Joe Concha, radio host in the evenings on WOR and columnist for The Hill, takes a look at the reaction to the town hall with Bernie Sanders last night. All eyes were on the self described socialist as he attempted to explain away his own millions. He told the audience in Bethlehem, PA that he would not apologize for having a NY #1 bestselling book. Now it appears another candidate will take to the Fox News stage,The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You know how much I love my pillow, how much it's changed my life for the better.
Well, I figured it was about time that I let you know about my pillow sheets.
Now, Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life.
That's why he has created the new Giza Dream Bed Sheets.
Now, these sheets are made from the world's best cotton, Giza, that's only grown in a very small region where the Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River all meet to create the ideal weather conditions for growing cotton.
These Giza sheets are available in a variety of colors.
They come with Mike's 10-year warranty, 60-day money-back guarantee.
The first night you sleep on these sheets, it's heaven.
You'll never want to sleep on anything else.
Now, right now, you, my listeners, you're going to save 30% and get free shipping when you use the promo code Sean7, S-E-A-N-7, when you go to mypillow.com.
Again, that's promo code Sean7, S-E-A-N-7 at mypillow.com.
All right, happy Tuesday.
Glad you're with us.
Buckle up.
Things are going to get very, very, very interesting in what will be the biggest, loudest boomerang ever in the history of politics.
And it will all expose that which we have slowly been able to unfeel over a two-year period of time.
It's all now set.
It's all happening.
It's all real.
And it is going to be, it's just going to be interesting, the whole ride, because everything the rage, hate, Donald Trump media mob has sold you for nearly two and a half years.
It has been lies and tinfoil hack conspiracy theories.
Everything that we have been telling you about, oh, rigged investigation of Hillary Clinton, the laws she violated, but she was protected.
You know, it's all going to come into very deep focus.
The FISA applications, when they are released, we will see with our own eyes FISA abuse and people committing a fraud purposely on the court because they wanted to get Donald Trump.
And we're going to learn about all of that abuse.
We're going to learn that, yes, spying on the Trump campaign did, in fact, happen.
Three separate individuals, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Sam Clovis, and all learned that Stephen Stefan Halper, longtime source for the CIA, British intelligence, had been tasked during the FBI's Russia investigation to chat up three Trump campaign advisors.
And it runs much deeper.
The other development that is happening is that we're now watching all these deep state actors as we get more and more information from these closed-door hearings.
They're now beginning to turn on each other.
You know, we see Bruce and Nellie Orr, they're saying, whoa, we're the ones that sounded the alarm in 2016.
We told everybody in August of 2016, hey, this dossier is not verified.
It's not corroborated.
The guy that put it together, Christopher Steele, hates Donald Trump and has an agenda.
The person that paid for it is, oh, the opposition party, Hillary Clinton.
We learned thereafter, not long thereafter, in an interrogatory, it was an unverifiable dossier because its own author doesn't even stand by it.
All of this is going to come out.
It's all going to be proven.
The abuse of our intelligence, weapons of intelligence turned on the American people, too, will be exposed.
And there are going to be people that end up getting arrested.
There are going to be others that end up getting convicted and going to jail.
You know, we have House Republicans now who are pressing for the release of dozens of more of these Russia Gate witness closed-door testimonies.
Our friend Jamie Dupree, he's out there reporting that House Republicans are pressing the intelligence community to clear the release of several dozen more transcript of sealed testimony given by figures in the Obama administration.
Remember, you had Paige and Strzok, they turned it all on Loretta Lynch, the same Loretta Lynch that met on a tarmac days before the decision involving the investigation into Hillary Clinton and literally had a long 45-minute chat with her husband, Bill.
Well, Hillary's going to be elected.
We'd like to keep you on as Attorney General.
Maybe you want another position.
We'll open whatever you want.
You know, you and I both know this is not fair.
We've been persecuted like this ever since we got into politics.
It's not fair.
And we're hoping.
Well, she already was helping.
Remember, Comey said it's an investigation.
No, it's a matter.
And then Paige and Strzzok are saying, well, we couldn't do our job because it was being run by all the Democrats within the Department of Justice under Loretta Lynch.
Raises significant questions.
What did Lynch know?
When did she know about all of this?
You rig an investigation of somebody who's guilty of a crime, you got a problem.
And then, of course, her boss, Barack Obama, what did he know?
When did he know it?
Who knew about the spying?
Who engaged in the CIA, Stefan Halper?
Was it Brennan?
Was the director of national intelligence, Clapper, involved?
Who else maybe within the administration of Obama was involved?
Why did we have a 350% increase in unmasking of American citizens just in 2016 alone?
That means the tools of intelligence being turned on the American people, weaponized against the American people, politicized on behalf of the favored candidate.
And this is what House Republicans, they're now pressing, they want more of these closed-door testimonies released.
If it wasn't for Congressman Doug Collins, well, we know we wouldn't have known a lot of the things we now know.
We have Bruce and Nellie Orr's closed-door testimony, Strzzok and Page's closed-door testimony, two days of testimony released last week of James Baker, the general counsel of the FBI under Jim Comey.
He's the one that said, yeah, I was arguing Hillary should have been indicted.
Well, why didn't they?
Because the fix was in.
And the person that conducts the interview of Hillary, finally, is Peter Strzok himself with the direction of Comey and allows Hillary to bring two other people into the room.
Okay, three days later, Comey exonerates her.
But they were writing the exoneration in May before they interviewed Clinton or 17 other key witnesses.
Then, of course, that would mean a crime.
If Hillary has top-secret classified information on a mom-and-pop bathroom server, well, that violates the Espionage Act.
And if you remove the term gross negligence, which meets the legal standard, and you put in, you know, recklessness, extreme recklessness, okay, that means it doesn't fit the definition of the legal statute.
Well, that means she gets a get-out-of-jail free card, but after all, Strzzok, who interviewed her, thought that she should win $100 million a zero and that he could smell Trump voters in the nearby Walmart, smelly Trump voters.
And, of course, we knew he thought Trump was loathsome.
Oh, my God, he's not going to win, right?
We can stop that, right?
Yes, and we also have an insurance policy, which we now know what it is.
Anyway, Jamie Dupree reporting today in a letter sent April 10th to the Director of National Intelligence, Congressman Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, asked for a quicker action to declassify 53 interview transcripts done by the House Intelligence Committee.
By the way, four separate committees now found no evidence of Trump or Trump campaign collusion.
The FBI investigation, nothing, nine straight months.
And Lisa Page and Peter Strzok said, no, there's no there there, nothing, before they even started the Mueller witch hunt.
And if you go to the House Intel Committee, their conclusions, nope, no evidence of any conspiring or coordination or collusion with Russia.
And then you have the Senate Bipartisan Committee, same conclusion.
Now we're getting the Mueller report on Thursday, but we already have their conclusion on the issue of Russian interference.
And directly from the Mueller report, as in the bar letter of March 24th, 2019, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Okay.
Now the only thing they're hoping for and praying for is some obstruction.
Well, what can the obstruction be?
That the president hoped that or thought we need to fire Mueller?
Probably said it a thousand times, but did he fire him?
Nope.
Did he fire Rod Rosenstein?
Nope.
Did he probably wish or say publicly once?
Yep.
Was the president out there calling it a witch hunt?
Yep.
Did the president talk about Mueller's team that included Genie Ray, Clinton's former attorney at the Clinton Foundation, and Andrew Weissman and his abhorrent track record, once withholding exculpatory evidence, putting four innocent Merrill executives in jail?
That was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
His involvement in the Enron accounting case, where literally tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs, and that was overturned by the Supreme Court nine to zero.
Yeah, why did he appoint only Democratic donors?
Still is a question in my mind.
So if we get those 53 transcripts, it's going to be as revealing as all the other ones that have come out.
Wall Street Journal today calls for a grand jury now to investigate the FBI Spygate scandal.
Leading columnist for the journal now calling Bill McGurn, smart guy.
I know him, known him for many years, to convene a criminal grand jury to investigate the FBI's role in abusing the government's surveillance powers to rig the 2016 election.
Hello, this is not what 99.9% of the media has been telling you, we, the people, for the last two and a half years.
They have been hysterically and breathlessly reporting one anonymous source after another and have been proven wrong every time.
And on top of that, they didn't get their wish.
No evidence of collusion.
Maybe there's obstruction of a crime.
Well, you have to have an underlying crime and you have to have intent.
If you really care about obstruction, I got the perfect case for you.
Hillary Clinton did have classified Top secret information on that server in the Platts River Network.
And in fact, they knew about it because when they tested it, so that would be a felony.
18 USC 793.
And then she has the intention of obstructing justice when she consciously chooses to delete 33,000 emails that would prove, yes, she's guilty.
So there's the intent.
And just to make super sure, we'll clean out the hard drive, like with a cloth, no, with something called bleach bit, the equivalent of acid washing any remaining emails that they might forensically be recovered at some point, and then busting up the devices just in case some of those emails exist on a BlackBerry or on an iPhone, and then remove the SIM cards just to be super, super short.
There you go.
There's your obstruction.
There's your slam-dunk obstruction case.
McGurn goes on to say that if the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to recover its lost reputation, the first item of the Attorney General's agenda must be an honest accounting of the FBI spying on the presidential campaign of Donald Trump to do it.
Barr would be well advised to use a grand jury, the same tool used by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation.
Mueller showed how to get answers.
A grand jury with the powers to subpoena and indict would wonderfully concentrate many Beltway minds now not inclined to cooperate.
And today, the best candidate for a grand jury appearance may be the former FBI general counsel Baker, because in his closed door testimony, as McGurn points out, as we pointed out last week before the House Judiciary Committee, we know that Mr. Baker acknowledged his role in channeling Trump-Russia dirt commissioned by Clinton operatives to the FBI.
Under questioning, Baker agreed that the way the FBI handled the Russia investigation was abnormal.
He further revealed he is under criminal investigation for leaking.
On the advice of attorneys, he refused to answer questions about his contacts with reporters on or whether Mr. Papadopoulos, who had been spied on via foreign intelligence surveillance, that was the hiring of Stefan Halper, did the same thing to Carter Page, Papadopoulos, and Sam Clovis.
Well, he was asked by the CIA to do as much.
Anyway, he said that he wouldn't answer that, and he had spied via Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and especially in the case of Page.
And Baker may be made more talkative by a grand jury, which would likely move us closer to learning what the FBI's top officials were doing in 2016 and when exactly they started doing it.
And Baker might also speak to the investigation of the Clinton email scandal, if only because the same FBI officials at the heart of the Russia investigation, you know, that thought Hillary should win $100 million to zero were handling the Clinton probe.
And the Inspector General stated in his report he found no evidence the outrageous political bias of the individual FBI officials had affected investigative decisions.
But bias, however, is not limited to any particular decision that might on its own be permitted within permitted discretion.
This is all going to come out.
It's all happening.
You're going to get now the bar investigation.
You're going to get the proof positive we now have that spying occurred.
The lying to the FISA court, the fraud committed on the court, the rigged investigation into Hillary, and the same characters have been pushing nothing but lies and misinformation and conspiracy theories for two years.
Well, actually, two and a half years.
All right, we'll talk more about this.
Andy McCarthy has a great column out today.
We'll get to him on this.
Greg Jarrett David Shonway in on it, the media aspect of this with Joe Concha, and we'll take a trip down to the border today and find out.
Oh, now Democrats aren't saying the manufactured crisis anymore.
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 ju l.com slash switchamerica.
And warning this product does contain nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
So, Wall Street Journal is calling for a grand jury.
It's got to come down to this because you know, even Andrew McCabe testified: without the dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant.
I think the next huge bomb that's going to drop, besides, you know, they've got one rubber bullet, but then everything now turns and flips into the real investigation, and that is Hillary's rigged investigation because she did violate the law.
And for all the talk you'll hear about obstruction with Trump, it's the biggest slam-dunk obstruction case predicated on a real crime with a real intent-that's to destroy the evidence.
Then you've got the circular firing squad as more and more of these closed-door sessions of deep state actors come out.
They're all turning on each other.
Struck and Page are now blaming the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, Bruce Orr saying, I warned everybody about the dossier, the Horowitz report on FISA.
Now, you've got Barr investigating the spying within the Trump campaign that took place at a high level.
It was a high level.
Donald Trump was right on that tweet.
Remember, the media went nuts.
Then you got criminal referrals from Nunes, then you got criminal referrals likely out of the Horowitz Pfizer report.
Then you've got Uber looking into all the leaking that went on.
And on top of that, we've got even much more than that.
It's not going to end up well for those people that have been lying to you.
All right, we're going to get comments, commentary.
Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, and also Andy McCarthy, great piece that he wrote in the New York Post today coming up.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Some other breaking news has to do with Judicial Watch, which I think is very, very smart on their part.
And they've actually done a lot of good work.
We just got back one of their reports, what, a week or a week and a half or so ago, and we found out a lot of information of internal communications Within the FBI, when they actually discovered, holy crap, Hillary Clinton does have top secret and classified information on this server, and they only sampled 40 emails, over 60,000 of them, 33,000 subpoenaed, then, of course,
destroyed because there's an underlying crime, and the intent was to destroy the evidence.
And so they've done a lot of good work in this process.
Tom Fitton and company, they have now announced today that they filed a Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records of communications and payments between the FBI and the former British intelligence officer was fired, Christopher Steele, and his private firm, Orbis Business Intelligence.
By the way, there is information, there's a lawsuit down in Florida, and we're waiting.
There's information apparently about Christopher Steele down there that I'm told is going to be very interesting.
But when that gets released, we'll let you know.
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the FBI failed to respond to their September 27, 2018 FOIA request, which is standard operating procedure.
And all records of communications between any official employee, representative of the FBI, and Christopher Steele, former British intelligence officer, owner of a private firm, Orbis Business Intelligence.
All records related to the proposed planned or actual payment of any funds to Steele.
All records produced in preparation for, during, pursuant to any meetings, telephonic conversations between any official employee, representative of the FBI, and Steele or his business.
The timeframe is March 9th, 2017 through September 27, 2018.
Now, don't forget the former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Orr testified at some point during 2017, Christopher Steele did speak with somebody from the FBI, but I don't know who.
And that's just the latest FOIA lawsuit.
And then an extensive investigation into the Clinton-funded anti-Trump dossier, and it's used to obtain the FISA warrants in order to spy on the Trump campaign, which they did, which we now know on top of other spying.
I mean, this is why when we'll have Andy McCarthy on later, I mean, the issue when Bill Barr said spy last week, as it relates to the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign, you know, all of a sudden the vapors, oh, oh, this is outrageous.
How could he possibly?
Well, we know about the spying.
We know Stefan Halper, which is a longtime source for the CIA and British intelligence.
He was tasked during that time with during the FBI's Russia investigation to chat up George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, and then ended up going on his own, apparently, to Sam Clovis.
In addition to earlier revelations, as Andy points out today, that Obama Justice Department and FBI had obtained warrants to eavesdrop on Page's communications.
Well, that was obtained through the lying and fraud committed on the FISA court.
So we have that one piece that came out today.
Also, it was announced today that the chairmen are requesting three Senate committee chairmen calling for the Justice Department to provide previously sought information related to the FBI's handling of the Clinton email server investigation.
DOJ initially refused to furnish the information, citing the ongoing special counsel investigation.
Following the conclusion of the special counsel investigation, well, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, and Chairman Ron Johnson are now renewing their request, which, by the way, is going to be very revealing as well.
And they're going to go off and get all that material.
That's all to come.
This is all going to be, it's not going to be as slow this time because a lot of this, a lot of the ground game has been done here.
A lot of the hard work has been done in all of this.
There was, you know, the Washington Times highlighted something we did not put enough emphasis on last week when the two James Baker closed-door testimony transcripts were released, and that is that the FBI counsel, the lead lawyer at the FBI under Comey,
general counsel, that's James Baker, said at least 10 people close to Hillary Clinton approached the FBI in 2016 to urge the FBI to investigate these entire bogus allegations that candidate Trump was colluding with Russia.
Now, why is that?
Because Clinton bought and paid for the phony Russian dossier.
Whether they believed it or not, I think is a stretch.
I think they knew it was bogus.
And by the way, Christopher Steele knew it was bogus because when pressed under the threat of perjury in the middle of an interrogatory in Great Britain said, I don't know if any of this is true.
It's raw intelligence, maybe 50-50.
But the fact that all these Clinton loyalists were feeding the FBI.
I wonder if I tried to go to the FBI with turn on Hillary.
They'd shut the door right in my face, I'm pretty sure.
Anyway, the FBI's upper echelon, not rank and file, as I always say, and an assortment of anti-Trump criminal accusations during the 2016 campaign and his presidency.
But Baker, who participated on the receiving end, testified that the situation was horrible and highly unusual.
Well, he also made other comments, similar comments as well, that none of this was normal.
None of this was regular procedure.
None of this really was something that he recognized in any way.
And so anyway, Baker then goes on and points out that at least 10 of Hillary Clinton supporters directly or via middlemen told the FBI all these tall tales about Russia-Trump conspiracies.
It appears to be an unprecedented effort by a presidential campaign and the party in power to count on the FBI to knock out the other party's candidate and president.
Now, the sad part of this story is there were willing accomplices here.
They were the strucks and pages that thought Hillary should win $100 million to zero and viewed Trump voters as smelly Walmart people, kind of like irredeemable deplorables clinging to their God, guns, Bibles, and religion.
I guess that's really what the Democratic Party all claim to care about working men and women in this country, the forgotten men and women, as I call them.
But when push comes to shove, no, they don't.
Anyway, so this is all being done behind the scenes to influence the FBI, push them into this whole bought and paid-for narrative of Hillary's.
Anyway, the transcripts create a picture of the FBI not always following expected norms as they activated an unofficial, you know, sort of conveyor belt to make sure the allegations reached the counterintelligence division.
And that's when that investigation, Hillary was cleared on July 5th, 2016, thanks to Strzok and Comey and others.
And then they started on Trump July 31st, 2016.
And after that nine-month investigation, they had nothing.
Then they started wiretapping one Republican while dispatching possibly multiple undercover sources to spy.
And Barr testified, as I said earlier, that, yeah, spying occurred.
The media nearly had a heart attack.
But Baker, you know, former top legal advisor to Comey and the FBI testified last year to a House Judiciary Oversight Task Force that he became skeptical of the anti-Trump data.
I had a jaundiced eye about everything, he said.
I had skepticism about all this stuff.
I was concerned about all of it.
The whole situation was horrible, and it was novel, and we were trying to figure out what to do, and it was highly unusual.
In one plot line, Clinton operatives tried to sell the same conspiracy theory to different levels at the Justice Department.
Baker said that Michael Sussman, a lawyer at the firm that represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC, met with him to pitch the infamous Alpha Bank server story.
And the Democrats' theory was that Trump and his organization maintained a direct computer server hookup to Moscow's Alpha Bank owned by oligarchs close to Vladimir.
Trump's election didn't derail after that effort.
In December 2016, then you had Bruce Orr meeting again with Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS.
Of course, his wife was working there, and they hired Christopher Steele, who was by this time fired by the FBI for lying and leaking.
And the Sussman-Simpson meeting showed an unusual access the Clinton operatives enjoyed to all these top guys of the FBI.
And Baker, by the way, talked with Sussman on several occasions, and it goes on from there.
You know, everybody was warned about what was happening here.
Every single person was warned.
And it was like they got caught up in their own hatred of Donald Trump and their belief that he's loathsome and that we're smelly Walmart people.
And they went with that narrative.
They stuck with that narrative.
And that narrative caused them to do things that were illegal and, frankly, dangerous to the entire system of justice that this country relies on.
And that is equal justice, innocence until proven guilty, due process.
When we ever heard that recently, any due process left in America?
Is there equal application of our laws?
Equal justice under the law?
So you've got to begin to wonder if we don't get to the bottom of it, there won't be.
And that's the danger of all of this if they get away with all of that.
And they're trying to get away with it, and they're trying to get away with it in a major way.
And that's what we've been literally, that's what we keep saying.
We're unpeeling the layers of the onion every single solitary day in the hopes that we actually get to the bottom of it all, which I think we're going to get to.
So what's going to happen here is fairly obvious.
We're now going to get a report, the Mueller report on Thursday.
We already know because we have the quote in the bar letter from the 24th that, yeah, there was no conspiracy.
The Mueller report, quote, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
All right, that's a slam dunk.
There's no underlying crime, like there's an underlying crime in Hillary Clinton's case.
Yeah, she did have top secret and classified emails marked as such on her server.
And when the Freedom of Information Act request came from the FBI, well, we saw that, you know, Judicial Watch got all of that out there.
Big difference.
Underlying crime, no underlying crime.
Then, of course, intent.
Well, what's the intent of Donald Trump if he said, I'm sick of this witch hunt, we should fire Mueller.
And then people around him say, no, I wouldn't fire him.
Don't fire him.
And, you know, maybe some people taking credit for what Donald Trump does.
Well, if that's the case, they don't know Donald Trump the way I do.
Donald Trump listens.
He hears.
You can convince him.
But if he wants to tweet, he's going to tweet.
And there's not one person on the face of this earth that's going to stop him from tweeting if he wants to tweet.
Saying, well, why is that?
Because he makes up his own mind.
And that's kind of what you want in a president, or at least what I think you would want.
Maybe some people don't want that.
I do.
Because he's the one that ran.
He's the one that said he would make those important decisions.
And yet, when he does, well, you know, we could tell him what to do.
You can't tell him what to do.
The only reason Mueller wasn't fired is Trump decided he wasn't fired.
So you can't say he obstructed justice there.
Did he fire Rod Rosenstein?
I think he had every right to at one point because he was so conflicted from the get-go.
He appointed Mueller.
He also had signed off on the third renewal FISA warrant.
He was up to his eyeballs.
He recommended that Comey be fired in a letter to the president, but the president kept him on also.
And then the president didn't stop the investigation in any way, shape, manner, or form.
As a matter of fact, they cooperated with the investigators and Mueller's team.
And while they didn't go in and sit for a perjury trap, well, they did answer written questions.
But at that point, there was nothing new that wasn't public because Donald Trump speaks his mind.
And if he's venting that day about Mueller or, you know, Rod Rosenstein or the biased team that Mueller put together, but he doesn't do anything to stop them, you can't obstruct justice.
There's no underlying crime.
There's no intent.
And if you're proclaiming every single day, it didn't happen.
I'm innocent.
And now four separate investigations back you up on that point.
And how do you say, well, what was he then obstructing?
What was the intent if he never fired Rod or Mueller or anybody or never directed anybody to not go after General Flynn, which we know that he didn't want to have happen, but let it happen.
So what point do you say, no, there's no underlying crime here at all?
No underlying crime.
That means there's no intent.
That means it's over.
It is completely a dead issue, except that Nadlers of the world that didn't want the Star Report released, the shifts of the world, the cowardly shifting company, that just won't stop them.
But the American people see right through it.
But then you're going to start to get 53 more closed-door testimonies.
We're beginning to see a circular firing squad, and they're all beginning to save their own ass and telling the truth about their fellow workers.
Then we're going to get into the rigged investigation because Hillary did break the law, violate the Espionage Act, and that's a real crime with the real intent of obstructing it when she deleted, acid-washed the hard drive and beat up her devices.
Then we're going to get the criminal referrals from Nunes.
Then we now have the bar investigation into spying and the handling of the 2016 investigation.
Then we're going to have the Horowitz report on FISA abuse and fraud committed against FISA judges.
A lot more coming.
All right, we'll get Greg Jarrett and David Schones' take on that when we get back.
Also, later on, Andy McCarthy, great article from him.
The media, what are they going to do now?
This is their last rubber bullet that's going to hit and fall right to the ground as a dud.
Are they going to start telling the truth, apologizing, retract?
I doubt it.
This process is going along very well.
And my original timetable of being able to release this by mid-April stands.
And so I think that from my standpoint, by within a week, I will be in a position to release the report to the public.
And then I will engage with the chairman of both judiciary committees about that report and about any further requests that they have.
But Attorney General Bill Barr, he did reach a conclusion.
He says there is not sufficient evidence to establish that the president obstructed justice.
Does that end the debate over obstruction of justice?
Well, certainly not, especially since Attorney General Barr, before he became Attorney General, wrote a long memo in which he said that a president could not obstruct justice because the president is the boss of the Justice Department and could order it around to institute an investigation, to eliminate investigation, and could not be questioned about that.
In other words, he thinks that as a matter of law, a president can't obstruct justice, which is a very wild theory to which most people do not agree.
And the fact of the matter is, we should see and judge for ourselves, and that's for Congress to judge whether the president obstructed justice or not, and for the public ultimately.
It's not the bailiwick of the Attorney General to say that it's not the same.
No, it is not the bailiwick of the Attorney General.
He assumed it for himself.
That is not the purpose of the law.
And that was, of course, Gerald Nadler being wrong on the law and everything in between.
You know, remember, this guy, along with 17 other Democrats, they didn't want when we had the Independent Counsel statute, which Democrats got rid of because they didn't like the Ken Starr report.
But people like Nadler didn't want the Ken Starr report to be made public.
So now we move from the Independent Counsel statute and a special counsel that is run by the Justice Department at the sole discretion of the Attorney General.
It's the Attorney General or Acting Attorney General in this case, which was Rod Rosenstein, because Jeff Sessions had recused himself that made the decision to appoint a special counsel.
But it is now the Attorney General's job.
He doesn't have to release any of the Mueller report.
None of it.
Now, it turns out that he is going to release everything except that which would reveal sources and methods.
You can't legally release grand jury information in such a report and maybe a few redactions as it relates to national security purposes at another degree.
But that's it.
There's been no executive privilege that has been put on the case.
And, you know, let me go back to the letter that he originally sent March 24th because he couldn't be any more clear than he was.
And he was the one that actually quoted the Mueller report as it relates to the very specific issue of collusion.
Quote, as the report states, quote, meaning the Mueller report, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Now, that is the heart of the two and a half year witch hunt that has gone on that is now never ending, according to Gerald Nadler.
And that means all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
That means all the narrative, the hysteria, the breathless reporting, the outright lies, the Adam Schiff lies, the Nadler lies.
They're not true.
Now, that's the fourth time we have confirmed that there was no evidence of any conspiracy or collusion or coordination with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
We had a nine-month FBI investigation.
Even at that point, at nine months before the appointment of Mueller, Lisa Pate said we found nothing.
You know, it was struck that said there's no there there.
Then we had the House Intelligence Committee.
They said no collusion of any kind.
Then the bipartisan Senate committee, they said the same thing.
Now the Mueller report says it.
Now, what's fascinating about this is they go into the issue of obstruction of justice, and the special counsel decided in that case to describe the facts and allow the Attorney General to make the determination as it relates to whether anything rises to a particular crime.
And what the Attorney General said in his letter is very clear, and it's also consistent with the law that the Democrats put in place after the independent counsel statute that they got rid of.
If you really want obstruction, though, I have a case for you, and that would be Hillary Clinton.
We even know James Baker thought she should be indicted, violating the Espionage Act.
She did have top-secret, classified information on that hard drive on that server in a mom-and-pop bathroom closet, Platts River Network.
And then she had her emails subpoenaed.
Those emails would have proven, yeah, she violated the law, committed a felony.
That's why she deleted subpoenaed emails, 33,000 of them.
That's why she used BleachBit to clean out the hard drive so you couldn't recover them.
That's why she had an aide bust up her devices, BlackBerries and iPhones with hammers and remove the SIM cards.
So you have an underlying crime, the Espionage Act, and the intent of getting rid of the evidence.
Anyway, Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, are with us.
Greg, I'll start with you.
And by the way, isn't the president really the head of the Justice Department?
Can he decide to investigate a case or not investigate the case?
Absolutely.
It is enormous latitude and discretion.
Look, Barack Obama, in fact, directed the Department of Justice not to deport and prosecute more than a million people here illegally, the so-called DREAMers.
And, you know, that's directing the Department of Justice not to prosecute, even though by law, they were certainly entitled to do so.
So presidents direct all the time.
John F. Kennedy directed his brother, the Attorney General, to take certain actions and to not take certain actions with respect to organized crime.
So, you know, there's plenty of precedent for this.
But in order to obstruct, the law says there has to be a corrupt purpose, and it defines what that is, a lie, threat, bribe, concealing of evidence, or destruction of documents.
None of those took place with respect to President Trump.
David Schoen, criminal defense civil liberties attorney, your thoughts on this.
Okay, let me say everything that you said a moment ago is absolutely 100% correct, but it has to be resaid over and over again.
Barr is going the extra mile here.
Jerry Nadler is doing a great disservice to the American people by suggesting even that he has a right to this report, the American people have a right to full release, and that it's not up to Barr.
The law is very clear.
And by the way, you made the point.
He was in favor of not releasing the earlier report before these special counsel guidelines came in.
At that time, the independent counsel had a duty to Congress that the special counsel now doesn't in the guidelines that Clinton, the Clinton administration developed.
Here's what's really clear.
Under 600.8 of the law, the guidelines, the regulations, federal regulations, the report is to be provided confidentially to the Attorney General.
600.9.
The Attorney General exclusively decides what portions, if any, to release.
And what's not been discretionary is complying with applicable legal restrictions.
You pointed them out.
He is not permitted, whether he wants to or not, to release grand jury minutes, national security things.
And three, very important, every other Justice Department employee and member of the special counsel staff is prohibited from commenting on any criminal investigation, including this report, which tells you what's going on when they leaked, Mueller's staff leaked the idea that Barr may not be telling the whole story.
They break the law when they do that.
Let's remember the number one agenda that Nadler and others have in getting his hands on 400 pages or whatever the redacted report's going to look like is to try to make hay out of some sentence in there that disparages the president.
Well, let's go down this road.
Let's play.
Okay, because everything's out in the public.
So I read ABC News' tweet over the weekend, and then I read a long crime comments that were made by former White House counsel Don McGahn, and Don McGahn was like, oh, I just spent two years getting yelled at, so I'm assuming the 30 hours of testimony.
Let's say he goes in and says, well, I had to talk to President.
He wanted to fire Mueller.
He wanted to fire Rosenstein.
He wanted to fire Sessions.
He wanted to let General Flynn, the 33-year vet, go free.
He wanted to whatever.
Okay, but none of those things happened.
None of them.
So is a president venting, which, by the way, after a two-and-a-half-year witch hunt, I think one would be legitimate in doing so, especially, you know, Trey Gowdy famously said, well, if you're innocent, act like you're innocent.
Well, innocent people shout their innocence.
That's how I would be.
We don't prosecute people in America for thinking about things or for even discussing them.
I'll give you an example.
You and I sit around and we, hey, you know, it'd be great to have a gazillion dollars and rob a bank, but let's not do it because it's crime.
Well, thinking I'd love to break his legs.
I'd like to da, da, da, da.
Okay.
So you think it, you don't mean it.
You're not going to do it.
You just.
How many people have gotten upset with somebody else and they think about doing them harm?
They don't do it because they recognize it's against the law, there are consequences, and they refrain from doing it.
Well, the president having a discussion, gee, I'd like to fire this guy, Mueller, because I don't think he's fair and he's hired a team of partisans, is a perfectly normal reaction.
would be my reaction.
I stated that reaction on the air.
What else could it be then that they're inferring?
Because I don't see anything else besides what I just mentioned.
You know, what else would he be obstructing?
He didn't fire Rosenberg.
They'll be looking at, for example, and it'll be in the report, Trump's sit-down conversation with Lester Holt, which has been misrepresented numerous times, including by Lester Holt himself recently in his interview with Comey.
You must look, as I laid out in my book, the full conversation in which Trump's not trying to obstruct.
He's trying to enhance an investigation, putting somebody competent.
And he, in fact, says, I know it won't end the investigation.
It might prolong it.
That's not obstruction by a country mile.
Looking ahead to Thursday's release of the Mueller report, what are they going to say that he possibly obstructed?
Let's take a step back then.
Let's listen to who's saying it.
That's what's so important.
You have a staff, a Mueller's staff, of 100% rapid anti-Trump Trump haters and pro-Hillary Clinton.
This report is their chance without any check on them to write every disparaging thing they can think of about the president over the last two years to both justify their existence and, in effect, vote again against Trump and for Hillary Clinton.
So they can write anything they want in there.
But I'm going to go a step further.
Even if I would say to you, it wouldn't be obstruction, even if the president had done the things that we're talking about he was venting at.
He had the right to fire Comey.
He had the right to fire Rod Rosenstein.
He doesn't have the right to directly fire Mueller, but the head of the Justice Department does.
And let's not forget here, with all of this complaining about Barr's finding and he's biased, Rod Rosenstein joined him in finding insufficient evidence for any obstruction of justice charge.
So, listen, these guys can write many nasty things, and that's why Nadler and his company does this company, the country, a big disservice by lying and stirring up this mob effect.
People want gossip, they'll get gossip.
And if you can't find that in 400 pages of a rapid team like Mueller staff, then you can't find anything.
So that's what it's going to be, and it's going to be.
I'll tell you one other thing.
And to both of you, because your analysis is dead on.
This is their last little baby rubber bullet that they have to use in this collusion obstruction narrative, and it's over for them.
Then we're seeing a circular firing squad emerge among deep state members.
We're going to get more of their closed-door testimony.
We've got the Nunes criminal referrals.
Barr is a full investigation into the investigators and spying on the Trump campaign.
Then the Horowitz report on FISA.
Then Huber, whatever he finds on leaking.
Oh, and then we have FISA applications, 302s, gang of aid information.
And yeah, it was a rigged investigation into Hillary Clinton.
And maybe that now opens up.
And all of these people that have been so wrong think that this is their last gasp of oxygen on their phony conspiracy theory and story, and it'll die on Thursday.
It's over for them.
Their lie has been exposed.
Their outright lying to the American public has been exposed.
And now we'll begin the process of holding them accountable, which we've been doing for two years, except now the evidence is coming out in droves.
So buckle up, everybody in the media, and get ready to say people like Hannity and his great team of ensemble team like David Schoen and Greg Jarrett and Sarah and John were right.
Just saying.
You're absolutely correct that the scheme to frame Trump with a phony investigation based on a fabricated dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign is now beginning to unravel, and there are consequences.
I think you can expect in this criminal referral to Attorney General Barr to be several categories of crimes, lying to a FISA court, which constitutes, I think, at least six different felonies.
I've got to run.
Oh, it's all coming out.
James Comey, I told him he had the right to remain silent before his book came out.
He should have listened.
All right, David, thank you.
And Greg, thank you.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
So today we announce now you raise the issue, I am a millionaire.
Well, actually, this year we had $560,000 in income.
And that's a lot of money.
And that money in my case, my wife's case, it came from a book that I wrote.
Pretty good book.
You might want to read it.
It's a bestseller sold all over the world, and we made money.
So if anyone thinks that I should apologize for writing a best-selling book, I'm sorry, I'm not going to do it.
You said you don't agree with 70%.
What would your number be?
In the campaign in 2016, we talked about 52%.
All right, so 52%.
So would you be willing to pay 52% on the money that you made?
You can volunteer.
You can send it to me.
You can volunteer, too.
We have a.
But you suggested.
You suggested that half of what everybody in your rocket should do.
And, Markham, why don't you, Jim?
You make more money than I do.
I didn't suggest a wealth tax.
And she's not running for president.
But we're going to fight for a wealth tax.
And we're going to demand that we end the absurdity where major corporation after major corporations.
You know what?
Yeah, that's individual corporations.
In this tax bill that you are defending, families like the Cochrane.
Families like the Koch brothers get billions and billions of dollars in savings.
That is absurd.
Trump wants to repeal the entire estate tax.
Huge tax breaks for billionaires.
I think that that is not quite right.
And I think that Ilana's got to do maybe a better job in speaking to the Jewish community.
But if you're questioning to me as to why I think she is anti-Semitic, no, I don't.
If you are the president of the United States, we have overflowing facilities.
They need to go somewhere because they're in that asylum.
What about building?
What about building proper facilities for them right now?
Where can be done?
Right on the border.
Right on the border at the same time.
So the people who live on the border should have more facilities in their states, but sanctuary cities, which have said they're open to accepting people, should not take it.
Now, this is a political act.
It's a real question.
No, it's not a real question.
Yes, it is.
It's a political decision.
So what you want to do, let's talk about immigration, which is a real issue.
Everybody wants to be aware of that.
First of all, instead of demonizing immigrants, maybe, well, I'm saying you are, but we have a president who certainly does every single day.
What we need is comprehensive immigration reform.
That's what the American people want.
And if we had a president who believed in that, we could actually do it.
What you also want to do today one point, you know, Trump ended the DACA program that Obama established.
You know what that means?
That means every day more and more young people who were raised in the United States from two or three years of age, they're in the military.
They are teachers.
They're working all over this country.
They are now scared to death that somebody's going to pick them up and throw them out of the country.
And that is what Trump did.
We need to provide legal status to those people.
And we need a humane.
But Mark, I'm not saying this is an easy issue, but let's not politicize it.
What we need, as I said, we need the proper legal processes at the border so that these issues can be adjudicated to determine whether or not people should be entitled to asylum.
All right, 24 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
There was a socialist left-wing radical, Bernie Sanders, doing this town hall on Fox News channel last night.
Joe Concha tweeting out today that Buddha judge, the mayor Pete, as he calls himself from South Bend, is in talks with Fox to do a town hall as well.
And anyway, Joe Concha joins us, radio host and also columnist for The Hill.
He's on our flagship in New York, WOR.
How are you, sir?
It's been a busy day, Sean.
That's the hell is for sure.
You know, watching this thing last night, I'm like, oh, okay.
So usually what happens in these town halls is, you know, you get a bunch of, I don't know what happened in this case, but the staff, the campaigns, are given a bunch of tickets so that their supporters can get in.
And that's what it seemed like in a lot of ways last night.
I'm watching this idiot take shots at Fox News while he's on Fox News, getting an open, whatever, hour and a half, two hours, however long this thing went on.
And I'm thinking, what a jerk.
Because, you know, he's getting the airtime to reach another audience, as he says.
So what do you think of Mayor Pete, Buddha Judge?
What do I think of him?
Well, I have that exclusive today for the Hills, that his campaign confirmed to me that he will, or at least he's in talks with Fox News as far as doing a town hall on there.
I think honestly, right now, Sean, he is, to use an old cliche, the hottest thing since sliced bread from a media perspective.
He has obliterated Beto.
Have you noticed that?
You don't hear much about Betto or Ork anymore.
The focus is on Buddha Judge because he's just a better candidate.
He's more articulate.
His story is interesting.
Afghan war debt.
He's a mayor.
And people, I think, give me a little space here on this one.
I think Donald Trump was elected because he was an outsider.
I think Barack Obama, at least the perception of him, was that he was an outsider because he was in the Senate for like five minutes.
Buddha Judge, he's a mayor.
He governs on a local level.
People like that, and he's seen as an outsider.
And I think establishment people like Biden or even Bernie are in trouble because people don't want those who have been in the swamp for so long.
They want somebody like a Buddha judge who's fresh and new and exciting.
And from a media perspective, he has all of them.
I mean, and he does the same thing as like, let's say, Barack Obama did in 07 and 08.
We got to do something totally different.
And what turns out to be different is bigger and bigger government than the government literally suppressing all economic activity with burdensome regulation.
And after eight years of new and change and hope and change and change, change, change, we ended up with 13 million more Americans on food stamps, 8 million more in poverty, the lowest labor participation since the 70s, lowest home ownership rate in 51 years, worst recovery since the 40s, took on more debt than every other president before him combined, and never got a single year of 3% GDP growth.
That's what Obama Biden gave us.
So that change, it's going to be the same old change that runs people out of the workforce and into the arms of the government and poverty and handouts.
Now, to your point, it's like dating a model almost, right?
Like in the beginning, you're all in awe of the appearance and the presentation, and then you may get to know that person, and maybe you'll like them and maybe you won't.
Invariably, as you get to know a person more, as you know, from relationships, most of the time it doesn't work out.
So in a case of Buddha Judge, I think once you peel the layers off the onion, you'll see.
So you're making a judgment on, what did you say, models?
Not at all.
So you're saying, oh, you might be attracted to them, but then as soon as you get to know them, forget it.
That's what you're saying.
No, any girl.
That's not what you said, though.
Didn't he say models?
Yeah, everyone's saying you said model.
I said models only because Buddha Judge, right now, in terms of his presentation, is doing better than any other Democratic candidate.
Why are you being mean to models like that?
Saying that, what?
They're only being so mean to them.
As somebody who has modeled in the past, like myself, then that's, you know, I probably shouldn't be doing that.
Did you really model in the past?
It was a fruit of the loom thing.
I was young.
I needed the money.
It's a story for another time.
Whoa, whoa, you modeled tidy, whitey, fruit of the looms.
Look, I can't confirm or deny that.
I'll actually know.
I'm just joking.
I don't know how we got here.
The point is of Buddha Judge.
Let's stay on target.
He said today on CNN: capitalism has let a lot of people down.
And if the Democrats end up nominating somebody who embraces socialism in any capacity, Donald Trump, I mean, that's like t-ball.
Then all he has to do is say, do you want capitalism or socialism?
And capitalism is going to win every time.
So I would think that the president is rooting for a Buddha judge or a Beto or even a Bernie to get the nomination.
Biden, I don't think, is a very good candidate based on what he did in the past, whether it be 88 when he ran or 84 when he ran or 2008 when he ran, but he would be the most electable of those if we're going with the capitalism versus socialism argument because at least Biden isn't in that socialism camp, at least not yet.
Well, he's going to be pulled to the left whether he likes to or not.
Then you got, I guess, Bloomberg hanging out there.
I guess if crazy, creepy Uncle Joe decides not to get in.
But I think the big burden that Biden is going to face is not his creepiness or his, you know, the fact that he says dumb things regularly.
I think his biggest problem is going to end up being his failed record with Obama.
And the difference, you know, are we better off than we were four years ago?
And the answer is on every level, by every measure, yes.
And the reason why we know that is because look at the 2016 results.
That was a referendum on Hillary Clinton, yeah, because she was a horrible candidate, but also on Barack Obama, right?
If people wanted a continuation of that, they would have voted for Hillary Clinton.
And obviously, you had President Trump who had the most electoral votes for any Republican since 1998.
So, yeah, I don't think Biden really has the momentum behind him.
I'm even sure he has a fire in his belly, quite frankly.
I think he's running because he's being told to run, not because he really wants the job.
He looks bored.
He's like trying to get a 10 to look better.
All right, quick break.
Board with Joe Concha on the other side as we continue news roundup information overload at the top of the hour.
We'll update you on the border.
As we continue with Joe Concha, who writes for The Hill and is a radio host on our flagship in New York, WOR.
Let me ask you about this.
So, Mueller report on Thursday, but we already have the answer, for example, on what happened with the investigation regarding Russian interference and the Trump campaign.
So, they're hanging all their hats on the idea.
Well, maybe there's something about obstruction, and there's not going to be anything about obstruction.
We just had David Schoen and Greg Jarrett analyze.
Okay, he said different points.
I want to fire Mueller.
I want to fire Rosenstein.
I hope General Flynn doesn't get in trouble.
Comey needs to go, and Comey could be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
So, what did he obstruct?
There's no underlying crime whatsoever.
And then, the same media that they have ignored the abuse of power.
Now, something's going to happen.
This is the last rubber bullet that's going to bounce off Trump that they're going to fire at him.
So, now what happens when we get more of the closed-door testimony?
We get the newness criminal referrals, now a full investigation by the Attorney General Barr himself into spying into the Trump campaign and the investigation.
It probably will go back into the rigged investigation into Hillary, a Horowitz report on fraud committed on FISA court judges.
Now, we know they used the bought and paid for phony Clinton Russian dossier.
Then we got leaking.
Then we'll get FISA applications released, Gang of Ain information released, 302s released.
And I think people like Sean Hannity, Greg Jarrett, John Solomon, I can't mention everybody, but my ensemble cast that has gone in a totally different direction will be proven, yeah, 1,000% correct, as they have been proven to be liars and nothing but conspiracy theorists.
Well, I look at the numbers, Sean, as far as I haven't seen CNN recover yet from the two years of that narrative that you just spoke about as far as collusion is concerned.
And on Thursday, collusion is the whole ballgame.
Obstruction of justice is a subjective, opinionated thing at best.
And Bill Clinton even committed obstruction of justice, was impeached, and he had a 73% approval rating after that because people weren't buying it.
So here's the thing.
I mean, I look at just Friday's numbers.
Those are the latest numbers I have.
Not one show on CNN could break 838,000 viewers.
That's incredible when you consider that that night you had three times that, more than three times that.
By the way, I had more than three times that, and I wasn't even in.
That's with your backup, right?
So usually it's four times that.
The point is that usually sometimes when we see mister Carlos.
Well, I'm looking at the ratings from last night.
I got them right in front of me, and this was a good night for them.
They were over a million in prime time.
Right, which they should be getting.
They've been around for 40 years.
I think that the bottom line is that they really haven't recovered.
We have three twitters.
It comes out to be nearly three, three.
We triple them in ratings.
I mean, that's not really.
I don't even look at them in news.
They're not news networks.
They're conspiracy networks.
They're hate Trump media mob networks.
They're an extension of the Democratic Party networks.
The very thing they accuse Fox of being, they're worse.
Yeah, and they always weren't like that, right?
I mean, I grew up with Bernard Shaw and Aaron Brown and the great coverage during the first Iraq War, right?
And you went there.
It was like a spare tire.
Always went there when there was breaking news, and now it's almost strictly opinion throughout the entire day, and that's just not the way you got to do it.
You have to balance things between hard news and opinion.
Make sure you distinguish between the two.
And they're competing with MSNBC for the same audience.
And I think that's really, from a business perspective, a horrible mistake because now MSNBC does what they do better because they're unapologetic about who they are.
CNN continues to exist.
Let me tell you something.
You're going to turn into MSNBC conspiracy, tinfoil hat conspiracy TV a year from now, and they're still going to be talking about Russia.
And then the next thing they're going to do, they won't admit they're wrong.
They won't apologize to their audience.
They're just going to find something else to build up false hope and disappoint their audience again and again because it was never based on fact.
It was based on a level of intensity and hysteria and breathless coverage from anonymous sources that almost always prove to be wrong.
Well, that's exactly right because you figure that the Mueller report never, you know, the Mueller team never leaked, right?
So if they didn't leak and there was no collusion, then the only thing you have left is speculation.
And most of it was wrong because of sources that were feeding him information, like seagulls at the beach, they're feeding him bad information.
They leave one stat.
Okay.
The Hill does a compilation of endorsements before the 2016 election.
We looked at 59 papers.
We found that 57 endorsed Hillary Clinton, just two for Donald Trump.
Who won the election?
What does that tell you?
When people are being told how to vote or how to think, they don't believe the messenger anymore.
That stat, I think, underlines everything, everything about the influence of media now.
It isn't what it used to be, Sean.
It's that simple because of everything you just pointed out.
Joe Concha, thanks for being with us.
He's with the Hill.
And WOR in New York, 6-9, complains when he comes on my show if I don't give him enough time.
Anyway, we love having you on.
So you're not suggesting, though, that spying occurred.
I don't.
Well, I guess you could.
I think there's spying did occur.
Yes, I think spying did occur.
Well, let me.
The question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated.
And I'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.
I think it's my obligation.
Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane.
And I want to make sure that happened.
We have a lot of rules about that.
And I want to say that I've said I'm reviewing this.
I am going, I haven't set up a team yet, but I do have, I haven't mind having some colleagues help me pull all this information together and let me know whether there's some areas that should be looked at.
That was the Attorney General, Barr.
Glad you're with us.
News Roundup Information Overload Hour, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
And as I've been saying, this last rubber bullet, this phony obstruction issue that Democrats, the media have been clinging to, one last hope is going to fall flat.
And then a lot of things are going to come out that are going to prove, let's see, a rigged investigation into Hillary Clinton.
We now know even the general counsel, James Baker, wanted to indict Hillary, violating the Espionage Act.
All the talk about obstruction.
Well, she had good reason to want to delete those subpoenaed emails because they prove she had secret, top-secret special access programming information on that server in a mom-and-pop bathroom closet, and she was trying to hide it.
So that we now have intent, the intent, the underlying crime, the Espionage Act, the intent to get rid of the evidence and acid wash the hard drive after you delete them.
And then after that, bust up your devices because they may still have some of the emails on them and pull out the SIM cards so nobody could ever find them.
Fortunately for her, that didn't work out.
On top of that, we're going to have Barr's new investigation into the investigators, which is coming.
We have Devin Nunes' criminal referrals.
We have the Horowitz FISA investigation.
We know a fraud was committed numerous times on a FISA court because the bulk of the information, according to the Grassley-Graham memo, was Hillary's bought and paid for phony Russian dossier that could never have been corroborated because its own author never stood by it when pressed in an interrogatory.
This is what I expect Thursday with the Mueller report.
They're going to say, well, wait a minute.
Trump said we need to fire Mueller.
Don't you think we can we fire Mueller?
And he probably said, Rod Rosenstein needs to go.
He needs to be fired.
This is a witch hunt.
And then he probably said something, oh, why are they going after a 33-year veteran like General Flynn?
Oh, can't they give this guy a break?
And then they're going to probably look at other similar things that he has said and said, see, he tried to obstruct.
But wouldn't there be a legal problem with that, Andy, in as much as none of it happened?
He was just venting.
Sean, I think there would be a variety of legal problems.
The fact that none of it happened is obviously a big problem.
Even if some of it had happened, it wouldn't be obstruction.
My fundamental problem with this all from, you know, from the very beginning, I know I make people's eyes glaze over a little bit when I talk about counterintelligence versus criminal investigations.
But here's why it's important.
Counterintelligence investigations are done for the president.
Unlike criminal investigations, criminal investigations, the reason we talk about obstruction of justice is criminal investigations are the vindication of the rule of law in court proceedings.
And the reason you can obstruct them is because when you tamper with evidence or you tamper with a witness, that can impede a judicial proceeding down the road after somebody gets indicted and there's a prosecution.
When you're talking about a counterintelligence investigation, they are not done for the rule of law.
They are not done for justice.
They are not done to set up judicial cases.
They are done solely and only to collect information, to collect intelligence to inform the president so he can carry out his constitutional obligation to protect the country against foreign threats to national security.
That's the only reason they're done.
So I don't, for the life of me, and I have never understood how a president can obstruct an investigation that is done to derive information for the president.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
The reason they do those investigations is to do things like put intelligence in his daily report that he gets every day or to give him information about this or that threat to the United States.
I don't see how a president can obstruct that.
But the media is going to take that he said to apparently Don McGann, according to ABC and Law and Crime, with his 30 hours of testimony, said, yeah, I had to talk the president out of firing Mueller.
Something like that, I'm assuming here.
I'm just guessing.
That can't possibly be obstruction because he didn't do it.
Right.
But even if he did do it, Sean, what would he have obstructed?
Exactly.
All right, let me go through your article because when William Barr, the Attorney General, used the word spying, referring to the Obama administration on the Trump campaign, that raises now, now we're finally getting into the area where we know bad things happened.
Like, for example, I would make the case, I know Hillary's investigation was rigged, and I can give you chapter and verse how.
We know that she obstructed justice with her conduct with subpoenaed emails.
We know that FISA court fraud took place for the benefit of spying on the Trump campaign.
Walk us through your take on this as you write about it today.
Well, I think, Sean, what happened here is that when President Trump won the election, everybody knew that in 10 weeks he was going to have access to all of the government's intelligence files.
And they knew that they had conducted a foreign counterintelligence investigation on him.
They had run at least one, and I suspect more than one confidential informant at him.
Let me preface this by saying, Sean, I can't get whipped up about this nonsense, the semantic nonsense of whether we call it spying or surveillance and whether we call the people who do it confidential informants or assets or spies.
You know, Jim Comey.
You know, look, spying is simply the covert collection of information on a target, which might be an organization.
It might be a foreign power.
It might be somebody you're conducting investigation on.
It doesn't make any difference whether it's been authorized by a court or not.
You know, when a court authorizes a search warrant, it's a court-authorized search warrant.
We still call it a raid.
That's what the FBI does, right?
They come to your place and take stuff.
So all this stuff, the Attorney General is exactly right.
What you call it, whether it's spying or whatever, is not nearly as important as what predicated it.
What was the reason that they did what they did?
You asked that question.
Was it done rashly or did they do it?
Was there a strong enough reason to justify it?
Exactly right.
And I think what happened here is they didn't have a good enough reason to do this.
They knew they had run informants at people in Trump's campaign.
Three weeks before the election, they went up on, you know, they did this FISA warrant on Carter Page.
They keep talking this nonsense about how he was formally, we waited until he was formally out of the campaign to do that.
That is ridiculous.
I mean, first of all, anyone who knows anything about the Trump campaign, it wasn't the most fastidious thing in terms of like who was in and who was out.
But they know that when they got access to his phones and his communications devices, they not only had the power to go forward to get his prospective communications, they had the power to go backwards.
In other words, to go into his stored emails and his stored text and his stored social media stuff.
And that's what they were looking for.
They were looking for, what could they find on this trip he took to Russia in July and that sort of stuff.
So they knew they had done all of this activity, but they figured no one's ever going to find out about this because, first of all, Mrs. Clinton's going to win, so it's not going to be a problem.
And second of all, it's done on counterintelligence.
So it's all going to be classified.
It's all going to be under the cone.
No one's ever going to learn about it.
Then Trump wins, which shocks everyone, right?
But it particularly shocked these guys because here's what it meant, Sean.
They knew in 10 weeks he was going to be president and was going to have access to all the intelligence files.
So at that point, you have a choice, right?
You either say nothing and you say, we'll wait to see how he reacts when he becomes president and learns all this stuff, or you can use the 10 weeks you have left, still in charge of the government, to project the image that there was something really bad here to investigate.
And I think that's why you got all of the classified leaking.
That's why President Obama, who didn't do anything about Russia for eight years and who knew about this interference, the cyber espionage, he knew about it in real time.
He talked to Putin about it.
Brennan talked to his counterpart in Russian intelligence about it.
They did nothing about it because they thought Mrs. Clinton was going to win.
After the election, they suddenly decided to rush out an intelligence assessment, which if you know anything about the government, this is the kind of a study that would have taken like a year or two years in normal government time.
They had that out within a matter of days.
And they put it out in conjunction with Obama with great fanfare issuing sanctions against Russia, seizing Russian properties, kicking Russian operatives out of the country.
And at the same time, that's all going on, the media is being fed with all of this information connecting Trump people with Russia and suggesting that Trump might be a Kremlin operative.
And I think this was all done because they knew eventually it was inevitable that this information would come out, and they needed to project a situation where the public would have been convinced there must have been something really bad here to investigate.
All right, quick break, right back.
More with Andy McCarthy in just a minute.
And as we continue with Andy McCarthy, his new column is out today, twisted motive of dirt devils who concocted the Trump-Russia probe.
What do you think?
Like, I just read, well, we already know the decision.
I mean, when the March 24th letter of the Attorney General Barr quotes the Mueller report, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
All right, so the media is focused that they're smart enough to realize they lost.
Their two and a half year conspiracy theory has washed away.
And no retractions, apologies, nothing.
But so they've been hanging their hat on, well, what about obstruction?
Give me any scenario that you can think of.
I would assume they'll talk about the president saying it's a witch hunt.
I assume that in this box of potential obstructions that they'll try to claim, he said, we got to fire Mueller.
We've got to fire Rod Rosenstein.
We got to fire Comey, which he fired any Ken for any reason or no reason.
We've got to do this.
We've got to do that.
But he never does it.
What do you think?
What else is there that could possibly have been obstructed or that he hoped that General Flynn, that nothing bad happened to him, but bad stuff happened to him?
Sean, here's what's going to happen.
There's no reason to think that what's in Mueller's report is any different substantively or stylistically than what he has put in his indictments and his statements of the offenses for the whole investigation.
There's no reason.
It's the same people writing it.
So here's what we saw in the investigation.
And I'm thinking of Roger Stone.
I'm thinking of Papadopoulos.
I'm thinking of General Flynn.
What you get are these narratives, right, that go on for 15 or 20 pages.
And it's a lot of heavy breathing.
It's almost collusion.
It sounds like collusion.
It feels like collusion.
It's really close to collusion.
And then you flip to the last page, and what you find is somebody lied to an FBI agent about the date a meeting happened.
You know, a case where normal prosecutors would give you a one-page indictment with one paragraph that said, you know, on or about such and such a date, the guy said X to an FBI agent when the truth was Y, and then you call it a day.
But instead, what these guys did was they used the false statements counts that they were charging as a pretext to write a long narrative, most of which had nothing to do with the thing that they were going to charge on the last page, so that they could write a story about almost collusion.
And I think what you're going to get when we see this report on Thursday is about 400 pages of almost collusion and almost obstruction and nothing actionable.
And then on top of that, what happens?
Then we begin the Horowitz report: FISA abuse, FISA fraud, rigged investigations into the favored candidate, then spying on the Trump campaign, other illegal activities, and deep state actors.
A lot to come.
Great column today, though.
Andy McCarthy.
We'll put it up on Hannity.com.
Link to the New York Post, twisted motive of the dirt devils who concocted the Trump Russia probe.
Andy, as always, thanks for being with us.
Thanks so much, Sean.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
We'll update you on the battle over the border at the bottom of this half hour or more straight ahead.
The big scam of the whole address was that there's a crisis.
There's not a crisis.
Folks, the president has manufactured one heck of a political crisis for himself.
Donald Trump is manufacturing a national security crisis.
You will hear them say that this is a manufactured crisis.
It's not a national security crisis.
It remains a Seinfeld shutdown.
All about nothing.
What happens when there is a real crisis?
When there is a real emergency?
Does he take to the airwaves?
Do we give him the airwaves?
Do we believe him?
Some question if there is a crisis at all, as the president has claimed.
There is not a crisis at the border.
It's a manufactured crisis for the president to get a political win.
The crisis can have, as we see now, a very elastic definition.
He's determined to convince you there is a crisis at the border.
Even though an intelligence official tells Sinnon, quote, no one is saying this is a crisis except them.
Well, let me ask you about the crisis at the border because there is a humanitarian crisis at the border.
All these families coming in, declaring asylum, they're according to customs and border patrol.
There is not the room for all these families.
Jay Johnson, the former Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama, also says there's a crisis at the border.
Politics and optics aside, though, it is a real crisis at our southern border.
We're talking about a 12-year high of apprehensions.
It's very clear that there is a crisis on the border and try to do something about this border crisis that we're seeing right now.
Look, people, maybe a small C, but it's a crisis.
It's a flood at our border, and Americans should pay attention to what immigration has done to Europe.
Maria Villarion traveled to Brownsville, Texas to see the border crisis firsthand.
And then you have a crisis at the border.
Homeland Security does a lot more than just the border, although the border is huge, obviously, as this crisis erupts.
As he pushes for tough new measures to deal with the migrant crisis at the border.
Look, we've got an enormous challenge on our border.
It truly is a crisis to about 3,000 a day.
And that's why you have officials down on the border talking about the crisis.
The view is live.
Homeland insecurity as the border crisis grows.
Containing this crisis at the border when you have a crisis at the border.
All right, there you have it.
Your media manufacturer crisis, manufactured.
You got the media and the Democrats.
They can't even make up separate talking points at this point.
And then all of a sudden, yeah, maybe walls aren't so immoral.
Yeah, we got a crisis down at our southern border, and we can't say the words, but it's true.
Donald Trump was correct, and how bad is it?
Well, we're going to ask Brandon Judd is with us, president of the National Border Patrol Council, 20 years active Border Patrol agent and veteran, and the current migrant crisis is as bad as it's been.
Also, Art Del Cueto is with us, who joined the Border U.S. Patrol in 2003.
And Art, by the way, grew up in Douglas, Arizona, a city along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Art, you basically watched this your entire life based on your location and where you grew up and then being a part of the Border Patrol.
Is this the worst you've ever seen it?
This is definitely the worst I've ever seen as far as lawlessness with what's going on.
There was times when I first joined the patrol that the groups were large.
However, at that point, we were sending some of these individuals back to the country.
But right now, it is just, it is definitely the worst I've seen as individuals that are being released in the U.S. You know, one of the things the president has done, Brandon, is he said to the Central American countries, El Salvador, Nicaragua, et cetera, that, you know what?
We're not going to provide any more aid because those countries are aiding, abetting, and assisting in the law-breaking their citizens against us.
And similarly, Mexico is not doing anything to stop them from entering their country illegally, where in the past, they had some of the strictest illegal immigration laws on the books.
They would either deport you or put you in jail.
They're not doing that any longer.
Whenever you hit them in the pocketbook, that's when you're going to get them to realize that they've got to do something to start helping the United States with its crisis.
We saw what President Trump did with the ports of entry when he threatened to close down those ports of entry, which then would have affected the Mexican economy.
Mexico stepped up and started deporting more people.
So we can see that whenever we threaten countries with economic sanctions and they know that they're going to lose money, that's when they actually start stepping up and doing what we need them to do.
And again, these economic sanctions, I believe that they will pay dividends, and hopefully it will help us secure the border.
What is the worst thing?
I've never quite understood all during that period where everyone was saying the same thing as the president was announcing a national emergency on the border.
And now the president has statutorily and legislatively has the ability.
I've cited the law many times that he has the ability to reallocate funds to build borders and put up lights and to protect American sovereignty.
Number one, number two, constitutionally as the commander-in-chief, in a two-year period, over 4,000 homicides, 30,000 sexual assaults, and over 100,000 violent assaults against Americans committed by illegal immigrants.
And at what point do the American people recognize that this is a real threat?
Add to that 90% of America's heroin is coming across that border.
Well, I think the vast majority of the American public does, in fact, recognize that this is a problem.
The hard left, they're never going to give President Trump a win.
They're never going to admit that he is correct because if they do that, they go into 2020 and they lose.
But the middle section, what everybody's fighting for, it's those independents.
Those independents, they do not want open borders.
Those independents, they do not want unchecked, unfettered, illegal immigration.
And they are taking notice.
They're taking notice of the AOCs and how radical left they are and the socialism that they're spewing.
And that is going to be rejected by the American voter.
And Trump is going to come out ahead because of that.
Yeah, Art, you know, the real issue here is I don't understand it.
We've got drug cartels.
We've got violent gangs on the border.
90% of America's heroin.
You've got fentanyl now a huge problem that's killing so many Americans.
We lose opioid deaths in America now.
We're at about 300 a week.
And most of those opioids, most of that heroin, fentanyl coming across that southern border.
This is impacting now small towns and big cities all across the country.
And I don't think there's a person listening to this program that has not been impacted in some way, knowing somebody or some family or some distant relative or some kid in the neighborhood that has fallen into this life and then most times ends up dying.
Why is that not ⁇ how do you look at those numbers and not realize that this is poisoning not only our kids, but the whole country?
It's like a cancer that's growing right before your eyes and you do nothing to stop it.
I think many of us do realize it and there's individuals that do realize it.
Unfortunately, there is more people that are more concerned with their own political positioning, their political power, and there's media out there that's more concerned with helping out those individuals that have more hatred towards our president than love towards the American public.
Because we're seeing the destruction of lives with the amount of drugs that are coming across the border.
And as you said, fentanyl, the opioid crisis.
These people just need to wake up and say, you know what?
I made up my mind.
I care about the American public.
I care about the United States and just put their ego aside and stop trying to attack our president on issues that are just not there.
Well, I don't know if that's going to happen.
What about the president?
Now, when the Syrian refugees were coming in large numbers and Obama was letting them in and giving them refugee status, Obama decided to spread out the population that was coming and decided where people were going.
And he seemed to target specific places and areas in red states.
And why would it be illegal in any way?
I don't think it is for President Trump to say, okay, well, you like illegal immigrants so much you want your sanctuary cities.
Well, take them.
We'll put them in your neighborhood.
And then everyone gets outraged that the president would say, okay, you're asking for them.
Here, you take care of them.
It's not illegal.
What he's doing is perfectly within the laws.
We have the right to determine where we're going to release people.
If they have to be released for one reason or another, we can release them in the most advantageous places, one for the individuals or two for the government.
We've already done it.
When we were overrun in El Paso and we couldn't release any more people at the bus stations in El Paso, we took them to Tucson, Arizona.
We've done it.
It can be done either.
By the way, didn't the El Paso sector, didn't at one point they only had five miles of barriers and they went to 70 miles.
And as soon as they did, there was a 99% reduction of illegal immigrant passage through that area.
Beto O'Rourke continually touts El Paso as being one of the safest cities in the United States.
That safe city started once we built those barriers.
You know, Art and I were both out on the border with Senator Johnson last night.
And one of the things that we showed him and that he was absolutely amazed with was the number of agents that we had on the border.
He didn't see any agents on the border because all of our agents were stuck in processing dealing with these people that were giving up, that were claiming asylum, and it's leaving our borders absolutely and totally wide open.
It's a crisis.
President Trump is dealing with that crisis.
We just need to get behind him and help him out so that we can once and for all secure the border in this debate.
All right, Brendan Judd and Art Del Cueto, thank you so much for being with us.
We appreciate your time.
800-941-Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
Let's get to our busy phone.
Steve is in South Dakota.
Steve, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Thank you, Sean.
I called in because I was upset with politicians and the liberals hollering that it's illegal for President Trump to bust these illegal aliens to sanctuary cities and states when they say it's illegal for the president to do that.
They've already broken the law by interfering with the immigration laws and interfering with ICE and other law enforcement and border security to do their job.
And I just want to turn inside out when I see them and hear them make those claims about it being illegal when they're the ones who've already broken the law.
They're the ones who should have been arrested.
They're the ones who should be prosecuted.
And it just extremely.
No, I mean, listen, we have federal immigration laws.
And what they do and what they have done is they are failing to uphold the law.
Because, for example, criminal aliens, if they're spending time in jail, well, upon their release, they should be handed over to ICE agents for deportation.
By not doing that, we've had too many instances now where people get out of jail.
Grant Ronnebeck is a great case.
We've talked to his father, Steve, many, many times.
And the person that went into that convenience store after midnight, wanted a pack of cigarettes and shot this 22-year-old kid and killed him.
Well, he had already been in jail for what reason?
For kidnapping and brutalizing a young woman for an entire week, and he wasn't turned over.
It happens again and again.
At some point, there is a culpability on those people that allow that to happen.
Because I'm sure they wouldn't like it if it was their kid that was killed.
And we had an illegal immigrant that had already proven they're capable of violent acts and letting them back out on the streets.
They're aiding and abetting those people.
And at some point, you got to say, well, where do they bear the blame in this?
Because they do.
Some of the responsibility.
And, you know, it's obvious.
Anyway, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
Josh, Kansas City, next, Sean Hannity Show.
How are you, Josh?
Hey, Sean, first-time caller.
First of all, I want to say you were absolutely entertaining and always informative.
So thank you.
Best compliment.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
My question today is about this Russian collusion, a hoax with the Mueller report coming out soon.
He's been investigated, I want to say, three or four times now.
There's been no collusion found.
Does this redacted report, is there any legal ramifications that could be had by our president with this becoming public?
And also, how does this compare to the star report that I want to say the Democrats were very unwary about releasing back then?
How does that change?
Well, Gerald Nadler didn't want the Star Report.
And by the way, the independent counsel statute at the time called for it to be released.
That's why it was released.
And Nadler, the hypocrite that he is, now wants even grand jury testimony, which is illegal.
What does the law matter to a lawmaker?
But then he and 17 others, you know, same thing.
They didn't want the Star Report.
So they changed the law and they put more of the power in the hands of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General has, by his sole discretion, he doesn't have to reveal any of the Mueller report, not one word of it.
But he wants to be transparent, and the president has not objected to it.
He could assert executive privilege, and he hasn't.
You know, and it's going to be what I'm telling you.
He talked about firing Mueller and Rosenstein and Sessions, and he hoped that General Flynn wouldn't go to jail and said, This is a witch hunt.
That's not obstruction.
All right, Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
What is now about to hit?
It is going to be a hurricane, a cascading tornado for the left as they now realize they were so wrong, lying and committing fraud to FISA courts and rigging Hillary's investigation are true.
We'll have full coverage of that.
Ari Fleischer, Kim Strossel, Andy McCarthy, Sarah Carter, Dan Bongino Geraldo.
