saying, just so you know, that is accurate, that is true.
	It is all wishful thinking.
	There is no evidence of any collusion.
	Let's start there.
	But there is dangers here on multiple fronts.
	You know, Adam Shifty Schiff, you know, that, oh, he may face the real prospects of jail and Nadler floating impeachment because of the new Mueller revelations.
	They're not even talking about the only thing that people have cited that may potentially be somewhat legally problematic are minor campaign finance issues and whether or not payments were reported on this.
	It's funny that while Michael Cohn gave a very different story, nobody wanted to report what Michael Cohn had said then.
	But if they get a version now of a story because he's changed his mind on something, which is never going to hold up in court, it just doesn't have the credibility that anybody would want as a witness, which I think is one of the reasons he's not a cooperating witness in full anyway.
	But he said it two different ways as it relates to the payment issues and as they go to campaign finance issues.
	So let's just start with that on the other hand.
	If he didn't report payments, that's a civil penalty.
	That's how the vast majority of those cases are handled.
	Obama paid a $2 million fine in illegal contributions.
	Little bit different case, but still, it's only a crime if it can be shown that the candidate in either case knowingly violates campaign finance laws.
	And to do that, you have to show specific intent.
	That is required.
	That is the standard.
	Campaign finance laws are pretty complex and few people understand them.
	And if Trump thought that what he was doing was perfectly legal, it's not a crime.
	And prosecutors would have a hard time doing it, nor can they indict a sitting president anyway.
	And we'll get into this more with Andy McCarthy and with Greg Jarrett later in the program today.
	But that's not what we're dealing with here.
	We're dealing with something far more sinister at work.
	And what you have is you can give the Democrats credit for playing three-dimensional chess, but more importantly, it's a very dangerous time for the country because what I have been saying since the election of Donald Trump, and we now have discovered so much evidence that corroborates and confirms everything I've been telling you is true,
	is that we've got an awful lot of powerful people in this country that did their level best to literally shift the course of history and in ways that I would argue are even illegal,
	and I'll explain, help Hillary Clinton ascend to the presidency and stop Donald Trump.
	And that many of these high-powered people similarly, simultaneously, had a, okay, insurance policy in case they didn't get it worked out the way they did.
	And as this story now becomes more and more clear to me in my mind, and the idea that maybe we have a chance with the new Attorney General appointee of the president, assuming it gets confirmed, and I see no reason why he would not, that if we actually begin to have equal justice under the law,
	equal application of our laws, well, we have a lot more evidence of real collusion with Russia to impact the election and hurt our national security just by dealing with the Iranian One deals and the Dirty Dossier deal.
	The big news this weekend were not these people that have always and continue to hate Donald Trump every second, every minute, every hour of every day.
	That was not the big news.
	When they released on Saturday at about 4.30, 4.45-ish, the testimony of James Comey, that was the news.
	And let me tell you why.
	And we got to backtrack here.
	What are they claiming?
	Why?
	What is it in the Manafort Plea deal that went south or the recommendation of sentencing.
	What is it in the Michael Cohn recommendation of sentencing where they still want to throw the book at Michael Cohn?
	What in there actually implicates Donald Trump?
	And the answer is nothing.
	And the fact that, and let me tell you, there are a lot of deeply disappointed Democrats thinking that they were getting a whole hell of a lot more out of this than they actually ended up getting.
	They're frustrated.
	They're upset about all of this.
	Many Democrats are destroyed.
	So they kind of finally settled on what I had mentioned earlier, and that's the payment issue and the campaign finance issues as it relates to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
	But nobody landed a glove on the president in terms of real Russia collusion, which is the thing that everybody had talked about and warned us about.
	Now, what's so fascinating is you dig deep in here.
	Now, don't think that this is now, this is now going to be their mantra for two long years.
	For two years, it is going to be a battering of Trump, Russia, Trump, Russia, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach.
	I probably could take a poll right now and do some type of guessing game by X date, how many people in the media, just on just in the mainstream media, will say the word impeachment and make somebody a big winner and we'll take out boxes and everything.
	And guess how many times?
	Because this is what they're going to do.
	Here's what is missed in all of this.
	And Greg Jarrett nailed it in the title of his book, and that is The Russia Hoax, literally the effort to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
	Hear me out.
	So let's go back to Hillary Clinton and the fact that she decided as Secretary of State to bypass what the law is, what regulations are, even regulations that she passed down to members of her own State Department staff,
	which is you're not allowed to put emails on anything but the government server.
	That's why I guess we, I think we have 250,000 IT people that work for the United States government, which also drives me nuts because after all these decades of hacking, you think we would have built a foolproof system, but apparently that's not the case.
	But in May of 2016, they're investigating this, this violation of the Espionage Act, and they know that this top secret classified special access program information on it.
	And they're writing an exoneration in early May, including Strzok and Comey.
	They're changing the wording over time from gross negligence, the legal standard, to, you know, for the very purpose of protecting her and saying, well, we can say it's not a crime.
	It didn't meet that standard or reckless disregard.
	And then they don't interview her until three days before they exonerate her, but it's already been written for months.
	They exonerate her because the guy that did the interview thinks that Donald Trump should lose $100 million to zero to Hillary Clinton.
	And then you go into the whole issue of, okay, now we can backtrack if we really care about Russian influence.
	Why didn't anybody care, or seemingly anybody care in the media, about the Uranium One deal?
	Robert Mueller was the FBI director.
	We had an FBI hero, a spy, risking his life.
	His name is William Campbell.
	And I've interviewed him.
	And William Campbell knew that Putin had a network within the United States whose desire was to get a foothold in our uranium industry, which is the foundational material for nuclear weapons.
	And he reported back to his bosses that he witnessed bribery and extortion and money laundering and kickbacks, all in an effort that, in fact, this company that was working with Russia, Uranium One, that they were going to connect with this Canadian company.
	And then when you trace the money later, $145 million goes to the Clinton Foundation.
	Well, what's more important here?
	The fact that we would give up uranium, which happens to be a mineral we don't have enough of already and we need to import for our own nuclear weapon systems.
	And that Putin successfully, even with an FBI spy in his network, still got approved by Hillary and others.
	If you cared about Russia collusion in the election, you can't explain any way to me that when Hillary, who they saved from being indicted because of the espionage act that she violated, continues to funnel money that she has through her campaign and through the DNC whose finances she is controlling,
	according to Donna Brazil, through a law firm to hire an op research firm that then hires a foreign national, Christopher Steele, who puts together these dossiers, second, third, fourth, fifth-hand information.
	It's laughable when you read the dossier.
	Nobody would believe it.
	And that that information is disseminated by high members of our intelligence community to impact the vote with Russian lies before the 2016 vote, thinking that it would hurt Donald Trump and help Hillary.
	Well, that's Russia impacting our election system too.
	Nobody seems to care about it.
	And then that very same phony information, and this is the big news from the weekend, James Comey admits the steal dossier was never verified.
	Now I'm going to get into that part of it when we get back.
	What do you mean it wasn't verified?
	But what I would urge you is you're going to have to buckle up here.
	Now, let me tell you, it's going to backfire sooner than they think.
	They're overreaching already.
	This is not going to go as smoothly as they think.
	There is no smoking gun.
	There won't be a smoking gun.
	It's just going to be a bunch of, you know, that play like ominous music underneath their charges.
	And just because the media wants something to be true doesn't make it true.
	And just because we don't, or up to this point, not had equal justice under the law doesn't mean we won't get there, because I think we will.
	And I'll explain that.
	Hey, guys, remember when you need gifts that you need to bring a smile to somebody's face, 1-800flowers.com, they have to be your go-to.
	Whether it's a birthday, an anniversary that slipped your mind, or maybe you just want to get ahead and deliver something just because you want them to know you're thinking about them.
	1-800-Flowers.com, they have the deals, the bouquets that are guaranteed to show people you love them.
	And right now, when you order 12 peppermint roses for $29.99, well, 1-800 Flowers will give you an extra half dozen roses and a vase absolutely free.
	Now, that's up to 40% off the original price.
	Peppermint roses from 1-800flowers.com are picked at their peak and they're shipped overnight to ensure maximum freshness.
	Now, to order 12 peppermint roses for $29.99 plus another half dozen roses and a free vase, just go to 1-800flowers.com slash Hannity.
	That's 1-800Flowers.com slash Hannity.
	But you got to hurry.
	This offer ends on Friday.
	So the Nunes, the Grassley Graham memo, remember they said that the bulk of information in the FISA applications, all four of them, original three subsequent applications, signed by people like Comey and Yates and all these other people, Rod Rosenstein,
	and I'll play that in the next half hour.
	You know, whoa, you are testing.
	It's an affidavit.
	And career law enforcement is putting their full faith and credibility behind it.
	Yeah, well, it turns out Comey admits that which we already knew.
	We knew this because he signed off on the first FISA warrant in October and then told Trump in early January it was salacious and unverified.
	Well, if it was verified in January, certainly unverified in October when they had the first FISA warrant, they had their first renewal by that point when he met the president-elect at Trump Tower.
	But if you look at this transcript, so think about this.
	I mean, you're literally now going to give a pass to somebody you believe six foreign intelligence agencies had hacked into her mom and pop shop bathroom closet server as she was avoiding congressional oversight with classified and top secret information in it.
	And you give her a pass and you lie when you say that you hadn't written the exoneration before you met with her.
	That turned out not to be true.
	Only matters if you're a Republican and lie.
	And that Hillary Clinton pays for this dossier, becomes the bulk of information presented to a FISA court to spy on a Trump campaign associate.
	And now they admit they never verified any of it.
	Now there's more problems with it.
	Not only did they not verify it, they also never told the FISA court judges on any occasion that Hillary bought and paid for it.
	The opposition party.
	Remember, they're targeting a Trump campaign associate.
	And on top of that, they knew they were using circular reporting because they fired Steele November 1st of 2016.
	Nor had they ever amended it to say even Steele doesn't know that it's true in an interrogatory in Great Britain.
	I'm going to explain why this is all going to happen.
	Smoking is not about politics.
	It's about people.
	There are 34 million Americans that smoke.
	For me, Juul was a game changer because you switch to Juul, it's simple, it's satisfying, and no more smell.
	I watch people all the time.
	They run outside in the freezing cold.
	It's going to be grabbing their cigarette.
	Well, with Juul, you'll take a quick puff and you're good.
	That's it.
	Now, Juul is designed with smokers in mind from its form to technology.
	It's easy to use, no buttons, no switches.
	And the goal of Juul is to impact the lives of adult smokers by providing a satisfying alternative.
	Switch to Juul.
	You'll wish you had done it a long time ago.
	To discover the smoking alternative that is nothing like any e-cig vape you have ever tried.
	Go to this website, j-u-u-l-jewel.com/slash switchamerica.
	That's j-u-u-l.com/slash switchamerica.
	Warning, this product contains nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
	J-U-U-L.com slash switchamerica.
	Be very interesting to watch all this unfold.
	Look, they think that they are going to unleash literally the single harshest, the most difficult attacks on the presidency with Donald Trump over pretty much nothing.
	And in a sense, because, and I don't know the reason why, and it's bewildering to me to this day.
	I don't know why Jeff Sessions never fought back or why there wasn't equal application or justice under the law, but you got the right person in there and that's all going to happen.
	Or if the Senate has it, has had it with all of this one-sided attempt to destroy the presidency because they didn't like the result.
	But they're going to try death by a thousand cuts.
	They're going to try maybe impeachment.
	If they're going to do it over a campaign finance issue, it's laughable.
	They're going to get shrill and angry and they're going to overpromise and way under deliver.
	I mean, there was real anger and angst on the surface on Friday night because they thought that the sentencing recommendations in the Cohn and Manafort case were going to be far more devastating than they turned out to be.
	And I noticed it took them a little while to get their footing to come up with a talking point.
	Well, if he might have violated campaign finance laws, that's pretty thin, and that has nothing to do with Russia anyway.
	But, you know, so the Democrats, so it's going to be what it's going to be.
	They're going to take control of the House.
	It's going to be for them, destroy Trump all the time.
	It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter what way.
	One thing I'm going to be asking all of you on this radio and my TV show every night, as we report on these people, just it doesn't matter if you're a Republican or Democrat, doesn't matter blue or red state, it doesn't matter conservative or liberal.
	As you're beginning to watch them, as you begin to understand what they're doing, you have to ask yourself simple questions.
	Is what they are doing in the best interest of the country, of the United States of America?
	Is what they are doing in the best interest of the American people?
	Who are they serving here?
	What is this really all about?
	The answer is going to be so obvious and so transparent on a daily basis.
	And that's going to be a huge problem for them.
	The other big, big problem for them is there is still a lot that has not come out that I know is devastating.
	And you just, you got to stay with me here.
	It is beyond devastating, even beyond all that we already know.
	All of these things will at the appropriate time be disseminated to the American people.
	You are going to see for yourself how these people in power acted, both and how they treated one candidate one way in 2016 and one candidate another way.
	And then the effort that they have, the depths that they have sunk to basically with total and utter contempt for we, the people, and the voting that we've done.
	Look, Washington Examiner used a pretty interesting phrase.
	They're unveiling their subpoena cannon.
	Now Democrats weeks away from controlling the House, and it's going to be all destroy Trump, all impeachment all the time.
	Not a day is going to go by where they won't debut a new effort to derail, frankly, what's been on record the most successful presidency since Ronald Reagan.
	You know, we're not going to talk about today that Investors Business Daily has a piece out that the United States is now an oil exporting nation for the first time in 70 years.
	France's middle-class workers were busy rioting in the streets last week over the kind of punishing environmental taxation that Democrats want to impose here in the U.S. Meanwhile, a historic energy milestone is reached, and you never hear about it because every second minute hour of every day is destroy Trump.
	And it happened as a direct result of Donald Trump's plan for America to achieve global energy dominance.
	And last week, the U.S. exported more oil than we imported for the first time in 70 plus years.
	Now, what I particularly like about the energy sector is that once we get to energy independence, where we are, and then we get into the business side of energy because we have more natural gas than all of these countries combined, then that means Americans are going to get high-paying career jobs that are going to give them a much better life than they have now.
	Even truck drivers, just like during the North Dakota boom, were making 80, 100 grand a year.
	You have other issues.
	If they really want to focus, this is going to be interesting.
	Watch them focus on, well, the payments, campaign finance violations with Stormy and Karen McDougal.
	Okay, if the Democratic-controlled House is going to want to impeach the president over campaign finance issues and claims to that nature, if that's where Russian collusion ends up for them, and they go after Trump on what is something legal,
	and that is you're allowed to pay and go into contract with anybody on any deal you want to make, as long as it's not illegal, drugs or prostitution or something like that.
	But anyway, then remember that there are U.S. congressmen who have testified that the current members of Congress, many of them are known sex harassers, that to the tunes of millions and millions of dollars, hush money has been paid to accusers.
	One big difference is they used your money to pay it off.
	Donald Trump used his money to pay these people off.
	So they're going to have a little bit of a problem on all of these issues.
	You know, the Obama campaign took in millions in suspect foreign donations.
	Even Michael Izikoff wrote a column in October of 2008 about that.
	The FCC accused Obama of one of the worst campaign finance violations in history, and they paid a record fine.
	We did have issues involving the Clintons, but I don't want to get too far from what I want you to focus on here.
	So it is what it is.
	And it is a natural, there's nothing that they're saying or doing that's going to help the country.
	This is about helping them and helping them obtain power.
	And this is their revenge.
	This is also a plan for 2020, that if they can't impeach Trump, which they would love to, but if they can't get that far, every day it's going to be unrelenting cut, slash, and burn.
	It'll be death to them by a thousand cuts.
	But that's a risky strategy, too, because if the economy stays strong and the president keeps accomplishing big things on the world stage, that's just going to make their case harder and harder, and they're going to seem petty and insignificant.
	And that, you know, just a bunch of people that are angry that they lost.
	You know, James Comey's admission that the dossier, which made up the bulk of the application, FISA application for Carter Page and the subsequent applications, three of them afterwards, and they never verified it.
	Well, Rod Rosenstein commented on FISA applications back in May, and he was very clear what would happen to somebody that didn't verify.
	If your career law enforcement signs a sworn affidavit, they believe it to be true, correct to the best of their knowledge.
	But if you put your signature on it and you never even look to see if it was real, never verified anything in it, and it turns out that it was a lie because even its own author doesn't stand by the dossier when pressed in a case in Great Britain in an interrogatory.
	Listen to what Rod Rosenstein said.
	The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
	We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
	And we have to affix our signature to the charging document.
	That's something that not everybody appreciates.
	There's a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application is.
	A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
	In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
	And that's the way we operate.
	And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
	They didn't even check to see if it was correct because they're the same people that didn't indict somebody that committed obvious crimes and they protected Hillary's run.
	And there are people that thought, oh, she should win $100 million to zero in a general election contest against Donald Trump and that they wanted an insurance policy and that they had a media leak strategy and so on and so forth.
	I'll get back into this in a second.
	But so Comey, that's just one of a number of things that came out on Friday.
	Look, you know, Comey said Friday in this closed testimony, 235 transcribed pages.
	He said, I don't remember 71 times.
	He said, I don't know 166 times.
	I don't recall eight times.
	So in other words, in the 235-page transcript, he doesn't remember 240 times.
	And you do the math, but not on insignificant issues here.
	You know, Comey could not recall key details about the memo that opened the FBI probe into Trump aides right after he was responsible, along with Peter Strzok, for exonerating Hillary.
	You know, he testified it didn't matter whether Republicans or Democrats funded the dossier as long as the FISA court knew that it was a political document.
	Wrong, Mr. Comey.
	You knew it was Hillary's, the opposition party's op research that you're now saying you never verified.
	And you're going to tell us, like he did in this hearing, that it doesn't matter what party paid for it, just that it's political in nature.
	And that small little asterisk somehow, you don't think the word should have been in bold letters, Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC paid for this?
	That sounds like you're withholding pertinent information from the court.
	It was only remotely hinted at in the FISA application.
	You know, one of the other big reveals is in July of 2016, the FBI had four people with ties to Trump officially under investigation within weeks of closing the email investigation into Hillary.
	And by the time Comey was fired in May of 2017, he testified that there was no hard evidence of collusion at all.
	Okay, so that's July of 2016.
	And we're almost a year later.
	Well, that butts up to what Lisa Page had already testified to, that they had nothing, had nothing.
	But of course, he still wanted a special counsel.
	And then we know how he went about getting it by leaking information, perhaps even breaking laws himself.
	And he said, when I was fired, I still didn't know if there was anything, R.E. the Russia investigation.
	That's huge.
	And you look at all the process crimes that everybody is going through.
	You know, oh, let's see.
	Not about Russia, but about Ukraine.
	Oh, loan applications, taxicab medallion financing, taxes, lying to the FBI, lying to Congress.
	But those laws are not applied to Hillary or to any Democrat.
	We first learned the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against, what, George Papadopoulos, a low-level campaign aide.
	Carter Page had been known to our intelligence agencies forever.
	No one's ever talked about charging him with anything.
	And he was the one that had all of these FISA warrants issued against him.
	It didn't have to do with him.
	He was just an opening for the deep state.
	You know, they've opened investigations into what?
	You know, Comey said that nobody from the Obama administration ordered the FBI to surveil any Trump associates.
	And Trey Gowdy dug down pretty deep in this.
	And was there another chief executive who was referred to an ongoing criminal matter by saying she made a mistake and she lacked criminal intent?
	Because that's what President Obama said.
	That kind of catches him in a lie that, yeah, that Obama and everybody on his team knew about it from the get-go.
	You know, and Comey revealing that Strzok edited the October 28th letter that Comey sent to Congress revealing that the Clinton investigation had been reopened just before the election.
	I'm told the only reason that he really did it was because he was being told by law enforcement in New York, if you don't do it, we will.
	Because they knew that whatever emails from the Clinton server were on the Wiener laptop would be pertinent information to all the events that had been happening at that time.
	Let me tell you, all of this is they want to create a environment in which it's going to be death by a thousand cuts.
	But every day, you're going to hear information.
	Every day, I'm going to play their words.
	Every day, I'm going to play them on TV, and you can watch them and ask yourself a question.
	Is this good for the country?
	Are they doing this for the good of the country?
	Does this help the American people?
	Just ask yourself, what are their motivations?
	And I think it is going to be so obvious and transparent in such a short period of time.
	Look, Strzok, you know, all these people that hate Trump, there's a reason that there's almost 27 people now that have resigned, been demoted, and fired at the FBI and DOJ because they abused their power.
	When are we going to get into those investigations?
	Now, Jeff Sessions decided not to do anything.
	Will this new guy do anything?
	Is the Inspector General Horowitz going to do anything?
	This guy, John Huber, is he ever going to show up with any information?
	I don't know.
	But for the time being, the one thing we do know is they've got nothing on what this investigation was supposed to be about in the beginning.
	And we also know that if they really cared about the influence of Russia, somebody would be answering how did they allow and approve this group that allows Uranium One to get 20% of our uranium in this country, knowing we have a spy within their Putin network in America,
	and so much money ends up in the Clinton coffers.
	If they really care about Russia, they're going to talk about the phony dossier that the other candidate paid for to destroy Donald Trump and that that dossier was never verified but used to spy on the Trump campaign and was used to be disseminated by top Intel officials to destroy Donald Trump before the election and help him lose using Russian lies and then used to bludgeon him after the election because they didn't like the fact that he won.
	It's going to be a fascinating time.
	I'm telling you.
	It's fascinating now.
	But you have to have a certain degree of knowledge that just because they say these things doesn't make any of them true, because right now they're not.
	And no, their larger goal is 2020.
	Did you have total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant and also in the subsequent renewals?
	I have total confidence that the Pfizer process was followed and that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI.
	I think the notion that Pfizer was abused here is nonsense.
	Is the President of the United States right now an unindicted co-conspirator?
	I don't know.
	Not in the formal sense that he's been named in indictment where you can actually say that this defendant and named others or others by pseudonym conspired together.
	And that's how you formally name someone as an unindicted co-conspirator.
	But if he's not there, he's certainly close, given the language in the indictment in the filing, that the crimes were committed at his direction.
	Or it could have gotten stronger.
	Trump wasn't the president.
	If someone went to court, the Southern District of New York sponsored information that they directed a crime.
	What would happen to that person?
	Well, that person would be in serious jeopardy of being charged because the government wouldn't make that sponsoring allegation if they weren't seriously contemplating going forward with criminal charges.
	Now, where it stands here, I can't say.
	The people who can hold him accountable for that is us.
	But that's not the Department of Justice's job.
	That's our job, not to become numb to it and to stand up and participate in holding him accountable to those norms.
	I think of the American voting population as a giant bell curve that the wings are where the ringnuts are, and in the middle is mostly people who are unengaged.
	That giant is awakening because of things like this, and we have to continue to awaken the giant.
	So we're going to have an election in now less than two years.
	We must hold him accountable.
	And it's not a Republican thing or it's a Democratic thing.
	It's an American thing because this is unacceptable behavior for the leader of our country.
	It's not anybody else's job but ours.
	Did you ever run?
	No.
	Have you ever thought about it?
	I've thought about it enough to know that I'm never going to run for office.
	Well, you're right.
	245 times he says don't remember, don't recall, and don't know.
	What I was most, I guess, the biggest takeaway for me was the don't know part.
	Specifically, he didn't know much about Christopher Steele, the guy who they used his work product, the dossier, to go get the warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
	He didn't know, he never met Chris Steele, didn't know the relationship that Christopher Steele had with Bruce Orr, specifically that Christopher Steele was passing information to Bruce Orr, who was then giving it to the FBI.
	Didn't know that Christopher Steele was terminated for talking to the press.
	Didn't know he had talked to the press.
	Didn't know they continued to work with Christopher Steele after he had been terminated and continued to get his information.
	So I was mostly struck by that.
	Here's the key player, the guy who put together the dossier that was the basis for getting the warrant, and you didn't know anything about him.
	I find that hard to believe, but those were his answers yesterday.
	All right, hour two, as now the full-on destroy Trump five forces begin their attempted takedown of a duly elected president.
	I think the most stunning revelation in all of this, and it's all predictable, is that James Comey, who signed the first FISA application warrant, admits that the Steele dossier was never verified.
	And nine months in, just like Lisa Page admitted, they had nothing on Trump-Russia collusion at all.
	And that with his background in history, which we talked about in the last hour, with Robert Mueller and this whole John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzalez race to the hospital push, they enjoy taking on the power of the presidency.
	And it is very clear.
	I think there's one very clear thing that has emerged in all of this when Rosenstein and Comey literally felt that they had to rein in the president.
	The president has Article II powers that he could fire Comey.
	But immediately thereafter, now we know McCabe and a bunch of others, they all align themselves.
	This guy's out of control.
	Some of the statements that Comey's making this weekend, he doesn't have the temperament.
	Well, what they're really saying is they're smarter and they know better than you, and they're going to remove this guy from office because he's not the right guy.
	He's even saying that about 2020.
	He's not even hiding it.
	Never mind the lack of due process, Presumption of innocence, the Fourth Amendment, a constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, fraud, lies committed again and again on a FISA court,
	a dual justice system, one that allows the Clintons to get away with pretty much anything and everything.
	The biggest slam-dunk obstruction case, no problem.
	Hillary Clinton's emails, violation of the Espionage Act, no problem.
	If you're connected to Trump and you spit on the sidewalk, if you're connected to Trump and you don't fill out a loan application, right?
	Well, certainly it's stupid not to pay your taxes.
	There's just no getting around it.
	Pay your taxes.
	But you get the full brunt and force of the law under James Comey in the deep state.
	You know, think about this.
	Barbara Mueller is the FBI director.
	Under his watch, he has a spy inside Putin's network.
	We know the Putin network is here to get a foothold in the uranium industry in this country.
	They're involved in bribery, extortion, money laundering, and kickbacks.
	All of this information from William Campbell, the FBI spy, is being sent back to the leadership of the FBI.
	Did they stop those people?
	Nope.
	Did the 20% of uranium go to Rasatom that ended up in the hands of Putin, controlled by it, and even leave the country when they said it never would?
	Yep.
	Did Hillary Clinton is one of, what, nine people to sign off on it?
	And did, what, $145 million from people connected to that deal make their money the way of the money back to the Clinton Foundation?
	Yep.
	You know, or think of the phony dossier.
	Are we worried about Russian interference in an election?
	You know, James Comey's still trying to figure out if the hookers urinating in Donald Trump's Ritz Carlton bedroom story is true at this point.
	But he didn't know at the time, but they presented it as fact to a Pfizer court.
	So we've come so far here.
	You know, everything with Michael Flynn, General Flynn, he was illegally surveilled.
	There was no minimization.
	He was unmasked, and that raw intelligence was leaked to the press.
	No consequences there either.
	Andy McCarthy used to be with the Southern District of New York.
	He was actively involved in major prosecutions of the blind shake and other.
	He joins us along with our friend Greg Jarrett, author of the number one best-selling book, The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
	Well, it seems like it's coming to fruition.
	The double standard is here.
	But Andy, you think that the Southern District of New York is setting up, you can't indict a sitting president, but they're looking deeply into the possibility of indicting the president if he were to leave office after one term because the statute of limitations would not have run out on an issue involving payments like Michael Cohn's payments to Stormy Daniels or the payment that worked through,
	I guess, American Entertainment Media, et cetera.
	That's right, Sean.
	I think that of all the statements that you played from former Director Comey a couple of minutes ago, the one that stuck out to me and the one that I, you know, remember, Comey's an old Southern District of New York guy,
	just like I am before he was FBI director and before he was down at the Justice Department.
	And, you know, he mentions the fact that, you know, they basically took pains to inject the president's name and identity in the Cohen case.
	They don't do that idly in the Southern District of New York.
	When you look at that case closely, when you look at the way the sentencing memorandum is framed, when you look at the fact that they really didn't need the campaign finance counts in the case against Cohen because they had him jammed up on these tax and bank fraud charges that were very serious,
	yet to make the case, they gave immunity to a number of people, including two executives at that company you just mentioned that runs the National Enquirer, one or two people at the Trump organization who were involved in paying Cohn to reimburse him.
	Is this a civil matter or is this ⁇ how does this get into being a campaign finance issue if, say, it was standard practice for the Trump organization, A, to do this?
	On the stormy side of things, I know Michael Cohn has given variations of his story, and I guess it's convenient to believe the one that works in your best political interest, but that does not negate that he said the opposite, which he didn't tell the president about till after the fact.
	And Rudy had actually broken the news on my TV show that, in fact, it was paid back.
	But if he wasn't aware of it, then he wouldn't have been involved in it.
	Then is it mostly a Michael Cohn issue?
	Well, Sean, if I were the prosecutor, the reason, and you bring up the, you asked me about the payments by the Trump organization, the reason that they're relevant to the prosecutors is if this was all Cohn going off on his own,
	they wouldn't have felt any obligation to reimburse him, much less to reimburse him with a bonus, and then to pay it the way that they did.
	Well, maybe it was just understood.
	If problems come up, it's your job to fix it.
	Tell me about it later, and I'll square up with you.
	Well, that's his defense.
	And, you know, depending on how a jury is.
	But Michael had said to many people that he did it on his own, not just one.
	I know numerous people, numerous times he said that.
	Sean, people who commit crimes say a lot of stuff.
	But it wouldn't have mattered that he said that because the prosecutors get to choose which version of a story that somebody gives them is true and accurate, in other words?
	Right.
	I mean, basically, that happens in every single case.
	You know, you have it's very rare to have a case where all of the evidence is on one side and there's no way to attack it.
	Those cases don't go to trial.
	The cases that go to trial are cases where there's another side of the story, and that's why sometimes people get acquitted.
	What do you think, Greg Jarrett?
	Well, it comes down to the issue of failure to report these non-disclosure payments.
	Is that a campaign contribution?
	Is it an illegal campaign contribution?
	And I think the answer is clearly no.
	The law says as long as there is a secondary or dual purpose for the payments, it's not a campaign contribution, and therefore you don't have to report it.
	So if Trump, for professional or personal reasons, made these non-disclosure payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, it's not a campaign contribution.
	He didn't have to report it, and it's not illegal.
	And let's suppose, for the sake of argument, all right, let's count it as a campaign contribution.
	It's a civil penalty in a vast majority of cases.
	Why?
	Because for it to be a crime, you have to show that the candidate knew the campaign finance law and intended to break that law.
	That's very difficult to prove.
	What's your reaction to that, Andrew?
	Sean, yeah, can I pilot?
	Let me pile two things on to what Greg said, almost all of which I agree with strongly.
	One thing is it's important to note that if President Trump were ever charged with an offense in the Cohen case, the fact that Cohn pled guilty to the campaign finance violation would not be binding on President Trump.
	And the prosecutors would not be able to exploit his plea, that is Cohn's plea, in order to suggest to a jury or to anyone else that this was a campaign finance offense.
	The president would get to litigate exactly what Greg just laid out.
	All right, I got to take a break.
	We're going to pick it up on the other side of this.
	Andy McCarthy and Greg Jarrett with us.
	All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	All right.
	So I think the biggest admission to come out of all this, James Comey, he actually admitted this.
	It's a point I've made many times that, you know, when he went to Trump Tower, I think it was January 6th or 7th of 2017, and it was still President-elect Trump.
	And he went there with other intelligence officials to brief him on what they believe was attempts by, which, by the way, would have happened under Obama's watch.
	Everyone wants to forget that part.
	But attempts of the Russians to influence America's elections.
	Now, there have been many studies that have all said the same thing.
	It didn't impact the voting of the American people, but they wanted to brief the president.
	And a decision was made that James Comey alone would make the president aware of this dossier.
	And he referred to it as salacious and unverified.
	Now, what's interesting about it, if it was salacious and unverified, why did he sign off back in October?
	If the bulk of information provided in the FISA application, as the Nunes and Grassley-Graham memos point out, is the dossier, the Hillary bought and paid for Russian dossier, put together by a foreign national who won't even stand by the dossier himself.
	This now raises an awful lot of questions because even Rod Rosenstein in May of this year gave some very strong, gave very stringent requirements if you are going to apply for a FISA warrant.
	Here's what he said.
	The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
	We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
	And we have to fix our signature to the charging document.
	That's something that not everybody appreciates.
	Now, there's a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application is.
	A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
	In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
	And that's the way we operate.
	And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
	But James Comey, Andy McCarthy, who signed on to the first FISA application, now admits that they never verified what Grassley, Graham, and Nunes tell us is the bulk of information in the application.
	We already know that, and he made a flimsy answer to this before Congress on Friday.
	We also know that they never informed the court that Hillary Clinton bought and paid for this dossier.
	It's a rather tiny footnote that it might have a political tinge to it.
	That seems to me, and I'll use the language that I believe is appropriate, that they committed and knowingly committed a fraud on a FISA court, not once, but four separate times, because they never verified any of the contents that was used to obtain this warrant.
	And it was McCabe himself who said there wouldn't be a FISA warrant without the dossier.
	Well, Sean, a couple of things on that.
	What Rosenstein is talking about in terms of who signs the application, the way that FISA works, Comey did sign off on it, but he signs off as the director of the FBI.
	His representation is not the same as the career investigator who's actually like the case agent who signs off on this.
	Now, that doesn't mean that if it's not verified, that Comey should be able to comfortably sign that it's verified, because if something is not verified and you're telling the court that it is verified, that is fraudulent.
	And I think for that...
	Well, it's fraudulent in another sense because they use circular reporting knowing that Steele was leaking, and the Isakoff information came from Christopher Steele.
	So, you know, there's multiple layers of fraud here.
	Well, and also, you know, what Rosenstein said about, you know, if you file your affidavit and then you find out something was wrong, there could be serious consequences.
	One of the consequences is supposed to be you go back to the court and correct the record, which to my knowledge, they did not do with respect to Steele.
	So they kick him out of the investigation for lying.
	And as far as I know, as far as what we've been able to see, they did not go back to the court and tell him that.
	Not only that, in their renewal applications, they use the same unverified information.
	Right.
	I should have been a lawyer, Andy.
	I don't know why.
	I'm trying to be a lawyer here and play one on radio.
	You're doing great, Sean.
	You'll be speaking Latin by the end of the conversation.
	Yeah, by the end of the day.
	I know.
	No one'll understand it.
	Right.
	But I think the other thing to bear in mind here is what I hear Director Comey doing in his testimony is trying to kind of reformulate what verified means.
	So the idea would be they got the information from Steele, and even though Steele's own sources were not verified by the Bureau, they believed Steele because they had prior good experience with him in connection with the racketeering case.
	Even though they fired him November 1st, 2016 for lying and leaking.
	Greg Jarrett.
	Yeah, I mean, you know, nobody should have ever believed anything in Steele's dossier.
	Just one read-through, and it's laughable.
	It's all based on anonymous sources, double, triple, quadruple hearsay.
	And as you pointed out on many occasions, even Steele himself admits that it wasn't worth the paper it was worth.
	What is the date of that interrogatory that he wouldn't stand by his own dossier?
	Because that's key.
	Yeah, it's in my book.
	I don't have the exact date, but I searched through British court documents and found it.
	But the point is that FISA court is 12 judges, but they operate on a weekly basis of one judge who comes into Washington, D.C.
	They have on average 28 applications a week, so they generally don't hold hearings.
	So that means they just take paper submissions from the FBI and the Department of Justice.
	They trust those individuals like Comey and McCabe and Yates and Rosenstein.
	To be honest and forthright, it's clear to me from the documents that they were deceiving the judges and concealing vital evidence.
	To me, that's a fraud on the court.
	So I look Bishop.
	Can I just say one thing on top of what Greg said there?
	You know, this thing about trusting the government in the FISA context is very important.
	In a criminal case, when you file a search warrant or you get a wiretap, everybody knows that at the end, there's going to be a prosecution where all of this information is going to be disclosed, and the defense lawyers will get to pick it apart.
	So if anybody did something they shouldn't have done, that'll be discovered.
	The FISA process is completely secret.
	It's covered by being classified information, and we have to rely on the government being first and forthright with the court.
	Do you believe they did a service or a disservice to Carter Page?
	Because I would argue that his Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure, I believe they purposely, consciously handed over false information repeatedly to FISA court judges.
	I think they consciously hid the fact that there was circular reporting.
	I think they consciously hid the fact that this was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton, the opposing candidate in this case.
	And I think as a result, and this was their open door, back door into the Trump campaign.
	And I think if I tried to thread the needle, Andy, the way you're trying to thread the needle for these guys, I would be put in jail.
	And even with you, Greg Dershowitz, and every great and the great one, Mark Levin, I don't think I could get out of jail if I ever perpetrated such a fraud on any court.
	Yeah, well, Sean, I think I've been pretty strong on the idea that this was not done properly.
	I may be a little more hesitant than you guys to make assumptions about the stuff that we haven't seen yet, but I think there's no question that they withheld critical information from the court.
	And as I've said again and again and again, you can't rely on somebody who has sources if you're asking the judge.
	But if they put in the document in the application, paid for by Hillary Clinton, and this is to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate, and they put it in its proper context so it was being fully disclosed to the judge.
	And if they put in there that we are not able to verify or corroborate such information because nobody did, because if they did, they wouldn't have put it in there because it's not corroborated to this day.
	If they would have said that to the judge, what are the odds that they would have ever gotten the FISA application approved?
	It would be zero.
	They wouldn't have gotten it.
	It would be zero.
	Or Sean, what?
	So they did it inappropriately.
	They did it because they thought that they wanted to get Trump even then.
	That's the only explanation that I can come up with.
	Right.
	They wanted the judge to sign the warrant.
	It's like, you know, you tell the judge that the Russians have previously tried to recruit Carter Page, and you don't tell them that, oh, and by the way, Carter Page cooperated with the government in the prosecution of the Russian spies.
	You know, you can't tell, if you're going to rely on somebody's credibility, you have to give the court both sides of the story.
	Do you see a crime here, Greg Jarrett?
	Oh, yeah.
	I see, in fact, in the book, I identify six potential crimes committed in the FISA application.
	This is the problem with secret courts.
	They're star chambers.
	As Andy points out, the other side isn't represented.
	And the other side, even after the fact, doesn't find out what's in these FISA applications.
	This is a rare occurrence where we're now finding it out.
	And I hope that the president declassifies four sets of documents because I think it will demonstrate that there was an even more egregious fraud perpetrated On the FISA court.
	Is there Greg's book, The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump?
	I look at the big picture, and this is what I see.
	I see that she violated the Espionage Act.
	She did have top secret.
	James Comey laid it out himself on July 5th of 2016, classified information on her email.
	She did erase and destroy subpoenaed materials by Congress, and that would be the emails.
	And to make extra sure, she used bleach bid, and the devices were destroyed, and SIM cards were removed.
	Then she did pay for the dossier with funneled money through a law firm into an op research firm into a foreign national, and he brought together Russian lies for the purpose of influencing the American people's vote before the election.
	And it was disseminated by people of the intelligence community, Andy.
	And then it was used since then to bludgeon Donald Trump pretty much since the day that he won.
	And I'm asking you, do you see that there's a double standard?
	Do you see that they gave Hillary a pass for things far worse than they're even alleging with Donald Trump?
	Yeah, I say that, Sean, and I've said it again and again.
	And I'll put it this way.
	You know, look, Mrs. Clinton was never convicted of anything.
	She's never charged with anything.
	She's entitled under the Constitution to the presumption of innocence.
	But I would dare.
	But based on what we know, did they give her a pass?
	Did they give her a pass?
	I think they believe they gave her a pass in not charging her.
	But my point is, even if you allow her the presumption of innocence, anyone who looks at the way her case was handled and the way they've handled Trump cannot possibly say that the quality of justice that both got was equal.
	It's simply ridiculous to claim that.
	All right, we'll take a quick break, wrap things up.
	Fascinating hour.
	Andy McCarthy, Greg Jarrett, 800-941.
	Sean is our number.
	We've got Newt Gingrich coming up at the top of the hour.
	We'll get his take on the political tsunami that Republicans are going to face come January and how is the best way to handle all of this.
	And we'll get to your calls.
	Hannity tonight at 9 on the Fox News channel.
	We've got a great show, including Jared Kushner, Lindsey Graham, Newt Gingrich, and yeah, the war on Christmas should make your heart sink if you actually want kids to have a little bit of joy and happiness this year.
	I'll explain tonight at 9.
	We'll continue.
	Final hour roundup is next.
	You do not want to miss it.
	And stay tuned for the final hour free-for-all on the Sean Hannity Show.
	All right, we wrap things up here.
	Final thoughts before we get to Newt Gingrich, Andy McCarthy, and our good friend Greg Jarrett.
	All right.
	How is this all going to end?
	Predictions.
	Andy, we'll start with you.
	I think with respect to Mueller, Sean, which is the thing we're all waiting on, what you'll get is no citable impeachable or prosecutable offenses by Trump, but there'll be a vigorous defense of the FBI and the Justice Department's basis for starting the investigation.
	I think that's what Mueller is trying to accomplish.
	And I do think that the president will probably be charged by the Southern District of New York.
	Unless they work it out behind the scenes between now and the time he retires, which wouldn't be an unusual thing to have happen, correct?
	Right.
	Or if the new leadership of the Justice Department looks at this and says, you know, under precedent, we should handle this as a civil matter at most.
	And, you know, it's not even clear that there's a violation here because of the, you know, the things we talked about a few minutes ago.
	Greg, how does this all end?
	Well, I'm optimistic.
	I think William Barr, an excellent choice, will be confirmed, and I think he will turn the Department of Injustice back to the Department of Justice.
	Do you think now that that means Hillary Clinton would then have her own special counsel to deal with and Democrats and other people that seem to be getting away with murder and Trump gets charged with spitting on the sidewalk?
	While I'm no fan of a special counsel, I think it would be appropriate for Attorney General Barr to appoint a special counsel to try to hold accountable those who appear to have violated the law.
	The law enforcers, I think, became the law breakers, and they should be held accountable, and a special counsel would be appropriate.
	Or in the alternative, present evidence to a grand jury.
	All right.
	Thank you both.
	800-941-Sean, tollfrey telephone number.
	News roundup.
	Information overload hour is coming up next.
	I have to admit, I'm not convinced that Trump is guilty of committing a crime, but it sure seems like Individual One is.
	Because he is Individual One.
	Get it?
	I think what this totality of today's filings show, that the House is going to have little choice the way this is going other than to start impeachment proceedings.
	This is the most consequential political scandal in American history.
	Big news tonight is not about Michael Cohen.
	It's not about Paul Manafort.
	It's about one person, Donald Trump.
	And this filing that you just started to highlight that was made today in the Michael Cohen case really does, for the first time, you have federal prosecutors essentially saying that Donald Trump committed a felony.
	You know, even if a sitting president can't be indicted, he's got to know his future looks like it's behind bars unless he cuts some sort of deal with the prosecutors.
	And so if history means anything in the Trump era, if precedent means anything in the Trump era, Donald Trump will be, must be impeached because of the crimes prosecutors say he committed in the Michael Cohen case.
	What I hear you saying, Jeffrey, is that when the president's lawyers, Rudy Giuliani and others and the president himself, when they read this document that Robert Mueller, the special counsel, provided to the court today, they should get very, very nervous.
	Donald Trump, for the first time in his life, is cornered.
	But it's clear that Mueller is now connecting the dots between a massive obstruction intended to hide the truth about the Trump campaign, Trump, his business organization, and his family from the investigators.
	All right, news roundup information overload hour as the impeachment hysteria begins.
	Adam shifty shift.
	You know, Trump may face the real prospect of jail time.
	Nadler floating impeachment.
	By the way, all the things that I told you was on their agenda item list if you elected them in the House and the Senate.
	It won't ever go anywhere.
	It's never going to happen.
	This collusion never existed here.
	The most damning thing that we learned this weekend really has to do with James Comey admitting that they never verified Clinton's bought and paid for Russian dossier that actually was used to influence the election.
	You know, Carl Bernstein has just been a Trump hater from day one.
	It's, you know, he's cornered.
	He's just absolutely cornered.
	The walls are closing in, Senator Blumenthal saying on Donald Trump.
	And it goes on from there.
	By the way, and if Trump weren't president, he'd be serious jeopardy of being charged.
	James Comey, who himself could end up being charged if we have equal justice under the law.
	Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, you always have the great historical professorial take on everything.
	You're a natural professor.
	You're watching what I'm watching, hearing what I'm hearing.
	What's your reaction?
	Well, I mean, look, I've been thinking about this all day.
	I believe the challenge we should give to Mueller is simple.
	Release all 70 hours of Cohen's interviews.
	None of them involve national security.
	There's nothing to be redacted.
	They had this guy for 70 hours.
	Well, I mean, what they're talking about impeachment on, some people may just be joining us, is on, quote, a campaign finance issue.
	But Michael Cohen has admitted that he lied under oath, admitted he's been on both sides of this issue.
	But the media tends and the left, they want to believe the version that suits their political purposes.
	Well, this is very standard.
	I mean, anybody who's read great mystery or great novels about defense attorneys has seen this over and over again.
	You have the prosecutor leaking out and releasing their version of reality based on their selecting out the things they want to release.
	That's why I think the first test is to say, release all 70 hours.
	Let's see in context what Cohen said.
	Let's see how often he changed his story.
	Why are we supposed to believe the latest story when apparently they didn't believe the earlier stories?
	I mean, they didn't keep him for 70 hours for nothing.
	They were trying to work him around to get him to the story they wanted.
	And I think that the American people deserve to see this entire process by which a group of prosecutors who clearly have the goal of destroying the president.
	I mean, this has nothing to do, you'll notice, nothing that they've talked to Cohen about has anything to do in a serious way with the Russians.
	Nothing that they're threatening the president with has anything to do with the Russians.
	This whole thing is a phishing expedition to find an excuse to destroy the person who the American people elected to be president.
	It's very interesting.
	And the greatest evidence of all of this is if it's sort of like when the Justice Kavanaugh hearings were coming on and everybody was saying, I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe.
	But at the same time, Keith Dellison was being accused not from actions 36 years ago, but within the last year of repeated emotional and physical abuse.
	And he's the second in charge of the DNC.
	Not a peep from those same people.
	So they didn't care about the issue or the charge of Michael Avenatti.
	They didn't dispose of due process and the presumption of innocence.
	It's not the issue.
	What they really care about here, it's not, you know, we have evidence of real Russia interference.
	We have Uranium One and all of the corruption involved where we had a FBI spy reporting back to our top law enforcement agency bribery, extortion, money laundering, kickbacks by Putins, by a Putin entity within the United States that wanted to get a foothold in our uranium market.
	They got it and then kicked back 145 million people involved to the Clinton Foundation or the dirty dossier, which I think is the biggest story from the weekend.
	And that's James Comey admitting that they never verified the dossier, which the Nunes-Grassley Graham memos tell us was the bulk of the application, original and three subsequent applications, but they signed it anyway.
	And they never told the FISA judges that Hillary paid for it.
	Now, to me, that is a huge story, but nobody cares.
	And by the way, apparently Comey said in the same hearing that when he left the FDI, the FBI, he had seen no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians.
	We still don't have any evidence.
	I mean, that's the irony here.
	But we do have evidence of a Russian dossier that was paid for by another candidate that was disseminated to the American people to convince them not to vote for Donald Trump and influence the election with Russian lives.
	We do know that, right?
	That's provable.
	So where does this, you know, look, to me, this is, I think, a strategy now where these five forces that I have been discussing for a long time, and that would be the deep state.
	Now I think most people understand what that means.
	Democrats, the media, never Trumpers who never can't acknowledge that this guy has governed conservatively and successfully, and then weak Republicans.
	And I think that it's now converging into a feeding frenzy in the hopes that they can, through a thousand cuts, either remove him from office or render him unelectable in 2020.
	Well, sure.
	I mean, look, this whole effort is an, I'm going to go back.
	This is an effort to destroy President Trump.
	This is not an effort to get at the truth.
	It's not an effort to enforce the rule of law.
	And your point's exactly right.
	I mean, if Bill Clinton can get a half million dollars from a Russian bank, why isn't that questionable?
	If the Clinton Foundation can get millions and millions of dollars from Russians, why isn't that a question?
	If Hillary can destroy 33,000 emails, why isn't that a question?
	And of course, none of them are because this is a purely left-wing, bureaucratic effort to protect the establishment and to protect the old order.
	And their method of doing it is to try to destroy the president.
	And it has nothing to do with the rule of law.
	And I do want to go back to what I said at the very beginning.
	A very simple test for Mueller is release the entire transcript of all 70 hours of interviews and let the country judge Cohen.
	But let us see all the different ways he lied.
	Let us see all the different ways that the prosecutors tried to lead him and coach him and talk him into where he now is.
	And I don't think they can release that stuff.
	I don't think they can allow the country to see just how hard they pressured this guy and just how they maneuvered him and manipulated him to get the agreements they got.
	I mean, it was pretty interesting.
	And I guess they're going to want to indict Roger Stone and James Corsi next, Jerome Corsy, rather.
	And I had both of them on the show, and Jerome Corsi had spent some 40 hours with Mueller, and it was made very clear to him that he would get a plea deal and no jail time at all.
	He's 72 years old if he would just tell them the story that they wanted to hear.
	And he said, it's against my faith, my religion.
	I can't lie to God.
	I can't lie in a legal document.
	You're asking me to do something and say something that's not true.
	So rather than just sign his name to it, which would have made his life a hell of a lot easier, at 72, he's risking potentially, like Paul Manafort, dying in jail.
	See, you're making my case for why we should demand all these things be released.
	I think we would find that the prosecutors were using the power of the law to coerce and blackmail and intimidate, and that it was a totally one-sided and totally vicious effort whose only goal was to destroy Trump.
	It had nothing to do with getting at the truth, and it had nothing to do with enforcing the rule of law.
	Historically speaking, you are a great historian.
	I think I know you're known for being an author, writer, politician, et cetera, but your love is history.
	Can you think of anything that has happened in American history that is comparable to this?
	Because I can't.
	I can't think of any occasion where the full power of the state, that's what Mueller represents.
	Mueller represents the ability to put you in jail, the ability to bankrupt you.
	I have no doubt that whatever deal he got with the general was in fact gotten by threatening first to bankrupt his family.
	Well, he was.
	He had to sell his house and then threatening his son because his son worked with him.
	And that's the kind of stuff that I think we should insist be put on the record.
	These people have been doing things.
	I mean, we've had cases like this.
	As you know, Sidney Powell wrote a terrific book called License to Lie, which is about prosecutorial behavior in the Justice Department, how they destroyed Arthur Anderson and then were repudiated 9-0 by the Supreme Court, how they destroyed a U.S. Senator in Alaska and then turned out to be totally false.
	So we've had cases, but to see the entire power of the state go to work to destroy an incumbent President of the United States is astonishing.
	And I don't know of anything comparable in American history.
	And I think that we need to recognize we're watching literally an effort to create a judicial coup d'etat in which they will drive from office the president of the United States because they so deeply dislike him.
	Do you think it has chances of being successful?
	Not much.
	I mean, as long as it's not much.
	I don't know if that's the answer I wanted, but go ahead.
	Well, no, look, you never have 100% guarantee because you never know how the dynamic is going to work out.
	But it strikes me that this is like a jury trial in which all we're getting so far is the prosecutor.
	And we haven't seen the defense yet.
	We haven't seen the witnesses.
	We haven't seen the alternatives.
	And I don't think this is going to play out the way Mueller wants it to play out.
	I think if anything, as people learn more and more about it, they're going to be more and more offended.
	And you've got to ask yourself about yourself or your neighbors or anybody you've ever seen.
	If you were 70 hours with federal prosecutors badgering you, threatening you, blackmailing you, what would you be willing to say?
	And I think a lot of what happened with Cohen was just pure intimidation.
	I think this happens to a lot of people.
	I mean, I think Papadopoulos regrets what he did.
	I think, as does, you know, Lieutenant General Flynn, if somebody says, well, you better sign this, even though Comey didn't think you lied, McCabe didn't think you lied.
	Strzok didn't think you lied.
	Nobody in the FBI thought you lied.
	But this is going to be our plea agreement.
	You're going to admit that you lied, or we're going to have to dig deep into your son's finances next, and that might mean, you know, years in prison for him.
	And I'm thinking, well, what father isn't going to just dive on the sword and take the hit?
	And that's what I believe happened.
	Right.
	And see, the reason I really do believe more than any case I can remember that we should be demanding all these transcripts is we ought to see which lawyer threatened to go after his son.
	Which lawyer threatened to bankrupt him.
	I mean, you go down these case by case.
	These guys are playing with the entire power of the U.S. government to intimidate and destroy people.
	And that's a very frightening thing for the country's future.
	All right, 25 till the top of the air.
	I mean, think about everything that you're going to watch.
	And as I watch this weekend and I hear the impeachment word and you see the giddiness and the media is, you know, thinks they've got the president on campaign finance issues.
	They're going to create this impression, or at least attempt to, every day.
	And this is politically about death by a thousand cuts.
	And it is to create a narrative.
	It is to create a feeling.
	It is to literally, you know, force people to just say, all right, forget it.
	Why do we vote for Trump?
	Forget it.
	All right.
	We'll vote for somebody else.
	And that's their greatest hope because they're not going to get him on Russia collusion.
	That is non-existent.
	And but what has happened here, if you do care about the bigger issues as I do, about equal justice under the law, about equal application of our laws, if you care about Fourth Amendment constitutional rights, then you're going to look at what's happening and you're going to have grave and dear concerns that are fully and completely justified.
	Because what we have are rogue individuals now that have taken it upon themselves to decide that we, you, the people, made a mistake.
	And it is the single greatest, most unrelenting attack on the presidency.
	And frankly, the people.
	Because remember, presidencies are about people.
	And we elect presidents.
	We decide who gets to be president.
	So they never liked him.
	They never thought he would win.
	They did everything they can do to help her and undermine his chances of winning.
	Lo and behold, he wins.
	But let not your heart be troubled because they'd already started a process where they have an insurance policy that includes a media leak strategy and a compliant media that hates him as well.
	So they'll use him, all these deep state operatives.
	And then after that, then they're going to coordinate as much as they can with Democrats.
	There'll be coordination there, and they'll all get a pass.
	All the Democrats will get a pass.
	And then there'll be further coordination with never Trumpers that want to prove to the world that they were right in spite of Trump governing as conservatively and successfully as he has.
	And of course, weak Republicans that are afraid of their own shadow and frankly are part of the creation of Donald Trump the disruptor.
	That's pretty much a summary.
	But so it's going to get tense.
	It's going to eventually, they're starting already.
	It's going to backfire.
	It is going to blow up in their faces.
	But they don't care how ugly it gets.
	And as you listen every day, as we play these people in their own words, as we show you every night what they're saying, the work that they're doing, you just ask yourself a simple question.
	This isn't about living in a red state or a blue state or being a conservative or a liberal or Republican, a Democrat.
	Is what you're watching good for this country?
	Is what they're doing good for we the people?
	What we always call the forgotten men and women?
	Or is this something much deeper in play here?
	And that would be about power.
	And that would be you'll what will emerge and become very clear if you ask those questions and just watch.
	It's going to be very clear who they are, what their motivations are, and what they really think of we the people.
	Let's get to our busy phones.
	Let's say hi to Dan is in Michigan.
	Dan, the man, how are you, sir?
	Glad you called.
	Hey, Sean, how are you doing?
	I'm good.
	How are you doing?
	Good.
	Okay, Sean, and you just set my call up perfectly.
	The Democrats got a lucky break with Jeff Sessions.
	Because if you or me or Rudolph Giuliani was the new Attorney General, Sean, the minute you expose, which you have, there's no question that it was a frame job, politically motivated, and full of criminal conduct by the FBI and the Justice Department,
	the minute you expose that, which was a year ago, you or I, Ruda Giuliani, would have stepped forward, fired Rosenstein, fired Mueller, and ordered an investigation of everything from start to current.
	Period.
	Sessions failed us.
	Now, here's my question to you.
	Because he's failed us and we want action, and we wanted Sessions' action, but he failed us.
	Why doesn't Trump, his family, everybody harmed by Mueller in the investigation, his associates, his campaign staff, why doesn't everyone get together to file a massive federal color of law abuse of power,
	civil rights violation lawsuit that forces them to defend everything they have done, which means everything you do.
	Eventually at some point, look, either we're going to end this process and they're going to be successful, which means that the United States of America, as we know it, has pretty, we'll be in Mark Levin's post-constitutional America.
	That's what we'll be.
	We will be in a country that I've been warning about would lose equal justice, equal application of laws.
	We will be in a country where, you know, even such important rights as against unreasonable search and seizure, we'll live in a country where deep state operatives have free reign to just lie to judges without any consequences or obstruct justice and violate our,
	you know, something as severe as the Espionage Act, which Hillary Clinton is guilty of.
	I don't know Mr. Barr that well.
	I've read some of his comments and past comments about both Mueller and about Hillary Clinton, and it gives me hope that he sees this the right way.
	But you never know until somebody gets in there.
	I agree with your assessment about Senator Sessions.
	I don't know what happened to him.
	He was missing in action.
	But there have been a number of challenges to the legitimacy of Mueller.
	So far, none of them have proven to go anywhere.
	At this point, I think you let Mueller finish his job.
	I think the president has defended himself as best he can.
	They've handed over one and a half million documents.
	They've answered written questions.
	They've allowed all these witnesses to come in.
	We've watched again and again that people are being forced to test a lie, and many are standing strong and saying it's against their conscience, like Jerome Corsi and it appears Paul Manafort.
	You know, I remember Manafort once said to me, I don't have anything to give them.
	I don't have anything.
	And we'll watch this rogue team of prosecutors, which I warned everybody from day one.
	I looked at those people and their backgrounds and their history, and I said, this is not going to end well.
	And nobody seemed to care at the time.
	But, you know, it's going to be what it's going to be.
	I just think at some point that all of this is going to flip on its head sooner than later.
	And I think that there is far, we have discovered so much in terms of abuse of power and corruption that I've got to believe that our justice system is not going to let all of this fall through the cracks.
	And if it does, then say goodbye.
	It's the great American experiment in terms of a constitutional republic will be a distant memory in truth and in reality.
	But I'm hoping that that's not the case, that, you know, we have checks and balances and we will get the proper balance back as time goes on.
	And hopefully the new Attorney General Barr would be the person to do that.
	Does that answer your question?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And I just, you know, we want action like you.
	The Democrats would run to a federal judge and file a massive lawsuit.
	Why don't we do that?
	That's my question.
	Why does not just Carter Page get rich?
	Why doesn't Trump, the family, everybody get rich and get that lawsuit, which puts them on their heels?
	That's my point.
	Listen, I don't even think that that is beyond the realm of possibility when all is said and done.
	Jerome Corsi sued Mueller over alleged grand jury leaks, seeking $350 million in damages.
	You know, it seems like this is, you know, let's see if we can get Jerome Corsi, who wouldn't go along with a plea deal that would keep the 72-year-old guy out of jail because he said he can't lie in a court of law and I can't lie to my God.
	Yeah, let's put him in jail because he admits he didn't remember every email that he was sending in 2016, which is, to me, task impossible.
	Forget if you're 72.
	I don't care, you know, if you're, if you ever watch the movie Rainman, I don't think you could remember unless you had those special skills, that special God-given talent.
	Anyway, I appreciate the call.
	Courtney is in Los Angeles, K-E-I-B.
	Courtney, how are you?
	Hey, Sean, thank you for what you do.
	Thank you.
	My question goes back to the FISA courts because everything seems to stem from that entity.
	So who has oversight over the FISA court?
	Because it would seem to me that the judge or those judges need to be at least talked to or questioned.
	I don't want to use the word investigated, but just talked to, because it just seems that, as one of the earlier guests said, you know, it's kind of this quasi-star chamber, and it just doesn't seem right.
	Well, Chief Justice Roberts is the one who appoints them.
	There are 11 of them.
	You are raising a question, Great Minds Think Alike, that I've asked many times.
	We've never heard from these judges, but I'm pretty certain these judges know at this point that they were lied to and they were deceived and a fraud was committed on the court.
	Now, maybe they have a political bent one way or the other, and maybe it doesn't matter to them.
	But look, my experience in life knowing judges, meeting judges, I'm telling you, certain people, you better say yes, sir.
	No, sir.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	No, Your Honor.
	Yes, ma'am.
	No, ma'am.
	Because if you don't say that, you're going to piss them off.
	And the last person you want to piss off in a courtroom is a judge.
	And the idea that they had knowingly committed fraud on these FISA court judges is something that I think is going to, at some point, hit the public airwaves with a real dose of reality.
	And those that are responsible, as Rod Rosenstein said, there will be severe consequences.
	What they are, you know, Greg's identified laws that are broken, but it's very obvious they did it on purpose.
	They knew they wanted this FISA warrant against Carter Page to backdoor into the Trump campaign, and they got it.
	And they got it by any means necessary.
	And by purposely, you know, not telling the judges that Hillary paid for it, by using circular reporting that they knew, and by not verifying it as Comey admitted on Friday.
	Well, I want to believe in the system, and I hope that they are, there is not a political bent, especially at that level.
	But it just seems that someone, whoever, you know, they should have a meeting of the minds and find out if, you know, obviously if they were lied to, but then if there is a political bent, because that just undermines with Supreme Court justices.
	I mean, everyone can say when, you know, John Roberts tried to excoriate Trump, there's no such thing as a Clinton judge or an Obama judge or a Trump judge.
	It's just not true.
	Presidents all look for justices and judges that share their judicial philosophy.
	And as promised, and a list of names were given, pretty unprecedented by Donald Trump, President Trump, but then candidate Trump.
	He's picked originalist.
	He believes in the intent and meaning of our framers.
	And it is for that reason, you know, liberals prefer more activist judges, people that will legislate for the bench or cite foreign law as a justification of a decision which should have no relevance whatsoever as a constitutional republic.
	It should be based on our Constitution.
	Anyway, thanks, Courtney.
	Appreciate it.
	Joyce, Long Beach, next, Sean Hannity Show.
	What's up, Joyce?
	How are you?
	I'm good.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	What's going on?
	Long Beach, California or Long Beach, New York?
	No, California.
	Okay.
	What's going on?
	Well, I just want to say, first of all, I think that the whole Russian thing is just a cover-up.
	In other words, unrelenting bashing of Trump is because there's something so much more sinister that has gone on and they don't want anyone to find out.
	Like what?
	Obviously illegal.
	We can't even fathom what it is right now because we don't believe.
	You know what?
	I don't delve into conspiracy theories.
	I really don't.
	I just, what I'm looking at here is what we know.
	And what we know is Hillary violated the Espionage Act.
	What we know is the exoneration of her was written months before they ever interviewed her.
	Three days later, they admitted she pretty much committed every one of those crimes, but said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
	That's a lie, especially in this environment.
	Look at what they're doing to everybody and anybody.
	Well, the FBI didn't think you lied, but we want you to sign on to an agreement that says you lied.
	I mean, that's what they did.
	Or Papadopoulos.
	So I think that what we have is enough.
	I think when if any American did what Hillary did when you have subpoenaed emails and you do the thing she did, you would not survive.
	If any of us lied to FISA judges the way these judges four separate times were lied to in the original application, three subsequent applications, you would go to jail.
	And the problem here is with all of this abuse of power and all of this corruption and all the people we know that did this for a political agenda because they hate Trump.
	Now they're just now they're just hoping they can undermine the whole thing.
	If they can't get him on impeachment, which they won't, or on collusion, which they won't, then it's going to be death by a thousand cuts.
	We can't have this man in office and then make him so unelectable.
	At least this is their attempt that he couldn't win if his life depended on it.
	They just want to destroy him at that deep, deep level.
	And when Rod Rosenstein and James Comey said, we've got to put this guy in check, they believe that that was their role.
	It's not.
	Never was, never should be, never will be.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	Awesome Hannity tonight.
	Rare interview, Jared Kushner will join us tonight.
	Lindsey Graham checks in.
	Got to talk about funding for the border wall, how the Senate Republicans will fight to stop the House Democrats from doing crazy things.
	Newt Gingrich weighs in on the latest madness.
	We'll update things with Catherine Herridge, Mike Huckabee, and much more.
	Set your DVR Hannity tonight and news you won't get anywhere else.
	Nine Eastern Hannity Fox News.
	We'll see you tonight back here tomorrow.
	What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
	Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
	From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
	What difference at this point does it make?
	Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

▲