All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2019 - Sean Hannity Show
01:39:39
Witch Hunt Continues

Dr. Jerome Corsi, Harvard PhD and conservative author, is at the center of the Mueller probe, and comments today on the arrest this morning of Roger Stone at the behest of the special counsel. The witch hunt continues.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.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
I'm Ben Ferguson and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So Dell a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
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.
When 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.
Hey, it's that time of year for those of you, God forbid, you gotta keep your new year's resolution.
What if you're a timeshare owner and you want to get out of your timeshare?
Maybe that's at the top of your list, or maybe you made a bad investment over the years.
It doesn't matter, let not your heart be troubled, because the new year is also a reminder that you can get serious about getting rid of this timeshare and doing it right and doing it legally, and Lone Star Transfer is absolutely an amazing group of people.
From beginning to end, I highly recommend if you have any type of timeshare, I want you to contact Lone Star and tell them I told you to call.
They'll give you a free no-obligation consultation, and they'll help get you out of your timeshare.
They'll do it the right way, the legal way.
And it will take very little effort on your part just by calling Pound 250 on your mobile phone and saying the keyword timeshare.
That's pound 250 on your cell phone, keyword timeshare.
You can check them out online at LoneStarTransfer.com.
You have the option to receive a one-time auto-dialed text message from iHeartMedia.
I am very proud to announce today that we have reached a deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government.
As everyone knows, I have a very powerful alternative, but I didn't want to use it at this time.
Hopefully it will be unnecessary.
I want to thank all of the incredible federal workers and their amazing families who have shown such extraordinary devotion in the face of this recent hardship.
You are fantastic people.
You are incredible patriots.
Many of you have suffered far greater than anyone but your families would know or understand.
And not only did you not complain, but in many cases, you encourage me to keep going because you care so much about our country and about its border security.
Again, I thank you.
All Americans, I thank you.
You are very, very special people.
I am so proud that you are citizens of our country.
When I say make America great again, it could never be done without you.
Great people.
In a short while, I will sign a bill to open our government for three weeks until February 15th.
I will make sure that all employees receive their back pay very quickly or as soon as possible.
It'll happen fast.
I am asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to put this proposal on the floor immediately.
After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside.
I think and put the security of the American people first.
I do believe they're Going to do that.
They have said they are for complete border security.
And they have finally and fully acknowledged that having barriers, fencing, or walls, or whatever you want to call it, will be an important part of the solution.
So let me be very clear.
We really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steal barrier.
If we don't get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on February 15th again, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and the Constitution of the United States to address this emergency.
We will have great security.
All right, glad you're with us.
Happy Friday.
Obviously, a busy breaking news day.
That was the president uh talking about a three-week opening of the federal government.
Uh there's a backstory not being told.
I'll give it to you in just a second.
The pre-dawn armed raid, what 29 men at Roger Stone's house and uh 17 vehicles when he said he would have come in voluntarily, just take him two seconds.
Uh also, if you're in the media or Hollywood, uh, you better watch out because the Covington families have now hired an attorney that I knew well when I was in Atlanta.
This is not somebody to mess with.
Uh, they hired a guy by the name of Lynn Wood.
He was Richard Jewell's attorney, and he means business.
And let me tell you what's going to happen.
All those people that rushed to judgment didn't do any due diligence at all, no real reporting.
Those that smeared, slandered, libeled, and besmirched those kids.
Uh, they better get ready to open up their checkbooks because Lynn Wood is coming, and he's an awesome attorney.
I'm telling you right now.
Let me start with the president here.
Let me give you the backstory, because this has been in the works now for about two weeks, so that you understand.
I know some of you say, well, he didn't get any money for the wall.
He didn't get any money for the wall.
Um, no, he didn't, but he's going to.
Here's what has been going on behind the scenes.
Both sides, obviously very nervous.
LaGuardia Airport, for example, in New York today, you know, it's messing up flight scheduled.
TSA guys are talking about uh blue flu and and going on strike because of the government shutdown and not getting paid.
Uh furloughed workers.
Remember, if Nancy Pelosi went on her trip, then she would have been gone.
They would have lost their second paycheck.
They're going to get rightly so, as I've said from the beginning, their money back paid in full.
Um, throughout the speech, the the president said, you know, okay, we're gonna end the shutdown, reopen the government, not use the powerful alternative, constitutional alternative that I have at this time.
Then he went on to explain that what is really happened behind the scenes for about two weeks now.
And I know because I know people that have been in these meetings and in these discussions, there have been back channel Democratic House members, back channel Democratic senators that have been negotiating with leaders in the House and the Senate and begging to get an opportunity to fix the problem because they want what the president has offered,
which was, you know, some deal on DACA T TPS, some deal for dreamers, that the things and some many of them also saying not publicly that they want the border wall and the security, and they want they believe the president has a right to get that to keep the border secure, and but they have not they've been instructed and and their arms twisted not to talk to anybody uh publicly because they wouldn't do it without the government opening.
Anyway, long story short, the president has been approached by a number of these Republicans and Democrats and said, give us three weeks.
Let us see if we can do our job.
If we can't do our job, you can go right back to the government shutdown, or as the president said, he will use the powers afforded him under the Constitution.
Um I think the president also kind of has a heart.
He's he knows that this is tough on a lot of the furlough workers.
They'll get their back pay quickly, as they always do, which is the right thing to do, in my opinion.
Uh so that basically now Congress has three weeks because what they have done is stymied.
They have vacationed, they have gone on junkets, lobbyists paid, luxurious resorts, taxpayer dime, other junkets planned, but then stopped.
And for all intent and purposes, I've never thought that this was ever going to be resolved through the Congress.
I've never thought it was going to be resolved that way.
Now, for the president to exhaust every option and to show every degree of reasonableness, um, the left-wing media will say it's a win, but it's not going to be a win when he goes forward with his national emergency to fund the wall and uses the military and other funding to build the wall.
Then the next thing you're going to say, well, there's going to be a court challenge.
Of course there's going to be a court challenge, but they're going to go judge shopping.
Of course they're going to go judge shopping.
That means they're going to be in California, Hawaii, or Oregon or Washington, somewhere where they know they're more likely to get a liberal judicial activist on the court, and then it will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit with an 80% overturn rate, and eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where I believe constitutionally, this is where the president is on solid ground.
Look, this argument has been about, if you ask yourself, what do they want?
What has Nancy Pelosi been asking for?
Nothing.
What is Nancy Pelosi fighting for?
Nothing.
They just want, they are just feeding this psych bordering on psychosis, pathological hatred of the president.
They're not fighting as the president is.
As the president mentioned in great detail today about the bipartisan committee, by the way, Lindsey Graham was a big part of this in a good way.
I can tell you that.
And all these Democratic senators reaching out, by the way, behind Schumer's back, uh, they have been meeting.
And Mitch McConnell also encouraging this deal, and they think they can get it done in the Senate.
The House is that a different story.
The thinking is that if they can get, you know, 65, 70 votes for a bipartisan deal, pretty much what the president offered last Saturday in the Senate, get that done and completed within this three-week period of time, that the pressure will be enormous on House Democrats for them to show that they're willing to work for the American people.
Because everything that has been at stake is at stake.
They got a Homeland Security package that Democrats say that they wanted.
That'll be included in the package.
They say they care about DACA.
They say they care about dreamers.
That is going to be included in the package.
One thing that is an absolute no is any path to citizenship or amnesty, so I was told by every Republican in the lead up to this announcement today.
If it turns out there is, conservatives won't support it.
So it won't work either.
The president detailed the need for security.
How Democrats in the past have asked for all these things.
They've act they've acted in the past to spend a whole lot of money on barriers and walls at the southern border.
They have sounded more like Donald Trump in years past than they sound like themselves today.
And the walls are needed.
There's no American, and every poll bears it out that we have 90% of our heroin crossing that southern border.
90% of fentanyl now crossing that southern border.
We have 300 deaths a day in this country because of the opioid crisis in the country.
The walls are designed to prevent drug dealers, human traffickers, and other criminals, those that have even committed murder, and those that have committed sexual assaults, some 10,000 that the Department of Homeland Security put out those numbers.
4,000 homicides.
How many more angel moms and dads do there need to be before you say it is a real crisis, not a manufactured crisis?
How many more kids have to die from an opioid epidemic before you say it's a real crisis, not a manufactured crisis?
I mean, you've got methamphetamine, fentanyl, heroin, all trafficked across that border.
You have terrorists, you have MS 13, human traffickers, cartels that don't come through the ports.
They easily walk across the border.
we don't have enough boots on the ground.
We never possibly can to have enough boots or hire enough people to cover every inch of the water, uh, wall uh border, rather.
60,000 apprehensions last month on the southern border.
You also have the health crisis, a backlog and the immigration courts, 800,000 now because we have to update the laws.
We're gonna get rid of catch and release and some of these other ridiculous things that have been implemented since the Democrats took control.
So the way I think this plays out is one of two ways.
It's gonna probably first start in the Senate.
Those Democrats will have to then come out of the shadows and say we want the things that we said over the years we wanted.
The deal that the president offered on Saturday, he'll get his money, they'll vote on a bill, it'll vote up or down, you get to 60 or you don't get to 60.
And if they can't get their job done in three weeks, the president couldn't be any more clear.
Then he will do what he's had to do pretty much throughout his presidency, and that's do it alone.
And go on his own.
And there's no doubt in my mind, I have none, that he will declare a national emergency.
I actually think there has to be a way to expedite the legal process because of the designation and get this done and brought to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.
Now, politically, I think it's a good thing.
President has already shown a willingness to give Democrats what they want and make a deal to keep Americans safe.
Nancy Pelosi standing for nothing but hating the president.
Same with Chuck Schumer.
This president, this is about life and death.
This is about safety and security.
This is about stopping drugs, human trafficking.
This is about keeping bad elements out of our country and keeping Americans secure.
I think he's got the high ground.
And now I think taking this extra step that they asked for, and that's the big behind the scenes part that nobody seems to have picked up in the media that Democrats and Republicans have been pleading for.
He said, We'll give you the three weeks, see if you guys can do your job.
Doesn't upset me in any way, shape, matter, or form.
And I think it's actually a good play on the president's part to come off as a leader and reasonable.
All right, 800, 941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program.
Now we also have the pre-dawn raid of the home of Roger Stone.
Jerome Corsi will join us exclusively.
Also get some, well, compare and contrast all those people who have done far worse than Stone that have gotten off scot-free and much more as we continue the Sean Hannity show.
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, as we continue big breaking news day, uh Jerome Corsey's going to join us, identified as person number one in the Roger Stone indictment from earlier today.
Uh interesting pre-dawn guns drawn, 29 people raid.
And you know what we're gonna do tonight on TV?
We're gonna lay out all the people that have done far worse uh than what they're even alleging.
And nothing happens.
We don't get this fixed with John Uber, the attorney general Michael Horowitz, the new attorney general b Bill Barr.
Uh, we're gonna be in big trouble.
Anyway, 2018 in the books, you want to look good for 2019.
Our friends at Shamani with their proprietary ingredients, natural peptides, plant stem cell therapy.
They're helping people every day.
Now you can't get this in any store.
And at Genucel, if you miss their big Christmas sale, today's your lucky day because their brand new jawline treatment is yours for free just by ordering genusel that gets rid of bags and puffiness under your eyes.
They'll also throw in three free gifts, but only for today.
All right, you get immediate effects genuinely.
That's works in less than twelve hours.
You'll get Genus LXV, the most advanced collagen builder and anti-wrinkle cream, and they'll even throw in Gen Yucel's eyelid treatment.
Three free gifts.
You gotta hurry, genusell.com or 800 skin509.
You call the next 20 minutes, you get express shipping free.
800 skin509 or genusel.com to look your best from our friends from Shamoni.
And don't forget, everybody, that when you buy something from Shamini, it goes towards women in need for women aware because a portion of the proceeds from your purchases, Shamini gives that right to women aware.
So just keep that in mind.
So as long as and again, it was f Lindsey Graham that first ran this by me a couple a couple of weeks ago.
I don't even remember at this particular point in time.
He said, All these Democrats are talking to me behind the scenes, and they're saying, We want the wall, but you know, Schumer's not gonna let us.
Then I found the same thing from some of the people that I know in the freedom caucus, and they call me and they say, There's a group we're building it every day of Democrats that are fed up with Nancy Pelosi's obstructionism, and they support the wall too.
Um, but if they say it out loud, it's gonna cause them a lot of headaches.
So you have these two groups behind the scenes privately asking the president.
You know, give us three weeks.
If we can't get it done, at least furloughed workers get paid in the interim.
Uh nothing is gonna happen anyway, and you still have what is your executive emergency order.
But we think we can get this done.
Now, do I think they can get it done?
Um I I just don't trust anything in Washington.
But I do believe if put when push comes to shove, they can't get it done.
One or two things is gonna happen on February fifteenth.
That either the president will declare then a national emergency or the government's gonna be shut down again.
I would think it's going to be the latter.
And if that means fighting in the courts to get the money to build the wall to stop drugs and crime and human trafficking, I think the president will do it.
The holidays may be over, but 2019 brings a whole lot of new goals to accomplish.
And the best online cigar store in the world is here to help you make every day the celebration that you deserve.
Just go to famous smoke.com slash Hannity to pick out all your favorite cigars at the lowest prices.
And Famous has an exciting new offer that we created exclusively for all you Hannity listeners.
That web address is famous smoke.com slash Hannity.
And when you click the activate button, we'll instantly knock 20% off your entire order when you spend just ninety-nine dollars or more.
That includes cigars, cutters, lighters, humidors, and more.
Whether you want cigars by the box, samplers, five packs or singles, famous will deliver them to your door fresh and securely packed and ready for your smoking enjoyment.
So remember to click the activate button, and you'll get a full 20% off your order, and you'll only find it at famous smoke.com slash Hannity.
That's famous smoke.com slash Hannity.
All right, 25.
Now till the uh top of the hour, 800 941 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Uh, we're gonna get to the pre-dawn raid of uh an arrest of Roger Stone and indictment, another more processed crime stuff.
Uh, you know, let me deal with this directly because I I'm like all of you, I do read social media.
I just don't go out and have my Twitter wars anymore because it became a fifth job, and I just don't have time.
Uh, and frankly, it's just not worth it.
But so let me deal with a call or two here about people's interpretation of the president opening up for three weeks.
The government, after being the request coming from Congress saying, No, we can get it done if you give us three weeks, we want to do our job.
And then the president's saying, Well, if you don't, then I have the power to do it on my own.
Um, let's start.
Who's the most disappointed?
Nick Frank Jack, who do you think Kylie is the most disappointed?
Uh, on that you have on the line.
You gotta actually talk to me.
I can't read lips.
What?
Nick.
Kylie thinks Nick is the best one to go, Sean.
All right.
Nick and Marietta is disappointed in the president.
Nick, hey, how are you?
I live right next to you for years in uh Roswell.
What's going on?
Hey, buddy.
Yeah, I'm a contractor just like yourself.
I work all this East Cobb and West Cobb areas.
But here, straight to the point, like she asked.
It's bad as health care vote and McLean stabbing us, that's how bad I feel today.
But here's what I'm scared about even more, or more nervousness is that we got Jared going in for quote comprehensive immigration reform talks, where we'll probably get a bill slapped to us, which is going to have every damn want and desire, and we're gonna have everything like chain migration, lottery, uh asylum, wall, and that's all gonna happen after.
And I hope somebody gets it to his head that we have to get all our things first.
Then the items that they want come down the road only after ours are fulfilled.
If that happens, I'll be thrilled and I'll uh be jumping up and down, I'll be right now to change.
Listen, I I'm not gonna d disagree in one sense.
You're right, you are so right on.
We always get the spending increase, uh, the tax increase, you never get the spending cuts.
Every past amnesty, every past immigration deal, you always get the amnesty, you never get the wall.
Let's that that is the history of Congress.
They stab us in the back constantly.
So you have every right to be suspicious.
And and I share your natural inclination.
Um what I think is different here, and I'm hopeful.
Um, I can't guarantee it.
I mean, it's not my decision, but knowing Trump as well as I know him and knowing what went on behind the scenes.
What behind take this for what it's worth.
It's just conversations.
I do my job.
I'm digging for information every day, and to be to be as well informed as I can to do the best job I can do for you.
And I want you to know something.
This has been in the works now.
There are Democrats in the House, Democrats in the Senate that have been asking people that I know.
I've been privy to these conversations, saying that if they can get three weeks, they can get the job done, and that includes the money up front for the border wall for the president.
Um now, as it relates to other issues, we're never ever with a Congress as it is currently configured and the need for 60 votes to reach cloture, you're never gonna get a deal where it's just everything you want.
That's not gonna happen.
So you want to get the best deal possible.
The best outcome is I think what the president had offered on Saturday temporary extension, DACA, dreamers, etc.
Protections for them, no path to citizenship, no amnesty.
Um tell me why, though, you think you well do you doubt that the president would go it alone if they can't get the job done?
Do you doubt that?
Hello?
Did I lose him?
I guess we lost him.
All right, Frank and Fort Myers, do you doubt in three weeks that the president would go it alone and declare a national emergency?
I don't think so.
I disagree with what he did today because Nancy looks like a hero.
You know, he he gave a little, you know, gave in.
But here's the problem.
What makes anybody think that Nancy's gonna negotiate in the next three weeks, and then if he shuts down again, then she's just gonna say no, and if he does it alone and goes on the executive order, they're gonna use the courts, and he's still gonna lose.
Well, you sp you're assuming that the courts uh remember, he has a lot of power himself as the president of the United States.
One of his remember, he he he takes an oath uh on our constitution to protect the Constitution.
The Constitution is our rule of law, and he is constitutionally the commander in chief.
And he is responsible for the safety and security of the American people.
So if he deems in the military deems and homeland security deems and the facts deem, the facts are incontrovertible that the southern border is resulting in homicides and assaults and again the two percent, not the 98%, and and drugs flowing into our country that are causing Americans to die.
Tell me why that's not a compelling case, even if you have to work your way up to the Supreme Court that he does win.
I think he wins.
Well, I mean, he'll win at the Supreme, but right on, you know, they'll have somebody in Hawaii ready to go.
Right.
You're gonna go to Hawaii, California to the Ninth Circuit, losing the losing the Ninth Circuit and get to the Supreme Court, but because of its designation as a national emergency, it's not going to take the years you think.
I would imagine it could be done as as expeditiously as four to six months maximum.
Well, if that's the case, you know, it's okay, but I'm just saying I don't think Nancy's.
Well, let's say that doesn't work either.
Let's say that he goes through that process.
Let's say it takes eight months, and the Supreme Court rules against us, which as commander in chief, I would have a hard time processing that decision.
I really would, with all the death and all the figures.
I don't think it's going to go against us because you know the presidents have done executive order.
It's just that now he doesn't look like the negotiator like his books or any like he thought.
No, I think just the opposite.
Because hang on a second.
He's the one that is driving the whole train.
He's the one that has decided this is going to be the debate.
He's the one that decided what the compromise is going to be.
He's the one that has uh given and part of negotiation, giving them the three weeks that they've asked for to do their job.
He's the one that then will make the decision alone on February 15th, and he will decide either to shut the government down or to go to the national emergency route.
Uh it seems like he's in total control to me, and he also seems reasonable.
Seems like he's trying to make a difference, get what he wants, and and make a deal with people that have been unwilling to even sit down.
Well, I mean, if he can try to save face this way, but I think a lot of people like I work with right now are just so down and out in the dumps because of this.
Wait for three weeks.
You know what?
Let's wait three weeks.
Don't get down on the dumps yet.
I mean, giving them a chance to do their job.
If in three weeks he keeps the government open and doesn't declare a state of emergency, I'll be down in the dumps.
So let's get I would say give him the three-week period, and uh he's giving Congress a chance to do it the right way.
They said they would do all this if the government was open.
Okay, here's your shot.
If not, we go back to status quo, or we we go this other route.
Yeah.
Tell me where you think do you really not think Trump in three weeks is gonna do one or the other?
Either go back to a shutdown or declare the national emergency.
He's gonna do one or the other.
I I'm hoping he gets it done before that.
But I just think if it goes on government again, he just against it.
Right, but you know what?
There is something to be said about being will being the one that's fighting for what you believe in, identifying this as what it is life and death, safety and security, about drugs and human trafficking, and fighting any way to get it done, also trying to bring under the reality.
If we had 60 Republican senators, we wouldn't have to worry.
If we had control of the house, we wouldn't have to worry.
Dealing with the real political realities, so that causes negotiation, which he's been doing, and now he's affording them the time they requested um and getting the furlough employees their back money.
To me, it's it shows reasonableness.
And if the decisive moment comes where he just says, okay, this is the way we're going, I just don't have any doubt in my mind he'll do it.
I really don't.
Um, does that make sense to you?
All right.
Uh let me move on to this other issue.
I'm I mentioned Lynn Wood.
Oof.
If you're a if you're a news organization, you're in deep trouble today.
All right, so we have the um pre-dawn.
I think they had 29 armed guys, FBI guys, who Roger Stone said were great guys, uh, as he was released on his own recognizance, I think 250,000 bond uh today.
You look over the indictment.
WikiLeaks has now come out and said they deny any tie to Roger Stone.
Later on, by the way, Jerome Corsey, who's identified as uh, I guess what, person number one in this indictment, is gonna join us and give his take on all of this.
But you got this, he's indicted on several charges as it relates to WikiLeaks or trying to get information from WikiLeaks.
Before you can even talk about this case, you need to understand the precedence.
Because this is really important.
There's this case called the Pentagon Papers.
And if you remember, after Debbie Wassum and Schultz got fired, WikiLeaks dumped all these emails that they had picked up.
By the way, the New York Times also published them, Washington Post, I believe also published them.
Everybody was wondering from that date forward, well, what does he got next?
What is he going to release next?
What is he going to release next?
So the idea that Roger Stone and Jerome Corsey are talking about as you read the indictment, uh seeing, hey, can you find out what he has next?
Well, that would fit right into the Pentagon Papers case because that goes into the whole story.
It was given the name, it was a top secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 67, and with more than 500,000 uh U.S. troops in Vietnam by 1968, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who worked on the study, came to oppose the war, decided that information contained in the Pentagon paper should be available to the American people.
He photocopied the report in March of 71, gave it to the New York Times, and then published a series of scathing articles based on the report's more damning secrets.
So, in other words, he stole this information.
Anyway, beginning in June of 1971, the New York Times published a series of front-page articles based on the information of the stolen material known as the Pentagon Papers.
After the third article, the U.S. Department of Justice got a temporary restraining order against further publication of the material, arguing that it was detrimental to U.S. national security.
Then the now infamous case or famous case, precedent-setting case, New York Times versus the U.S. and the Times and the Washington Post, they joined forces to fight for the right to publish the stolen information.
And the U.S. Supreme Court ended up ruling 6-3 that the government failed to prove harm to national security, and that the publication of papers, even those stolen, was justified under the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press.
And then in addition to that, the publication in the Times and the Washington Post, Boston Globe, other newspapers, by the way, all these papers also publish WikiLeaks.
It's had an enormous impact.
Now you go to the indictment of Roger Stone here, and what do you find that they're talking about Roger Stone and again a lot of process issues?
Oh, he really did have the email.
Oh, he hid the email.
Oh, he lied to the Senate commit the House Committee.
Um, he didn't tell the truth because he said he didn't have that email or he didn't have that text message.
I mean, that's basically what it all comes down to.
But when you get to the heart of it, the conversations that they're most focused on and the history that they lay out in this indictment is that Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, who we'll talk to later, they were trying to find out, well, what does he have next?
And they were speculating actually and saying, oh, I think the next part is gonna be about the Clinton Foundation.
Well, it turns out the next thing that came out was not about the Clinton Foundation.
Neither, and my interviews with both Stone and Corsi, neither one of them ever talked to Julian Assange.
And I've never understood if they wanted to find out, you know, where this information came from.
Why did they nobody's ever contacted that I know of WikiLeaks or Assange and said, where did you get it?
Can you prove it?
Was it Russia?
Was it Russia?
Was it a Russia, you know, Russia connected individual?
Was it Russia itself?
Was it the Chinese?
Was it North Korea?
Was it maybe disgruntled DNC workers who copied it?
Who knows?
But they would find the truth, I would assume, assuming he didn't destroy the records.
Um, so you got again back to the same old thing.
By the way, where's the indictment of Hillary Clinton?
She had subpoenaed emails.
She busted up her hard drive with bleach pit, destroyed devices.
What about all the other people here?
You know, there's nothing in this that talks about Russian collusion again.
You know, every single person in journalism wanted to know what was coming next with WikiLeaks.
Nobody knew.
That's why I interviewed him, I think, in what?
January of 2017, when I went to Russia, went to the Ecuadorian Embassy.
You know, when are we going to talk about Uma Aberdeen, Cheryl Mills or all these other people that lied?
The biggest liar of all was Hillary.
The biggest obstructor of all was Hillary.
You know, Hillary Clinton on every level never told anybody the truth.
And then she obstructed justice.
You know, oh, Roger Stone didn't turn over his emails and his text messages while Hillary Clinton deleted 33,000 of them.
We never knew what bleach pit was until Hillary Clinton did that.
And then busting up devices and destroying SIM cards.
We can't have unequal justice under the law or an unequal application of the laws or a dual justice system.
Anyway, Jerome Corsey, person one in the indictment will join us coming up later in the program.
We're going to play the president from earlier so you can hear the whole thing yourself.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show, glad you're with us.
I'm going to play the entirety of the president's address from earlier today, temporary, three-week repeave of the partial government shutdown, saying, Do your job or I go my own way.
Listen.
I am very proud to announce today that we have reached a deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government.
As everyone knows I have a very powerful alternative, but I didn't want to use it at this time.
Hopefully it will be unnecessary.
I want to thank all of the incredible federal workers and their amazing families who have shown such extraordinary devotion in the face of this recent hardship.
You are fantastic people.
You are incredible patriots.
Many of you have suffered far greater than anyone but your families would know or understand.
And not only did you not complain, but in many cases you encourage me to keep going because you care so much about our country and about its border security.
Again, I thank you.
All Americans, I thank you.
You are very, very special people.
I am so proud that you are citizens of our country.
When I say make America great again, it could never be done without you.
Great people.
In a short while, I will sign a bill to open our government for three weeks until February 15th.
I will make sure that all employees receive their back pay very quickly or as soon as possible.
It'll happen fast.
I am asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to put this proposal on the floor immediately.
After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside.
I think and put the security of the American people first.
I do believe they're going to do that.
They have said they are for complete border security, and they have finally and fully acknowledged that having barriers, fencing, or walls, or whatever you want to call it, will be an important part of the solution.
A bipartisan conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers and leaders will immediately begin reviewing the requests of our homeland security experts and experts they are, and also law enforcement professionals who have worked with us so closely.
We want to thank Border Patrol, ICE, and all law enforcement.
Been incredible.
Based on operational guidance from the experts in the field, they will put together a homeland security package for me to shortly sign into law.
Over the next 21 days, I expect that both Democrats and Republicans will operate in good faith.
This is an opportunity For all parties to work together for the benefit of our whole beautiful, wonderful nation.
If we make a fair deal, the American people will be proud of their government for proving that we can put country before party.
We can show all Americans and people all around the world that both political parties are united when it comes to protecting our country and protecting our people.
Many disagree, but I really feel that working with Democrats and Republicans, we can make a truly great and secure deal happen for everyone.
Walls should not be controversial.
Our country has built 654 miles of barrier over the last 15 years, and every career border patrol agent I have spoken with has told me that walls work.
They do work.
No matter where you go, they work.
Israel built a wall, 99.9% successful.
Won't be any different for us.
They keep criminals out.
They save good people from attempting a very dangerous journey from other countries.
Thousands of miles because they think they have a glimmer of hope of coming through with a wall.
They don't have that hope.
They keep drugs out and they dramatically increase efficiency by allowing us to patrol far larger areas with far fewer people.
It's just common sense.
Walls work.
That's why most of the Democrats in Congress have voted in the past for bills that include walls and physical barriers and very powerful fences.
The walls we are building are not medieval walls.
They are smart walls designed to meet the needs of frontline border agents and are operationally effective.
These barriers are made of steel, have see-through visibility, which is very important, and are equipped with sensors, monitors, and cutting edge technology, including state-of-the-art drones.
We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shiny sea.
We never did.
We never proposed that.
We never wanted that, because we have barriers at the border where natural structures are as good as anything that we can build.
They're already there.
They've been there for millions of years.
Our proposed structures will be in predetermined high-risk locations that have been specifically identified by the border patrol to stop illicit flows of people and drugs.
No border security plan can ever work without a physical barrier.
Just doesn't happen.
At the same time, we need to increase drug detection technology and manpower to modernize our ports of entry, which are obsolete.
The equipment's obsolete.
This is something we have all come to agree on and will allow for quicker and safer commerce.
These critical investments will improve and facilitate legal trade and travel through our lawful ports of entry.
Our plan also includes desperately needed humanitarian assistance for those being exploited and abused by coyotes, smugglers, and the dangerous journey north.
The requests we have put before Congress are vital to ending the humanitarian and security crisis on our southern border.
Absolutely vital.
This crisis threatens the safety of our country and thousands of American lives.
Criminal cartels, narco-terrorists, transnational gangs like MS-13 and human traffickers are brazenly violating U.S. laws and terrorizing innocent communities.
Human traffickers, the victims are women and children, maybe to a lesser extent, believe it or not, children.
Women are tied up, they're bound, duct tape put around their faces, around their mouths, in many cases they can't even breathe.
They're put in the backs of cars or vans or trucks.
They don't go through your port of entry.
They make a right turn going Very quickly, they go into the desert areas or whatever areas you can look at.
And as soon as there's no protection, they make a left or a right into the United States of America.
There's nobody to catch them, there's nobody to find them.
They can't come through the port because if they come through the port, people will see four women sitting in a van with tape around their face and around their mouth.
Can't have that.
And that problem, because of the internet is the biggest problem.
It's never been like this before that you can imagine.
It's at the worst level, human trafficking in the history of the world.
This is not a United States problem.
This is a world problem.
But they come through areas where they have no protection, where they have no steel barriers, where they have no walls.
And we can stop almost a hundred percent of that.
The profits reaped by these murderous organizations are used to fund their malign and destabilizing conduct throughout this hemisphere.
Last year alone, ICE officers removed 10,000 known or suspected gang members like MS-13 and members as bad as them.
Horrible people, tough, mean, sadistic.
In the last two years, ICE officers arrested a total of 266,000 criminal aliens inside of the United States, including those charged or convicted of nearly 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 homicides, or as you would call them, violent, vicious killings, can be stopped.
Vast quantities of lethal drugs, including meth, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine are smuggled across our southern border and into U.S. schools and communities.
Drugs kill much more than 70,000 Americans a year and cost our society in excess of 700 billion dollars.
The sheer volume of illegal immigration has overwhelmed federal authorities and stretched our immigration system beyond the breaking point.
Nearly 50 migrants a day are being referred for medical assistance.
They're very, very sick.
Making this a health crisis as well.
It's a very big health crisis.
People have no idea how big it is unless you're there.
Our backlog in the immigration courts is now far greater than the 800,000 cases that you've been hearing about over the last couple of years.
Think of that, though.
800,000 cases because our laws are obsolete, so obsolete.
They're the laughing stock all over the world.
Our immigration laws, all over the world, they've been there for a long time, are the laughing stock all over the world.
We do not have the necessary space or resources to detain house, vet, screen, and safely process this tremendous influx of people.
In short, we do not have control over who is entering our country, where they come from, who they are, why they are coming.
The result for many years is a colossal danger to public safety.
We're going to straighten it out.
It's not hard.
It's easy if given the resources.
Last month was the third straight month in a row with 60,000 apprehensions on our southern border.
Think of that.
We apprehended 60,000 people.
That's like a stadium full of people, a big stadium.
There are many criminals being apprehended, but vast numbers are coming because our economy is so strong.
We have the strongest economy now in the entire world.
You see what's happening.
We have nowhere left to house them, and no way to promptly remote them.
We can't get them out because our laws are so Obsolete, so antiquated, and so bad.
Without new resources from Congress, we will be forced to release these people into communities, something we don't want to do.
Called catch and release.
You catch them, even if they're criminals, you then release them.
And you can't release them from where they came.
So they go into our country and end up in places you would least suspect.
And we do as little releasing as possible, but they're coming by the hundreds of thousands.
I have had zero Democrat lawmakers volunteer to have them released into their districts or states.
And I think they know that.
And that's what we're going to be discussing over the next three weeks.
The painful reality is that the tremendous economic and financial burdens of illegal immigration fall on the shoulders of low-income Americans, including millions of wonderful, patriotic, law-abiding immigrants who enrich our nation.
As commander in chief, my highest priority is the defense of our great country.
We cannot surrender operational control over the nation's borders to foreign cartels, traffickers, and smugglers.
We want future Americans to come to our country legally and through a system based on merit.
We need people to come to our country.
We have great companies moving back into the United States.
And we have the lowest employment and the best employment numbers that we've ever had.
There are more people working today in the United States than have ever worked in our country.
We need people to come in to help us, the farms, and with all of these great companies that are moving back.
Finally, they're moving back.
People said it couldn't happen, it's happening.
And we want them to enjoy the blessings of safety and liberty and the rule of law.
We cannot protect and deliver these blessings without a strong and secure border.
I believe that crime in this country can go down by a massive percentage if we have great security on our southern border.
I believe drugs, large percentages of which come through the southern border, will be cut by a number that nobody will believe.
So let me be very clear.
We really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier.
If we don't get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on February 15th again, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and the Constitution of the United States to address this emergency.
We will have great security, and I want to thank you all very much.
Thank you very much.
So that was the president.
Uh very, very clear, again identifying the problems at our borders.
We will continue straight ahead.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
Big breaking news day, as we've been telling you, a temporary opening of the government.
And obviously the president clearly indicating he's willing to go it alone, executive order.
And the pre-dawn raid, 25, 25 agents in the dark of morning arresting, then charging Roger Stone of well, mostly process crimes, again as it relates to uh all things involving the Russia probe.
Uh in light of that, I wanted to bring in Greg Jarrett, especially considering all the news that is now broken about the deep state in recent weeks, and David Schoen, criminal defense attorney, as we now compare and contrast the events of today with Rogerstone, and of course the lack of action.
Now remember, John Solomon broke the story that in August of 2016.
What did we learn?
We learned, in fact, that Bruce Orr warned everybody in the top levels of the FBI and DOJ that The dossier put together by a foreign national, Christopher Steele.
Number one, he hated Donald Trump.
Number two, it was funneled money through a law firm to hire an op research group.
And it was used, and he got Russian sources to make bizarre, crazy, insane claims.
And or said, uh, she paid for it.
He hates Trump.
It's not verified or corroborated in any way.
And it became, as we now know, from the newness and Grassley Graham memos, the bulk of information in the Pfizer warrant, original application in October of 2016, and three subsequent applications.
They used the same unverified, uncorroborated dossier, but of course they never told any of the Pfizer court judges in the application who paid for it, and that it was unverified.
And we can also point out that a lot of the top people involved in all of this, they knew fully and they understood that Hillary Clinton was the candidate of choice, James Comey, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, many, many others, and that in fact they were writing her exoneration before an investigation.
And with all this talk about, well, uh Roger Stone didn't hand over his emails, but they really were still there.
He should have handed them over, and he's being charged today as armed people come into his house pre-dawn today when he will would have willingly just handed himself in.
Um, but yet we see with Hillary Clinton, well, she just deleted the emails that had been subpoenaed.
Acid washed the hard drive, and then went further and busted up the devices.
The comparisons are stark.
The two-tiered dust justice system ought to scare everybody.
Anyway, we'll start with Greg Jarrett.
Um I want you to put the two of these things together.
I'm sure you've had time to read the indictment against Roger Stone, and sure.
Um, especially in light of the Pentagon case, Pentagon Paper case, uh, I don't see a crime if you're looking for information as long as you're not part of the team that would be part of stealing something.
Well, I don't see it either.
Um in fact, uh the indictment of Stone demonstrates yet again that there's no known evidence of Trump Russia collusion.
I mean, if special counsel Robert Muller had this evidence against President Trump's former advisor, then Stone surely would have been charged with some collusion-related offense.
Uh, but conspicuously he was not.
Indeed, no one to date, Sean, has been charged with the crime for which Muller was appointed to investigate more than a year and a half ago.
You know, instead, the special counsel is doing what he's he's been doing all along, bringing charges generated by his own investigation itself.
These are commonly referred to as process crimes.
That is, they are offenses against the legal process.
They typically occur when you know when somebody allegedly interferes with the procedures of an investigation.
So, you know, I don't mean to prompt minimize process crimes.
They're serious violations.
Nobody should lie or mislead or abstract.
I mean, what is but on a higher level when you delete subpoenaed emails and you acid wash or hard drive with bleach bit and you bust up your devices, tell me why that's any different if not worse.
Well, it it it is not that much.
It is worse, actually.
Um, because those are principal crimes.
And uh you know, the fact is, you pointed out there's a two-tier justice system.
James, even James Cummie admitted in his testimony that Clinton aides uh made misleading statements, i.e., they lied.
Yet none of them were ever charged.
Clinton was never charged and should have been for felonies.
And yet, you know, if you're connected to Donald Trump, Robert Muller and his team of partisans will come after you with a vengeance.
What do you think?
Uh David Schoen, great attorney that you are.
Number one, what do you think of the pre-dawn raid?
Number two, what do you think of the charges?
And number three, when you make the comparisons uh to Hillary Clinton in particular, and some of these upper level management types at the FBI and DOJ, uh, what do you see?
Number one, the pre-drawn raid has Weissman's handmark hand print all over it.
This is what he does.
This is the intimidation tactics, been doing it his entire career.
There's no justification whatsoever.
Period.
End of story for this.
And Mr. Whitaker ought to uh really uh reprimand them for this and stop this kind of tactic.
Number two, the charges again, as we've said, this is a creation of count special counsel regulation six hundred point four.
He created crimes when they appointed this Muller and this horrible Muller team to the so-called investigation.
Um and that's all it is.
Think of the lives that have been ruined simply by the appointment of Robert Muller that has nothing to do with the underlying investig purported investigation.
And third, the comparison is very stark.
Listen, Hillary Clinton has not been prosecuted, nor is anybody else in connection with the erasure of those emails.
It's been documented by the IG, ongoing investigation.
Hopefully, we know how they skipped through that.
Um we have the IG's report on that.
And these are the same emails in many cases, member.
Now, stu uh issue with Stone or some Clinton emails.
It's unbelievable.
The hypocrisy.
Final thing I have to say about this is how can Jeannie Ree possibly be involved with this as been reported.
She not only was Clinton's lawyer, she was Clinton's lawyer with respect to these emails and the erasure of the emails.
More than that, Jeannie Ree recently defended a case, did a horrible job in North Carolina, in which a guy was prosecuted specifically for the erasure of emails.
So if Jeannie Ree and Andrew Weiss been involved in this thing, the indictment should be thrown out.
Oh, I mean, we've said this before.
We pointed out the past history of uh the Pitbull, Andrew Weisman, Janie Ray, who ran the Clinton Foundation as their lawyer.
Um, but there's even more news because even both you and John Solomon were on last night, Greg Jarrett, and we learn a lot more about James Baker, as we've learned more about Bruce Orr when he testified, as we learn more that, you know, under James Comey's FBI, we now have two criminal investigations that are ongoing, and I've got to believe that if there is real justice and and equal justice under the law, that this is only the tip of the iceberg, that Comey would be in in trouble as well.
Uh Page and Strzok likely have legal issues coming their way, and m Bruce Orr and many others.
Am I correct?
You're right.
And and just take a look at the Pfizer abuse.
The people who signed off on this, which was completely unverified phony evidence, and they knew it.
Uh perpetrated a fraud on the court, and those are various felonies that you know I've talked about repeatedly on air, and the information I obtained yesterday confirmed testimony of a former top FBI lawyer by the name of Trisha Anderson.
She confirmed in her testimony for before Congress last August.
It was behind closed doors, but I've confirmed it, and I quoted in my column that's published on Fox News.
She said Sally Yates, who is the deputy attorney general, as well as Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, both went through those FISA applications line by line.
That means that they signed on to a phony document and perpetrated a fraud on the court.
So they should be investigated along with uh others at the FBO like James Comey and Rod Rosenstein, who also affixed his signature and vouched for the authenticity of a fabricated phony document.
You know, Sarah Sanders, when the press corps um, you know, asking uh a question on a lot of people's minds today in the wake of the FBI's uh apprehension of the notorious criminals, uh Roger Stone that needed a pre-dawn raid in 29 armed, fully armed and vested uh uh policemen.
Anyway, she openly wondered if the FBI would be raiding Hillary's home or Comey's home or Clapper's home.
You know, when asked by fake news CNN about the arrest, well, we're gonna let the courts make the decision.
A bigger question is if this is the standard, will the same standard apply to people like Clinton, Comey, and Clapper.
And then she said, Will we see the same people we all know have made false statements?
Will that same standard apply?
Uh that seems like a fair question.
Uh David.
Of course it's a fair question.
You know the answer.
Uh the answer is no.
But that that's gonna have to change with this Justice Department.
When Mr. Barr comes in, the double standard from that we're even seeing still from the Justice Department is gonna have to change.
There's gonna have to really be a real investigation, maybe the appointment of a new special counsel on all of these crimes that you have reported on for so long that have had no gotten no traction whatsoever.
Listen, you demonstrated on this show the goings on at the Department of Justice behind the scenes after Comey was fired, that I've uh characterized as an attempted coup, or as close to that as we've ever seen in our lifetimes.
If these people are able and willing to do that kind of thing, there's nothing beyond them in their agenda to get Trump.
It seems though that you know, we'd have a mystery here, and that is the new attorney general William Barr.
And what is he gonna do?
We also have another mystery into the whole FISA abuse, because you know, now that we have all these details that all of these inappropriate uh actions were taken, all protocol put aside, and all those people that signed on to that Pfizer warrant did so knowing Clinton put bought and paid for it,
but they didn't put it in in bold letters, Greg Jarrett, so that the Pfizer judges can see it a little asterisk saying, well, it might have a slight political taint to it, doesn't cover that by any stretch of the imagination.
And similarly, knowing now that they never verified or corroborated any of this, uh, that means they all seemingly conspired to commit a fraud on the court.
Uh you have identified six felonies that would be associated with that.
Explain them.
Well, they're abuse of power, um, conspiracy to defraud the government, making false statements, perjury, uh, several other conspiracy.
William Barr committed himself, as you know, Sean, in his confirmation hearings to investigate FISA abuse and get to the bottom of the conduct of people in law enforcement.
Uh, the truth is that uh a nefarious plot hatched supposedly between Trump and Putin and the Kremlin was a hoax.
Quick break more with uh Greg Jarrett and uh David Schoen is with us, the attorneys.
We have Jerome Corsey, uh, who is mentioned as person one in the Stone indictment.
He's gonna join us coming up at the top of the hour.
Well, a full coverage of all of this tonight on Hannity Nine Eastern, and of course the opening temporary opening of the government and the partial shutdown is now no more.
well for three weeks.
And as we continue with Greg Jarrett and David Schoen, Let me ask you about in light of the Stone thing today.
Um I'm just fascinated with this.
The Pentagon Papers was the name given to a top secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military emballment in Vietnam.
Anyway, Daniel Ellsberg, uh, at the request of of Robert McDamara, who is the Secretary of Defense, a team of people, prepared this this study.
Anyway, it gets in the hands of the New York Times.
The New York Times prints it.
It becomes the New York Times versus the United States, a precedent-setting ruling that the New York Times has every right to publish stolen information as long as they didn't steal it or conspire to have it stolen.
Correct, Greg Jarrett.
Yeah, absolutely, Craig.
And the Washington Post was in on that case as well.
They both published it.
And then a whole host of uh newspapers across the country published.
By the way, and they also published all of WikiLeaks findings as well, did they not?
Yeah.
You know, look, the fact yeah, of course they did.
And the fact that uh Roger Stone was trying to make contact with allies of WikiLeaks to find out what uh Julian Assange has is no different than what I did.
I mean, I I guess I half expect the FBI to show up at my door in a pre-don rate as well.
I mean, I made phone calls, I tried to find out information, I wrote about it, I talked about, you know, what I expected, and that's what Stone did.
You know, Stone may have puffed it up a little bit, uh, but but if you examine his emails, all of it was based on information that was put out by WikiLeaks.
But if you expect it's true.
But also he had what he thought was coming wrong on a number of occasions.
He thought it was something else that was coming.
So it was a guess on his part.
No, he was he thought it was more about the foundation, for example.
Bottom line is he said this is gonna be a big deal.
Well, heck, everything that WikiLeaks publishes in the political uh venue is a big deal.
Is this you can indict a ham sandwich?
Last word, David Schoen.
Sure it is.
And Mueller has shown every inclination to want to do that as long as it helps his agenda, the anti-Trump agenda.
Every civil libertarian in this country, Jerry Nadler, who holds himself out, Elijah Cummings, they should want someone like Roger Stone to bring out some matters of public interest like this, and they should demand a full Pfizer investigation because it could happen to their friends too.
All right, David Schoen and Greg Jarrett, thank you both for being with us.
When we come back, he is identified as person number one in the indictment of Roger Stone, the pre-dawn raid from earlier today.
We'll get to that.
Jerome Corsey checks in next.
We'll have a great Hannity tonight going over the temporary uh deal that has been made three weeks to end the partial government shutdown and the president's next move, which seems to be he will go it alone to get the money to build the wall.
That and more straight ahead.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
This morning uh at the crack of dawn, 29 FBI agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles with their lights flashing when they could simply have contacted my attorneys, and I would have been more than willing to surrender voluntarily.
They terrorized my wife, my dogs.
Uh I was uh taken to the FBI facility.
Uh although I must say the FBI agents were extraordinarily uh courteous.
Uh I will plead not guilty to these charges.
I will defeat them in court.
I believe this is a politically motivated investigation.
Uh I am troubled by the political motivations of the prosecutors.
Uh and as I have said previously, there is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies.
But I have made it clear I will not testify against the president.
Well, because I would have to bear false witness against the president.
You work with the prosecutor.
I'm gonna I will be uh appearing for an arraignment in DC next week, and I'll address those questions at that time.
Well, I intend to tell the truth.
I have told the truth through this entire proceeding, uh, and I will prove that in a court of law.
How strong is that?
Uh I am one of his oldest friends.
I am a uh a fervent supporter of the president.
I think he is doing a great job of missing America.
Roger, did anyone tell you to contact in the Trump campaign to contact WikiLeaks?
Uh no, I've addressed that before.
That is the question is in any way work with the Russians to help President Trump.
Uh categorically, categorically not.
No, absolutely not.
And the prosecutor.
We got your Rogers gathering the answer back, Roger with any way.
Well, with all due respect, I haven't even had chance to read the indictment.
You haven't even read the indictment.
Correct.
I attorney have.
I have not had that opportunity.
All right, that was Roger Stone uh after the pre-dawn raid.
What 29 guys, uh pre-dawn raid, full armor, guns blazing.
Um, and all he said was all you had to do was ask me to come down.
I would have walked in.
Um, which is, by the way, this is a uh Weissman typical tactic happens all the time.
Uh you just heard uh uh Roger Stone saying he will plead not guilty to these charges against him, which he believes are politically based.
He will not bear false witness against the president.
Uh further goes on to declare will not take a plea bargain, will not testify against Donald Trump.
Um, and literally the president, by the way, is weighed in on this and blasting Mueller's, you know, gun-drawn pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone and uh Muller's uh show boating raid.
You know, we've seen this movie before.
We saw it happen in the cases of Michael Cohn and Paul Manafort.
These are all process crimes that we're talking about.
Um I wonder if the defense will rely heavily on past precedents after reading the indictment.
Um it sounds like uh Roger Stone had it wrong about the information he thought might be coming out from WikiLeaks.
He thought it was going to be about the Clinton Foundation.
Uh yet it was not uh at that particular time.
What was uh what was expected to be out, it was widely reported, if I recall correctly at the time that something might be coming uh from WikiLeaks.
Remember the New York Times printing the Pentagon papers, and those were that was stolen information.
As long as the New York Times court rendered a a huge judgment, precedent judgment.
As long as they were not in involved in the stealing of it, they had every right to cover it.
Uh anyway, Dr. Jerome Corsi is with us.
Uh, thank you, sir, for being with us.
Uh, obviously, you know who you are in this indictment, and If you had time to read it.
Yes, uh, thank you, Sean.
I'm person number one.
Clearly I'm person number one, and uh I think essentially what was said in the indictment about me, which was pretty limited, is accurate.
It it's uh reflects the 40 hours of voluntary interviews I did with the Mueller team, and also um the book I've written silent no more.
It's all in there.
The uh very limited amount they say about me in the indictment, I think is is true, and I'm also distressed to see Roger's home rated the way it was this morning.
That was very disturbing.
What do you think?
It says person one, meaning you is you're a political commentator, which you are and have been, and work with an online media publication during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, and that you and Stone spoke throughout the campaign.
Would that have been unusual?
No, it would have been normal.
I mean, I was writing at that time for WorldNet Daily, and uh Roger Stone was a great source, and we were working together to get information, which I published many articles on information I got from Roger, and much of it I attributed to Roger directly, and others he was a background for.
But it was uh the editorial staff at WorldNet Daily shared Roger's contact with me and were fully aware that Roger and I were working together to develop news in World Net Daily.
Now, I I mentioned the Pentagon Papers through thinking through that prism and past court precedence.
Um if with Roger Stone apparently having written, and this was printed before in July or on or about July twenty-fifth, twenty sixteen, uh, an email to you with the subject line, get to the head of organization one.
We know organization one to be WikiLeaks, and the head is Julian Assange.
And it says, get to the head of organization one at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get pending organization one emails.
They deal with foundation allegedly.
Now that turned out not to be true, right?
That was not what those emails were about.
You're right.
They they were not about the foundation.
That was uh absolutely Roger Stone was incorrect on that.
And I received that email from Roger, I believe July twenty fifth, two thousand sixteen.
Uh, by the way, I had forgotten about that.
That was the subject of my first day's testimony with a special counselor when they allowed me to amend my testimony after I saw the email.
I passed that email on to Ted Malik in London.
And uh Sean, you're correct.
I actually did my doctoral dissertation at Harvard in political science, nineteen seventy-two on the Pentagon Papers case.
And uh clearly New York Times, VUS, it was no crime to go to see Julian Assange.
Uh I could have gone to see Julian Assange.
It would be no crime.
As a reporter, we had a right even to publish what Julian Assange had, even if it were stolen, even if it were classified.
That's under the first amendment.
And I did pass that on to uh Ted Malik.
I didn't think Ted was going to go to see Julian Assange, and he didn't go to see Julian Assange as far as I know.
But I was happy if Ted did.
And quite frankly, if World Net Daily had bought me an airplane ticket, I'd have flown over to see Julian Assange.
I wasn't sure it was going to do any good.
Sean, you interviewed Assange many times and close close to his release of these documents from John Podesta, the final uh October 8th at through the end of the election.
And and he was very cagey even telling you what he had.
I doubted Assange would have been very direct with anybody.
And by the way, Sean, I believe Julian Assange told you that the Russians had nothing to do with getting him those emails.
He said it was not Russia, not the Russian state.
Um but you know, you've also got to tie some of this a little bit.
If we have to backtrack here, remember the the exoneration of Hillary written in May of 2016.
Remember, they were investigating the the server she had off-site in a mom and pop shop bathroom closet.
Uh that would be a violation of the espionage act.
The original draft, which Comey lied under oath saying he didn't write, but we know he did write along with Peter Strzok before they ever interviewed her or seventeen other people, did contain the legal language of of grossly na of gross negligence.
Um and then they changed it to get it out of that.
But also there was a reference to six foreign entities, intelligence agencies that had likely tapped into and hacked those emails, which means that it could have come from any one of those six or more, and nobody would know because we just don't know who had access to it, which is why the espionage is in a f in effect.
Uh but in fact they were covering up for the person that they wanted to win a hundred million to zero to quote Peter Strzok, who interviewed her, and then James Comey three days later exonerating her, although the exoneration letter began in May.
Well, in fact, uh Sean, you're exactly right.
I mean, uh I do not think that Mueller team has proved the predicate, the whole basis of their investigation.
There's no proof yet that Russia stole the emails from the DNC.
And I don't I can't understand why there isn't testimony given or immunity given to Assange to get his testimony, because Assange has said repeatedly, and I remember distinctly, Sean, your interview with Julian Assange, which I thought was very important, in which if he's got evidence where he can prove Russia wasn't involved, why don't we get that evidence and put it in front of the public?
I thought that was imperative because that would have answered the question.
The fact that uh if I'm not mistaken, I do uh I don't think anybody to this point has ever asked Assange or WikiLeaks uh for the evidence, the proof, which he was the only person in the world that would have, isn't he?
In terms of where he got that information from.
Yes.
If Mueller was doing a legitimate investigation, why wouldn't he start with Julian Assange and prove where who stole the emails from the Democratic National Committee?
What if it came from Russia and other places as well?
What if one part came from here and one part came from there?
I mean, especially again, you know, Comey's early uh version referencing foreign intelligence services having hacked into this stuff.
And it's clear that China has also been involved in the hacking in a massive way, and there's evidence that China was hacking both Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
Uh this whole investigation, Sean goes nowhere if Russia wasn't involved in stealing the emails, because what was there to coordinate with Julian Assange if Russia wasn't involved?
Mm-hmm.
Well, let me go back to the indictment if I can, and if you're just joining us, Jerome Corsey is uh on the line with us, uh, mentioned an uh a few times in this uh indictment.
Uh well before I do that, you have been worried and thinking that you're gonna be indicted.
You still have that feeling, and you know, Roger said that he will not bear false witness against the president.
Um you were offered a plea deal.
You rejected the plea deal because you felt that you to make that deal you would be lying.
You could have saved yourself, you could have agreed to no jail time, you could have gotten off whatever charge they wanted to make against you.
Do you know what the charge was?
Yes, they wanted me to uh the one first day when I had not seen my 2016 emails, I said I didn't really want to send anybody to see Julian Assange, and I'd forgotten the July twenty-fifth email that I forwarded to Ted Malik that we discussed a minute ago.
Now, the special counselor let me go back to New Jersey for ten days.
I finally got to do to download my two thousand sixteen emails.
I found the Ted Malik email.
I amended my testimony.
When they wanted me to plead guilty, it was to the first day's unamended testimony without acknowledging they'd allow me to correct what was a memory mistake.
And I I told the special by the way, so that you're talking about an email that's two years old, right?
Two years old.
You know, I why do they have to go with these pre-dawn raids every time?
What and what did you think about CNN's cameras being there that it was just good solid um uh legwork that that tipped them off that this might happen this morning.
I find that hard to believe.
I I've been alleging, in fact, my federal lawsuit complaint against Mueller is that they've been leaking like a sieve.
And I can I've got evidence of my own case they've been leaking.
And I I I think it the CNN reeked of a tip off to be there at the right time in front of Rogers home to film this raid.
It's like, I mean, was Roger a major drug dealer or an international narcotics.
I mean, the this is ridiculous.
Roger's involved in politics.
And uh I really caution the Democrats and those who hate Trump not to criminalize politics.
You know, the pendulum swings.
We need uh we need equal justice, and it's gonna come back on the Democrats if they allow the corruption this way to continue.
Well, this is what Alan Dershowitz has been saying, criminalizing political differences.
W how many times now did you go before Robert Muller or his team?
Uh I spent Sean forty hours.
It was six sessions over two months.
It was the most excruciating experience of my life.
I mean, I went in to cooperate.
I gave them my computers, my backup external drives, my cell phone, my emails, username, password, and I was treated like a criminal from the beginning.
They play this memory trap.
I forgot the email I forwarded to Ted Malik to say, go see uh Assange.
That was the July twenty fifth, two thousand sixteen email that's in the indictment.
I'd forgotten about that.
And the first day I said I didn't want to send anybody to see Assange.
When I reviewed my emails, took me ten days to review my emails.
Uh I came back and amended that testimony to Mueller.
But yet Mueller wanted to charge me, make me plea to the unamended mistake I made.
Well, I wasn't gonna swear before a federal judge and to God.
You know, I say, Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
I'm not gonna I couldn't imagine myself standing in front of a judge and say I want to pick it up there.
I want to pick it up there when we get back.
Um so much ground to cover.
Our news roundup information overload uh continues.
All right, 25 now till the uh top of the hour.
A lot of breaking news today.
Uh three week opening of the government of no deal.
The president clearly is uh indicating he will go on his own with a national emergency, as I had predicted now for some time.
Uh but the pre-dawn raid of Roger Stone and the seven count indictment from earlier today, Jerome Corsey is with us.
You know, I uh you spent forty hours with Mueller.
You wrote a dissertation on the Pentagon Papers, which is fascinating in light of this particular case.
Let me go to the indictment where you are person one, and it says that on or about July twenty-fifth, twenty sixteen, Stone sent you an email, person one with the subject line, go to the head of organization won the Ecuadorian embassy in London, obviously talking about Julian Assange, and get the pending emails.
Uh they deal with the foundation allegedly, which, by the way, when they eventually were leaked, they did not deal with the foundation, uh, which would mean neither you or Roger Stone had any knowledge of what was really in them, correct?
That's correct.
I've I've never had any communication with WikiLeaks or Julian Assange of any kind.
And Sean, when I got that email, it took me about twenty seconds.
I forwarded it to Ted Malik in London.
I said, Ted from Roger Jerry, and I was obviously happy if Malik went to see Assange under the what I wrote my dissertation, Harvard PhD dissertation on the Pentagon Papers, New York Times v.
Sullivan as the Supreme Court case.
As a journalist, I could easily have gone to see Assange even printed what Assange had, even if it was stolen and classified.
That's under the First Amendment and the Pentagon Papers case.
I mean, that is uh because what the New York Times did is they published stolen documents.
And as long as you're not involved in the conspiracy to steal them or involved in the actual stealing of them, you have according to this court precedence and the freedom of the press or first amendment, a right to print them or report them, which would be what your job is based on that particular precedence.
Now it also goes on to say that on July 31st, on or about, he Stone emailed person one, you with the subject line, call me Monday.
The body of the email read in part that person one, you, your associate in the United Kingdom should see the head of organization one, which is WikiLeaks and Assange, on or about August 2nd, 2016.
Person one emailed Stone.
You emailed him and wrote that he was currently in Europe, plan to return in and around mid August, and you stated in part word is the friend in the embassy plans two More dumps.
One shortly after I'm back, the second one in October.
Impact planned to be very damaging.
Now you're finding all of this out as you're doing digging and talking to sources, but not directly to Assange, correct?
That's correct.
And uh and in fact, Ted Malik did not go to see Assange.
I had no information from Ted Malik about Assange, and I did not contact or get any information about Assange myself directly or indirectly.
When I was in Italy, 25th winning anniversary with my wife and family, I simply connected the dots and figured out that Assange had Podesta's emails, and that's what he was gonna drop.
But I didn't have any source call it a hunch, a good guest.
I think if I recall, and I don't I I'm like you.
If you asked me what what email I sent two years ago, I'd be like person one added an email, time to let more than the Clinton campaign chairman that would be Podesta to be exposed as in bed with the enemy if they are not ready to drop Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And it goes on to say that appears to be game hackers are now about.
Would not hurt to start suggesting Hillary Ronham Clinton's old memory bad.
I expect much of the next dump to focus on setting the stage for the Foundation debacle.
There never there never was a Foundation debacle dump, was there?
I was basically saying uh first of all, I had in mind the McGovern campaign in nineteen seventy-two with Eagleton who got shock treatment and had to be dropped as vice president.
And I was saying to Roger that if I was right and it was Podesta's emails, this these were going to be devastating to Hillary.
It'd be better just to replace her as a candidate and get somebody who wasn't.
You assumed that we would talk about or give information about Hillary's real health condition.
Yes, and the these was going to be exposed.
And I was saying...
By the way, I don't remember, did it?
Well, I believe it did.
I mean, they continued to deny it.
But the Podesta emails have extensive discussion about Hillary's health.
And I figured they would.
It was again deduction on my part.
I figured they would.
And then when this came out, it would be better just to drop Hillary as a candidate because she was going to be devastated by the health information and the other information in these emails, which I also suspected would include information about the Clinton Foundation.
And it did.
It had Doug Bann's emails, all kinds of indication the Clinton Foundation was being a very good thing.
But not but not the smoking gun that you were referring to.
You thought it would be uh the smoking gun was Podesta's emails.
That was the Podesta that's where I was focused in Italy.
And I knew that.
And the special prosecutor for twenty hours it was torturous with me because they kept thinking I had to have a source.
And they just wouldn't believe that I connected the dots and figured it out myself.
We looked through everybody I talked to in two thousand sixteen.
They gave me my phone calls like at these critical periods of time.
I was not talking to anybody who was connected with Assange.
Well, they couldn't find anybody, I couldn't find anybody.
Who do you believe is person two in this indictment?
Uh I think that's Credico.
I believe person two is Credico.
The radio host.
Yes, the radio host.
Okay.
I think Credico had a much more direct connection.
He obviously had Assange on his radio show.
I never thought Roger believed that I was in touch with uh with WikiLeaks.
It's why Roger continued to look for a source beyond me.
I Roger listened to me when I figured out, you know, that I was Podesta's emails, but that wasn't the kind of proof Roger was looking for.
Roger wanted to know directly from Julian Assange, and I couldn't tell him that.
On or about August 25th, 2016, the head of organization one was a guest on person two's radio show for the first time, and on about the twenty-sixth, person two sent a text to Stone stating the head of organization one talked about you last night, and Stone asked what the head of organization one said to person two.
He said he didn't say anything bad.
We were talking about how the press is trying to make it look like you and he are in cahoots.
Look, at the end of the day, you know, we get to this point here where when was it beg wasn't there widespread speculation when about was there widespread speculation?
I think it started immediately after the July information came out, which resulted in Wasserman Schultz, you know, being removed on a Brazil taking over.
Uh am I right in my time frame there?
You you're perfectly right.
After July twenty second, two thousand sixteen, Assange dropped forty thousand emails on Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
They came out of the Democratic National Committee server, which was DNC dot org, and Assange almost immediately, like the next day or in that weekend, because Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned.
The Democrats were going to Philadelphia for their convention, and over two days, Assange dropped these emails, and Assange gave an interview and he said, I've got more in more emails from the Democrats, and I'm gonna drop them.
Gave that interview to ITV in London that weekend, I believe.
And that started out everybody who's involved in reporting on or in the campaigns or interested in them said, What's Assange got?
It was a normal question that everybody involved in politics wanted to know the answer to, me included.
Me included.
I wanted to know.
I mean, I I think everybody wanted to know.
So the the question then becomes now here we are.
It's made obvious that you guys thought he had something were wrong really about what he had, but you thought he had more, and you wanted to find out what it is part of your job as you know, you're a reporter now working for World Net Daily at the time.
What's interesting to me is is it seems like you're looking for information, which is what your job ought to be about, and you're digging for it.
The fact that you also have a political view.
Look at all that is ignored in terms of what do we know about?
We know that two FBI agents absolutely put the fix in.
They've if if you or Roger Stone had ever deleted subpoenaed emails and acid washed your hard drive and beat up your devices with hammers, I think you'd both be in trouble.
Hillary got a free pass, just like she got a free pass on the email server that was hacked in a mom and pop shop bathroom closet, which was illegal, and then she put together a dossier that she funneled money through a law firm to an op research group.
That's no different than you do an op research.
Sean, the unequal justice of this, the political nature of our justice system, how the Justice Department is being run by politically motivated operatives who want to criminalize normal politics.
I mean, all Roger was doing was what I was doing, and what it was asking what's Julian Assange got?
And it was a normal question that anybody in politics would want to know.
And especially if these were not had nothing to do with Russia, the whole thing is concocted again on a basis of lies.
And I don't think the special prosecutor has taken the steps to find out from Julian Assange, who says he's got proof Russia wasn't involved.
Sean, you had you had direct first hand knowledge of hearing that from Assange himself.
And that's, I think, one of the most important interviews done in this whole thing.
You know, that's where I don't understand why the special counsel never goes to him.
Why don't they go to him and say, uh, we'd like to find out where did you get this information?
Was it prove to us it's not Russia?
You said it's not Russia, you said it's not a a state, prove to us because he'd be the only guy that uh that could possibly have evidence, assuming that he saved it, and I would assume he probably did.
If Roger is convicted, does this mean in the future that we can't do normal reporting or normal investigating in a political campaign?
I mean, it's a legitimate question.
Assange dropped July 22nd, 2016, 40,000 emails on Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
They were they devastated Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she resigned.
Said, I've got more.
I'm gonna release them later.
Because if that was devastating, who's he gonna devastate next?
If you're in the world of politics, you want to know.
The thing that worries me the most about all of this, and and I had said it at the time that in a weird way, people like Assange have done us favors.
The reports that he had hacked to NASA and the Pentagon when he was sixteen.
So here we are 40 years later, and America, our national security is still vulnerable.
And I think we have about two hundred and fifty thousand IT workers.
How is it possible we have not we do not have the ability, or we have not built the ability for national security reasons, to make our computer systems bring them to the point where they're not hackable?
And how many of those workers are s are spying on us illegally?
That's also what I want to know.
Well, that's a big question that we brought up as well.
Because they have the powerful tools of intelligence, and they can do all of this, and they do it illegally, as we've learned in the case of Michael Flynn.
Right.
And what was devastating about the Podesta emails was their content.
What they said about the campaign, what they said about Hillary Clinton, it wasn't about who stole them.
You know, the Pentagon Papers, the Daniel Ellsberg, who stole a classified Pentagon study of the Vietnam War that proved that uh McNamara's Secretary of Defense and Lyndon Johnson president knew the war was unwinnable in nineteen going from nineteen sixty-five on.
That was important information.
That's why the First Amendment protected it.
And it was not a crime for the New York Times or the Washington Post to publish that information.
Why would it have been a crime for me as a reporter to have found out from Julian Assange what he had?
I didn't contact Assange because I didn't think Assange was going to tell anybody because he was going to keep it for himself.
But let me ask you this.
Based on what happened today, do you feel it's more likely that a pre-dawn rate of your house is coming?
No, Sean, I think it's very unlikely.
Why?
Because this report, the indictment of Roger, shows no wrongdoing on my part.
I've done nothing wrong.
And I've made it But you felt earlier, the last time I interviewed you, you thought it was imminent.
Well, maybe you know.
They were very angry, and they told my lawyers, we'll take it from here.
And subsequently, Sean, they've investigated every aspect of my life.
They brought my stepson into the grand jury yesterday on a computer that he recycled for my wife's business.
He and my wife run a cleaning and maintenance service together in New Jersey.
There was an old computer I wasn't using, and I had the complete backup system, the external hard drives on my desk, which we left there because I didn't destroy the content of the computer.
We offered to hand that over the backup to show we could reconstruct the computer.
The special prosecutor didn't want it.
Every aspect of my life has been investigated, and I've done nothing wrong.
At this point, with no indictment, or they could maybe indict me for having a bad memory, but they even allowed me to amend my testimony in the 40 hours over and over again.
What blew it up I mean, don't you think it's a little unrealistic for somebody to remember an email from two years earlier?
That is that that is so fundamentally unfair.
I'm not a human tape recorder, Sean.
You can't push a button and have me recite exactly a conversation that happened.
I I can't even tell you who was on my show on Monday.
I could not tell you.
Now, if you ask me about Reagan's record in the eighties, I can tell you chapter and verse.
It's you know, it's well, my mine is very similar too.
I remember baseball games from when I was growing up as a kid.
I can't tell you, you know, this what happened in the end of last season.
The the point is, um, I did nothing wrong.
My memory was terrible.
I told they were abusive.
I'm gonna close it.
I don't mean to be personal here.
How old are you, Jure?
I'm 72 years old, Sean.
It's not unusual.
My here you are in a closed-in room, no windows, an unmarked FBI building in southeast uh Washington, DC.
You're facing three of the prosecutors from Mueller's team and six to nine FBI.
Yeah, that's me and my attorney.
And they're being hospitable.
All right, I'm gonna have to let it go, but we'll have more on this tonight.
Uh Jerome Corsey, thank you for sharing all of this.
Obviously, the three-week uh opening of the government in the hopes that the president now is uh going to go it alone as it relates to the emergency declaration of a national emergency, which is what I thought would happen from the beginning.
All right, Hannity tonight, nine Eastern Fox News Channel.
All right, so now Congress has the three weeks they asked for to get a deal on the border.
If not, the president has two options shut down the government or he goes his own way, as he has said.
We'll have full coverage.
Also, the pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone.
Also Jerome Corsey, identified as person number one in the Stone indictment, will join us.
All happening, busy news night.
Hannity on the Fox News Channel, nine Eastern.
Have a great weekend.
We'll see you back here Monday.
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 Delaware, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
When 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.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
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.
▲
Export Selection