Andy McCarthy, Fox News Contributor, columnist for National Review and former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Gregg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst and author of the Russia Hoax, discuss Judge Sullivan’s requirement for Robert Mueller to turn over the interview documents pertaining to former National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You 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 Dell a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
My friends of 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 gotta 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 gonna 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 my pillows absolutely free.
All right, so try my pillow.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.
Uh we're waiting.
Hopefully, want to see what happens with the judge in the Flynn sentencing case.
There was a 3 p.m. deadline, Eastern time.
It's now 306 Eastern.
That the special counsel needed to hand over all the relevant 302 information as it relates, interview information as it relates to uh General Flynn.
Um I went through all of this in great specificity and detail yesterday.
I still cannot believe that this has happened in our country.
The judge in this case is a guy by the name of Emmett Sullivan.
And he was the one that presided over the appeal and overturn in the Ted Stevens corruption case.
Ted Stevens, if you don't remember, convicted on eight counts uh when he was uh as a senator, also running for re-election, lost his re-election.
But every one of those, in every one of those charges, it was overthrown.
And this judge got so mad and so angry.
New York Times described it this way.
Emmett Sullivan speaking in a slow, deliberate manner that failed to conceal his anger, saying that in the 25 years he's been on the bench, he had, quote, never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen by the Justice Department prosecutors who who tried the Stevens case.
They write he did a lacerating Judge Sullivan's lacerating 14-minute speech focusing on disclosures that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence in the case, virtually guaranteeing reverberations beyond the dismissal of the verdict in the case of Senator Stevens.
And that by the way, Stevens lost his whole career over it, so he was not guilty.
And this this is what I keep saying.
Andrew Weissman has this history.
We've talked to author of the book, Licensed to Lie, uh Sidney Powell, many times.
It's a must-read book when you think that it can't happen in America.
It can happen in America, and the history of tampering with FBI 302s, and I thought the Federalists made a very strong case that I really make sense that, well, there had to be an earlier 302 because both Strck and Page allude to it in their text messages, and Comey alluded to reading it before he was fired in May, but yet the official one on the record, well, that would be the 302 from August.
But Flynn was interviewed the first week of the Trump presidency on January 24th.
So I mean, this this is this is gonna be fascinating.
I I I don't know why.
I I can see this judge, maybe I'm wrong, throwing the whole thing out.
The plea, everything, and saying it's over based on misconduct.
And I wonder if he will do what he did the last time.
Last time he ordered literally uh a special investigation into the prosecutors, which is almost unheard of.
And you know, he talked about he actually named uh the judge named a federal district court uh by Bill Clinton anyway, talked about the troubling tendency he had among prosecutors to stretch the boundaries of ethics restrictions, concealing evidence to win cases.
You know, it is a danger that you see with prosecutors that it becomes uh it becomes a game of winning and losing to them instead of what's right and what's wrong and what's just and what's not just.
You know, that we throw around the term prosecutorial discretion all the time, but you know, it really does mean something because I do think if that's your job day in and day out, and maybe you become cynical because you are dealing with a lot of bad people, and you you think everybody's lying and you think everybody's corrupt, but sometimes there are good people that get caught up in bad situations that they're not guilty of and wanting to to weed them out and find the truth ought to be the goal, not about winning and not about losing.
Um what's interesting, Kimberly Strassel had a great piece out noting on this all today about Judge Emmett Sullivan demanding that Robert Mueller produce these key documents to justify his indictment of General Flynn.
Now, the problem here too is you got to remember none of the FBI agents thought that General Flynn had lied, including Strzok, including McCabe, and including Comey.
And the bizarre part of this is the statement that Comey had made.
Um, let's go back and play the statement that we have.
This is James Comey admitting, well, I wouldn't have tried to pull off this interview in the Bush administration or the Obama administration, but I saw an opening and I took it.
But so that before the agents actually went in, there was a call with Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, and he's telling General Flynn, oh, you don't need a lawyer.
And they're going in in a relaxed manner to see um, well, what's General Flynn's mood?
The problem is they already had illegal surveillance unmasking in this particular case and raw intelligence.
They had basically a printout of the conversation that General Flynn had with his soon to be Russian counterpart.
And anything that he said that maybe didn't match perfectly, meaning his recollection with what was on the transcript, they were gonna nail him for lying to the FBI.
But the question is, well, that never happened.
Anyway, here's what Comey said, which I think should blow everybody away.
You look at this White House now, and it's hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the sit room.
How did that happen?
I sent them.
Um something we I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration in the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration, the protocol, two men that all of us have perhaps increased appreciation for uh over the last two years.
And in both of those administrations, there was process.
And so if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and who would be there.
And I thought it's early enough.
Let's just send a couple guys over.
I mean, he's bragging about it, bragging about it not being the standard order of doing things because there's quote, this is a chaotic White House.
Well, they had only been in office four days.
It's breathtaking in in terms of the magnitude of arrogance.
And, you know, this is a higher calling, really?
James Comey, him bragging about setting up a three-star general, 33 years of service to his country, after you had your deputy call over and say, nah, you don't need a lawyer.
I I can't imagine.
Now, the special counsel did submit the documents about Flynn's January 2017 interview with the FBI.
It's gonna be interesting.
What their other 302s?
This information is just coming out as it gets out, we'll get it to you.
But um, anyway, back to the the Kimberley Strassel column today about Judge Emmett Sullivan, who's demanded and it's now turned over.
We now have confirmation.
They did submit the documents to the judge.
And, you know, they have to now justify their indictment of General Michael Flynn.
I've got to believe that this judge is seeing parallels between Flynn's case and the FBI's corrupt attempt to railroad Ted Stevens ten years ago.
And it's not merely because Judge Sullivan presided over both Stevens and Flynn's cases.
It turns out that the same Justice Department official who played a critical role in the Stevens case now presides over the highly dubious prosecution of General Flynn.
Because that person is none other than Robert Mueller.
You know, we keep getting back to the same group of people.
Well, you know, we keep getting back to who.
By the way, if we can print that out, I see it's now currently available, um, Linda, thank you.
Um, you still have Rod Rosenstein and Comey and McCabe and Robert Muller, they're all in this little, they're always touching base in there throughout the entirety of their careers.
And it makes you wonder.
And I was the one that was always warning why did Robert Mueller, who, by the way, James Comey was hoping would get appointed special counsel, which is why he leaked information that may be a legal problem for him in the end, too, but leaked it to the professor to the New York Times for the purpose of getting a special counsel.
But the sad thing is if Comey's after Trump on the fourth day of his administration.
Because if you're going to treat him and his administration differently than you treated past administrations, and you're going to break all protocols to do it, you know, you're going to sign off on a FISA application, one that you have to say, according to Rod Rosenstein, to the best of your knowledge is true.
And James Comey signed the first FISA warrant application in October of 2016, based on we now know the phony Clinton bought and paid for Russian live dossier.
And then in January before he became president, when he was president-elect, Donald Trump meets with all of these guys, Clapper, Comey, et cetera.
Comey pulls him aside and says, just so you know, there's this dossier out there.
It's unproven and it's salacious.
Well, that's not what they were telling the Pfizer court back in October.
You know, or when they were just about to renew it, probably right around that time, they weren't telling the Pfizer court that it wasn't verified either.
And they never told the Pfizer court who paid for it.
None of this is standard operating procedure.
The fact that he's so arrogantly bragging about the fact I sent my agents over.
They're too chaotic.
Let's take advantage.
We'll tell Flynn not to get a lawyer, and then we'll charge him with perjury.
I it blows my mind.
Anyway, so Kimberly Strasso writes, Emmett Sullivan uh got a wake-up call in 2008 while overseeing the trial of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
Judge Sullivan ultimately assigned a lawyer to investigate the Justice Department misconduct.
The investigators' report found the prosecutors had engaged in deliberate, repeated ethical violations, withholding key evidence from the defense.
It also excoriated the FBI for failing to write up 302s for omitting key facts from those that did write.
The head of the FBI at the time was Robert Mueller.
And Judge Sullivan since has made it his practice to begin every case with a Brady order, which reminds prosecutors of their constitutional obligation to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence.
And on December 12, 2017, days after being assigned the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan issued that order, instructing Mueller's team to turn over any evidence in its possession that is favorable to the defendant and material either to defendants' guilt or punishment.
And had the other had any other judge drawn that case, we likely would never have seen the details of the FBI's behavior.
So it's clear something has this judge on high alert here.
And he's seeing the obvious Parallels, I think, and Kimberly Strassell clearly agrees in her piece to the Stevens case.
Because the media was predicting a quick ruling in the Flynn case.
Now Judge Sullivan, with his new orders, is demanding to see for himself the McCabe memo and the Flynn 302 and ordering the special counsel to hand over today the other documents.
They've since been handed over.
Special counsel, you know, says defendants' cooperation military service justify a sentence at the low end of the guideline range.
Anyway, judges have the ability to reject plea deals.
They have the, they can require a prosecutor to make a case at a trial.
Criminal justice system isn't only about holding defendants accountable.
Trials also provide oversight of investigators in their tactics.
Judges are not obliged to follow prosecutors' sentencing recommendations.
You know, no one knows what Judge Sullivan's going to do here, but his reputation is no nonsense, straight shooter, advocate for government transparency.
And my gut is telling me that this is gonna this is not going to break the way Mueller thinks it's gonna break.
So we'll see.
One thing that is not political, it's smoking.
That's about people.
And there are 34 million Americans now that smoke.
But for many, there's not been a clear alternative.
Jewel for me has been a game changer.
I watch people all the time.
They go outside in the middle of the freezing winter just to have their smoke.
You don't have to do that anymore because of Jewel.
Now, people don't have to worry about the smell on your hands.
Jewel was specifically designed by smokers for smokers to be a satisfying alternative.
It's a clean technology.
Jewel has no ash, no odor, no mess.
If you're one of those 34 million adults who do smoke, you now know there's an alternative to cigarettes and cigars.
Just go to Jule J-U-U-L.com slash switch America.
That's J-U-U-L.com slash switch America.
Now, this product does contain nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
But just go to Joule J-U-U-L dot com slash switch America.
All right, so I'm reading this submission by the special counsel in the Flynn case, and you know, they're going out of their way to say that Michael Flynn, the circumstances, liar, liar, liar.
I mean, they they mentioned those chose to make false statements, chose to lie uh about the topic with the incoming vice president.
That that is all true.
Nobody in this is mentioning that I have seen yet the illegal surveillance, not minimization, unmasking, and leaking of raw intelligence, or the fact that they had the transcript, which gave them the confidence to know that he was lying, which very well was illegal by the Obama administration.
Uh, that is yet to be addressed.
I hope Judge Sullivan in this case actually does that.
Um, and then, you know, the defendant repeated the false statements to members of the presidential transition team.
I I'm having a hard time believing that General Flynn lied as much as probably didn't remember the conversation.
I don't know because I have so many conversations with so many different people on any one given day.
I do you really remember the details of those conversations?
I don't you might remember the highlights, but you might get something that was even important wrong, which would be understandable to me.
Um, and that's the one of the big points that I have is where is any discretion?
Then they go on to say the interview is voluntary.
Well, uh, they did tell him not to have a lawyer and lacked any uh, you know, type of coercion.
When arranging the interview, McCabe asked the defendant if he'd be willing to speak with two FBI agents.
The defendant agreed.
They agreed to conduct the interview at the defendant's office as the now again.
I wouldn't have gotten away with this in any other administration.
As the interviewing agents noted the defendant was relaxed and jocular during the because he trusted him.
Because he didn't know that he was being set up in a perjury trap here.
Then it gives the circumstances of the defendant's interview do not lessen the seriousness of the defense.
Now, by the defendant submitting multiple aspects of the interview, does it lessen the seriousness of the offense?
How did they get this information on Flynn?
That you have to start there because if it was attained illegally, therein lies a huge problem that nobody seems to want to bring up.
You know, sitting national security advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired lieutenant general, uh, knows he should not lie to federal agents.
He did not need to be warned it was a crime to lie to federal agents.
Well, he should have been warned that it was important and that maybe uh he needed a lawyer here because they were setting him up or a situation by purposely bypassing the White House counsel and by saying, well, he agreed to meet with the FBI, but you have the FBI director admitting on tape that, well, I wouldn't have tried this with any other administration.
I just tried it because there was chaos in the first week of the Trump administration.
Anyway, so there I'll give you the redacted portions of what we can glean from it when we get back, but this has now been submitted.
Quick break right back, we'll continue.
When something is classified to put a marking on that paragraph.
Right.
And there were three that bore C in parens, which means that's confidential classified information.
So a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary of state, a first lady, wouldn't a reasonable person know that that was a classified marking as a secretary of state.
Yeah.
A reasonable person.
That's all I'm asking.
Yeah, before this investigation, I probably would have said yes, I'm not so sure.
I I I don't find it incredible.
Director Comey, come on.
Uh uh, I mean, I've only been here uh a few years, and I understand the importance of those markings.
So you're you're suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be.
That's your swarm testimony today.
No, no, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be, but it's an interesting question as to whether she this question about sophistication came up earlier, whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in Parens means.
So you're saying this former Secretary of State is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking?
No, it's not what I said.
That's a huge statement.
You asked me, did I assume that someone would know?
Probably before this investigation I would have.
I'm not so sure of that answer any longer.
I think it's possible, possible, uh, that she didn't understand what a C meant in when she saw it in the body of an email like that.
Oh.
Now, if you put that next to by the way, glad you're with us 20 uh 4 now till the top of the hour.
Remember, Killary didn't know what the C meant on the pay.
I don't know what the you know, it's it's pretty ridiculous.
I actually have that tape.
Let me just do that in light of the special counsel now releasing their their statement, the government's reply to the defendant's memorandum and aid in sentencing.
This is really in response to Judge Sullivan's request for the 302s, but let's go back to Hillary and the issue of not understanding the C classification, which I'm telling you she understood.
With respect to classification, on classified documents, there is what's called a header.
It says this material is top secret, secret, or confidential.
There were no headers on the thousands of emails that I sent or received.
It there just weren't, and the FBI has not in any way contradicted that.
There were a couple of emails with a tiny C in a parentheses, which did not have a header saying that means confidential in this circumstance, and which the director of the FBI has said, and the State Department has said, those couple of emails were improperly marked, even with that.
So, yes, I take classification seriously, and I think the record shows that I have.
But authorities say that C stood for confidential.
There was no header that the document that the little C appeared in was marked confidential, which is the lowest form of classification.
So what you're saying is deeper in the email.
Oh, of course.
Absolutely.
And that's what the director said.
Oh, I have no idea the C Met classification.
Now, when you look at the special counsel's document, keeping that in mind, it says a sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired lieutenant general, 33-year veteran of the armed forces, knows he should not lie to federal agents.
He doesn't need to be warned it's a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth.
The defendant undoubtedly was aware, In light of his many years working with the FBI, that lying to the FBI carries serious consequences.
He, unlike, and they mentioned Vanderswan and Papadopoulos, was a senior national security official with extensive federal government experience, had led an intelligence agency at work with the FBI and was steeped in the importance of accurate information to decision making in areas of national security.
Now remember one other fact here.
Remember Obama recommended to Donald Trump that he not take on General Flynn.
So they targeted him.
That might explain the illegal surveillance without minimization, unmasking and leaking of raw intelligence that put the general in this position in the first place that if they have a printed copy of the actual phone call that they got and obtained illegally, unless they got a warrant that we've we didn't know about, I haven't heard about, they that would have all been obtained illegally.
Nobody's talking about that that is the foundational material for what they had on General Flynn.
Then it goes on in this Mueller response today that finally the interviewing agents did not deserve any indication of deception and had the impression at the time the defendant was not lying or didn't think he was lying.
See, he struck 302 at four.
Members of the presidential transition team were likewise misled by the defendant's false denials.
Those misimpressions do not change the fact as the defendant has admitted and sworn testimony to this district court.
Well, because that was the plea deal.
Doesn't mean he really believes he's lying.
Means it was the plea deal that he took, probably because he couldn't afford any more lawyers and was selling his house, and probably because behind closed doors, they were threatening to go after his son who he was in business with.
They're not mentioning those little details.
Anyway, that it doesn't defend the fact that he was indeed lying, knowingly made false statements to the FBI agents uh in a national security investigation.
All right, so it goes on from there.
Now, those false statements were material, they go on to say.
Now, here's what's pretty interesting here.
If if you go back to the 302s, and this is now I'm going into the the weeds, because you know, what's fascinating is it didn't go through the White House, but they they put the attachments that the judges requested here.
And it says what follows are notes I short, I I typed shortly after my conversation with Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, while I have quoted directly in a few places, this represents the substance of our conversation.
And it goes on to say that on Tuesday, um they don't mention that they didn't go through the White House or that he was told by McCabe not not to have an attorney present.
On Tuesday, 124, 2017.
Well, by the way, this is the January 24th, 2017.
These are the notes that I assume Strzok had put together first.
Um General Flynn called via secure line from my redacted to my block, uh blot blacked out after talking briefly about the security briefing provided White House staff.
I told Lieutenant General Flynn that I had a sensitive matter to discuss.
I explained that in light of the significant media coverage, public discussion about his recent contacts with Russian representatives, the that director Comey and I felt that we needed to have this must have been written by McCabe, who's also gone for lying, who struck is also gone for his bias and oh, James Comey, all the people involved in this, they're all gone.
I felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down with the general and hear from him the details of those conversations.
Lieutenant General Flynn asked if I was referring to the contacts with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., I indicated that I was.
Then General Flynn explained that he had been trying to build relationships with the Russians and that he had calls in which he exchanged condolences.
He then stated that I probably knew what was said.
I guess he's saying that meaning he assuming now that they might have taped him at that point.
I reiterated that in light of everything that he has been said about these contacts, the important thing now for us is to hear directly from him about what he said and how he Felt about the conversations.
Now, if the general at this point is thinking they have the conversation, why would he lie?
Just stop right there.
Because he's saying here, he stated, I probably knew what was said.
He's saying that I'm guessing you surveilled this.
I'm guessing you already know.
Then the question is if he thinks they know, he's not going to purposely lie because he would know what the ramifications of that are, would uh would be.
Um, Lieutenant General Flynn questioned, you know, so much information that had been made public, asked if we thought it had been leaked.
I replied that we were quite concerned about what we perceived as significant leaks.
Well, the only leaks that could have come would have been from those people that in fact surveilled, unmasked, and leaked raw intelligence.
I explained to General Flynn my desire was to have two of my agents interview him as quickly, quietly, discreetly as possible.
They agreed, offered to meet the agents today.
We had some discussion about timing, ultimately agreed to conduct the interview at his office in the White House at 1430.
But of course, they never went through the general counsel, which would be the proper procedure because James Comey was taking advantage of the quote chaos of the new administration and not following the normal procedures and protocols.
So disgraceful.
Now, a lot of this in attachment B is redacted.
You just get a lot of blackout here.
And this is the August official 302, and a lot of it's blacked out.
And the question is why is it in August?
And where is because the first one doesn't actually give, you know, I'm looking at the A attachment here that the special counsel has included, and these are just the shortly just memories shortly written after he met with Flynn and the lead up to it.
What are you saying in my ear?
We're going to put this up on Henny.com for our folks too.
So then they go into Peter Strzok, um, was interviewed and is blah, blah, blah, blah, participating, special counsel, FBI special agent.
The purpose of the interview, collect certain information regarding Strzok's involvement and various aspects of what was the special counsel investigation.
FBI counterintelligence struck had involvement, several blah, blah, blah, blah, investigations.
It's hard because now all of this is redacted.
At the bottom, on January 24th, McCabe told Strzok to interview Flynn.
McCabe called Flynn at 12 30.
Flynn agreed to be interviewed that day at 2 30.
McCabe may have documented the conversation.
Comey was going to tell Yates right before the interview.
But she called him first for another reason before he had a chance to call.
When he told her the FBI was interviewing Flynn, she was not happy.
Strzok and the FBI and his partner got access to the White House with the assistance of an FBI White House detail.
Flynn met him about 2 15 earlier than agreed.
Flynn was alone, relaxed and jocular.
He wanted to give them a little tour of the area around his office.
During their walk through the West Wing, President Trump and some of the movers were discussing where to place some artwork, walk between Strzok, but nobody paid attention to the agents.
Flynn did not introduce them to anyone.
Before the interview, McCabe redacted and others decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie to the FBI in an interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.
So they told him not to have a lawyer, and they didn't tell him that this was a real interview.
Wow.
That's how you treat a 33-year vet.
And they already had a transcript in all likelihood.
Flynn was uh unguarded, clearly saw the FBI as allies.
So you can be friends with the FBI, want to help them.
But if you say something that they didn't even believe was a lie, but they had the transcript because it was illegally surveilled, unmasked, and leaked raw intelligence, you're screwed.
This is the United States of America.
You wouldn't know it, would you?
Talked about various subjects, hotels where they stayed during the campaign, the president's knack for interior design, talked about the long hours of the job, complained about the politics surrounding it, but Flynn always seemed to work his way to the subject of terrorism.
Flynn was so talkative and had so much time for them that Strzok wondered if the National Security Advisor did not have more important things to do than have such a relaxed, non pertinent discussion with them.
Wow.
It was decided before the interview agents redacted, redacted, would use the exact words that Flynn used.
That means they had the transcript, such as to try and refresh his recollection.
If Flynn could would still not confirm what he said, they would not confront him or talk him through it.
Strzok conducted the interview, was primarily responsible for taking notes and writing the Flynn 302.
Throughout the interview, Flynn had a very sure demeanor, did not give any indicators of deception.
He did not parse his words or hesitate in any answers.
He only hedged once, which they documented in the 302 struck, and both had the impression at the time that he was not lying.
They didn't think he was lying.
Flynn struck uh struck as bright but not profoundly sophisticated.
The agents left Flynn in a collegial positive way.
There was no discussion of follow-up.
Strck returned to FBI headquarters, briefed McCabe on the interview.
McKay briefed Comey, Struck was aware, blah, blah, blah, redacted later about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn.
Shortly after the interview, Yates uh briefed the White House staff on the Flynn calls.
They had it was a setup.
Now the question is this.
Is Judge Sullivan gonna see this?
The actions of McCabe, no lawyer, not tell him that this is a real investigation.
Um, using the having the transcript that then and it totally being a perjury trap for this guy.
Because it was interesting that Mueller had wiped Strzok and Paige's iPhones clean after he had to get rid of them quietly.
This this is how we treat 33 year vets.
Wow.
And they want to just, this is their justification.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show hour two, right down our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800 941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program, uh, if you are just joining us, uh, we now know that in fact uh Robert Muller has responded in the case of Judge Sullivan and the request for the 302s, and it's been handed over and stands by the case that they made that in fact General Flynn had lied, etc.
etc.
But there are certain glaring discoveries, both in this and that we now know.
Number one is that they had a full transcript of the conversation.
Nobody has ever discussed the surveillance, the unmasking, the leaking of raw intelligence from the Obama administration that that they had the entire transcript, or the unbelievable discovery that in fact Andrew McCabe said, Oh, yeah, we want to talk to you, but you don't need a lawyer or anything, or the admission by James Comey, almost bragging that they set up General Flynn by, you know, him.
I wouldn't have pulled this in the Bush or the Obama administrations.
It's the first week of the Trump administration.
Here's what he said.
You look at this White House now, and it's hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the room.
How did that happen?
I sent them.
Um something we I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration in the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration, the protocol, two men that all of us have perhaps increased appreciation for uh over the last two years.
And in both of those administrations, there was process.
And so if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and who would be there.
And I thought it's early enough.
Let's just send a couple guys over.
Wow.
What an admission.
And they didn't warn General Flynn that it would be a crime to lie to the FBI, although he should have known that.
Well, I guess Hillary should have known that a C on an email meant classified.
I mean, the double standard always comes into play, doesn't it?
Andy McCarthy is here, Fox News contributor, columnist National Review, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, author of the number one bestseller of the Russia hoax.
Andy, let me start with you.
Um I am very disturbed at what is clearly to me a perjury trap for General Flynn because they had the transcript.
Nobody's ever talked about how that was obtained, why there was no minimization, uh, why there was an unmasking, why there was leaking of raw intelligence.
So that's the predicate of all this that nobody discusses in in Mueller's submission to the judge, Judge Sullivan today.
That bothers me, telling me he doesn't need a lawyer, that bothers me.
You know, purposely going in casually and making a conversational, not reminding him I mean, all of it to me sounds like a setup.
Sean, look, I think this stinks.
I mean, the the uh it's fair enough to say that Flynn should not have lied to the agents.
He admitted in court that he lied to them about a couple of things regarding this uh Did he but wait a minute, but but did he just admit to it as a plea deal because he had to sell his house, he had no money?
Did he admit to it because he was being told behind the scenes that well, we're gonna have to investigate you and your son's business if you don't sign this, and he just says, okay, I'll just take the deal.
Maybe he took the deal because it was in his best interest and family's best interest to do it, not believing he really lied.
I don't think so, Sean, because his claim in court uh was that he got hoodwinked into lying.
Neither he nor his lawyers are saying that he told the truth.
He was asked, did you ask the Russians through Kisley Act not to escalate uh the tensions after the Obama uh, you know, due to the Obama sanctions.
Uh, he denied that he had said that, but he obviously did say it because it's on uh the tape, and he denied that uh the Russian ambassador had told him that they decided not to escalate out of uh Flynn's request.
So he's not saying that he told the truth about those things.
His position in court is that he didn't tell the truth, but what they haven't established is why he was questioned in the first place.
It has seemed to me from the very beginning here that there was no predicate to have an investigation of Flynn.
There was nothing wrong with Flynn having had those conversations with Kisliak.
It was stupid for him to lie about them, but there was nothing wrong with having them uh in the first place.
And my sense of what happened here is that they intimidated Flynn into thinking that the Logan Act, which is a moribund two, by the way, 1799 law that has been twice, well, not successfully.
Yeah, and I think what happened was they made Flynn think that he was in real jeopardy if he had had these conversations and discussed these matters with the Russian ambassador because of the the uh Logan Act Logan Act and that Flynn panicked and lied about them.
Uh, but that doesn't mean they should have been investigating in in the first place.
And they shouldn't have told him he shouldn't have a lawyer.
I mean, that you don't get you don't get to advise somebody like that.
They they shouldn't have told him that, but at the same time, you know, he's uh he's was the head of the defense intelligence agency, and he knows you shouldn't lie to FBI agents.
I mean, come on.
Is there any well but is there any chance he didn't recollect it?
I mean, there's no benefit of the doubt at all here that maybe he didn't have a full recollection.
Sean, he could have gone to Toronto if that was where he was if that was where he was coming from.
But maybe he didn't have the money.
He had to sell his house.
You can always say at the end of a false state when somebody gets convicted of false statements that it was a failure of recollection, he had the the ability to to litigate that.
I mean, it can't be both that uh you know it can't it can't be both that if he uh if he tells them the truth, he should get credit for that.
But if he doesn't tell them the truth, uh I I just I mean you know, he lied.
He said that's the first time.
If there was no underlying crime or re Wait, if there's no underlying crime claiming, Sean, he's not claiming now that you're not gonna be able to.
No, I'm asking you though.
You're saying that he might have thought it was.
I no, I understand that.
But if there was no underlying crime, in other words, the Logan Act wouldn't have been applicable.
And there was nothing wrong with him speaking to his future counterpart actually sounds intelligent to me.
And then Comey is threading the needle doing things he wouldn't do in the Bush or Obama administration.
And McCabe's telling him not to have a lawyer, and the agents go in with a strategy that is described in the 302 to make them seem like they're their buddies and blah, blah, blah.
It just seems like a setup to me.
It's a perjury trap.
I completely agree.
It's a perjury trap.
All right.
Greg.
Thank you.
Well, there are a lot of reasons uh somebody uh pleads to a a process crime that I regard as uh, you know, in the scheme of things a fairly minor thing, especially if uh prosecutors uh have caused you to go broke, you've had to sell your home, and they're threatening to prosecute your son on a different matter.
So that changes the equation uh dramatically.
But I look at this 302, uh, and what I see here is that the FBI agents, Peter Strck and they blank out the other one.
We know it's Joe Pienka, which Rosenstein continues to hide, question mark.
Uh they say uh that uh they have the impression at the time that the defendant was interviewed that he was not lying and and they did not think he was lying.
Now, that is the most important part of the 15 pages of documents that we have.
We are now seeing it in the 302.
Um and so uh my question would be if I were the judge on Tuesday, Emmett Sullivan, I would say, why did you uh prosecute this man uh for lying when the agents who interviewed him determined he wasn't?
And I would love to hear the answer to that.
Uh so that that's what jumps out out at me uh the most.
Uh Andy, you want to respond to that?
Yeah, I g I guess you know, the only thing that you can say about it on the uh on the lying front is whether somebody tells the truth to agents or not is not something that hinges on whether the agents correctly predict or judge that the person who they're talking to seems to be telling the truth, or at least trying to do it.
But they're the only witness.
They're the only one who knows just to the conversation.
Greg, you're leaving out the third witness who's the most important witness, which is the person himself.
And if the person himself, if I lie to you, Greg, and you think I'm telling you the truth, and then two months later I say, I pulled one over on Greg.
Uh, the fact is I pulled one over on you, regardless of whether you thought at the time that I was telling you the truth.
Andy, let me go ask a serious question.
I mean, is there any chance he decided to plead to a lesser crime of lying, which means he has to say that he lied to get his kid off or to get further, you know, he can't afford the lawyers anymore and all that.
I mean, you say anything to take your deal, no?
Anything is possible, but the point is You think he lied.
He says he lied, and his lawyers are saying he lied, and I it doesn't make any sense to me that you would take a position in court that I have been pressured by the FBI, I've been hoodwinked into the by the FBI in the first time.
Okay, then let me ask this.
Are you at all position?
Why wouldn't you?
Sean, why wouldn't you just say I didn't lie?
Why would you go into that?
I listen, I agree with I agree with you, but again, I under these circumstances, are you at all concerned, A, how this was obtained, meaning they had the transcript.
I think it's outrageous how it was obtained.
I think are you concerned at the FBI's tactics here?
And and that means Comey and McCabe basically throwing all normal processes out the window to get to this guy when they would never do it in another administration this way.
Correct.
I think that they had no basis to interview him.
I think if you're interviewing a guy for intelligence purposes, you play the tape for him, and then you ask him what did this mean, what did that mean?
And if you're doing it by the book, you call the White House counsel and you say, I want to interview the National Security.
You see, because you're describing is an honest way to handle this, Andy.
Correct.
Right.
But they didn't do it that way.
That's why I think it's a perjury trap.
But you're not sure.
But is that what we're gonna do?
But my problem is a perjury trap for a 33 year vet, five years of combat is is just it doesn't just rub me the wrong way.
It makes me sick to my stomach.
I'm not saying it's right.
But to have a perjury trap, there's usually perjury involved.
And the argument with the perjury trap is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Not that the guy didn't commit the false statements.
Well, in the 302 document, um it uh it talks about how Flynn was unguarded and he was uh not sophisticated.
Those are exact words from the 302 document.
So it it also um in McCabe's memo that's attachment A, um McCabe admits that he's pushing Flynn not to have a lawyer.
You know, he's telling him you know, if we bring anybody else to the room, we've got to go through the Department of Justice and and you know, and so that is pushing Flynn to go solo.
And they the 302 makes it clear that they decided ahead of time not to tell him about the transcript.
Um so they're setting him up.
It's a perjury trap, as is Andy just said.
But I you know, I want to respond to one other thing.
You know, people plead guilty to lesser crimes all the time, even though they may not have committed those crimes.
And I think that's what happened here, and again, this 302, the interviewing FBI agents if they do plead guilty to something they didn't do, a lesser crime, doesn't that mean when they go before the judge they can't say, Well, I'm doing this, I didn't really lie, but I'm doing this because this is my plea deal.
And lawyers can make the argument that it appears he was set up that they d didn't uh they pushed him not to have a lawyer, they didn't tell him about the transcript.
That's all in the 302.
Knowing this Judge Sullivan's history, Greg Jarrett, um, I suspect he's not happy with these tactics at all.
I don't know how he's gonna respond.
Any prediction?
Well, I don't think he's gonna be very happy.
Uh let's forget about the fact that there was no basis to even interview Flynn.
Um but the the McCabe memo uh should is really incendiary in front of a judge.
Uh that McCabe pushed Flynn not to have a lawyer, and they deliberately conspired to deceive Flynn, that they had a transcript um in which he had been illegally unmasked.
Uh but but finally I you know I come back to what I said before.
This is the first time we've seen in print from the FBI that the two agents who interviewed Flynn concluded he was not lying.
And and I think that would be a red flag to any judge.
Wait a minute, I've got a defendant here.
Well, I wonder if the judge will will look at the fact that they had the full transcript and ask, well, why was he surveilled?
Why was minimization not practiced and put in place as is normal?
Why was he unmasked and who the surveillance always happens uh with any when you're having a conversation with a Russian, whether it be a diplomat or okay, but they're supposed to minimize and they're not supposed to unmask or look or leak the raw transcript of it.
All right, last word, Andy McCarthy.
Well, I think you know, the judge is gonna be I I would think upset about the whole way that this went forward, but I it seems to be Sean that the big issue here is that Muller has asked for what the judge is going to impose anyway, which is which is the minimum sentence, which is probably probation.
General Flynn's gonna get no time.
But my point is that General Flynn is gonna get no time because of this heroic service for thirty years to the country, and yet the story is.
But you don't like the tactics, though, Andy.
I mean, you would not have handled it this way by a long shot.
You don't like it.
No, I don't like it, but and my and I don't like that the way this is gonna play out is that i i it's gonna look like Flynn got no time because of the great cooperation he provided to the investigation.
In the meantime, I'm gonna be true.
All right, guys, thank you very much.
When we come back, uh Bill O'Reilly, Joe Concha, all coming up.
The one thing that we we Do have to, you know, we sometimes lose perspective on this.
And the largest perspective is we a case has been built this week that the president was not legitimately elected.
If you look at the Russia stuff and the campaign finance stuff and the fact that 40,000 votes going the other way over three states, we now don't know.
And that's why this is important.
It may it's not the campaign finance, it's not did they have a meeting in Trump Tower with some Russians?
It's was he legitimately elected?
And that's where that's what we're all gonna have to swear at the end of this.
I think legally the we already now know that the president has committed a felony in order to obtain the office of the presidency.
He will likely not be charged with that.
And in part he's not going to be charged because even if he could be, forget about the DOJ policy.
Michael Cohen decided not to fully cooperate with the Southern District of New York.
So he's not a witness available to them right now.
Here is this extraordinary story of a woman who came to this country as an immigrant, uh uh as a model, and is now the first lady of the United States.
And you know, you would think to in her rare public appearances, you know, that some terrible wrong has has been done to her in this country.
I've always been surprised by that air of grievance that she carries very publicly with her.
The first lady is echoing exactly what the president says.
And um it's they're crying.
The president has cried fake because he doesn't like the truth that's being reported.
And now the first lady um who at one point used to see it clearer, we thought, than she is now.
But what means you'd have to say, how you do, individual one.
I I would here's I would definitely go.
And if you get a picture up, I mean, let's say he gets impeached.
It's almost like you have a picture with Nixon.
It's kind of it's like a collector's eye.
It's a collectible, yes.
Here's the thing, though.
I mean, just thinking forward.
Right.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800 941 Shauna is our number.
How they've evolved from Trump and Russia and collusion into a campaign finance uh uh agri uh uh uh whatever crime that the president committed, it's not a crime.
If you look at the statute, the rules, it's and the law itself, it doesn't include a non-disclosure agreement.
The law actually matters in these things.
And with just such passionate abandon and stupidity, they just report things it with a level of hysteria and ignorance that it takes your breath away every day.
It is not what they are saying that it is, so many in the media.
Uh as a matter of fact, that goes for any other contract payment arrangement, anything is of a private nature, it's not listed as a campaign finance violation.
In the course of normal behavior.
Now think about this.
Normal behavior that everybody has as a matter of law, it was never designed or meant or intended or insisted on or regulated to be reported.
So all the private payments that you have in the world, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter the amount.
It they're private involving private matters.
As for impeachment, NDAs involving private matters occurring before he was even a candidate, are completely unrelated to his office.
Uh cannot legally trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause.
You don't believe me, ask Alan Dershowitz or any number of smart attorneys out there that have been we've been talking to.
Uh all right, Bill O'Reilly is with us to weigh in on the media aspect of all this.
Um he's uh has his brand new book out, part of his killing series called Killing the SS.
Um, a fascinating book.
I've read it cover to cover, and um now I know why you've been uh so high on the New York Times list, number one for many, many weeks.
You're still battling it out with Michelle Obama, though I see, for one and two.
Um I appreciate you uh reading the book, Sean.
I know busier you are.
No, I listened to success, and um it is uh a good piece of history for people who are interested in that.
You know, the media is interesting, and it all comes down to one thing.
They don't really care about the truth anymore.
And that's been going on uh uh I would say for the last five, six years, but really uh accelerated after uh Donald Trump was elected president.
When I say they don't care about the truth, when I went to journalism school at Boston University, which was right after Watergate, uh there was a fervor to uh become uh a reporter.
And the goal that was stated in my classes was your job is to find the truth and state it honestly.
That's your job as a reporter, no matter where you work.
And that was fine.
I wanted to do that, and that's why I spent all the money to go to BU and get a degree.
Now that's changed.
And it's changed for two reasons.
Number one, Donald Trump is not a standard issue politician, and the establishment in Washington hates him.
Because if he's successful, that opens the door for other non-traditional politicians to achieve power.
So the Washington establishment, the people who make their money off government want to destroy him.
The second thing is that the media chieftains are almost a hundred percent left wingers, stemming from the Vietnam War.
They are in the position of power now, and they despise Trump because he's not a liberal.
And you see this.
And the third thing is that they market to a ideological audience.
So MSNBC makes its money on liberal people, all right?
And to be fair, Fox News makes its money on conservative people.
So that's where their programming goes.
But lost in all of this is the individual search for truth.
So Donald Trump, every single day of his life, has to face accusations.
Both you and I have to face them as well.
And you know how debilitating they are psychologically and emotionally.
And the tactic is break him.
And if we can't break him emotionally, then we'll make it so that he can't win reelection.
That is the media tactic.
It doesn't matter what's true, it's the allegation du jour.
I've been saying they now want to use this.
This is a death by uh in a worst case scenario, death by a thousand cut strategy.
I would slightly disagree on your analysis about Fox.
I am a conservative talk show host, but there are plenty other opinions on Fox uh throughout the day, strongly that uh are strongly on the other side.
Absolutely.
But I don't see any of that diversity on these other channels.
Look, you know, this is an important question.
I am a ask me what I do for a living, and I will say I am a talk show host.
Now, part of being a talk show host, Bill, is that there are days I report news straight up and down.
If it's a war, if it's a hurricane, if it's some type of violent protest.
Uh I I'm right down the middle, throwing to reporters, asking objective questions.
Other times we do investigative reporting.
I think we did a pretty good job vetting Obama when very few would, uh exposing the deep state when others ignored these important issues, this abuse of power.
Um, I give very strong opinion.
That's part of being a talk show host.
Sometimes we talk about sports, sometimes we do pop culture.
But at the end of the day, I would describe what I do as the entire newspaper, but these other shows and these other venues, they all claim that they're journalists.
They should be doing what you described for twenty-three years now.
Right.
So when people ask me about you, and and occasionally they do, they ask me about you all the time, and they're like, What's O'Reilly like?
Yeah, you get the same on me, I get on you.
I say Hamina Hannity is a commentator.
That does not mean he can't report.
It does not mean he's not able to give you information.
It means that his job is to assemble honest information and then comment on it.
That's what you do on radio and television.
Now, the fact that you have been tremendously successful speaks for itself.
As far as the Fox News channel is concerned, both you and I were there in the beginning of it.
And the reason that Fox News dominates is because it was the only network in television history that gave conservatives a break.
That did not disparage them and dismiss them as some kind of Lunatic fringe.
And conservative traditional Americans and a good number of liberals admired that philosophy and watched the channel.
So what I'm trying to say is that each news organization has a mandate to bring in viewers.
It used to be get as many viewers as you can.
But now, in the left wing precincts, particularly, it's we're gonna destroy Donald Trump.
And anybody who wants to see that happen is our viewership.
So you go out and find stuff that's gonna destroy Donald Trump.
When 90% of the network news coverage is negative, you know the fix is in.
He doesn't do anything well.
He's not doing anything that benefits the Bill, have you ever seen any of these networks talk about the dramatic turnaround in the economy?
Never or foreign policy success or the difference uh, you know, Jerusalem is now the capital of Israel.
Uh others had promised, never had the courage to do it.
We can talk about North Korea, new trade deals, Mexico, Canada.
I mean, it was a story a few uh months ago where he allocated billions of dollars to clean up the Pacific Ocean.
It's not even our fault.
There's a big big uh plastic slick, and the United States is taking a lead to clean the ocean up.
Did that get anything?
Nope.
They didn't know.
It's got nothing.
For the first time in 75 years, Bill O'Reilly, America is energy independent and one of the world's largest exporters of energy.
Seventy-five years that happened under him.
Look, Americans know the fix is in.
That's why Donald Trump's approval rating as it stands today, is about 48%, the same as Barack Obama's was at the same time in his term.
So Americans understand.
I'm worried about Trump himself.
I'm worried about the human being.
I mean, how much can you take?
Because you know the toll it's taken on you.
I know the toll it's taken on me to be hated and attacked every single day.
Maybe maybe I've got a missing switch, Bill, but I don't give a flying rip about what these people think of me.
You say that, but I know sometimes you're sitting there going to be a little bit more.
What the hell am I doing this for?
Well, you know, I train MMA five days a week, so you know, you know, it's part of my nature.
You know, I will say this, and I spent time this week with Melania, and uh look, it I would I would be dishonest if I say at times it doesn't drag on you a little.
Now look, I'm a Christian, I try not to do that.
I don't want to build my ra uh life around hatred, but I feel sorry for Donald Trump, the man, okay, because I know that he's a proud man, and that he'd like to be treated fairly as every human being in this country would, and that he is just beaten to a pulpit media every day, and it's just disgusting.
I've never met, and I've interviewed Melania, and I've interviewed the president.
I've known the president like you've had for two decades.
And I will tell you that he has an ability to absorb all of this and not let it get to him.
The media may claim they're getting to him.
Um, not from what I have seen.
Not, you know, I because look, I'm sure it does some days, and he gets mad some days.
We all do humans.
You know, is frustrated that the things that he does well, and I do believe he'll make a deal with China and Europe that will help us, uh us, meaning the uh the entire states.
But it's ignored.
Stay right there.
Bill O'Reilly with us.
Uh by the way, it's a great Christmas gift.
Um, I read a cover to cover.
I couldn't put it down.
Uh it's called Killing the SS.
His killing series, by the way, is the best selling, if I'm not wrong, Bill, series ever in history.
Um, and the latest book I learned a lot about, and I talk a lot about evil and how it's hard for good people to recognize evil exists, but the search for some of these war criminals post-World War II, you're gonna learn a lot.
It's it's based on history and uh a lot of research that I had not known about before.
It's called Killing the SS.
We'll link it to Hannity.com, Amazon.com.
Quick break, right back, uh more with Bill O'Reilly on the other side.
The final hour of the Sean Hannity show is up next.
Hang on for Sean's conservative solutions.
Continue.
Bill O'Reilly is our guest.
His book, uh Killing the SS, part of the killing series that he's uh so well known for.
Uh all right, so we have only a minute left.
So what is an O'Reilly Christmas like?
Uh we go to Mass.
Uh the urchins get uh far more uh prisons than I ever imagined I would ever get in my entire life.
Yeah.
We got a little stockings, we got the terror dog Holly, uh she gets gifts, and then dad uh pays the bills, you know.
Well, is it anything that you want in your life?
Because my family hates me because you know there's nothing they can buy me because I don't want anything.
You know, I'm not unlike you.
I'm not a real materialistic kind of guy.
Uh we you and I have been very fortunate in our lives to uh come from uh working class parents and now be able to access anything we really want.
And so for me, I give away a lot of money around Christmas time, uh, to people who don't have a lot, because I remember those days, and that's what Christmas means to me, just giving to all the really is bad.
I mean, it's cliched, but it really is true.
I I much prefer to give people things.
I mean, that makes me happier.
It does, right?
Somebody else happy than for me to get something.
How many shirts do I have to have, you know?
I got three.
I mean, I just rotate them every other day.
All right.
Bill O'Reilly killing uh the SS uh Merry Christmas to you.
Have a great new year.
Thanks for coming on.
I really appreciate it.
Merry Christmas to everybody listening right now.
And Hannity's a good guy.
I want everybody to know that.
Uh, don't say something like that.
That's not that's not you're ruining my reputation.
You're ruining the show.
It's you're killing me.
So I'm gonna be next killing Hannity's gonna be the next version of the killing series.
If it is proven that the president directed or coordinated with Cohen to commit these felonies, is are those impeachable offenses?
Well, they would be impeachable offenses.
Uh whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question, but certainly they'd be impeachable offenses.
This president, in my estimation, has done everything possible uh to certainly uh be eligible for impeachment.
And so I really do think that it should be started.
I think what this totality of today's filings show that the the House is gonna have little choice the way this is going, other than to start impeachment proceedings.
This is a man who came in and said, I'm bigger than the House.
I'm being in checks and balances, I'm bigger than the judicial community, I'm bigger than the free press.
And he's gonna pay for that the rest of his life.
When immigrants procure their citizenship by fraud, we strip them of their citizenship.
When a president procures his presidency by fraud, should we consider doing the same?
That can be a criminal case if they can prove willfulness there.
I also think it is potentially grounds for impeachment.
I think the American people would support impeachment.
Donald Trump will be, must be impeached.
He's gotta know his future looks like it's behind bars.
Donald Trump is a uh uh criminal enterprise.
It certainly looks uh like they are the kind of offenses uh that would call for impeachment hearings.
You have this memorable phrase of individual number one.
You know, it's gonna go down, I think, in the history books along with some of those memorable Watergate phrases.
He may be the first president uh in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.
Are you in a position to consider uh discussing impeachment in Congress?
Uh I mean, I think we have to be.
When the evidence becomes so clear that you very likely have a criminal sitting in the Oval Office, what is the Congress left to do at that point?
I think we're past the point where uh everyone should be afraid to let the word slip across their mouth, because if this scenario doesn't call for the consideration of impeachment, if not flat out impeachment and removal, I'm not exactly sure what the founding fathers had in mind.
Do you agree with Congressman Adam Schiff who's gonna be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that President Trump could be uh indicted and possibly face jail time after he leaves off?
Yes.
These are felonies that we're talking about.
As it relates to impeachment Anderson, the Constitution could not be any clearer.
Impeachment is the appropriate remedy for bribery, For treason, for high crimes and misdemeanors, it speaks for itself.
If the president orchestrated uh and ordered uh Michael Cohen uh to uh break the law to act in a criminal manner and did so knowingly, uh, as Jerry Nadler, the incoming chairman of the uh House Judiciary Committee said, uh, that would be an impeachable offense, uh, potentially.
Again, if knowledge was there.
All right, that is your corrupt news media.
Impeachment, you've got to ask for what?
What are they going to impeach them on?
Where's the Russia collusion that they all talked about?
Um, I I understand that it doesn't matter.
It it's just the sh the more shrill, the more angry, the more bizarre this whole thing gets.
None of this is based on law.
None of this is based on facts.
And it's time for a little bit of, you know, simple analysis and truth here, and the not the least of which is none of what they're saying points to any crime in any way, shape, manner, or form, as many lawyers have been saying.
Um, anyway, Joe Concha of the Hill is with us to just take an analysis of all this.
Uh Joe, how are you?
Welcome back.
News Roundup Information Overload.
Outstanding.
You know, almost after listening to that montage, do you get the feeling that perhaps many in our political media are rooting for impeachment?
Rooting.
They've been it's the same people that have been doing this for two years, but now they feel for some reason, I think we got them on a campaign finance violation.
Um if he knew, now there's a couple of problems.
One is Michael Cohn has given variations on that story.
So now the question is, but then it comes down to an issue that deals with the law.
And the law has to be was there an intent.
The to reach that threshold is an enormous burden to begin with.
And number two, I don't think they can reach it.
Right.
And and even if it is reached in some on some level, I still would argue that again, this was not the five campaign finance investigation.
It was the Russian investigation.
And and all we heard for two years was that the president colluded, or at least his campaign officials colluded with the Russian government in order to affect the 2016 election.
Now that that's been, at least for now, taken out of the equation, because we it would have been leeched, right?
At some point, everybody leaks in this in this town.
We would have heard about some sort of connection.
Since that goalpost has been moved, it suddenly seems like the reason why I asked the question do you think they're rooting for impeachment?
Is because, boy, half of its hatred, animus towards the president, half is because it's great for business, for clicks, for ratings.
If you have an impeachment going on, you remember 1998, boy, that every everybody's ratings went through the roof.
So I I think it's a combination of those things.
But in the end, do these reach the high the I heard during your clips, high crimes and misdemeanors.
Do these so called high crimes and misdemeanors.
I'm gonna go over this slowly again, because number one, they can't indict a sitting president.
That's been the DOJ policy since two 1973.
And number two, you know, the as good as the Southern District of New York is, and some of the best lawyers and well-known legal figures in the country have come out of there.
Um, this is not what they do.
They rarely handle any campaign finance case.
And when you listen to the left-wing media regurgitating what people are implying here and things that they are they're literally cherry-picking out of these reports about sentencing recommendations, um, that's never been put together.
This is all speculation on everybody's part.
But if you look at the law and campaign finance rules and the context, they do not mention ever non-disclosure agreements or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature as campaign contributions.
Now, understand what I'm saying here.
The actual rules in the law set state, the context, they don't include issues involving NDAs, other contracts, payments, arrangements, uh things that are of a private nature, et cetera, as campaign contributions.
In other words, in the nor in the normal everyday not running for president life in August of 2015, would Donald Trump would have been so far, is it normal human behavior for people that these things happen in day-to-day life, either for personal reasons, fam familial reasons, or business reasons, or these decisions made every day?
The answer is Yes.
And those private payments can be made in any manner, any amount.
Now, you know, Levin wrote this up the other night, and I thought he had it down perfectly, and there's no reporting requirement.
So the fact that they were included in these charges in the in the Cone case, um, we know that there are people that are just pulling out of this only the Michael Cohn's comments that they agree with and ignoring past comments which contradict it.
And as for impeachment, well, non-disclosure agreements, those are private matters occurring before the president was in even a candidate completely unrelated to the office.
That cannot legally legitimately trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause.
As a matter of fact, they could not be more irrelevant in terms of ever having an opportunity of reaching that threshold.
Now, the history of high crimes, misdemeanors, that language makes it crystal clear that the office and the president's duties are not affected in any conceivable way by these earlier private contracts.
And it doesn't matter how loud or shrill they get, it's a simple matter of law at this point.
Anyway, Joe Concha's back are you there?
I kind of look at it more from the public perception, right?
In other words, if I'm sitting at home and I'm watching all this unfold and I watch Democrats uh pursue impeachment, and I see the media as we mentioned before, this is something that they want, half because of animals towards the president, half because it's great for business.
And I'm sitting at home and I'm thinking, boy, is this really a reason, even if I believe all this to remove a president from office, and I get impeachment doesn't remove you, you still need two-thirds of the Senate to vote on that, but is this reasons for impeaching?
And then I go back to 1998, and I was kind of young at the time, but I followed this stuff pretty closely.
And with Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, when he perjured himself under oath, Republicans overplayed their hands by pursuing impeachment, and they did impeach him.
Obviously, he wasn't removed.
And I look at this one poll number, Sean, and it sticks with me every time I talk about this.
Post-impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating was 73%, because people said, No, this is not why we sent you to Washington, but to pursue this sort of thing.
We want you to help solve problems and advance our lives and do things that we can feel and impact us and make this country better.
And I'm telling you, Democrats taking back the house here, 40 seats in the House, and Nancy Pelosi becomes House Speaker, and if this is going to be the focus, it will boom-erang on them.
I can guarantee you, because I've seen this movie before, Sean.
I've seen the same movie, and I've been a part of it.
I had a great conversation with Lindsay Graham about this, and we were both saying it's like they never learned a thing from that error.
Um and here's the more interesting thing, and I'm I'm making the case that what we're beginning to see is a shrillness of the radical left and all of their real, real deep-seated everything that they tried to hide from the American people during the election is now coming out.
The radicalism.
And this is going to not, this is not gonna wear well with the American people.
The fact that they hid who they are, what their real agenda is, and their myopic focus on destroying a president and not solving problems.
They are going to so overreach, and it's going to happen quickly.
The president, with all of this noise that we have heard now for a number of weeks here about this particular issue, his approval ratings at 50%.
His approval rating is at the exact same position that a Barack Obama's war was at that time in his presidency.
Um, and he's had many successes.
And I don't think the guy's had a day's rest or a day's peace without this kind of of building anticipation to destroy him.
They cannot accept the results of this 2016 election.
By the time February gets here, the American people are going to see it will be fully exposed to them and on display on almost an hourly basis how insane the leaders in the House of Representatives are.
And it's not going to wear well with the American people.
It's gonna it's gonna happen quickly.
They have no idea what's about to happen.
So what does that tell you about our media now?
And I said this, I remember I had a conversation with Brett Baer the the night after the two thousand uh two thousand sixteen election, and he said, What what what do we miss?
What what do you think went wrong here?
And I said, Well, I I think what we learned was that the impact of the media of pundits, of people living in Ivory Towers at the studios of New York and Washington, opining about what they think The country is thinking and feeling and what's important to them.
They didn't get it.
They didn't go to the middle of the country to actually talk to people in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan.
And then I remember the hill.
We we did this um this whole compilation of major endorsements by newspapers of each candidate.
And we found that 57 endorsements went to Hillary Clinton and just two to Donald Trump.
You know what that got her?
That got her a concession speech.
In other words, people said, We don't care what you think and tell us how to vote.
We're gonna go our own way.
We're gonna do our own homework and decide on which candidate we're gonna go with.
So, yeah, all this negative coverage, and every morning you see on like the morning shows you see on CNN at night, and they're hammering him, they're hammering him.
You go to media and you see, yeah, this person slammed Trump and this person ripped Trump.
It's having no impact because people have turned it off because they're either numb to it or they don't believe the messenger, Sean.
Gotta take a quick break.
More with uh Joe Concha of the Hill.
We'll get to your uh calls coming up uh as we uh continue throughout this uh Friday edition, 800 nine four one Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program.
All right, as we continue, Joe Concha, media reporter for the uh Hill.
Um, you know, I'm looking at even just the day's news, and I got, you know, an MSNBC guest.
Trump, his goose is cooked.
He should cop a plea and resign.
Enjoy Behar.
I love this one.
Maybe Aaron Hatch needs to go to jail for supporting Trump.
Um uh Samantha B. likening Fox viewers to Nazis.
Uh most white people are racist, she hints.
And I just I I watch it, I pay attention to it, and I've gotta laugh because they they're they don't know they're in the middle of a feeding frenzy overreach, and they've missed the whole they've missed exactly what they've fallen into the trap that Donald Trump basically couldn't have set a bigger, better trap for them.
You gotta laugh.
I gotta yawn, right?
I see Samantha D saying, Oh, all of Fox's viewers are Nazis, and the president is a Nazi.
You know what?
Boy, that word's really lost its impact now, hasn't it?
And by the way, you it never compare anything to Nazism or or to Hitler or the Holocaust.
Go back.
I I would bet that 90% of millennials don't understand what the Holocaust was, which was it wasn't that you were Jewish and you were marched into a concentration camp and immediately killed.
Oh no, they actually worked you almost to death.
And when you were no longer productive in terms of building something or or or just i in terms of raw labor, then you were killed after you were separated from your family.
So please, you gotta stop with these comparisons because it's insulting to every person that knows somebody that went through that or has family members that they lost there.
And and that's the whole thing.
Uh the the overreach.
I mean, we might as well call that the theme of 2019.
I I'm interested to hear why you think it's gonna be uh entertaining.
I guess because of the the whole meltdown.
It's gonna be entertaining because then they cannot control themselves.
They they cannot control themselves.
It is they will expose themselves to be people that are off the rails with no intention of serving the American people.
And that is bad politics in the end, and it's not gonna serve them well.
And the president's popularity is gonna rise just like it did with Bill Clinton.
And every day you'll see it.
And they'll get more shrill and more angry, and we'll see more of it.
All right, I gotta run.
Joe Conscha.
Merry Christmas, sir.
God bless you.
You're a great American.
All right, 800, 941 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
All right, a little uh Charlie Daniels, big and rich, Zach Brown Friday concert series coming up, and your calls.
Well, don't all look sad at once.
You know, it was Christmas bonus time.
I'm not sure what you're doing.
You know, what we should talk about, we should talk about something.
We should talk about something.
What do you want to talk about now?
We should talk about the fact that you have been, you know, working under duress for the last month.
Uh so you know, people should know how hard you worked and all the stuff you've done, and you know how much you've uh accomplished.
Why are you being nice?
Uh I'm not being nice.
This is factual.
You'll know what I'm being nice.
It'll sound weird.
What is the duress I've been under?
Because you've been sick and coughing and hacking all over all of us.
But you still come in because you're a workhorse, and I think that American.
This has been the worst longest most frustrating experience with whatever it is that's going on inside of my body with a cold and sinuses and you won't take a day off.
You don't listen to anybody.
You don't take what you're supposed to take.
Well, I I tried to take the medicine, but it it it annoys me, and then I can't sleep.
Well, there you go.
You know, I gotta pick my poison.
I'm sure the medicine works, but you know, when you st I stayed up the entire night before the Milani interview, that was like 48 hours and no no sleep, and I'm like, still did a great job.
Yeah, I could have done better if I was more awake.
Well, if only you had slept and taken a day off, like some people told you.
Well, I used to go skiing until my son broke his leg, but um I like to tell you what I did.
I bought myself a Christmas gift.
You want to know what it is?
What is it?
All right, because you know what do I tell you when you want to buy me something?
What do I always say?
Don't buy me anything.
Don't buy me anything.
I don't want anything.
Is it you know that I don't want anything?
Um I have you know, my my little group of shirts that Fox pays for.
I don't even buy my own shirts.
I don't buy my own ties, I don't buy my own jackets.
I buy jeans and I have how many how long have I been wearing this one pair of shoes?
Over two years.
They're called Todd's.
Wear the same pair of shoes every day, right?
These are the ones with the hole in it.
No, I I replaced those two years ago with these.
But they they stand up and they're comfortable.
So the reality is um I don't wear jewelry, I don't wear watches.
There's my own personal preference because I never wanted to get caught in the trappings of stuff.
Now, I like to give those things to people, and I like people's reaction when you give them something that they would never get for themselves.
But like for you guys, I would love to buy you all Christmas presents, but you know what?
The best Christmas present I can give you is money, and that you all deserve it.
Don't you think that's a better present than me going to the store and picking out a scarf or a hat for you?
I mean, diamonds are a girl's best friend, but do what you feel.
Oh, you want me to buy you diamonds?
Is that what you want instead of your Christmas?
I would never say that.
I you don't seem like the diamond person.
You really don't because you always brag that you get your clothes like for 12 bucks on I do.
Where do you buy them?
I don't even know.
I buy my clothes on Amazon and Walmart, and I buy my earrings at Target.
There you go.
I mean, so just all right.
Well, take your bonus money and go buy some.
Oh, I'm gonna go crazy.
Oh, wow.
Target better watch out.
I know what it's good.
Listen, I went shopping with you once at Target.
You don't remember.
I what do you mean I don't remember?
Of course I remember.
It was ridiculous.
We were on the road.
Where were we?
I forgot.
We were in West Palm.
All right, West Palm, and you wanted to get something for Liam.
Correct.
All right, so you're so we go into the store.
Who else was with us?
It was uh Gomez and James.
My buddy Gomez, my brother-in-law, sweet baby James, and we go in there, and you're like looking at every item.
Choo-choo train, he likes choo-choo trains.
He does, he loves Tommy's.
Okay.
So finally, um, and you're looking at the price, and you're looking at I finally I can't take it anymore.
I can't handle it.
So I okay.
First of all, this is such crap because you didn't even let me begin.
We literally went down the aisle.
I did let you know.
And the three of you said, step aside, we know what little boys like, and it was like free-for-all.
You all were reliving your three-year-olds.
I filled up the basket and I said, Let's go.
And I was like, Yeah, and you know who had to lug that all the way home and on the train alone without you three strong men?
Me.
Oh, excuse.
I'm so sorry that you had to bring the toys that we bought for your son home.
Was he happy?
I had to buy it a seat on Amtrak.
Well, you and I got a family video of the three of you opening it up and seemingly happy.
It's very fun.
All right.
So anyway, that's my extent shopping.
And you're like turning it over.
Well, should I get this choo-choo or that shoo-choo?
This choo-choo's $3.99.
This one's.
So what it really comes down to is you're impatient and you didn't want to wait for me.
So you bought everything.
No, I'm like, just buy the stupid trains and let's get out of here.
Um, anyway, I'm not a good shopper.
That's why I just I don't want to go shopping.
I stay away from the show.
What did you buy for yourself, though?
Nothing.
Why would I buy something?
You just said that you bought something for yourself for Christmas.
That's how we got on this title.
Oh, I forgot.
So I had over the years, I I always loved reading Taylor Caldwell novels.
Loved them.
So I got a hold of one recently that I had read Bright Flows the River.
And I liked it.
I finally found time to do it.
It means, you know, putting aside like an hour at night that you actually got to focus on something else.
And I bought I went on Amazon and got a hardcover edition of her entire collection.
And there's lots of them.
So that's what I bought myself for Christmas.
Now, see, if you if you were a true Christian, you would have said to me, listen, I know everybody always asks you what to get me.
This is what you can tell people to get me in a per each person could have bought one book in that collection.
Okay, then I wouldn't have had the whole collection delivered at once, like it is in my life.
Well, then again, we're back to your impatience.
Okay.
It's not about being a listen.
I don't give I don't give you a bonus, so then you can take some of the bonus Money and and wonder what to get the boss.
I don't want anything.
I already got you something.
Oh what?
It's much better than a book.
Not that there's anything wrong with books.
Was it was it expensive?
It was ridiculous.
You're wasting your money.
I'm gonna return it.
Okay.
Well, you can't.
Yes, I can.
I can do whatever I want.
Ethan, do you know what it is?
I have no idea what she's doing.
No one knows what it is.
I know what I got you.
What did you get me?
A bunch of stuff.
All right.
If I have to carry this junk home tonight, I'm not gonna do it.
Okay, first of all, just apologize.
Do not call gifts you have not even opened yet.
Junk.
Okay, my family hates on Christmas Day because they hand me like shirts and I like, oh, that's really nice.
And then I hand it to Tim when everyone's not looking, or I handed the sweet baby James when nobody's looking.
I'm like, I know everybody it's frustrating because I don't really want anything.
I I never wanted to get caught up in the in the trap of stuff in life.
Does that make sense?
And I have you know, I I wear I drive the same car I've been driving for 15 years.
Your clothes speak loudly if not wanting to get caught up in those sorts of things.
Yeah, but but everybody's complained about my clothing, so Fox has been buying me new shirts every day.
Let's do a poll of our callers and ask them what they think about your non-materialistic ways.
All right, let's do it.
Chad, anyway, uh, is what's more important in life?
Is it giving or receiving?
I prefer to give gifts than receive them.
Giving, absolutely.
Absolutely.
And you get more joy out of the giving, right?
Uh, when you see uh little boy's eyes light up on a Christmas gift, it it means the world, especially in your parents, too.
It's the reason for the season.
Exactly.
Like, you know, for example, um I got Linda a gift one year, she would never would have bought for herself, right, Linda?
That is very true.
And it's something you use pretty regularly.
Every day.
Every day.
All right.
It's a bicycle.
It's hilarious.
Uh all right, Mike in Minnesota.
What do you think, Mike?
Well, I called in to talk about uh this uh border wall funding that uh Pelosi and Truman all right.
Mike, Mike, Mike, that's not what we're talking about right now.
We have a simple question.
I want to talk about whether or not you think it's giving or receiving.
The call screener asked me to get right to my point.
No, but we just switched it up a little bit.
And she very lightly asked me what I wanted to talk about, and I've heard you guys over the years.
You know, berate your callers if they don't have their topic.
So I didn't want I didn't want to be in that.
This is taking a very non-holiday turn, I gotta say.
Oh my god.
Mike, we won't we want to put you in a better, happier place here.
We're gonna send you something for Christmas because what are you guys doing to the callers?
Why would you berate the callers?
That you there are customers.
You gotta be nice.
I've never berated Mike that I know of.
All right.
Hey, all right, Mike, talk about anything else.
I'm talking about a I am.
Oh man.
Hey, that's not what you called in the talk.
Mary Christmas.
Wow.
I've also heard Mark Levin say that too, so I didn't want to be in that club.
That's funny.
Um, you you get the caller of the day award.
You'd stump the host.
I mean, that's hard to do.
Um, okay.
Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna try again here.
Okay, go ahead.
Well, anyways, um one of the options that uh uh that President Trump might have to choose would be to uh use the military and build that wall, declare a national security issue.
So I was sitting there and I'm thinking, well, you know, if you take into account all of the business activity Donald Trump has done throughout his life, 40 plus years, and all of the tax money he's been responsible for contributing to government.
Well, that number adds up way more than five billion dollars.
And and he's he's in a unique position to point that out to Schumer and Pelosi, but I uh I know he wouldn't, so I'm I'm kind of hoping you do.
Well, with the Pentagon the Pentagon said yesterday that they would support the president for national security reasons and appropriate the funds to build a wall.
I think it's gonna end up going that way.
That's my guess.
And uh because there is look, we've got drugs, human trafficking, terrorists, some you know, and some very bad people crossing that border.
We've got to protect the American people.
Well, that is what the Department of Defense is about, defending the American people.
Um, I don't think there'll be any legitimate court challenge.
Uh They have the right to appropriate that money any way they want.
We got a significant increase in our defense budget because the president fought hard for it.
And it's important that we we have the biggest, baddest, toughest military in a world full of evil.
So I I think that's probably the way it's going to end up going eventually.
I don't know when though.
Yeah, I I I think so too.
But my point is is that the money, the tax money that that would be used to build the wall, the five billion dollars, well, President Trump himself is responsible for paying that in to government in the first place.
So uh technically, it's his money.
That's the money.
I mean for the government.
It's at the end of the day, it's gotta get done.
And I'm in the president's right by saying we've got to take a stand here.
And this is worth the fight.
And Republicans need to understand this is why they were elected.
And if they don't fight for any, if you're not gonna fight over fear of a shutdown with Obama's president and then Trump as president, then that means you're unwilling to take the strong stand that's needed to be a leader, and you probably don't belong there.
You know, we do have people that would lead and not bat an eyelash over such a thing.
All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
I'm done.
I'm out unless something major, major, major happens.
Uh, I want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas, a happy, happy new year.
Buckle up, get ready.
It's gonna be a rocky, rocky, fun road exposing the insanity that I guarantee you is coming.
I promise we'll make it fun.
Have a great happy new year.
Have a wonderful Christmas.
God bless you all and your families, and I'll see you on January 2nd.
Thank you.
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.
