DC McAllister, co-author of the New York times bestselling book Spygate with Dan Bongino, author of the upcoming book What Men Want to Say to Women, But Can’t. Denise has received violent and terrible threats based upon her position on the current state of our nation. DC believes that we should not be divided based upon race or gender, but by whether we are good people. 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.
It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
We don't promote it enough, but we're on Twitter at Sean Hannity and great news and information on Hannity.com every day that we are putting out there.
All right, a lot to cover.
Congressman Doug Collins has done it again and done us a huge service.
And that is he released the transcripts of Lisa Page's testimony, closed-door testimony, with many, many huge revelations about how right we were from the get-go, from the beginning, and how much more deeper this really goes.
This transcript, and I'll get into the details, brings us to the point where now we're getting close to Brennan.
Now we're getting close to Loretta Lynch.
Now we're getting close to the Department of Justice under Obama.
Now we're getting close to Uma and Mills and others.
And I'll give you the specifics of all this coming up.
Of course, you know, oh, did you hear the scandal that's going on with these parents paying this money, cheating on tests, these college entrance exams, bribing athletic officials saying their kids are athletes and they never played a sport in their life and getting into all these prestigious colleges?
Pretty scary.
What's going on?
We'll get to that later in the program.
We'll look at the media.
Jeff Zucker, literally the porn king network that they've got of us.
And the same network that is getting sued for $250 million.
Why?
Because they picked on a 16-year-old kid, 16 years old.
And they didn't even bother to lift a finger to corroborate a single part of that story.
And they just went with a narrative that was completely wrong, totally and completely.
It was just a myth.
We'll go through all the other times, fake news.
CNN's going to pay.
My prediction, I would not be shocked at all if they have to pay the $250 million.
Same with the Washington Post, and it may even be more.
People are so fed up.
And the only reason they went after this poor kid is because he had a Make America Great hat on.
Again, apparently that hat is the great trigger of all liberals in America.
The sight of it causes them to get violent and rip it off people's heads and assume that that person is a horrible person, 16-year-old kid.
And you just out there every single solitary name that they could call this kid.
And in the end, it turns out what?
Nicholas Sandman not only didn't do a thing wrong, everything they said about him was false, he handled what was an extremely, acutely dangerous situation with the black Hebrew Israelites screaming at them and cursing at them and calling them every name they can.
They stayed silent, those kids.
And Nathan Phillips, the Native American activist, walked right into this kid's face, banging that drum.
And in that particular case, the kid just smiled.
The only thing he said was to another student, don't talk back to them.
You know, don't say anything, which was the right thing.
I would not have had the loving patience of this kid.
And then what they did to him, how do you get your good name back after that?
Just going to forever follow him?
Well, Lynn Wood is on the case and they're going to pay.
We've got the Democrats now in open warfare.
And first, let me just remind people: I don't trust anything that Nancy Pelosi says.
I don't think Nancy Pelosi is the real Speaker of the House.
She's Speaker of the House in name only.
But now that we have the new Green Deal, let's ban oil, gas, cars with combustion engines.
Let's offer everybody everything for free.
Don't worry about the costs.
Costs don't matter.
And let's also, well, we might not be able to do it in 10 years, but we got to do it very soon.
Airplanes and cows.
And of course, supporting abortion even during the labor process when dilation occurs or even after the baby's born, as long as you deliver the baby, keep the baby comfortable, and then the mother gets to decide.
It's so sick and ugly and distorted.
And, you know, I think of there's some missing chip in people that if they don't have any sensibility towards that, if you can't, how a governor of a state, you know, the Commonwealth of Virginia can literally say, well, I'll tell you exactly what's going to happen.
We're going to deliver the baby.
We'll make sure that that baby is comfortable.
So he's now trying to sound like he's all compassionate.
And then we'll let the mother decide if babies need resuscitation or not.
She gets to decide.
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.
The infant would be delivered.
The infant would be kept comfortable.
The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired.
And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
The discussion after, what are we going to have?
Tea and crumpets and cocktail.
So this is a party now that has gone so hard, hard, radical, extreme left.
And remember, it's all, and now we've got eight separate congressional investigations into Donald Trump.
Now, Nancy Pelosi saying what she did can be taken a lot of different ways.
I'm taking it the way that I just see it.
And really simply, I don't think that Nancy Pelosi has any more say over this Democratic Party.
You know, when she ruled out impeachment, it didn't take long for Ocasio Cortez or Congresswoman Talib or a bunch of others to come out there and say, excuse me, yeah, it's on the table.
And Nancy Pelosi didn't win by a very big margin.
Matter of fact, it wasn't big at all.
And at some point, she knows if she keeps bucking this radical trend in her own party, she's going to lose that position.
She's speaker in name only at this point.
So it doesn't matter if she says that, you know, it's just not worth impeaching Trump.
Now, it also gives you some insight.
Why did she say it?
Does she think it's bad for the Democrats politically and therefore, you know, it didn't work out well for Republicans in terms of politics when Bill Clinton was impeached?
Or is she saying it to obfuscate and say, oh, the evidence is so overwhelming.
I didn't want to do it, but I have to do it.
Or does she have some insight into the fact that there's really no Trump-Russia collusion?
And we might even get this week the Mueller report.
If we get it this week, let me just warn you, you're not going to get any details on it.
You know, Nancy Pelosi's scolding Americans.
She's trying herself to move so hard left for being against democratic measures allowing illegals the right to vote.
Now, I'm thinking, you're not a citizen.
You didn't respect our laws.
You didn't respect our Constitution.
You didn't respect our sovereignty.
You entered the country illegally, and Nancy Pelosi is mad at Americans because they're against the Democratic measure that they're pushing in the House that would allow illegal immigrants, aliens, the right to vote.
How many millions are we going to have here?
You know, how often have I said there's different groups that want open borders for different reasons?
There are people that want the cheapest labor they can get, and they don't want to pay people.
And so that is part of the coalition of open borders.
Others are thinking, well, hang on.
If we let, you know, our thinking tells us that maybe immigrants are going to be more likely liberal and left-wing.
And if we tell them we're going to give them benefits, then maybe they'll like us a lot better.
Now, the president made the comment, I don't want to have anyone coming in that's on welfare.
Well, currently we're paying $70,000 a year per every illegal immigrant in this country.
Over the years, do you know how many billions and billions and billions of taxpayer money has been spent because of all of the millions of illegal immigrants that use our health care system, that end up in the criminal justice system, the educational system?
Who's paying for that?
That would be us, we, the people of America.
So it's stunning where this party is headed.
And it's not just that.
You know, there's a great piece I say.
What is democratic socialism?
You remember Frederick Engels, who was part of the Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx.
He talked about democratic socialists.
What do I say?
This is an extreme radical new Democratic Socialist Party.
You know, well, they favor the same measures that communists advocate.
That's his description, not mine.
But he used to hate them because they weren't pursuing the total and complete revolution to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.
But of course, they wanted state-run industry.
What is Ocasio-Cortez?
Ocasio-Cortez came out and said she wants a 90% corporate tax.
90%.
Okay, just stop for a minute.
You're a business owner.
You're going to pay 90% in taxes and stay in the United States?
Or are you going to look abroad and say, well, I can build a factory in Mexico or Central America or Europe or wherever?
And I'm never going to, what, I won't have to deal with the burdensome regulations that the radical left has put on business that Donald Trump has at least temporarily gotten rid of that has resulted in great economic growth and opportunity and job creation.
Or am I going to stay here?
Where's the incentive for people to risk and reward?
Where is the incentive for them to create good services that people want, need, and desire?
And Alexandria Casio-Cortez wants to control and tell businesses how they will be run.
And then they want to take over whole industries like healthcare.
Okay, how did Obamacare work out for you?
Okay, so we're going to have the Medicare for all estimated in 10 years at least $3.3 trillion a year.
Just for healthcare.
And you can't have the choice of your own provider.
That's what they're 20, 20 candidates like Kamala Harris, that's their position.
Bernie Sanders, same thing.
That is their position.
And, you know, well, then they want to control all education.
You know, K through 12, they didn't ruin kids enough, but that was a big part of socialism, Marxism.
And of course, nationalizing industry, which may be healthcare, and the energy industry, which we're going to get rid of the lifeblood of our economy in 10 years.
If America gave up on oil and gas, we even had the Greenspeace guy on TV, I guess a week or so ago, and he's like, this is madness.
We can't feed the world's population without the lifeblood of our economy.
You know, right now, we are on the precipice of creating more wealth in America because of Donald Trump opening up natural gas and oil that we're now, well, first, we're energy independent for the first time in one, however many years, what, 70 years?
And not only that, we're a net exporter of energy.
It makes the world a safer place.
And we don't have to bow and beg at the altar of countries that hate our guts and charge whatever the hell they want to keep our factories running and our lives moving along.
You know, there are more than 34 million American smokers.
I bet that finding a satisfying alternative to cigarettes is at the top of your list if you're a smoker.
Look, I've been there before.
But after many years of smoking, I finally made the switch to Juul.
There's no more worrying about the way my clothes smell, worrying about what people are going to say with Juul.
Everything is so much easier.
Now, Juul is a vaporizer that contains nicotine for a satisfying transition.
When I found Juul, it was a complete game changer.
Now, Juul was designed by smokers for smokers to be an alternative to cigarettes.
From its simple-to-use interface to its clean technology, well, Juul has no cigarette ash, odor, or mess.
So if you're one of the 34 million adults who smoke, know that there is an alternative to cigarettes.
Now, to discover the smoking alternative that's nothing like you've tried, visit juul.com slash switchamerica.
That's juul.com slash switchamerica.
And warning, this product does contain nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
It's amazing that Paul I mentioned yesterday that 50% of this next generation of young people, they love socialism, but they want limited government.
I'm like, okay.
You know, socialism is what it is, the democratic socialist, as they call themselves.
It's like an umbrella term.
This is in a Fox News article, quote, a guy from Georgetown, that encompasses all those who favor a more egalitarian, collectively run society.
And yeah, that would include the former Soviet Union and Marx, although on a different level, and Engel in particular didn't like the way the description of democratic socialists didn't think they went far enough.
Economic policies where like Ocasio-Cortez wants 70% top marginal rates, 90% top marginal rates for businesses.
That's going to destroy business.
And then you would add to that Elizabeth Warren's, quote, wealth tax.
And then the promises of socialism are always the same.
It's going to take care of you from the minute you're born to the minute you die.
And in this case, that means education, health care.
You can't buy your own insurance.
Retirement, a job, government healthy food.
It's going to mean, you know, pretty much, even if you're unwilling to work.
Well, it kind of ruined Venezuela.
Former Soviet Union, their experiments didn't work out particularly well either.
And historically, while they give you all the platitudes and all the promises, you know, look no further than keep your doctor and keep your plan and save money.
And, you know, we've had, for example, you know, Bernie Sanders praising socialist regimes like in Cuba.
The people in Cuba, I mean, look at what Jorge Ramos found in Venezuela, which should be one of the richest countries in the world.
What?
People eating out of garbage trucks, the lights going out for however many hours.
And dictatorship always emerges.
The elite, you know, they always promise everything.
Fred Rickayek once argued that because socialism requires so much government, a central planner will be forced to choose between assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning their plans.
Pretty much been proven over and over again.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
Glad you're with us, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of, oh, hang on, this important program.
All right.
So Acasio-Cortez, get this.
This is what she's telling workers.
Don't fear being automated out of work.
Automation will mean more time creating art.
Oh, man.
And who's going to pay the bills?
You know, more time for art?
Oh, don't bother working.
You got more time for art.
Wow.
All right.
So the first in what is many revelations.
So about, what was it, Ethan?
Maybe about two hours before the show, we got a hold of, thanks to Congressman Collins, who's been amazing.
He's now releasing the transcripts.
First he did Bruce Ort, and today he released the transcript of Lisa Page.
And we are confirming some things we knew and then we're learning other things that we never knew that are really damning.
Now, it had been out there that she had testified, meaning Lisa Page.
Now, just to give you background, she was Peter Strzok's lover, whatever.
Text messages, we'll go over those, remind you of those in a little bit.
But she was the general counsel also for the second in charge at the FBI, and that would be Andrew McCabe.
She was his chief counsel, lawyer in that case.
So one of the things jumped right off the page to me was that it's, you know, page 114, it's a long transcript.
Page testified the FBI hadn't seen any evidence of collusion by the time that Mueller was appointed.
The problem is, remember, when did they start the Trump-Russia collusion story?
Well, that was just days after, and it was the same players, and she talks about really she's exposing a lot more people here than I think people understand.
This now brings this entire abuse of power, corruption scandal.
Now it opens up the door to Brennan's involvement.
Now it opens up the door to Loretta Lynch's involvement and the DOJ in its entirety's involvement and a dual justice system.
All of this is now revealed in this testimony, but she said, I think it's a reflection of us still not knowing it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing.
But as we probably knew at that point, but in the scheme of possible outcomes, the most serious and obvious one being crime serious enough to impeach a president on the other scale.
And she goes on to say, but it didn't ultimately touch any senior people in the Trump administration or in the Trump campaign.
Now, this is almost a year of FBI investigations going on, almost an entire year.
And so the question is, well, why this then brings us to the eight days in May when they wanted, after the firing of Comey, they wanted this so desperately, which is why Comey probably broke the law, at least some people think, and revealed classified information with the president, et cetera.
And he went on an offensive and he did it and knowingly said that he wanted to get a special counsel appointed.
Of course, he's been BFF friends with Mueller forever.
And then it gets even more interesting.
You know, we now see actions of the CIA director.
I've always known, I want to get to what Brennan is involved in in this, and I want to get to what Clapper's involved in in this.
Brennan, we find out here, was aware of the Steele dossier in early August 2016.
Well, that's the same time that Bruce Orr, and we learned this from the testimony and Orr's testimony, that he had briefed everybody, top echelon DOJ FBI, about the dossier and warned everybody about the dossier.
But it's clear that the dossier is at the heart and soul of all of this.
Now, we also know that Steele hated Trump, hated him, wanted him to lose in the worst way.
And that not only was he being paid by Hillary and the money she was controlling at the DNC, you know, Steele's also getting paid by the FBI for a long while and some Russian oligarch of all people.
So they considered all of this even long before the firing of Comey.
They were investigating it long before.
She said the DOJ refused to pursue the gross negligence.
That explains why Strzok and Comey, when they were writing the exoneration before the investigation even began really into Hillary Clinton or even talked to the key players or got the laptops of everybody.
Remember, that was a bizarre series of events.
Paige said the DOJ refused it outright.
And the FBI maintained a, quote, unknown verification file for the Steele dossier, she said.
The only problem with that remark, because congressional investigators didn't know of its existence.
It can't exist.
There can be no verification document that made them confident because we know Steele didn't believe his own dossier.
And we know he had an agenda.
And he was being paid to print this by four different outlets.
We know that Paige worked also not only with McCabe and Strzok, but also with Bruce Orr at the DOJ and at least five years and had met his wife Nellie, who was getting paid by Fusion GPS.
See, it's all incestuous Here.
And the fact that unclassified setting, the appropriate agency counsel present ensure the classified information didn't enter into the testimony, et cetera, et cetera.
She talked about her and Peter Strzok working for Mueller.
Well, everybody had known it didn't take long to find out that these two were involved in this relationship.
And just to give you some of the highlights, Paige kind of puts all the focus on the Department of Justice.
Well, that would be Loretta Lynch, the same Loretta Lynch that just a couple of weeks before the exoneration of Hillary's sitting in a private plane at a tarmac in a Phoenix airport or an FBO with their private jets sitting next to each other and they're talking about their kids for 50 minutes we're supposed to believe.
And then she went on to say that the notion there might be more emails that have not previously been seen that existed on Hillary Clinton's email server just simply don't even enter into the realm of the same room with seriousness based on a charge that we now know was governed with fake, fraudulent, bought and paid for information.
But the problem for them is their story doesn't add up because they were warned from the get-go not to trust the dossier.
That was, again, that's August of 2016.
But they, in spite of not verifying it, in spite of, remember, extreme carelessness replaces the legal gross negligence.
Remember, Comey confronts Loretta Lynch, and all Loretta Lynch does is says, you know, the Hillary investigation, no, it's a matter.
And that gets more interesting as this testimony goes on.
And Paige admits her personal dislike for Trump, but she didn't say she had a favorable view of Hillary, which I think it kind of gets blown out of the water when you look at all the text messages that we talked about.
She talked a lot about the DOJ was far more cautious in their approach to matters and responsibility for the decision not to prosecute the Clinton case.
She says the DOJ did that.
The same Loretta Lynch who met with Bill Clinton.
The same Loretta Lynch in the tarmac, same Loretta Lynch that said it's a matter.
It's not an investigation.
And she talked about a developing dynamic between the DOJ and FBI and how the FBI was being pressured from the DOJ to do it their way.
And Paige said as soon as the planning started to begin to interview some of the more high-profile witnesses, not just Clinton, but Uma Abedeen, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, her core team.
Well, the DOJ wanted to change the structure and the number of people who were involved.
You got to understand, this is, none of this is normal procedure.
And she talks at length about the disagreements between the FBI.
It's a good summary.
We should put the summary from the Epoch Times up on the website.
There were lots and lots of disagreements with the FBI and the DOJ.
One was the ongoing contention, you know, Clinton's actual email server.
And the FBI and the Department of Justice, you know, why didn't they proceed and obtain the server, which had the bulk of Hillary's emails?
You know, why were the laptops of these Clinton aides and personal lawyers, you know, why weren't they handed over and given more scrutiny?
She talked about this rub between the FBI and the DOJ with respect to Mills and Samuelson, Heather Samuelson, and lawyers engaging in the, you know, not doing this.
Once it had been identified that Clinton had these emails, some 60 plus thousand of them, and she deleted them, you know, her answer to that was so lame and that, well, to the extent the other 30,000 existed anywhere, that is the best place that they may have existed, meaning on those laptops.
Well, they didn't take them.
They had been deleted.
You know, they wanted to try, she said, forensically to recover them.
Then according to Paige, you know, the dispute got even more acute when the FBI couldn't execute a warrant without the approval from the Justice Department.
In other words, they couldn't, they were not allowed to do their job because of Loretta Lynch and her DOJ and who else we may know from the Clinton, from the Obama world that might be involved in this.
And, you know, why weren't those laptops made available?
She said they should have been made available for forensic examination.
She said the FBI was frustrated in part over the DOJ's unwillingness to explain why won't you give us these opportunity to get them forensically.
Do you see?
I mean, it was all about protecting Hillary.
The fix was in from the beginning.
Even James Baker, the FBI top lawyer, legal counsel, even he said that she should have been indicted for the Espionage Act.
And Paige was like, the whole thing was baffling to me that they weren't handling this like any other investigation.
Information from the Inspector General of the intelligence community, anomalies that would suggest, she says, there were copies of every email going to a third party.
She was asked if that was news.
She said, yeah, that's completely baffling to me.
My understanding is the intelligence community inspector general did refer the existence of the server to the FBI, but that was because of the existence of classified information on that server.
That's illegal.
Not because of any anomaly in terms of activity, not because of potential intrusive activity, because it's not my understanding the ICIG conducted any sort of forensics.
And the question is, so you're telling me it would surprise you to know today that there were, if there were anomalies that the Inspector General's forensic team found those before they referred to the FBI?
And she said to the extent that a foreign government or even a criminal outlet had access to Senator Clinton's private email server, that would have been something we cared very much about.
It's my understanding, there was no evidence that would have supported that kind of conclusion, but even Comey in the end had to admit it.
He just said it didn't reach the standard because they changed the standard.
And she talked about everybody with the Justice Department, they were all Democrats and pointed out that they would essentially do everything to absolve Clinton.
She's pretty much saying the fix is in without saying it.
And so she admits that Hillary is a polarizing figure.
We know it's 100% consistent in universe.
She was not, you know, we don't agree it was a prosecutable case.
And we at the FBI thought that message was more credible coming from the FBI, not the DOJ.
And I don't have any sense that the Attorney General was ultimately disappointed.
And it was, but we know where she stood.
That there was not a single investigative step that we did that was not first approved and consulted with by the director of the Justice Department.
And she never accused herself, meaning Loretta Lynch.
And they talk a lot about gross negligence and intent.
Well, that's not what the law calls for.
It's, you know, as we stated earlier, they changed it from gross negligence to intent and to extreme carelessness.
That was just to save Hillary and take her out of what the real legal justification was.
This is what we're all learning today, and we didn't know before.
I mean, there's a lot more to this, and we're going to, you know, pull out a lot of it.
They talk about Brennan's role in Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI's name for this Trump-Russia investigation.
And Brennan admitted that his intelligence helped establish the FBI counterintelligence investigation.
But he, as we now know, is a partisan hack, now a paid liberal commentator on cable.
And, you know, this is why we've got to get all this information out.
And if we don't get it out, we're never going to have what we're, what she's describing is an unequal justice system.
No dual justice under the law.
No equal application of laws.
No equal justice system for the Clintons.
And with a vengeance, even after nine straight months of investigation, they've now put us on another two years investigating this conspiracy theory and still are coming out with nothing as it relates to collusion.
And look what they put the country through.
And so it was an attempt to keep a candidate that's favored in the election.
Then it was using her paid-for Russian lies they never verified to bludgeon and leak and tell the American people and then use it to spy on the Trump campaign, lying and committing fraud to a FISA court.
And then after the election, after James Comey says, you know, signs the FISA warrant, which means it's accurate and true, and the bulk of information is the phony Clinton Russian dossier tells Trump in January before he becomes sworn in as president.
Oh, no, it's salacious, but it's unverified.
Then why did he sign off that it was verified?
All right, glad you're with us.
Hour two, Sean Hannity show, write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
So revealing this new information that we have today as it relates to the transcript, closed-door transcript testimony provided by Lisa Page.
The one thing we're learning so many new things that, oh, yeah, what we've been telling you, the fix was in.
There was not a single investigative step that we did not do in consultation with or at the direction of the Justice Department, which, by the way, even Lisa Page admits is that's really not the usual protocol and the way things happen.
And that even Loretta Lynch didn't fully recuse herself.
Remember what she said to James Comey, it's a matter.
Okay, so we know where she was.
She felt the Justice Department led by Democrats, yeah, that they would be essentially do everything they can to absolve the Democratic candidate.
That's where we get into the whole gross negligence versus extreme carelessness shift and change by Comey and Strzok.
Remember, it was Lisa Page's boyfriend that wrote that in May before he even interviewed Clinton in July.
And three days later, oh, then they exonerate Clinton.
And then for nine months, they investigate Trump.
And even by her own words in this closed-door testimony, she says, we found nothing about Trump or Trump campaign collusion of any kind.
It had gone on for months.
And, you know, contrary to what so many others have said, you know, yammering about in all of this, Now we also bring into this a lot of other people, including John Brennan, who had the dossier.
And it brings up the question of him leaking to Harry Reid.
What other uses did he have?
Now keep in mind, the dossier also becomes that Hillary paid for, full of Russian lies, funneled money.
Everybody was warned by Bruce Orr when we got Bruce Orr's testimony last week.
Thank God somebody's just saying, if the DOJ won't release it, I'm releasing it.
And that's Congressman Doug Collins.
We wouldn't be at this point were it not for Congressman Devin Nunes of California.
He's the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Sir, how are you?
Doing well, Sean.
More and more is coming into focus.
The American people are learning the truth slowly.
You know, you've known a lot more than I have.
And we have a little team here on our show, radio and TV, Solomon, Carter, Jarrett, and I'm going to forget people, so I don't want to name everybody.
And we've been unpeeling a layer of the onion.
That's how we describe it.
And periodically, when I'd interview, I'd ask you, is there anything that we're saying that's wrong?
And you'd say, no, I'd say you're right over the target.
I think I also said there's a lot more to come.
And so slowly.
You call it peeling back the onion.
I call it running into a brick wall every single day.
And eventually, you know, brick by brick, we're just breaking it apart.
Well, did you have any time?
I know you guys were busy in Congress today trying to steal our money because Casio-Cortez wants 90% of taxes on business and 70% marginal tax.
But let's go through what you learned from the Orr testimony and the PAGE testimony in particular that was just released a few hours ago.
Well, as you know, we've had the PAGE testimony for some time because that was part of the task force that we set up last Congress.
And so the frustrating part of this is that we've been asking for the Department of Justice to release these transcripts for months now.
And don't forget, there are still about 70-some interviews that the House Intelligence Committee did.
And then you have to add on the 15 roughly transcripts, interviews that the task force did.
So there's 80 in total, and of which you've only seen a couple of them.
So as this starts to come out, I think what you'll see is that all of this is unusual.
That's probably the first thing I would start with.
There was the activity that was being undertaken by the Justice Department and the FBI was, they would say, unusual.
I would say more like corruption, but steps that never have been taken before at the DOJ or the FBI, starting with the fact that they use the counterintelligence capabilities, the capabilities that are used to target terrorists and bad guys overseas, and they turned it onto a political party.
She talks about for the first time that there was some verification file as it relates to the dossier.
Now, I would argue that that is a complete impossibility, considering that under sworn testimony and an interrogatory in Great Britain, that, in fact, Christopher Steele said he can't corroborate his own dossier, and it's raw intelligence, and he has no idea if it's true at all, maybe 50-50.
So how could anyone corroborate something that the author of says he can't corroborate?
That's impossible.
Well, I think what you're going to see when this all comes out, and look, there's going to have to be more interviews are going to have to be conducted.
The best thing that could possibly happen is the Department of Justice to actually take a deep look at this and analyze it.
But as it comes to the dossier, my personal belief, now, we don't have anyone who testifies to this yet, okay?
But my personal belief is that Christopher Steele really didn't draft most of that dossier.
I believe the dossier was drafted in advance by Fusion GPS and other operatives, including Nellie Orr, by the way, which would be the spouse to Bruce Orr, who was working for Fusion GPS.
I believe the dossier was generated and then they used Christopher Steele as the guy to put his name on it and then helped to spread it around, feed it to places like the FBI, feed it to press outlets, be the person who.
So you're basically saying that Hillary Clinton likely, well, by the way, and the FBI, apparently, they paid.
Christopher Steele was getting paid by a lot of people for the same work, or maybe work.
Now you're saying he didn't do the Russian oligarch, the FBI, LDNC, and Hillary.
Yes, yes, and probably didn't do much.
So, you know, we've we've now, you know, through our investigation, you know, we have found other evidence that's out there about pre-existing information that is that is very similar to what is in the Steele dossier.
So I would say Christopher Steele was more of a guy that was just hired to add his name to it and help spread it.
I'm not saying that he didn't add something.
He could have a couple sources, but the bulk of the information in the dossier is not Christopher Steele's.
And in fact, a lot of this comes from work that Glenn Simpson did back in the late 2000s when he was a reporter at the Wall Street Journal.
So you're saying this is a this was literally made out of whole cloth and then used and abused by the highest ranking people in the DOJ and the FBI, who also now we learned a lot today about the DOJ's role in exonerating Clinton, even though there were obvious, you know, even James Baker thought she should be indicted for the Espionage Act.
Any intelligent person would notice 33,000 deleted emails and the acid wash of the hard drive and the hammers on the devices.
That's obstruction.
So those people that put the fix in, and then they began a Russian investigation just days later in July of 2016, nine months later, she testified, Lisa Page, that they had found nothing.
Yeah, well, look, that's the date that they're all sticking to.
Okay, so they're all sticking to essentially their fake narrative, which is this whole concept that this five eyes partner brought very important intelligence to us, and we had to do nothing but open up the investigation.
Sounds really nice, sounds great, to open up to be the reason to open up the investigation into the Trump campaign.
However, we don't have any evidence of that.
I mean, there was no intelligence.
There's a lot of information out there that tells us that the FBI was thick into this all through 2016, not just starting at the end of July like they like to claim.
So in other words, you're talking about some of the highest-ranking members of our Department of Justice and the most prestigious law enforcement agency in the world, not rank and file, but the upper echelon.
Right.
The reason that they kept it, they had to have known what they were doing.
So they wanted it to be a counterintelligence investigation because it's siloed.
It's very few people are read into this.
So they were able to keep it to a very small cadre of people, which allowed them to feed all this information in, and then boom, lo and behold.
So there were several people that were bringing in different forms of the dossier into the FBI, into the State Department, producing what I would call fake news articles based on the dossier, generating these fake news articles and spreading them all over the place, not just to the FBI, but into the State Department and other places.
And if you go back and look, you can really find these stories that look awfully similar to the dossier that were written in April, May, June, and July of 2016.
This is even before they open up the counterintelligence investigation at the end of July.
Everybody wants to know, and my sources are now telling me, that all of these people that did these horrible things are going to be held accountable.
Do you believe that?
Well, as you know, because I said this the other night with you on television, and that is that we are preparing a criminal referral based on FISA abuse and other matters, is what I will tell you right now.
And by other matters, are you talking about what you're describing here?
This is the first time I've ever heard you say that Christopher Steele might not have even written a dossier.
Well, I'm pretty sure that I don't think that's not a big part of the story other than pretty big to me.
That people manufactured out of whole cloth a lying narrative to stop a presidential election and shift it in favor of their candidate and then later use it to bludgeon the one that won.
Yeah, and I'm not lessening it at all, Sean.
My point is that I'm making is that it shouldn't surprise us that Christopher Steele was working in conjunction with Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson.
So don't forget, I said it earlier in the interview here, and that is that this story originates in 2000, the late 2000s.
So Glenn Simpson was involved working for the Wall Street Journal and his wife doing stories on Paul Manaford and Ukraine and other types of stories.
So a lot of the originations, you can follow it there.
Then you can follow it to FIFA.
So remember, the FIFA case is supposedly why everybody trusts Christopher Steele, because at that point, he was this operative working as a former intelligence officer.
And if you look at Glenn Simpson's testimony, he worked with Christopher Steele then.
Bruce Orr was involved in that.
If you look at Bruce Orr's testimony, so all these characters were together in FIFA, and then all they did, it was just basically a movie script that then they just applied to the Trump campaign.
And they went with the same movie, a lot of the same characters.
But the fact of the matter is that there's a lot of piece of information.
And you don't think Mueller is going to find any collusion because there was none.
Well, there's definitely no collusion.
What concerns me is that really it's Mueller and his team that are colluding.
Okay, so Weissman, who's running the operation, this should not be lost on anyone.
I have said this from the get-go.
All right, but I want to get back up real quick.
Adam Schiff got all worked up because you went over to the White House.
Then you had to recuse yourself.
Ethics complaint, which, by the way, you've been exonerated, as I understand.
10 of his office people to go to see Michael Cohn before his testimony.
And I believe that he himself has told lies to the American people, and you know what he knew, and he did it anyway to advance the false narrative.
Is that true?
Yeah, well, remember, it was right at two years ago.
Every left-wing organization in America, including all the media, started just pouring gasoline, for lack of a better term, all over me with fake news stories.
And then they came out and said that I disclosed something to the White House.
So I did the honorable thing and I said, look, there was no information disclosed.
Why don't you guys just take a look at this if you want to?
That's fine.
So the ethics committee was supposed to just look at this and dismiss it.
Well, the fact of the matter is, is that then it became political and it got held up for eight months, even though they had absolutely no shred of evidence ever that I had disclosed anything.
And so then you fast forward and you look at the, you know, you look at what's happening today and the fact of, you know, this, look, this is witness tampering, okay?
Witness coaching.
I mean, that's what they're doing here.
Now, that's not illegal in the legislative sense.
You know, there's nothing illegal that Schiff did or his people, but it sure doesn't.
It looks ridiculous, right?
I mean, if we had done that over the last couple years, they would have been calling for all of us to be removed from the House Intelligence Committee.
Wow.
Wow.
This is mind-numbing.
All right.
Devin Nunes, you've been a rock star in all this, and you're taking a lot of heat.
And if it wasn't for you, now Doug Collins, Ed Meadows and Jordan, and Radcliffe, and a few others, we'd never be here.
And this every day we bust out another brick.
So we're going to, you know, we're hoping to refer.
How much more information based, we got the Lisa Page testimony today.
How much more out there is there?
That give me like, is it massive amounts of information we haven't gotten yet?
There's still, there's still a lot.
Yeah.
There's still a lot.
What percent of the story do we know?
Probably two-thirds.
And the last third is going to be the blockbuster.
Well, it's a lot of what you've seen in the first two-thirds.
So it's all really bad.
It's already bad.
All right.
Thank you so much, Devin Nunes.
We'll continue.
All right, as we roll along, all right.
This is huge.
What Devin Nunes is saying here, when we get to the bottom of this, forget what we don't know at this point.
What this is now doing, this is now the release by this now, only the second transcript of testimony.
Last week it was Bruce Order, this week, Lisa Page.
But this week now takes it right into the Department of Justice in the office of Loretta Lynch.
This now takes it right to the CIA director at the time, Brennan.
This now raises questions whether or not this, you know, where did this phony information come from?
And those that say they verified it, that would be an impossibility because the so-called author can't verify it, doesn't stand by it.
Nuts.
Crazy.
I'm surprised, once again, nobody has stomped you into the ground because that's exactly where you belong.
You belong in the ground.
You are an idiot and you're not, which means, which, you know, tells me that you're lying.
You're lying.
Ain't nobody threatening your life.
I'll threaten to punch your teeth down your throat, though.
I would do that.
I would definitely do that if I saw you out on the street because I don't like people like you.
You are the reason why hell exists on earth because you're a part of it and you come from it.
You are a cancer.
You're a walking, talking, disease to humanity.
If someone were to cut your ass open right now, there would be nothing but emptiness.
Nothing.
Nothing but blackness.
Because you don't have a heart.
And if you do step to one of us in the black community, you will get dealt with in kind.
How about that?
Because I sure as hell will.
And if somebody does get a hold of you and wipes your ass off the face of the planet, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
All right, Clan, you're with us 24 now till the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
So there are all these wannabe, whatever be, you know, warriors.
We call them keyboard warriors that, you know, tweet and text and post social media things and just to get attention.
Now, what you just heard there was from a YouTube channel.
I hope it's been taken down.
I'll find out in a second.
A woman who gives the name Kimberly Frazier.
That went on for 30 minutes.
Now, if you threaten somebody's life, you can't make terroristic threats or threaten somebody's life like in that particular case.
Now, that rant was aimed at somebody who's been a guest for many years on this program, DC McAllister.
By the way, she co-authored the New York Times best-selling book, Spygate, with Dan Bongino.
And she has an upcoming book that I'm sure is going to create a lot of controversy.
I haven't read it yet.
What men want to say to women, but they can't.
DC McAllister joins us now.
How are you?
That is beyond scary.
Tell us what happened there.
Oh, thanks for having me, Sean.
It is scary, and it's insane, actually, that someone would use their own name and post something like that on social media to thousands of subscribers.
She doesn't have a small subscriber list.
And this was in response to after the election, women, white women in particular, were being attacked by many authors on the left, feminist authors, mainly black feminist authors, calling us racist for not sticking to the group, the sisterhood, and voting for Democrats in the election.
And because the expectation among feminists today is that we all stick together.
Well, I just said, I'm not going to stick together with the feminists.
I'm going to stand for what's right.
And that doesn't make me a racist.
It doesn't make me a bigot in any form.
I just think that we should vote on principle according to our right thinking and not just follow along with the herd.
And that I would challenge anyone and I'm going to fight anyone politically who tries to force me or intimidate me to go along with the feminist kind of thinking.
All right, but let me stay focused on this.
And then I want to get into some of the broader issues and the provocative title of your new book, which I can only imagine is going to make liberals' heads spin and they'll probably projectile vomit like Linda Blair and the Exorcist.
But let's stay focused.
So you hear this threat.
What happened?
I hope you filed the police report.
I hope she was arrested.
I hope there are charges.
What's going on?
Oh, yeah.
So as soon as she heard my, as soon as I found out about it, I called the police.
Local police came out and took a police report here in Charlotte in Muckenberg County.
But because she doesn't live in the state, she lives in another state, I had to contact the FBI, in which it goes into the Guardian lead.
And so they'll be investigating that, and that's where we are right now.
And she needs to be held accountable.
I mean, she's not a big voice, but this is the kind of thing that people read and then they get inspired.
You never know what kind of crazies are going to hear this kind of threat.
And she says on the tape, she says, This is not, she actually says, This is not an idle threat.
I mean it.
And she says, and I'll explain to the police why I did it to you because I hate you that much.
What happened from there?
This is where, by the way, this is where, and I know we're spending a lot of time on the upper echelon of the FBI abusing power, being corrupt, trying to alter the outcome of an election and undo an election thereafter.
This is what the real FBI does.
These are the rank and file guys.
What do they do?
Yeah, these are the field agents and they're great.
And so it's right now, I can't really get into what they're doing.
They're investigating right now.
So it's still in that stage.
But first of all, we're very sorry to hear that.
You know, I don't care what your viewpoint is.
You can't make threats against people.
You know, it's just like, you know, we have all these controversies over freedom of speech, especially if you work at Fox News.
They just constantly want to silence conservative voices.
And my attitude is, well, I can give you chapter and verse of every single solitary, outrageous thing these people on the left have said, and they always get a pass.
And even get a pass from me because my attitude is if you don't like what you're hearing or watching, turn the channel.
I have 500,000 channels now available to me when you add in Amazon Prime and Netflix and HBO and Cinemax and Showtime and Epics.
And I got them all.
And so that frustrates me.
All right.
So this is obviously, I would hope that when you get to the point, you will press charges because, I mean, I know you have a family as well.
That's got to be scary for them.
Oh, absolutely.
And this is the second time in a year that I've had my life threatened.
Last year I was threatened by an anonymous.
They actually got to my home address and my cell phone numbers.
And that was over an abortion issue.
And this is the second time.
And I'm a real person.
And political commentators, we're real live people with families and children.
And yes, my children are very upset.
And it makes us, people like me, question, should I even be doing this?
You know, I'm putting my family at risk simply for having the freedom to speak my opinion that's not racist because I reject racism in all forms and bigotry in all forms.
I want people to live in coexistence happily together and supporting one another and not making false accusations.
But you can't.
Look at what they did.
I went into this last night of this, you know, Nicholas Sandman, this 16-year-old kid who I think in retrospect handled it better than I could have ever handled it, almost perfectly, non-reactive, told one kid to don't get involved.
And it was unmerciful slander.
Now, all of these big companies, they're all going to lose millions and millions, tens and hundreds of millions of dollars.
They're going to lose.
They're not going to win those cases, especially with Lynn Wood as Nicholas Sandman's attorney.
Look, I don't talk about it a lot.
As a matter of fact, I rarely talk about it.
I can't even count the number of times in my life I've had to deal with this crap.
And I honestly don't want to talk about it, don't want to publicize it, don't want people aware of it.
But I have over the years when I see other people that I know disagree with me that are going through real pain and really freaking out.
I try to reach out to them and say, listen, you're going to be all right.
This is what you got to do, though.
There's certain things when you're doing them all.
A lot of this, you know, you are a conservative commentator.
You are not a feminist.
You say you're not a feminist.
You see a Democratic Party now where they're trying to pass bills where first we'll deliver the baby and then we'll make the baby comfortable and then the mom can decide there and then if we're gonna keep the baby alive and resuscitate it, if it needs some type of assistance, and then we'll have a chat with the doctors after that or, you know, during birth abortion, even during dilation, and this is taken on such an urgency in in what eight, nine states now and in Washington?
Um, I believe life begins at conception.
Personally um, but even people that I know that say they're pro-choice on abortion and but they're pro-choice for three months.
Make up your mind if a viable child is, if that child inside a mother's womb has has grown to the point they can live outside the womb on their own.
That is a human soul.
Um, what do you?
Why do you think this has now become such an urgent issue for the Democrats?
The thread and the impetus of the feminist movement today, the radical feminist movement today, is a power struggle.
It's mainly a power struggle between men and women, authority issues and those kinds of things.
Um marriage family, having children is a natural, keeps women down, they think, or puts women in a certain place by nature.
Feminism itself is more against biology and nature than it is against any kind of male oppression, and that's what you see with the abortion, with the contraceptive and this kind of thing is they're, they're railing against nature and not against men per se or, and then they're definitely not fighting for rights, because they have the rights in our society.
So what are they still fighting for?
And that's what I mean is that they're they're fighting for in a power struggle, they're not looking for their purpose as women.
The only thing is, I think there's variations of this.
I mean, you have extreme feminism which it would support, you know, even during or after birth abortion, or late term abortion, like this um and, and other issues.
I want to, i'd be, I i'd be so negligent.
So you're, you're writing a book what men want to say to women, but can't, and i'm like thinking, oh boy, why do I?
Why just throw them the title?
Am I thinking you're gonna piss a lot of people off?
What do you mean by that?
Well, and in reference to what you said before, I am talking about radical, radical feminism.
When i'm opposing feminism, i'm talking about intersectional feminism.
Let me just add one thing here.
I mean I, I grew up with three sisters and a mom that was a prison guard.
You know, pretty tough lady, although she couldn't handle me.
Um, and uh, you know and, and I, I have so many people over the years.
There just is I, I can't explain it.
It's just, I think men and women, while biologically different obviously, and men and women are the same, I just, you know I, you can make arguments that I don't know.
The people that I work with or work for me um men women, it's just based on the individual.
They're either great or they're not great.
They either do their job or don't do their job.
They're either committed or they're not committed.
Does that make?
Well, I think competency is equal between the sexes.
I mean, obviously.
And I think we're equal, obviously, in value, but we are different.
And we are.
Of course we are.
That's obvious.
Yeah.
By the way.
And if you say men are generally physically stronger than women, that's a true statement.
But don't tell that to Rhonda Rousey.
Many people, we don't play sports together for a reason.
There's a very different, generally speaking, and we have to talk in generalities when you talk about the sexes.
But from the beginning of time, women and men are different.
And we have a different way of thinking even.
I don't mean intellectual.
We're both equal that way.
I'm talking about how we approach life and approach situations and especially relationships based on our biology.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back more with DC McAllister and what her new book is about, what men want to say to women but can't.
Also, best-selling author with Dan Bongino and Spygate.
What are the things men want to say to women but can't say?
You know, there is one person that gets a pass on all of this.
That's Howard Stern.
He can say anything to anybody.
You know, I listen to his show and I'm like, wow, and I never want anyone to ever suppress a thing he's saying.
I mean, he's probably the most honest broadcaster in the history of broadcasting.
But if I said, you know, if I said 1% of what he says on a daily basis, I'd be off the air.
Well, he's under the realm of entertainment, isn't he?
So he's not taking us seriously as political commentators.
So I guess he can get away with a lot more than we can.
But as far as what men want, and the title is, it's not that men can't say it, men can, but feminism, radical feminism, the modern feminism that we're facing today has very much silenced men.
They really can't say culturally in the workplace and even in the home.
They can say it, but there's a real backlash to things that they want to say.
And I got the idea of writing it when I would comment on feminism and try to explain to women what men are really thinking and try to get women to understand men.
I would always hear from men.
Thank you.
Thank you for saying something that I can't get away with saying.
DBC McAllister, always great to talk to you.
Very sorry about all you went through.
Great congratulations on the New York Times bestseller Spygate with our buddy Dan Bongino.
When is this book coming out?
What men want to say to women but can't?
And when will I see you being excoriated all over the liberal media?
And I haven't read the book yet.
End of the year, January at the latest.
So that's when the publishing date is.
Well, you got everybody's attention on my show when you just put out the title.
And we'll look forward to reading it.
And we'll look forward, more importantly, to the controversy that ensues afterwards.
Our thoughts and prayers for your family.
Nobody should have to go through that.
And we appreciate you being with us.
Well, thank you very much, Don.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate it.
800-941-Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
Impeachment.
Impeachable.
Impeached.
Impeachment.
Impeachment.
Impeachable.
Peachable.
Impeachment of the Rush Investigation.
Colluded.
Putin collusion.
Adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Stormy Daniels.
The Stormy Saga to Stormy Daniels.
Adult film star Stormy Daniels.
She's a bowler.
Is there a difference if the president said holder house?
Do you think these countries are holes?
Donald Trump has turned the Oval Office into a hole.
The fake Melania online conspiracy theory is back.
Some people think that the first lady is using an imposter to stand in for her.
You mean there are two women that have to pretend they're listening to him?
Look at the photos that are being posted.
What do you think?
You know.
That one does not look like her.
Sorry.
I wasn't going to go along with this, but that one in that picture doesn't look like you weren't going to go now, you will.
No, it's a different shaped face.
When there's a rumor like this and memes all over the place, I think it catches on because there's an element of truth to the idea that she doesn't want to spend time with him.
I think this is crazy and it's absurd, but it's also funny.
And we need to laugh.
For me, the laughing part is the coping mechanism.
If you have not gone to hashtag fake Melania, you must go see those, you know, those memes.
I'll tell you what, though.
I'd rather be talking about whether it's a fake Melania or whether the president of the United States is a Russian asset or not.
Well, that's a thing.
And if there's going to be a body double, can we get one for him?
Now, that would be a good idea.
And I don't even know how that show is still on the air.
By the way, we wish Whoopi Goldberg well.
I heard she's not feeling well.
800-941, Sean Tolfrey telephone number, news roundup, information overload hour.
The first thing that you heard was the typical day on fake news CNN, who's now that their president comes out of hiding, a guy by the name of Jeff Zucker.
And, you know, remember, it's always whatever the driving Democratic talking point is on any given day.
You know, literally so-called news networks every second, every minute, every hour of every 24-hour day, of every seven-day week, of every, well, sometimes 30, 31, or 28 months and all year long.
Bash Trump, hate Trump, hate Trump.
And now there is a massive lawsuit they're about to face: $250 million for their willful slander, smearing, and besmirchment, and character assassination of Covington High School student, Nicholas Sandman.
And they're going up against our friend and attorney, Lynn Wood, who's going to crush them.
All these companies are going to end up paying millions.
It's a $250 million lawsuit.
I predict there's a good shot of getting all of it more.
Remember, CNN rushed to judgment.
Sandman was wearing a red MAGA hat.
They saw 10 seconds of a Native American activist, Nathan Phillips, getting in his face.
And they said the boy walked up to him, but they never did even make a phone call.
And it went on for days on fake news CNN.
You know, and for the head of fake news CNN, when all they do is bash Trump, then to criticize Fox News, this is state-run liberal television.
And the worst part of all of this is it's seen internationally.
They're giving the world a distorted, abusively biased, perverted look at what the United States is about and their new love for Ocasio Cortez.
Maybe Jeff Zucker ought to apologize for the disgusting treatment and smears of a 16-year-old kid.
And the only reason they used Nicholas Sandman is because, oh, he supports Trump.
He has a Make America Great Again hat on.
And he allowed him and his network to be consumed by this with every possible slander you can imagine.
You know, how many times, how many more stories is CNN going to get wrong?
You know, the people that work there, Fox is dangerous or committed damage to the country.
Well, when Zucker and his network is 24-7 hate Trump, they're not serving the people in this country.
What about their fake story in the Japanese prime minister when they were feeding the fish in a pond?
Or the fake news story about Trump and WikiLeaks that they got wrong?
Or the fake news story about Trump in Russia.
It forced three CNN journalists to have to resign.
Or the fake news story about sessions in Russia that they were forced to walk back.
Or the fake news story predicting that Comey would refute Trump or the fake news.
It just goes on and on, conspiracy after conspiracy.
This is all we've gotten from them in three years.
And it is literally an obsession and a compulsion on their part.
Anyway, Joe Concha is the media advisor of the Sean Hannity radio show.
Of course, he works at The Hill.
That's where they actually pay him.
And we've had him on many times before.
Look, they're not a news network.
Let's forget the pretense here.
They're an arm of all things hate Trump of the resistance of the Democratic Socialist Extremist Party.
And that's all they advocate every second of the day.
I can't recall a single time I've ever seen. that they've ever said, hey, Donald Trump has given us record low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workplace, youth unemployment.
Never.
I've never heard a positive story ever on Trump.
And they jump in headfirst.
And when they're proven wrong, they don't barely say anything and just move on to the next lying conspiracy theory.
Well, Sean, the numbers you just cited are numbers, right?
They're not opinions as far as unemployment as it regards to overall unemployment or as regards to a specific race.
Those are things that are hard and fast numbers and they should be presented as such.
And instead, I think the problem that a lot of folks have that I've spoken to that are supporters of the president and watch CNN is that the news side of CNN is presented as news when it's really opinion.
In other words, I think I've talked to you about this before.
Don Lemon or Chris Cuomo or Anderson Cooper are all called anchors on that network.
And to compare them, for instance, with, say, Chris Wallace, Brett Baer, Shep Smith, I could go down the line as far as the news organization of Fox News, Catherine Harridge, John Roberts, Jillian Turner.
By the way, no, no, no, no, there are plenty of liberal opinions on Fox News.
Trust me.
Look, I know I get written about the most.
I'm not saying that.
Right.
No, I'm saying that the news side of Fox, I can tell that Chris Wallace is an anchor.
If you look back at the moderators in 2016, of all those debates, and there were dozens, he was easily the best because he's been in news for 50 years and he doesn't cheerlead for the president.
He presents facts in the assets.
By the way, I agree with that.
I thought he did by far the single best debate of anybody in that cycle.
No doubt about it.
Easily.
And Brett Baer, same thing.
And by the way, I doubt they agree with Sean Hannity's opinions on a lot of things.
Oh, probably not.
I mean, maybe not.
Honestly, they probably hate when they have to, oh, you work with that Hannity guy.
I actually asked Brett Baer that when he was on about his latest book, I said, how much crap do you get for working on a network with me?
And he goes, a lot.
I'm like, well, too bad.
Well, the good news is that you have to guess, right?
Maybe they disagree with you, agree with you.
They don't share their opinions.
They just ask tough questions, present the news, and cover important stories.
I don't know if you get that with CNN because I try to find a comparable person on there with those folks, and it's very hard to find.
So I think that's the biggest problem that people have.
Look, I don't have a...
They present themselves as objective.
Yeah, go ahead.
I make my living being a talk show host.
I'm a member of the press.
And even Hannity admits he said he's not a journalist.
I said, no, I'm a talk show host.
And being a talk show host, and you and I have gone over this before.
I can produce hundreds and hundreds of hours radio TV of me doing straight news.
I don't care, maybe about war or some type of disaster, or maybe it's just a straight up interview.
Tell me about your book.
Then we've done a lot of investigative reporting.
Nobody was really vetting Obama as strongly as me and my team were in 80 and 07 and 08.
Or when we got to 2015 and 16, you know, telling the story of what eight years of Obama was.
The media never touched it.
And I would say for two years, we have done more with real evidence, real proof about abuse of power.
So we do investigative reporting.
That's part of being a talk show host.
Straight opinion is part of it.
We sometimes do cultural issues, sports, and everything.
And I describe what I do as I do everything in the newspaper.
Everything.
Meanwhile, they say they're journalists, but they really, you know, I don't even think they're talk show hosts because I don't see any investigative work.
They just run with whatever BuzzFeed feeds them.
No pun intended.
Well, look, you got to have some teeth behind the opinions.
Whenever I try to do radio or I do radio now, as you know, after you in New York, and whenever I do television, I just don't come on and say, here's what I think.
And it's just an opinion.
You have to have some foundation behind it.
And that's why it's good to have the John Solomons from the Hill onto the world who, you know, can bring you what his latest investigative report is on XYZ.
Hey, I hate to tell you, Joe, I have a lot of my own sources.
Yeah.
And that's another thing.
You know, go back to certain cases.
I went down to Florida and I talked to George Zimmerman and interviewed him.
I went during the Duke LaCrosse case.
I met with some of the families.
I met with some of the kids to get information so I wouldn't rush to judgment.
Look how many times they're wrong.
Ferguson, Missouri, or Cambridge Police, or UVA, or Duke La Crosse, or Baltimore Freddie Gray.
You know, they're wrong a lot, and I'm right a lot.
I think the perception from the public is the important thing here.
And the bottom line is that Axios and SurveyMonkey did this poll last year that I can never get out of my head as far as how the public views the press these days.
You always hear like trust, forget trust.
79% of people who deem themselves as independent think that the press knowingly makes up stories.
In other words, presents stories they know to be fake or false.
93% of Republicans feel the same way.
Even a majority of Democrats feel the same way.
No, I think what they do more than that is it's having a profound effect.
It's like with the Smullet case or the Nicholas Sandman, Covington Kids case.
You know, they hear something, and if it advances their narrative, they want to roll with it.
And look at the case of Nicholas Sandman.
All they had to do was, okay, before we run with this, maybe we ought to talk to him.
Maybe we ought to talk to the school.
Maybe we ought to talk to another eyewitness.
Maybe we can see if there's more tape that what led up to this.
Well, the last part is the accurate part, which obviously you do talk to the other side, but most importantly, there were other tapes out there.
But it's a matter of being first instead of accurate.
And then when you're not accurate in these situations, almost always there's no accountability.
In other words, well, now there is actually, thanks to Lynn Wood, because he's bringing these lawsuits about.
And look, it's not about the money.
Like the $250 million, you know, for Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post or CNN, it's not about winning that exact amount or anything close to it.
It's the symbolism around accountability.
And if they could win this suit here against those outlets, I think that'll go a long way.
And people in this organization I first met Lynn Wood, and this changed my life.
And I've told the story many times on the air.
He was representing Richard Jewell.
I didn't know that the day that the Atlanta Journal Constitution came out with the theory that he fit the profile of the lone bomber because he lived with his mother.
I didn't know.
I was live on the air.
I had no idea Richard Jewell was actually listening to me say that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
And everybody else rushed to judgment that the hero is likely the top suspect.
He lives with his mom.
And I remember I just, it taught me a valuable lesson.
You want to know why I'm usually end up being right and these others end up being wrong is because I learned that lesson.
And if you don't rush to judgment, what's that?
Did you then organize and get an interview with Jewell?
No, yes.
Yes.
I just started it at Fox.
What do you think happened in 2016?
Why did they get that election so wrong?
It's because so many people were opining about the election.
No, they got to support when they didn't.
I talked to people in the Trump campaign.
I talked to the president now the day of the election when the exit polls came out.
I read them, called them, said, somebody is about to bring you horrible news.
Don't believe it.
And then I told him a story about 2004.
When those exit polls came out, John Kerry was the president.
And Dick Cheney that day called this radio program at 5.35 when he got off an airplane and started pleading with Ohio Republicans and conservatives to get out and Florida Republicans and conservatives to get out because he read them too.
And I told that story to the president.
I said, these polls, you don't poll accurately.
Don't believe it.
I don't believe it.
Because it had him losing everything.
North Carolina was gone.
Ohio was gone.
Florida was gone.
Pennsylvania gone.
Michigan, Wisconsin, gone.
And, you know, maybe he was going to win five or six states.
It was a landslide.
And the media.
I swear to God should be banned.
Or you don't report them because remember what happened in 2000 when Florida was called and the western part of the state and the panhandles still hadn't voted or at least the polls were still open.
So no, don't, there shouldn't be the calling in these states before all the votes are in.
I'm very uncomfortable with that.
Well, but that's why you can watch when the coverage began that night, they're all giddy.
They're all making their predictions.
Hillary Clinton's happy because their candidate won.
And as the night went on, all of a sudden the depression started kicking in and they couldn't believe what was unfolding before their eyes.
All right, quick break.
More with Joe Concha of The Hill as we continue.
800-941 Sean is our number.
All right, as we continue, Joe Concha is with us.
We'll get to your calls next half hour in this case of apparently rich parents, well, cheating to get their kids into prestigious schools.
Tell you about that as we continue with Joe Concha of The Hill.
Last question.
Now that you're a talk radio host, what do you do for a living?
I write.
I'm a media reporter during the day.
You go to my archive.
I cover stories as straight as I possibly can.
I do one column a week so I can give my opinion.
And then I get to talk in the air for three hours about stuff.
It's tremendous.
Well, congratulations.
You're on our flagship station in New York, WOR, on immediately after this program, AM 710, the talk in New York, New Jersey, Long Island.
All right, Joe Concha, thank you.
Appreciate it.
800-941 Sean is our number.
We're here today to announce charges in the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice.
We've charged 50 people nationwide with participating in a conspiracy that involved, first, cheating on college entrance exams, meaning the SAT and the ACT, and second, securing admission to elite colleges by bribing coaches at those schools to accept certain students under false pretenses.
In return for bribes, these coaches agreed to pretend that certain applicants were recruited competitive athletes, when in fact the applicants were not.
As the coaches knew, the students' athletic credentials had been fabricated.
Overall, today we have charged three people who organized these scams, two SAT or ACT exam administrators, one exam proctor, one college administrator, nine coaches at elite schools, and 33 parents who paid enormous sums to guarantee their children's admission to certain schools through the use of bribes and fake academic and athletic credentials.
A central defendant in the scheme, William Singer, will plead guilty today to charges of racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and obstruction of justice.
Singer allegedly ran a college counseling service and something called the Key Worldwide Foundation.
Between roughly 2011 and 2018, wealthy parents paid Singer about $25 million in total to guarantee their children's admission to elite schools, including Yale, Georgetown, Stanford, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, UCLA, and Wake Forest.
Wow, unbelievable.
Now, what's so fascinating about this is this is by far the largest ever college admission scam prosecuted by the Department of Justice.
And of, you know, 50 of the people charged, 33 were parents, you know, and you're talking about massive amounts of money here.
And the crimes include cheating on these entrance exams.
I guess what?
The SATs, ACTs, as well as bribing college officials to say students were coming in to compete on athletic teams when those students were, in fact, not even athletic at all.
I mean, how did you pull that one off?
And, you know, these are all very big schools.
Anyway, that was the Boston U.S. Attorney, Andrew Lelling, calling it the largest scam ever prosecuted by the Justice Department, college admissions.
And, you know, what's funny about that?
I mean, you know, for example, I have two kids that are athletes that were recruited.
Both my children's friends, all recruited athletes.
They all know each other.
And if whatever sport you pick here, if the person never trained in the sport, you're going to know it in three seconds.
So I don't know how they pulled that off on that side.
On the other side, they apparently discovered this accidentally while working on an unrelated undercover operation.
And apparently these parents would pay these massive amounts of money to get these people in.
Now, it caught up in this whole thing.
Do you remember from Full House, the actress Laurie Law?
What's her name?
Lachlan?
And what's the name?
Desperate Housewives, Felicity Huffman.
They're among the 40 people indicted in this thing.
None of the students were charged.
Prosecutors said their parents were the scheme's principal actors.
And court filings released paint a pretty ugly picture of privileged parents committing crimes to get their kids into selective schools.
And two of the participants in the scheme are scheduled to enter guilty pleas.
And this guy Singer is charged with getting $25 million, paying some of it to college coaches or the standardized test officials for helping to rig the admissions process or pocketing the rest himself.
And he would disguise the money using a nonprofit.
And one of the cooperating witnesses, according to the court documents, is a former head of Yale's Woman Soccer who pleaded guilty in the case nearly a year ago and has been helping the FBI gather evidence.
Well, you know, part of it is like, for example, if you're on a football team, basketball team, baseball team, whatever your sport is, if you're being recruited academically, let's say the school demands straight A's or the school, and every school is so competitive academically, or the school demands, you know, a 34 out of a, what is it, 36 on the ACT or like a 1,500 out of 1,600 on the SATs.
And if you have people setting, it's unbelievable.
And I wonder what the fine is.
Now, Huffman's accused of paying $15,000.
Laughlin's accused of paying $500,000 And directing the money to go to certain places.
And apparently, that was disguised as this profitable thing.
And anyway, they ended up getting higher scores in the SATs than what they had taken a year earlier, whatever, whatever, whatever.
They didn't say what the possible penalty is here.
You know, who knows?
You just think, I'm like, we're all helicopter parents these days.
I mean, the days when we used to.
And I'm curious, by the way, Ethan, did you grow up like I did?
Where I get off the school bus, I'd get on my bicycle, and maybe it's hockey day, maybe it's stick ball day, maybe it's baseball day, basketball day, whatever it happened to be.
And my parents had no idea where I was.
The only thing I was told to be home for supper.
And my father's whistle was so loud it could be heard 30 miles around in a circumference.
Did you live that way?
Yeah, no.
I mean, my parents knew I was playing sports.
I mean, that's all they knew.
They didn't know what I was doing.
I was either swimming.
They didn't know where you were, who you were with, and they just told you to be home in time for dinner.
Yeah, but I mean, I don't know how these people got away with it.
Supposedly, they photoshopped some of these kids and did photo shoots to make it look like they were athletes and even took like stock photos of people that weren't these students and submitted it as though they were the athletes.
It's kind of nuts.
Well, the coaches, I mean, the funny thing is that the coaches or the athletic directors are involved in this.
I don't, you know, they have all of these college rankings in terms of, you know, they could go back.
Like, for example, in the sports my kids play, we can go back to when they were 10 years old playing the sport.
Yeah, my times from swimming from back in high school, we're talking about over a decade ago, are still online.
Are they really?
Are they any good?
Don't look them up.
No, no, no.
No, and then there are rating services, you know, like, for example, there's like in tennis, tennis recruiting.
Or they have, what's the new one that they have?
Some other point.
You know, I'm so out of it, the loop now, because you get disgusted going all these stupid matches all the time.
You know how hard it is to watch your kids every other weekend in competitive sports?
I began to hate it.
And all my friends began to hate.
We all hated it.
And then the funny thing is when they finally do play in college, it just becomes fun because it's a team sport then.
You know, some of these individual sports.
Wow, that's pretty amazing.
All right, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number, you want to be a part of the program.
Let's go to Chad is in Midland, Texas.
Chad, how are you?
Glad you called.
By the way, I bet Midland's really, really happy with that new Green Deal and the idea that the oil and gas industry is dead in 10 years.
How's Midland, Texas going to react to that?
So it's more comical and just entertainment now than just total.
Listen, it's entertaining, but tell your friends in Midland, take it seriously.
There's a lot of these people that believe this.
Absolutely.
And I go to a handful of rigs every single day and about between 7 to 10.
And they have little offices where I have to visit the company representative.
And every single day, about 7 to 10 rigs that I visit, every one of them have on Fox News.
You'll get that one percenter who has on CNN for some god-awful reason, and I don't know why.
But in Midland, when we hear that, it's more we just laugh at it.
Like, that's never going to happen.
This is a serious point.
It's on paper eliminating oil, gas, cars, cows, and planes, and everything's free.
And literally confiscate 90% of the profits of companies.
Exactly.
And, you know, socialists, their favorite word is free.
And, you know, so Alexandria Ocastio-Cortez, I can never say it as good as Russ Limbaugh says it, but she went to South by Southwest.
I'm really interested to know how she got to and from New York, you know, to Austin, Texas, from New York.
We know the answer.
She took an airplane.
Just like she takes a nation.
She doesn't take Amtrak.
Amtrak from, say, New York to D.C., they have what's called the Acela.
And she could take a train.
She takes the airplane shuttle, the Delta shuttle.
What she doesn't want to say is it's banned for everybody else.
It's still okay for government to do.
But thanks for the question about Midland, Sean.
There's no slowing down on here, even though the price of all is less than 60.
But my talking point today was, and I feel like, you know, top rating on Super Bowl Sunday when I call and get through and get to talk to you.
I'm going to go to the next one.
So listen, I'm just looking laugh all you want, but take it a little seriously.
Look at Vozo got closer than we thought.
You know, he got $100 million to throw at Ted Cruz.
And, you know, money influences elections.
There's no doubt about it.
All right, my friend.
Thank you.
All my best to Midland.
All right.
All right.
Let's say hi to Canada's in California.
Yes, the highly taxed state.
By the way, is it serious, this secession movement, that they're going to pull away from the United States and be their own socialist utopia?
Oh, I sure hope not.
Oh, my goodness.
But you never know what's going on in Liberal Fornia.
I don't know if I'd be against that.
Well, as long as they keep the ocean part of it to themselves and we're conservatives.
Listen, when you start out with California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, that's a lot of electoral votes.
And that's why it's so much harder for a Republican to become president.
They got to run the table.
Well, and California is never going to divide up that 50-something electoral votes.
It's not going to happen.
Well, I think if they think about it that way, although they were thinking about, okay, we'll make Orange County one, and then we'll make 11 other states out of it.
And we'll have two senators and however many congressional representatives, and nobody's going to accept that either.
No, but as long as they do it and they keep Sacramento part of that ocean front over there, happy to see them go.
Problem is everyone's leaving California, New York, and these places because of the regulatory burdens and taxes, but they're taking the liberal values when they go to Nevada or Texas or Arizona.
Well, see, I'm the odd one.
I was born and raised in Texas, and I ended up out here.
Big mistake.
You made a big mistake.
Well, I wouldn't trade the mountains in Yosemite for that flatland any day.
Listen, you're not going to, look, California is beautiful.
I lived there five years in Santa Barbara.
I was the poorest person that lived there, but I lived there for five years.
Oh, I'm up there in Mariposa, and it's a pretty darn conservative town.
All I have to say is four words.
Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom.
Yuck.
Darn it.
Well, Sean, the reason I was calling is to thank you for being such a great American, and thank you for standing up for my president, who I absolutely adore, and I'm so grateful that he's leading our country.
And, you know, my grandfather, Colonel Van Thomas Barfoot, received the Medal of Honor in World War II for fighting the Nazis and then went on to fight the Homeowners Association in Virginia over his American flag.
And thank you so much.
You guys are doing just like he did, maybe without the bazooka and the bullets, but you're still fighting for us, the American people.
Listen, we're all spokes in a wheel, and this is a moment where the country needs all hands on deck.
I mean, what they're pushing, what they're trying to do, the radicalization, how they're trying to destroy a duly elected president, abuse of power.
We better get this right, or we're going to be in big trouble in terms of what we leave our kids and grandkids.
But thank you, my friend.
All right, Hannity tonight, Nine Eastern.
Oh, we are going to explain a Hannity history lesson on socialism.
But the big news today, finally releasing, once again, we had Bruce Orr last week.
Earlier today, Lisa Page's testimony reveals so much.
We'll break it down.
Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Geralda Rivera, Nine Eastern, Hannity Fox.
