Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, and counsel for the President walks us through the Attorney General’s press conference this morning and the redacted release of the Mueller’s report. Jay goes through the four areas that determined these redactions. Barr made the point today that the President’s counsel did not request any redactions or edits, and when they reviewed the document it was in accordance with the law, as it is set forth that independent counsel investigating private individuals should have the right of review. 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.
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 Sean 7, S E A N7 when you go to MyPillow.com.
Again, that's promo code Sean 7, S E A N 7 at MyPillow.com.
All right, glad you're with us.
Yeah, we're right again.
Everything we predicted yesterday is unfolding right before our eyes.
This you just never ever gonna get the truth from these hysterical psychotic uh literally intellectually dead people that claim to be fact finders and journalists and you know democratic hacks.
It's yeah, Democrats don't care ever about governing the country.
Oh, that's the last thing on their mind.
They're already plotting and planning with with secret memorandums of understanding.
Let's get his taxes.
That's what we'll do next.
We'll go after his taxes.
Gotta be something from some year.
Maybe he didn't pay 10 cents on a special tax, and he's fighting the IRS, and why do we have his tax returns?
It's it just is never ending.
Um serious on the other side of this, and what is about to happen is going to blow them away.
Because as the statement from the president's legal team, Seculo, and who's going to join us uh later in the program today, and Rudy Giuliani states the results of the investigation are a total victory for the president.
The report underscores what we have argued from the very beginning, that there was no collusion, no obstruction.
After a 17-month investigation, testimony from 500 witnesses, the issuance of 2800 subpoenas, the execution of nearly 500 search warrants, early morning raids,
the examination of more than 1.4 million pages of documents, and the unprecedented cooperation of the president, it is clear there was no criminal wrongdoing, nothing withheld, nothing concealed, nothing deleted, nothing destroyed, and nothing bleached.
Great line.
In addition to the report, completely vindicating the president, both the attorney general Bill Barr and the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, working with the career professionals at the Office of Legal Counsel, concluded not a single instance in which the elements of any crime were met.
Oh.
Wait a minute.
That's not collusion, collusion, collusion.
It is also clear the president acted properly in firing the now disgraced former FBI director James Comey, who lied and displayed disdain for the values at the core of the FBI.
That's right, our premier, the premier law enforcement agency in the world.
It is troubling that Comey and top members of his team launched a biased political attack against the president, turning one of our foundational legal standards on its head.
And instead of protecting the time honored principle that the president, as with any American, is innocent until proven guilty.
They clearly set up a scheme to derail this president, pushing a twisted narrative claiming he was guilty until proven innocent.
The report itself is nothing more than an attempt to rehash old allegations, despite the fact that, as reiterated by the Department of Justice Officer Inspector General's recent report on the 2016 election, neither the F neither the FBI nor Department prosecutors are permitted to insinuate or allege that an individual who has not been charged with a crime is Nevertheless guilty of some wrongdoing.
The vindication of the president is as an important step forward for the country.
A strong reminder that this type of abuse must never be permitted to occur again.
Rudy Giuliani, Jay Seculo, Jane Raskin, Martin Raskin.
There you go.
There you have it.
Here's what they can't handle in the media.
They're just they're grasping for straws.
Here it is, 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.
What?
They've been telling us for two and a half years there's collusion.
What happened to the collusion?
Where is it?
No, no wonder why the, by the way, we now have the memorandum of understanding between Elijah Cummings and Maxine Waters and the cowardly Schiff about how they are now going to use their chairmanship positions to go after the president on other issues because they're moving on.
And look, you're still going to get the days, weeks, innuendo coverage.
It's all it's all happening.
But in the end, none of it matters.
They lost.
This is like election.
They can't, they never accepted their loss on in November 2016.
They're not going to accept this either.
But it doesn't matter because this is now a chapter behind us, no matter how many committees want to do how much follow-up, what whatever roadmap they think Mueller laid out for them that they can impeach the president.
It's never gonna happen.
This matter is dead over and finished.
And the fact that they're taking some of Mueller's words out of context is just predictable.
There was never any credible evidence of collusion from the get-go.
We've had four separate investigations into this.
Nine months the FBI went into this before Mueller was appointed.
And even they said they had nothing.
Lisa Page, Peter Strzok themselves said they had nothing.
And then you add, of course, the House Intel Committee conclusion after they investigated it for two years.
They had nothing.
And then, of course, the bipartisan Senate Committee.
They had no evidence of collusion.
Now I just read to you from the Mueller report.
No evidence of collusion.
Uh, no crimes committed by Donald Trump or anybody in his campaign to interfere in the election.
It was a hoax.
It was conjured up from the beginning by nefarious people.
And when we get to the bottom of it, there are going to be many other people that end up going to jail.
You know, this whole idea of obstruction, these ten items, we don't make a final decision here.
Well, the decision was made by the Department of Justice, as we said earlier.
Um, you know, you look at all of this, it is it is predictable as the day is long.
This is what Democrats do.
You know, when they go into a long explanation, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary by binary determination to uh initiate or decline a prosecution.
And so they go into why they didn't make the determination.
We had to consider, we had to evaluate, you know, the conduct we investigated of the president.
So they come up with, you know, these these reasons.
Well, these are the things we found as it relates to the potential of obstruction.
Now, what's amazing about this is we have the biggest slam dunk case on obstruction of justice based on a real crime that was rigged by an investigation rigged by the very people that started this witch hunt into Donald Trump.
And we've laid out that evidence.
It is clear, it is overwhelming, it is incontrovertible.
Hillary Clinton committed felonies.
She violated the espionage act.
Hillary Clinton had a rigged FBI investigation.
Hillary Clinton had her exoneration written in May of 2016 before they interviewed her in July of 2016.
Just three days before the exoneration came out, James Comey made public.
We he even admitted she had top secret, classified, marked as such emails on that mom and pop server, which by the way puts people and our sources and our methods and everything else at risk.
And yet they did nothing.
And all these people that claim to Have a, you know, they want fairness and they want justice and they they they want to be objective and balanced, they're full of it.
Because there was real crimes really committed, rigged investigation, and they say nothing.
And then what was the intent, which is missing?
And there's no underlying crime.
I just read you, Mueller's comments on collusion.
There is none with the Trump campaign.
Never.
No evidence for separate investigations.
Okay, well, then we get to the issue of well, you do need to show intent if you want to get a conviction on the issue of obstruction.
Well, what was Hillary's intent to delete the subpoenaed emails, acid wash the hard drive with bleach bit, and then of course break up the devices with hammers and remove SIM cards.
Well, that was to destroy the evidence that proved she was guilty of the of what we know she committed, because we still have enough evidence proving she violated the espionage act.
You know, and uh it's what I said yesterday, the campaign's response to reports about Russian support.
Okay, well, if you didn't collude, you know, Trey Gowdy said he didn't like the way the president was acting, as the president was saying uh, this is a witch hunt, I never did it.
Okay.
And he said, Well, if you're innocent, act like you're innocent, damn it.
And I'm like, well, that's how innocent people react to unfairness, to injustice.
They want to scream their innocence.
You know, the conduct involving the FBI director.
Okay.
Well, the president wished that Mike General Flynn uh wasn't gonna get in trouble, and they had a private dinner at the White House, and that's when he said to Comey he needed loyalty, and the president requested Flynn's resignation.
The president, you know, now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over, and the advisor disagreed, and the investigation would continue.
And, you know, uh, well, I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go.
You know, to letting Flynn go.
He's a good guy.
Meaning, I hope you don't do anything.
Now, did the president lift a finger to stop the investigation, the trial of uh, and the plea of General Flynn?
No.
Just like they were discussing in the deep state.
Oh, let's tape the president of the United States.
Let's secretly tape him.
Oh, let's invoke the 25th amendment.
They thought about it, they expressed it, but they didn't do it.
They would have done it, it would have been a crime.
You're not allowed to without a warrant.
You need the warrant to tape the president.
Unbelievable.
Or the the case of the president's reaction to the ongoing Rush investigation.
Okay, guilty.
The president was pissed off at the witch hunt and said so regularly.
Why wouldn't he be?
Because every day, pretty much since he'd been president he's been president, he's had to deal with this garbage, which we now know concluded there was no collusion.
And then it says the president's termination of Comey.
Why would that even be brought up as a possible obstruction item when Comey himself said he could be fired for any reason or no reason at all?
So that's a ridiculous part of the investigation of Mueller, also.
And the appointment of the special counsel, efforts to remove him.
Well, he said he might have said to Don McGann and and uh uh we got to get rid of this guy, get rid of this guy.
I've had it.
Okay.
The president didn't need Don McGahn to get rid of him.
President could fire any of these people himself at any point, any time.
He didn't.
Was he frustrated?
Of course he's frustrated.
When you have to deal with lies, fake news, and and a never-ending investigation that takes away, you know, 60% of your work time every day, it's a pain in the ass.
Yes.
So he expressed as much.
Then he talked about curtailing the investigation.
Um, oh, the effort to prevent public disclosure of evidence.
Well, if you had the evidence, you would have presented it in the report.
There is no evidence, otherwise you would have indicted.
It's ridiculous.
You know, or efforts to have the attorney general take control of the investigation.
Sure, he was pissed that Jeff Sessions uh recused himself and didn't tell him he was going to recuse himself.
He accused himself the day after or three days after he was he got the position.
How stupid is that?
Or Dom McGann, you know, uh the president ordered him to have a special the special counsel remove.
Um well McGahn didn't do it, and he didn't Have to do it because that was within the president's powers to do it.
Or that he's angry at how Flynn was treated, or Manafort was treated, or the president, you know, saying, well, which Michael Cone are we to believe?
The one that said this or the one that said that.
The president's angry about that.
All of which are laid out.
Those are the 10 items that the president expressed frustration during what had to be the most frustrating time for anybody that's in office.
We're going to get into the specifics of all of this.
It is a big fat zero.
And what the media and Democrats don't know is what is about to hit them.
It is imagine you have just found the biggest mountain with 40 feet of brand new fresh powder snow.
And you're going to ski it.
You're going to have a helicopter fly you up there.
And you get down around 30 feet, and then all of a sudden you trigger the avalanche.
Not a good situation.
Well, there's an avalanche that is about to descend on all of these deep state actors.
That's the part they have no clue about.
And we're going to be all over it.
Um, but the president's over.
They can't admit they lost.
It's like it's like 2018 again for them.
They lost, but they won't recognize the loss.
Smoking is not about politics, it's about people.
There are 34 million Americans that smoke.
For me, Jewel was a game changer.
Because you switch to Jewel, it's simple, it's satisfying, and no more smell.
I watch people all the time.
They run outside in the freezing cold can be grabbing their cigarette.
Well, with Jewel, you'll take a quick puff and you're good.
That's it.
Now, Jewel is designed with smokers in mind, from its form to technology, it's easy to use, no buttons, no switches.
And the goal of Jewel is to impact the lives of adult smokers by providing a satisfying alternative.
Switch to Joule.
You'll wish you had done it a long time ago to discover the smoking alternative that is nothing like any e-cig vape you have ever tried.
Go to this website, J-U-U-L Joule.com slash switch America.
That's J-U-U-L.com slash switch America.
Warning, this product contains nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical.
J-U-U-L.com slash switch America.
You know what's fascinating is I I literally took this whole report.
I just sat alone and I just poured through it.
And what stood out more than everything is Devin Nunes being right.
They didn't listen to him in 2014.
The Russians like to wreak havoc in elections.
They've done it before, they'll do it again.
When are we gonna learn that lesson?
But as it relates to any collusion, there's no there's no more defining issue here because that's what we've been lied to about consistently by Democrats, by the cowardly shifts included, and their willing cohorts,
the media mob that rages against Trump every morning they wake up, and how disappointing it must be to hear the special counsel found no collusions by any Americans in any of the activities of Russia.
And the special counsel did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in their hacking operations.
Hacking operations, we need to hire people to stop that.
You know, and then the decision on obstruction.
You know, even the deputy attorney general, an office of legal counsel, they disagree, and the attorney general disagreed with some of Mueller's uh legal theories and how that does not rise to the level of obstruction as a matter of law, and they didn't rely solely on that and making their decision.
They accepted the legal counsel's framework for purposes of their analysis, evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel.
And in the end, what they found is a White House that fully cooperated with the special counsel, providing on fettered access to the campaign White House documents.
Everyone was free to talk freely.
They asserted no privilege and they found no obstruction.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800 941.
Sean Tollfrey telephone number you want to be a part of the program.
Um Let me read it again.
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Four separate investigations have now cleared this president.
The all-powerful special counsel on top of it, you know, filled with investigators, including, oh, Andrew Weissman, a guy who withheld exculpatory evidence, the guy responsible for tens of thousands of Enron accounting officials losing their job, losing in the Supreme Court on appeal 9-0.
Great, that doesn't get their jobs back.
Or the case of four Merrill executives, this is Mueller's pit bull.
He sent them to jail for a year until that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
As Sidney Powell points out and licensed a lie, you know, this guy was literally excoriated by a judge for withholding exculpatory evidence.
Yeah, that's that's that's the right guy for the team.
He was at Hillary Clinton's victory party on election night.
Let's put him in charge.
Or Genie Ray, who worked for the Clinton Foundation.
That's why, you know, they try to muddy the waters as I predicted they would do with innuendo and innuendo, but in the end, it's the law that matters.
And they you can't get beyond the investigation as hard as they tried, did not establish members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Four separate investigation.
Now the Robert Muller report, you know, filled with investigators, almost all big-time Democratic donors.
You know, after 22 months, 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 230 court orders, interviews with 500 plus people.
That's their conclusion.
No one inside the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia.
Now it was monotonous to read a lot of this.
I'm not going to tell you.
I mean, it was, you know, literally, I'm just like, oh.
The thing that really stood out to me, why didn't everybody listen to Devin Nunes back in 2014, warning this would all happen?
Why do we why have we now for decades as a country allowed, have not built up cyber defenses that prevents this type of event from ever occurring.
It's unbelievable.
You know, and then to read everything that they have on an obstruction, it's all been previously discussed to death.
And the idea that Donald Trump expressed the thought that he hoped that Flynn would be okay.
Yeah, I hope Flynn would be okay.
I still hope he'll be okay.
You know, the they forced this guy to sell his home.
He's in millions of dollars in debt, probably threatened his family as a means of turning the screws on him so he'll sing or compose.
You know, now he's got a judge that apparently hates him and thinks that he was a traitor, called him that in open court, pulled it back, but still said it.
He's still, you know, we got his problems.
None of these people would have been investigated if this witch hunt didn't begin.
You know, you look at everything that they talk about, you know, the Democrats seizing on the 10 items that I just went over in the last half hour that, well, it's possible the president obstructed.
Well, he didn't do those things.
Well, he asked somebody to fire Fire Mueller.
Well, he didn't need anybody to fire Mueller.
He could do it himself, like he could have fired Sessions, like he did fire Comey, who admitted he could be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
The evidence wasn't clear.
They made no determination, so they left it to the Justice Department.
It does not rise because for many reasons, there's no underlying crime to begin with.
And a president, you know, talking about a witch hunt and the I'm sorry, it seems like Muller took it personally.
Yeah, he's pissed off.
His, you know, 60% of his time is with lawyers dealing with these ridiculous bogus charges that we now know were ridiculous and bogus.
And we all know what this was really about.
They didn't like the election results, and they wanted a coup on a sitting president because they favored one candidate over another.
You know, the special counsel's two-year investigation.
They didn't find obstruction of justice beyond incidents that we that he expressed, frustration with Mueller with Sessions, with Rod Rosenstein.
Um, he did all of these publicly.
You know, or that skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks being what is Donald Trump?
I don't even think he uses a computer.
I don't think it that that would be in his wheelhouse.
I hope Michael Flynn, uh I hope he doesn't get in trouble.
Okay, he got in trouble.
He didn't stop Michael General Flynn from getting in trouble.
Trump telling Don McGann, stop the attorney general from recusing.
Okay, frustration.
The president could have picked him up.
He's his boss.
But he didn't do it.
Firing Comey?
Well, he had every reason to fire Comey, we now know.
All of these things, they're all non-issues.
Oh, he told Corey Lewandowski to tell Sessions he should tell Mueller to limit the probe.
Okay.
Never happened.
And he would have done it himself.
Let me tell you something about Trump.
He might be venting, but when he wants to do something, he's gonna do it.
If he wanted to, he would have.
He makes up his own mind.
That's one thing I do know about the president.
He makes how many people tell him don't tweet, don't tweet, don't tweet.
You know, you know, just no one inside this campaign coordinated colluded with Russia.
Every tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, every lie the media told, the media mob, Democratic Party told, they're just gonna cling on to.
Just like they think that they're still with they still can't believe he won.
You know, here's a small sampling of the garbage we've been fed, the lies we've been fed about Russian collusion that even Mueller couldn't find.
Listen.
We're about to find out if the new president of our country is going to do what Russia wants.
As if there are no shoes on the Trump human centipede that are not about Russia.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
This cloud about collusion with Russia will hang over him no matter where he stands.
He may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.
I think they're shocked that the news is tightening.
It's clear that Mueller is now connecting the dots between a massive obstruction intended to hide the truth.
This president needs to be impeached.
I believe that.
I believe there was collusion.
Donald Trump's done.
He's done.
There's no question about it.
He's gotta know his future looks like it's behind bars.
We have a treasonous president.
We now have to figure out how to deal with a president of the United States who winningly or unwittingly has been compromised.
This is not funny.
This is really bad.
Just for the record, we're all really nervous.
The beginning of the end of the Trump presidency.
You could feel the thread being pulled.
You can feel the clothes starting to come off the emperor.
I believe this is the beginning of the end.
The president sees the walls closing in and is lashing out.
He's desperate.
He's obviously flailing around because he feels the walls closing in.
He feels the walls closing in on him.
The president's done everything he can uh in trashing the special counsel.
Mr. Trump is seeing more and more of the walls closing in on him, which is why he is becoming increasingly desperate.
What if he refuses to uh open the White House door?
What if the secret, you know, well that can what if he fires any Secret Service agent um who allow the federal marshals in?
What if Donald Trump simply decides I don't have to follow the law?
I refuse to be uh held under the law.
No marshal can get into this white house.
The presidency is effectively a Russian op, right?
You know, partisan warfare between Republicans and Democrats.
This is international warfare against our country.
How do you ever trust these liars again?
Ever believe them.
To say, you know, you look at their track record of being wrong, Covington, Smollett, Kavanaugh.
They care only about Kavanaugh.
They only believe Kavanaugh, but they don't believe the Virginia Lieutenant Governor.
How often do they rush to judgment, starting with Richard Jewell, Ferguson, Missouri, UVA, Duke Lacrosse, Ferguson, Cambridge police, how much vetting of Obama did they do?
Nothing.
Now they got their answer.
No collusion.
In spite of two and a half years, Russia, Russia, Russia, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, collusion, collusion, collusion.
Doesn't exist.
This is like the biggest most dangerous fraud conspiracy theory ever perpetrated against the American people.
The biggest mass psychosis meltdown because they lost an election.
An attempted coup after the fact.
Three things we now know and have established and will be in the forefront of our discussion.
One, how they rigged the investigation into Hillary so she could win a hundred million to zero, as the guy that interviewed her said.
Because Trump was loathsome.
And don't forget they had their insurance policy.
She committed crimes.
You know, think about all of this.
When you wait as this now phony collusion story is dead and buried, and this obstruction of justice is dead and buried when you don't have an underlying crime.
You don't have the intent which is required by law when one has consistently and repeatedly, repeatedly and loudly proclaimed innocence.
So what?
President was never charged, never will be.
Yeah, he wanted to do things.
He never did them.
Yeah, they wanted to secretly tape the president.
They talked about it, but they never did it.
Yeah, he wanted to get rid of Rosenstein and Mueller and uh who else?
Sessions.
Never impeded the case against Lieutenant General Flynn.
You know, and she was shouting from a rooftop, no collusion, never happen.
It's a witch hunt.
Expressing frustration is not obstruction.
Talking is not obstruction.
Thinking about doing something is not obstruction of justice.
Just like they thought and talked about uh implementing the 25th amendment or secretly wiring the White House.
What we do know is if you really care about the rule of law, well, we do have a case where classified top secret, marked as such, was on a private server in violation of the espionage act.
That's a real crime with real evidence.
Had a real rigged investigation.
They wrote the exoneration in May.
They didn't interview her or the 17 other witnesses till July.
Three days later, they exonerated Hillary.
And then we well, okay, what about obstruction for Hillary?
Well, she committed the crime.
We have the emails that prove you it's illegal to have top secret classified emails on a private server.
But she had them.
Okay, so you have an underlying crime.
Well, what about obstruction for Hillary?
Well, she had the intent of eliminating the evidence.
That's why she deleted the 33,000 subpoena emails.
That's why she acid washed her hard drive with bleach bit.
That's why she removed SIM cards and destroyed devices with a hammer.
The media mob, they're never going to mention Hillary today.
The biggest slam dunk obstruction case ever with an underlying crime and with the intent to destroy evidence.
It's phony moral media, selective moral outrage.
You see it with Kavanaugh, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia.
You see it with the Covington High School kids.
You see it with immigration.
You see it with climate change.
You see it with their socialist policies.
Well, now Lindsey Graham is going to go back into this.
We also have Ukraine now trying to tell us and give us evidence.
They colluded on Hillary's behalf.
They're offering it to us and they're admitting that they did it.
No interest in that either.
We now know the Ukrainian government, an official tried to collude with the Clinton campaign to impact the 2016 election, and they're offering America all the evidence and admitting their part.
Is Robert Mueller going to be reappointed?
And maybe he'll hire only Republican donors and a Republican pit.
Maybe they'll hire Sean Hannity.
I'll get in that case, sure.
Inspector General report.
That all the things that is coming next are amazing.
Because we have 53 closed door testimonies that we will have an opportunity to read that will be very revealing.
53.
You know, this is now the beginning of the real investigation into the investigators.
We know they violated crimes.
We know that Hillary had a rigged investigation, number one.
Number two, we know that beyond being rigged from the beginning.
We know that uh real crimes, real obstruction, real intent.
We know that they used Hillary's bought and paid for Russian of all things, dossier.
Why did they use it?
Number one, to leak it to their friends in the media.
Why to impact the votes in 2016?
And they also used it to deny Carter Page's constitutional rights, and they used it to spy on the Trump campaign.
That was only one of the ways they spied.
When they enlisted Stefan Helper to go after Papadopoulos and Clovis and Carter Page, another instance where they were spying on an opposition party candidate using the powerful tools of intelligence, misusing the powerful tools of intelligence to unmask American citizens at a rate of 350% higher in 2016.
And then they tried to, by the way, implement their insurance policy, which is all what this is.
We'll just make up this story that the president colluded with Russia.
That's the insurance policy, the same people involved in the exoneration of Hillary, abusing their power, the powers that we give them, the powerful tools of intelligence that we give them.
And we're gonna now get to the bottom of it because we're gonna now see the 302s.
We're gonna see the FISA applications.
We're gonna get the Horowitz report.
We know that the Attorney General Barr will do his own investigation.
We'll get the criminal referrals from Nunes, we'll get the criminal referrals from Horowitz, we'll get the gang of eight information.
We're going to get it all.
We'll get to see the FISA applications themselves, 17 to 34, and page 10 to 12 I hear are very important.
We've been right about everything.
Now they don't have anything left.
Except to scream the same nonsense they've been screaming from the get-go.
Collusion, collusion.
Russia, uh Russia.
They lost.
They just don't know it yet.
Finally, the special counsel investigated a number of links or contacts between the Trump campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.
After reviewing these contacts, the special counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russian-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.
So that's the bottom line.
After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants, and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those efforts.
That was the attorney general in his press conference with Rod Rosenstein there as well earlier today.
And from the Mueller report, the investigation did not establish members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
I earlier read the statement from the president's attorneys, Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani.
One of them joins me right now.
Jay Sekulow, also the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
Um, you know, I I read the whole thing.
I I mean I I suffered through it because it was monotonous.
Um and I well, uh why not just let you explain your take on it at this point because you couldn't cooperate any more than you did.
Um even Mueller acknowledged that they had pretty much all the answers they needed.
Um to me, this is now dead, except for Congress needing to cling on to something because they hate Trump so psychotically.
Well, you you heard uh Congressman Nadler's press conference.
I mean, it was deflated, they are deflated.
The fact of the matter is the basis upon which this inquiry began was uh allegations of collusion or conspiracy between the Russian government and Russian agents and members of the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign.
And everybody found there were no such activities.
None.
That was the conclusion.
No collusion.
Then with obstruction, they go through 200 pages of recitations of law and fact to conclude that they can't make a determination that the president in fact violated the law.
That's what it says.
And every I'm I'm interested to watch some of the spin on some of these networks, but the truth is that's what it says.
And therefore, they make no conclusion except to say that we're not saying the president violated the law.
Well, if you didn't violate the law, then guess what this is?
A declamation letter.
If they had an obstruction case, they would have put it forward.
They did not.
They look, we all know if Mueller had it, he would have run with it.
And you're right, it is a declination letter.
Um now they they come up though with their ten possibilities, and uh, you know, I actually predicted this last night on TV.
That they say, well, the president uh he hoped that that General Flynn wasn't in trouble, he wouldn't get in trouble.
Well, General Flynn still got in trouble.
Well, he wanted to fire Mueller and and and he told Don McGann, I'm like, what relevance is that?
He he has the power to fire anybody he wanted it to in this case.
He didn't.
But he didn't.
Of course he had the he had the constitutional authority under Article II.
He did not.
So when you go through each of these, it ends up with the same conclusion, and that is no legal violation.
You know, at the end of the day, when you think of all the time, money, effort put into this thing, and when we now have four instances.
The FBI investigation we learned with the recently released closed door testimony of Struck and Page, they revealed something I found fascinating, which was that the FBI had no power to make any decisions as it related to Hillary Clinton's investigation, because those decisions were being made by the attorney general Loretta Lynch, the same person that was telling James Comey it's a matter, it's not an investigation, and met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix.
Uh so we have a we have 53 more of those to come.
Um, but I look at that and I'm like, wow, that was never fully investigated.
As a matter of fact, it looks like that investigation was rigged.
Let me I want to go through with you a couple of the key because people actually no one's uh few people can read 400 phases, okay?
I did.
So let me go through.
I'm gonna do this with you tonight, but I think this is important for the people to understand page two.
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Page 187, same kind of thing.
Page 181.
The investigation did not establish that the contact described in volume one, which is all of the collusion issues, amounted to an agreement to commit the violation of any federal law.
Okay, that's that's I'm only on page.
Now I'm gonna go to the next one.
This was also page one and two in the summary.
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired to coordinate with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Page nine.
The evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges regarding a Trump Tower meeting.
Here we go again on page nine, and our evidence about the June 9th meeting and the wiki leak releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign finance violation.
I could go on and on.
The office is not uncovered evidence that all manifold brought the Ukrainian peace plan to the attention of the president or the administration.
I mean, on and on it does.
You know, let me then focus on where the media is on here because it's so declarative, and then it says, Well, it was very interesting because both Rod Rosenstein, the Office of Legal Counsel, um joining the attorney general on the issue of obstruction that Mueller left to them and had he had the evidence.
You know, in most cases, Jay, if they investigate somebody, and they don't have the evidence to indict and bring that case forward.
You don't hear about all the background noise that they looked into, but that's not the case here.
And every single thing that I read was okay, we know this already.
We know the president vented, we know the president was angry.
We publicly called it a witch hunt.
He publicly hoped that that Lieutenant General Flynn wouldn't get in trouble.
He openly said that probably Muller should be fired and Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions.
He was not shy about expressing that.
Um, for example, this we do know that Rod Rosenstein and others talked about, they talked about wearing a wire secretly against the president.
We know they talked about invoking the 25th amendment, but they didn't do those things.
So those are words versus actions.
Now, as it relates to law, that's a there's a great distinction there.
Yes, but let me give you another bit of uh reality news.
House majority leader uh Stenny Hoyer, based on what we've seen today, that's talking about after the enforcement out going forward on impeachment is not a worthwhile is not worthwhile at this point.
Very frankly, there's an election in 18 months, and the American people will make a judgment.
Well, I mean that sum up the victory right there.
That sums up the victory pretty much in full.
You know, I do worry about a uh a double standard here because there are really serious issues that if we don't get to the bottom of, I'm worried about our constitution, equal justice under the law, equal application of our laws, and we do have a lot of evidence.
We know that Hillary Clinton violated the espionage act.
We know even James Comey acknowledged he had top secret classified information on that private server in a mom and pop shop bathroom closet called Pat Platte Rivers Network, and we do know that when she was subpoenaed, 33,000 emails were deleted, the hard drive was bleach bit erased, and devices were broken up with hammers and SIM cards were removed.
Now I watched me tell you what's more important than all of that in my mind.
Okay.
How did this investigation start?
Tell me.
What started this investigation?
When did it start?
That's exactly right.
More important than all the Hillary Clinton stuff is this issue.
Americans were surveilled through FISA warrants, which resulted in an operation called Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which became an spying as the attorney general said on a political campaign.
A big deal.
A collusion inquiry or conspiracy inquiry that morphed into an obstruction inquiry.
You gotta find out how this started, because that's the outrage to the Constitution.
John Solomon hinted last night that this investigation did not start on the purported date of July 31, 2016, as we believed up to this point.
He thinks it started months and months earlier.
Is there any evidence to that fact as of now?
I don't know about evidence.
I know that when this started, it was labeled cross-fire hurricane.
They created their in my mind, that's a line out of jumping jack flash, by the way.
No, I'm on the created their uh I think you're born in a crossfire hurricane.
I think you uh I think they've started their own crossfire hurricane here.
And I think this attorney general will get to the bottom of it.
What about the issue though?
There's other issues involved here.
If we really cared about collusion, number one, we have evidence the Ukraine or Ukrainian officials are admitting publicly that they tried to interfere in our elections and are willing to provide evidence.
Nobody seems interested.
We also have this whole issue of this this bought and paid for phony dossier.
Uh, according to testimony of Bruce Orr, everybody was warned that it was tainted that Christopher Steele hated President Trump.
Christopher Steele does not stand behind his own dossier anymore in an interrogatory in Great Britain.
We know that Hillary paid for it.
None of that was told the FISA court.
So wouldn't that mean in these FISA applications that they committed fraud on a court?
That's why the investigation of what transpired here is absolutely critical, and we have to get to the bottom of it.
I believe this attorney general will.
Do you believe, as I believe, that the phony Russian dossier was used as the insurance policy to destroy a duly elected president to attempt to destroy him?
I think that was the attempt.
It did not.
I think there was there was uh insurance policies in place on multiple fronts.
Uh we're not cashed in, so to speak.
But Sean, I think it it raises a very serious legal issue as to what what really is at stake here.
And what's really at stake here is something horrible happened.
No other president should have to go through this ever again, period.
This would be, you know, having followed these case this case, which 99.9% of the media went in one direction, and they lied every night for two, two and a half years, collusion, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Well, now we've had the fourth confirmation that there never was any Trump Russia collusion.
We had the nine-month FBI report, the House Intel report, the bipartisan Senate report, nothing.
Everyone is exonerated the president.
But on the other hand, we do see a rigged invest a rigged investigation for Hillary with real evidence.
We do see that a phony unverified Russian dossier bought by Clinton using a foreign national with funneled money was used to deny an American citizen his constitutional rights, and it also allowed the opposition party to spy on the Trump campaign during the election on top of Stefan Hauper looking into Papadopoulos and Paige and Clovis.
Look, this matter has to be investigated significantly, seriously, and with an eye towards what the Constitution requires and mandates.
I think Bill Barr, without question, is going to do that.
He has said it.
He takes spying on a campaign seriously.
He said it is a big deal.
I think you've seen the leadership from him time and time again over the last several months.
And I think we'll continue to see that.
Here's what we have outstanding.
53 closed door testimonies we haven't seen.
We also have uh the attorney general mentioning that there was spying and that a full investigation into this whole issue will take place.
Then we have the Inspector General Horowitz report on FISA abuse.
We expect that report in May.
Then we have John Uber, he's looking into leaking.
We'll get that report.
Then we also, the president in the last interview I had with him, he will make available to the public the FISA applications.
He'll uh also the 302s, the gang of eight, all this information will be public.
I know a lot, based on my sources, what we will find out.
And there is a real abuse of power here.
Uming the media, and they seem to now be pushing towards either getting his taxes or hanging on to this to the very last moment, um, and beginning impeachment proceedings, which I think are absurd, but they may not.
So I I want to I want to say something on that, Sean.
I mean, Steni Hoyer's statement is not an accident.
This is the Democratic majority leader.
Okay.
And based on what we've seen today, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this time.
Very frankly, there's an election in 18 months with the American people and make a judgment.
That's about as good as it's going to get from them.
I think this issue's dead and done.
Yeah.
In terms of the president.
And it's it's going very quickly.
Yeah.
Well, I will say this.
I know how hard you work.
I actually think this case was won by not allowing, after all that you turned over and allowing everybody to testify, and no executive privilege ever invoked.
That, you know, I think that uh allowing the president to speak to this special counsel with the record of setting up perjury traps would have been a mistake.
Well, I wouldn't have let you do that.
I wouldn't let anybody else.
I mean, no lawyer worth assault would have allowed that.
All right, Jay Sekulo, attorney for the president.
Thanks for being with us.
We'll see you on Hannity Tonight 9 Eastern.
Uh, we have Greg Jarrett's reaction, David Schoen's reaction.
We'll take a quick break, come back, we'll continue.
I uh we can talk about the Democrats, and I know this is they're you they're trying to reinvigorate the impeachment push of theirs.
I'm gonna tell you right now, it's all gonna die.
Lanny Davis is out there offering Michael Cohn to fill in the redactions in the Muller report.
Didn't they just make a criminal referral the day that Lanny sat behind him when he was after he'd already been sentenced?
Now he has another criminal.
What is this guy doing?
How many times is he gonna, you know, put this guy's life on the line?
Uh Maxime Waters, now the big thing is to attack the attorney general's integrity.
Well, they loved him before.
And Democrats, they want to hear from Muller.
They want Mueller to discredit Barr and the attorney general.
What how you can't get around what this report says.
You can't get around four now four independent investigations coming to the same conclusion.
And by the way, the Obama administration spying scandal just got a lot worse because the Mueller report concludes that Carter Page was innocent.
So that means they're in more trouble.
And by the way, the prosecution of Julian Assange, it's interesting how they actually recognize in this report that Assange, they basically say he is a journalist, that he's protected as long as he's not involved in in whatever he's reporting if he's not involved in quote, stealing it.
Well, that's right out of the Pentagon papers.
We'll continue.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 22 months.
Well, this is now the fourth, four separate investigations clearing Trump of Trump Russia Russia campaign collusion.
Even the special counsel, the FBI, the House Intelligence Committee, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, all-powerful special counsel, now the latest, filled with investigators who were big-time Democratic donors, including the former lawyer for Hillary.
Andrew Weisman, the pit bull, who was at Hillary's victory party.
Twenty-two months, twenty, eight hundred subpoenas, five hundred search warrants, how many pre-dawn raids with guns in people's faces, two hundred and thirty court orders, and interviews with approximately 500 people.
Quote, from the Muller report, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
No one inside the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.
The very lie that has been peddled now for well over two years, two and a half years, hysteria, breathless coverage, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories by the Democratic Party and the rage hate Trump media mob working in unison.
Slander, besmirchment, nonstop attacks.
Well, now we'll impeach him over this.
That's what we're going to do.
We'll go right back to uh but they but it was Barr, Barr's fault, Bar and Rosenstein.
They just they just cleared him of the obstruction issues.
Um, well, if that's your if if we're gonna have equal justice under the law, this is what the media doesn't understand.
They've been wrong the whole time.
We've been right.
We've assembled the team.
We're gonna introduce two of them in a second, and we've been able to determine that the investigation into Hillary's email server was rigged, it was fixed, even struck and page recognized it was rigged and it was run right out of the office, they say, of the attorney general.
Loretta Lynch, what did she know?
When did she know it?
The one who wouldn't even call Hillary's investigation an investigation.
She called it a matter.
And then, of course, meeting with Bill Clinton just days before the decision is made on the tarmac in Phoenix, hoping, I guess talking about grandchildren for nearly an hour.
And then the same person struck and page says she was making all the decisions, and we already know she's not going to be indicted.
Now we know that she had top secret classified, marked as such information on that secret server.
That's a violation of the Espionage Act, 18 USC 793.
So there's an underlying crime.
And then the issue of intent.
Well, the intent was to get rid of the evidence.
That's why you delete 33,000 emails, acid washer hard drive with bleach pit, and then of course, bust up your devices in case any of the emails are on there.
Have an aid do it with hammers, remove the SIM cards.
So that's a big part of it.
Then, of course, we've got Hillary Rodham Clinton's bought and paid for Russian dossier, full of lies, leaked to the American people through their media allies, Korn and Izakov and the Washington Post.
Why?
So it would impact the votes with Russian lies.
And then, of course, it's used to bludgeon an American citizen as Pfizer fraud is committed.
And they present this phony dossier that everyone was told was never verified, corroborated, put together by somebody who himself doesn't stand by the dossier, Christopher Steele, using funneled money through a law firm to an op research firm out to a foreign national.
Put together.
And then it's used as a basis of a Pfizer warrant, denying an American citizen his constitutional rights, but more importantly, as a backdoor into all things the Trump campaign.
Then we had other spying as the recruitment of Stefan Halper, who goes after Papadopoulos, Paige and Sam Clovis.
Yeah, we had spies in the Trump campaign.
And then you add to that whole mess that they have.
Well, then they have their insurance policy, the very same people involved in rigging the Hillary investigation.
Yep, the insurance policy was to bludgeon Trump with a hoax, a conspiracy with the willing accomplices in the media regurgitating every lie every minute of every day.
And now we have 53 previously the Secret, undisclosed, closed door testimonies we will get a hold of.
We have Nunes and his criminal referrals.
We have the inspector general, his investigation into FISA abuse.
That's a slam dunk case.
Then we have John Hoover and his report on leaking coming.
We have the attorney general pledging that he himself will get to the bottom of all of this misconduct and spying that went on in the Trump administration.
And of course, we have the gold standard.
The president telling me he will release the FISA applications, the 302s, the gang of eight information.
Basically an illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump, the Russia hoax.
Greg Jarrett is with us.
That's the name of his number one best selling book.
He's been proven right all along, as well as David Schoen, criminal defense, civil liberties attorney.
I actually read the whole thing today.
And you know, I'm I'm reading this stuff on the obstruction part, and I'm thinking, boy, if you have to stretch this far that Donald Trump got mad and wanted at times to fire Rosenstein Sessions and Mueller, but didn't do it.
How do you, you know, it's just like uh they wanted to tape the president secretly.
They didn't do it, but they said it.
They wanted to invoke the 25th amendment.
They said it, they didn't do it.
So they want to say he obstructed on something that he thought about or discussed doing but didn't do.
Can that ever rise to the level of obstruction?
Greg Jarrett.
No, absolutely.
I mean, we are not the thought police.
We are not the discussion police.
We, you know, our democracy and the criminal code says you have to engage in overt acts.
And obstruction of justice is a very specific statute.
It says you must prove a corrupt purpose.
What is that?
It identifies the five things that constitute a corrupt purpose: a lie, threat, bribe, concealing evidence, or destroying documents.
Now, that report found that Trump committed none of those things, which is why he there was insufficient evidence to prove obstruction.
And on collusion, yes, I've read the entire report myself.
All Muller had to do is read my book, and in fact, the section on collusion looks like it it comes right out of my book.
Uh, I've never read such an exculpatory document.
So Foursquare, the president did nothing wrong, but that will not sean stop Democrats and the media from howling impeachment at the top of their lungs.
And and I warn them, if if they proceed with that, they do so at their own political risk, it will backfire.
Well, it's a dead issue with the American people.
That I can tell you.
I mean, if Muller had it, he would have brought it.
And, you know, we it was a declarative statement.
You know, either if you have the evidence, you're either going to indict or you don't.
And if you don't, usually you don't hear about the evidence because it wasn't rising to the occasion.
In this case, David, it's very different, I guess, because it's the president, right?
Yeah, that's right.
Listen, you've been right a hundred percent of the time on this thing.
You're right earlier in the week in predicting what the report would say.
And Greg's right about this impeachment backfiring.
But one thing for sure, anybody reads this report and thinks impeachment, they're out of their mind, and they had certainly don't have the country's interest in mind.
The piece reads in many ways like a gossip piece or certainly a political piece.
Never before do you see a decision not to prosecute couched in these terms?
Well, well, we would say if we had evidence for sure that he didn't commit a crime, and we're not saying that that's absolute nonsense.
But you knew when he picked it too, and Muller picked the team that he did, that they were political animals, rabid anti-Trumpers, and that they would put disparaging remarks in there to justify themselves and for the press and Congress to pick up on.
But listen, it's all a farce now.
They want to blame Barr.
Well, how about Rosenstein?
That was their man.
He's the one who wouldn't wanted to use the 25th Amendment to get rid of the president.
They loved him then.
They didn't want him fired.
Rosenstein is it.
No evidence of obstruction of justice.
Um, so don't put it on barr.
You've got the report now.
This should be put to bed.
Let's get on with policy.
Well, I mean, we're gonna get on with policy, but I think we have other issues that have to be dealt with, but with all due respect, David, because they did they did rig the investigation into Hillary, she did commit a real crime.
We We have we now have overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence.
That top secret, classified, marked as such, we're on that private email server.
So that would be an underlying crime.
18 USC 793.
Then we also have evidence when she deleted the subpoenaed emails and asset washed the hard drive with bleach pit and broke up the devices and removed the SIM cards.
Well, that would be evidence of intent.
What is the intent?
To eliminate the evidence of the crime of violating the espionage act.
And then those people that rigged that investigation should also be held accountable.
Those that allowed an American to lose their constitutional rights and to spy on the Trump campaign based on a phony, unverified bought and paid for dossier.
Well, they lied to the Pfizer court and committed a fraud, Greg Jarrett.
I think that has to be settled.
And then they have to settle.
Yeah, go ahead.
I I agree a hundred percent.
Uh the Russia hoax has been exposed for what it is.
Uh the witch hunt is now officially ended.
Um and now the real investigation, Sean, as you state, should begin in earnest.
It's been going on with Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, but now that Attorney Barr has this behind him, I think he will look quite seriously at the acts of corruption and illegality that were perpetrated by people at the FBI like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and and also look at the lies peddled by John Brennan, this former CIA director, and James Clapper, the former DNI.
Uh, and they were also in on this hoax.
Brennan began working on the Russia collusion hoax beginning at the end of two thousand and fifteen throughout two thousand and sixteen.
Well, this is funny you're saying this, because now everybody is saying, and even Giuliani said, and others have been saying, uh, this started way before the official start date of July thirty first.
John Solomon said it last night on TV with us, Greg.
And so what does that mean?
When did it start?
It it started at the end of two thousand and fifteen when Brennan uh began soliciting principally from the British, uh, but other American allies, um information, surveillance information, electronic information.
You mean stuff that they couldn't legally get in his position as CIA director.
The CIA cannot monitor on spy on Americans.
So the he very farmed it out, they they subcontracted out what is illegal to our friends in Great Britain and Australia and maybe Italy.
That's right.
And they reversed source the information uh spying on Americans through foreign sources.
All of this will be coming out in the months ahead.
Well, once that happens, uh I gotta believe that's part of the reason these countries are begging the president not to release the Pfizers, the 302s, the gang of aid information and other That's right.
Because you're convinced it'll expose our allies as doing the work for our intelligence community that is illegal for them to do themselves.
I absolutely believe that.
I and I'm is that a crime to outsource something like that?
If your true purpose was to spy on Americans, absolutely it's a crime.
What about the three hundred and fifty percent increase in unmaskings that took place in twenty sixteen in election year?
Also a crime.
You know, it's a crime to unmask the name of someone without a legitimate purpose, and then it's an additional felony to leak it to the media, and that's part of the criminal referral by Radcliffe and Nunes and Meadows and others.
And I, you know, that's going to be explosive when that comes out.
And think about the perversion of the FISA court process.
They should be livid, and the American people should have gotten real eye-opening on how secretive that process is and how dangerous it is.
The only thing I would modify about what Greg said is, I believe one witch hunt has ended.
I don't think the witch hunt has ended.
This Jerry Nadler is absolutely out of his mind.
Remember, he's hired two investigators now who have written treatises on how badly they hate President Trump and why he should be impeached and committed obstruction of justice without any evidence.
And without the law on their side.
So I'm afraid, you know, the press is picking up on everything as we knew they would.
So then today they're gonna be talking about the president said this is gonna ruin my presidency, having Mueller appointed.
And then if you read the report, what he went on to say was every time they tie a president up with this kind of thing, policy gets lost, it ruins the presidency.
Look at what this president has accomplished, especially in the area of foreign affairs, notwithstanding having both arms tied behind his back, being under the gun in the media every single day.
Now he's exonerated in this report, and you have another witch on starting with Jerry Nadler and the rest of his crew in Congress.
It's horrible.
Well, I think it's horrible, but I also think once we get to the real investigation, everything's gonna boomerang back, and they've got themselves a lot of problems here.
Well, you're on winning streak.
Let's keep keep it up.
I will take a quick break.
We'll come back and we'll have more of our coverage.
We're gonna replay Bob Barr, um William Barr rather than Bob, uh, at the top of the hour.
If you missed him this morning at 9:30, uh, and then we'll have more of our coverage continuing because what he said and the way he described it was was very powerful, which is why so many liberals right now are are clamoring that he get fired.
Glad you're with us, news roundup information overload hour.
Look, a lot of you working, a lot of you busy, 9:30.
The Attorney General with Rod Rosenstein with him, and of course, with consultation of the special counsel and the Office of Independent Counsel.
Uh, yeah, they made the decision because there's no evidence that rises to any level of obstruction.
Many of you missed it.
I want you to hear it in full.
And this is the Attorney General Barr from earlier today.
The special counsel's report states that his quote, investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
I am sure that all Americans share my concern about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election.
As the Special Counsel report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election process.
But thanks to the Special Council's thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign, or the knowing assistance of any other American for that matter.
That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.
First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations.
Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the special counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme.
Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.
But the special counsel found no evidence that any American, including anyone associated with the Trump campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA.
In another way, the special counsel found no collusion by any Americans in IRA's illegal activities.
Second, the report details efforts by the Russian military officials associated with the GRU, the Russian military intelligence organization, to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals associated with the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
But again, the special counsel's report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these hacking operations.
In other words, there was no evidence of the Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking.
The special counsel's investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the Internet.
The special counsel found that after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen documents to entities that it controlled, DC Leaks and Goosefer II, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to WikiLeaks for publication.
WikiLeaks then made a series of document dumps.
The special counsel Also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts.
Under applicable law, publication of these types of material would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.
After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel's investigation.
As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation.
Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offense.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense.
Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision.
Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusions.
In assessing the President's actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context.
President Trump faced an unprecedented situation.
As he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, Federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates.
At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability.
Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was, in fact, no collusion.
And as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks.
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privileged claims.
And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation.
Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of noncorrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing on ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case.
These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel's office, as well as the intelligence community.
And prosecutors are handling the ongoing cases.
The redactions are their work product.
No redactions done by anybody outside this group.
There were no redactions done by anybody outside this group.
No one outside this group proposed any redactions, and no one outside the department has seen the unredacted report, with the exception of certain sections that were made available to IC, the intelligence community, for their advice on protecting intelligence sources and methods.
Consistent with longstanding executive branch practice, the decision whether to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States.
Because the White House had voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel, significant Portions of the report contained material over which the President could have asserted privilege.
And he would have been well within his rights to do so.
Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice.
Following that review, the President confirmed that in the interest of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel's report.
Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.
In addition, earlier this week, the President's personal counsel requested and was given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released.
That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics and Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication.
The President's personal lawyers were not permitted to make and did not request any redactions.
In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the Special Counsel's investigation.
We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler through this process, and we will continue to do so.
Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel's investigation.
Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate Congressional requests, we will make available, subject to appropriate safeguards, to a bipartisan group of leaders from several congressional committees, a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand jury information.
Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves, with the limited exception of that which by law cannot be shared.
I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the Special Counsel's investigation.
All right, that was the Attorney General.
This is 9 30 this morning as he broke the news.
We've now read through this report.
We'll have uh more on the other side.
A huge Hannity tonight, 9 Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
As we continue with Attorney General Barr's comments from earlier this morning, as he laid out why there's nothing to indict, no obstruction and no collusion.
Whether you like it or not, in the Liberal media.
Mr. Attorney General, we don't have the report in hand.
So could you explain for us the Special Counsel's articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the Department's long-standing guidance on not indicting a sitting president, and you say you disagree with some of his legal theories?
What did you disagree with him on?
I I I'd leave it to uh his description in the report, the special counsel's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense.
But I will say that when we met with him, uh, Deputy Attorney General uh Rosenstein and I met with him along with Ed O'Callaghan, uh, who is the principal associate deputy on March 5th, we specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion, and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position.
He he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.
He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.
Given that, uh why did you, Mr. Rosenstein, feel the need you had to take it to the next step to conclude that there was no crime, especially given that DOJ policy?
Well, the very prosecutorial function and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to convene grand juries and the compulsory process that's involved there, is For one purpose and one purpose only.
It's determined yes or no was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal.
That is that is our responsibility, and that's why we have the tools we have, and we don't go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public.
We collect this information, we use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision.
And because uh the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to, and that was a decision by uh me and the deputy attorney general.
The special counsel indicates uh that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left before Congress.
And also, how do you respond to criticism you're receiving receiving from Congressional Democrats that you're acting more as a attorney for the president rather than uh as the chief law enforcement officer?
Well, uh special counsel Muller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress.
I hope that was not his view, since we don't convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.
Uh he did not, I didn't talk to him directly about uh the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was uh my my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision.
Your Democrats in Congress have asked for Robert Mueller himself to testify.
Uh Robert Mueller remains a Justice Department employee as of this moment.
Will you permit him to testify publicly to Congress?
I have no objection to Bob Mueller personally testifying.
Um Mr. Attorney General, let's talk with Democrats who have questioned some of the process here.
A Republican appointed judge on Tuesday said you have quote created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned about these redactions.
You clear the president on obstruction.
The president is fundraising off of your comments about spying.
And here you have remarks that are quite generous to the president, including acknowledging his feelings and his emotions.
So what do you say to people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned that you are trying to protect the president?
Well, actually, the the statements about his his uh sincere beliefs are from are are recognized in the report that there was substantial evidence for that.
So I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that I am being generous to the president.
You face an unprecedented situation.
It just seems like there's a lot of effort to say to go out of your way to acknowledge how this was a very important thing.
Well, is there is there another precedent for it?
No, but it's a new unprecedented is an accurate description, isn't it?
Yes, Eric.
There's a lot of public interest in the absence of the special counsel and members of his team.
Was he invited to join you up on the podium?
Why is he not here?
This is his report, obviously, that you're talking about today.
It's a report he did for me as the attorney general.
He is required under the regulation to pro to provide me with a confidential report.
I'm here to discuss my response to that report and my decision, entirely discretionary to make it public, since these reports are not supposed to be made public.
That's what I'm here to discuss.
All right, quick break, right back.
We'll continue, then we'll have a debate on the other side of it.
Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillam.
And with respect to the breaking New York Times uh story about about the White House and Justice Department, the only collusion here is colluding on the collision.
This is actually collusion.
By the way, what is collusion look like?
It looks like the attorney general briefing the attorney general's lawyers briefing the president before Congress or the public.
Here's a different theory that he spent the last 20 years watching Fox News, and he's become a real Trump supporter.
And he's like everyone else in the Trump administration.
I was asked if there's another explanation.
Okay, but I mean, not saying it is the explanation.
I I I just think, you know, if you look at his behavior, it is not that of a geriatric, it is that of a partisan.
And although we thought going into it that he was he's deeply conservative as well, that he was very close to Trump, that he was going to be a truck uh lackey of the president.
It turns out that this attorney general is.
He was under oath.
He said he wasn't going to talk about the report until it comes out.
So I think people are confused, at best confused.
Why would you come out and talk about a document and shape perspective perspective on a document document that nobody has been able to see?
What has changed in a week?
The president is the subject of the investigation.
And honestly, I've never heard of such a thing.
It's a complete breach of precedent, it's a breach of common sense, and indeed it makes Trump look blatantly guilty.
We shouldn't take anything that Barr says tomorrow.
You said it exactly right in the open.
We shouldn't take anything that Barr says tomorrow as anything other than performative coonery.
We shouldn't take anything that the president says tomorrow as anything other than spin.
This seems to me, it's just analysis here, exactly like something Trump would do is push someone out to brand it, then rebrand it himself, and then the report comes out.
And we have to go through all of it and do our best to deal with it fairly with every piece of information painstakingly.
But Michael, it's also short-sighted.
Again, he does something once again that is going to scuff up his reputation.
Actually, his reputation is not a good thing.
You mean the attorney general.
I'm talking about the attorney general.
Barr may be the person ultimately responsible for a change in how we select our attorney generals.
And it seems uh bizarre at this point.
Luckily, this president has a pliant attorney general.
Clearly, and and a very amped-up, jacked up message operation.
Sean Hannity said two years ago that Richard Nixon wouldn't have had to resign if he'd had Fox News.
Actually, I think Geralda said it too, Sean Hannity, and they chuckled.
That might be true, because this conduct is as um sort of impeachable looking if you put it in a time capsule as Nixon's conduct.
But what Nixon didn't have was a an overdrive sort of social media we now know aided and embedded by Russian trolls, um, and and a news network dedicated to amplifying um what is a very subjective read of a report that in the end, if it exonerates them, why are they so upset by all the details?
All right, they have it more of the media meltdown.
I'll take it as a compliment because we told the truth.
It is amazing.
It's so predictable.
It's everything I told you would happen yesterday happens, but it's over.
And they don't know yet that it's over uh in so many different ways.
Uh 800-94-1 Sean Tollfree telephone number.
Now we played in the last half hour.
Uh the Attorney General Bill Barr, and he had Rod Rosenstein right next to him, and the Office of Legal Counsel in conjunction with uh with consulting the special counsel.
Uh, yeah, they left it to them to decide on obstruction.
And for all the reasons that we've discussed earlier in the program today, it's over.
It doesn't matter what these people think.
None of these people care about real obstruction.
Just like they cared about, I believe every woman has a right to be believed.
I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe, then it's a Democratic governor, Lieutenant Governor in the state or the Commonwealth of Virginia, state of Virginia, who is accused of rape and violent sexual assault by two separate individuals who told people at the time, give compelling interviews to Gail King of CBS, and all the I believers are nowhere to be found.
They don't care about a real obstruction, but with an underlying crime, which is which is the biggest problem here.
Biggest problem they have is that they have no underlying crime.
The president is totally and completely exonerated.
The idea, the these ten items laid out in part two of this, you know, waste, monotonous, boring, dull, ridiculous report that took two and a half years to put together, is that they have nothing except innuendo, which is all they're left with, and process crimes.
Yeah, well, I I conclude things I've gotten things out of this that nobody else seems to get, and you know what?
They blow up the most insignificant things, ignoring the biggest one, is that we are vulnerable as a country, which brings to light the danger of what Hillary did by putting top secret classified information on a mom and pop, you know, server.
And then, yeah, that was a real violation, felony, espionage act, and then of course uh they they rigged that investigation.
And then, of course, the intent destroying subpoenaed emails and washing her hard drive and beating up her blackberries and iPhones.
Yeah, that was all that was the intention was to destroy the evidence.
Slam done case, not one person in this corrupt rage, hatred media mob dare bring that up because they lose.
But then it's now everything begins to go back to what I've been saying.
Anyway, joining us now, we have Jonathan Gillum, former FBI agent, federal airmarshal, author of Sheep No No More, Danielle McLaughlin, attorney constitutional expert.
Uh, thank you both for being with us.
Uh, when you get to the bottom line in all of this, uh, there is no collusion.
There is no obstruction, there is no case for such.
And now we have they've This is their last gasp at hysterical and feigning coverage of moral outrage, which we know is selective and phony.
Yeah, and I think you know, I watched your show last night on on uh Fox News, Sean, and one thing that really stood out as I went around because I wanted to see how the media was uh spinning certain things and how people were going to say stuff.
What you just brought up is something that's very important is that throughout this entire time, you all have been showing proof.
You've been saying this, you know, these are the examples of what happened uh and how this uh case should have never gone forward with the fake dossier and the fake evidence and all these other things.
And uh it was very important because last night was validating for you and today is validating for you, but what it showed me was that when people on the right discuss and analyze this, they do it with evidence, not with emotion.
And that is the biggest thing that you see today with all those clips that you just played is that it's a hundred percent emotion, and these people are are being fed their own information that they created, and then they get emotional about it.
And uh it it reminds me of when they're gonna be able to do that.
Well, it's what they've wanted, and they put all their credibility, not that they had any on the line, and they ran with their anonymous sources, but when you get to the whole issue, they've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion.
And even when the Mueller report and with his partisan team of hacks, I mean, you could they're seething with hatred and dying and wishing and hoping that they could nail this guy and they can't.
You know, and when the report has to state the investigation did not establish members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities, the case is over.
And then you say, Well, the president wanted to fire Sessions and he wanted to fire Mueller, and he wanted uh he wanted General Flynn not to get in trouble.
And you know, all of this, okay.
Well, the uh Danielle, you also had people in the deep state that wanted to wear a wire on the president and talked openly about it and wanted to invoke the 25th amendment and talked openly about it.
Uh and then you have real evidence where Hillary Clinton, you know, had our investigation rigged from the get-go, and real evidence of obstruction.
The double standard is nauseating in this country.
Good afternoon, guys.
You know, there are ten uh instances in this report where the president is alleged to have obstructed justice, and there are many more where it's reported by the investigators that he tried and failed because people around him uh decided that they weren't going to go along.
I agree.
Uh, you know, Robert Mala did his job, Bill Bond did his job.
They have concluded basically because the president that decided cannot be indicted for a crime, which is DOG DOJ guidance, uh, that there is not a crime there.
The answer here will be political.
And the way I think about it is this would you lose your job if you'd done these things?
I would lose my job.
This is a political thing.
This is I suspect there may be a lot of people.
If you've done what if you've done what things, what what done what?
There's an internal investigation at your job, and you do go out of your way to destroy evidence, uh, you lie to the American people, which is what Sarah Sanders did when she talked about that FBI agents all over the country, we're glad that Jim Comey was fine.
By the way, no, I excuse me.
Every FBI agent I know, and Jonathan knows more than me, none of them like what what the likes of Comey struck Paige McCabe and others did.
None of them.
But that's not what Sarah said.
She said that people had told her that from the FBI, and that was a lie.
She lied to the American.
How do you know?
Wait a minute.
I'm hearing it from my FBI friends all the time.
As a matter of fact, I'm wearing an FBI pen a lot of nights on TV because one of my FBI buddies said, you know, thank you for sticking up for the 99% of us that are honest and decent and hard working and and take our job seriously, and we would never do what they did here.
I have ultimate respect for any person in law enforcement.
I'm talking about Sarah Sanders lying about what a purported.
You keep repeating it, but you know, but I'm telling you, I'm hearing it everywhere from the same FBI agents, probably.
Jonathan, what do you hear from your FBI buddies?
It's still a lie to tell the numbers.
what people are looking at when they're saying that somebody obstructed justice, there was nothing there.
And if you're being investigator, if anybody else is being investigated and they didn't do anything wrong, I would be telling people as well as a former FBI agent.
I would tell people, don't cooperate.
Go get an attorney.
If somebody's trying to prove you guilty of something that you didn't do, and they're fabricating evidence, and the entire case is hinging on fake evidence, I would say get an attorney, don't cooperate.
And then if you get a chance to go out into the media and stand up for yourself, I would say do that.
And that is exactly what the Trump administration did.
There's no obstruction of justice because there was no justice.
How can you obstruct a fake investigation?
There is a difference between not cooperating and actively obstructing an investigation.
Why would you cooperate?
Why would you cooperate with a fake investigation?
If if you had if you were conducting an investigation as an agent and you knew that someone was trying to tell people to lie, was destroying evidence, was telling people to lie on other accounts.
Would you would you go after that person for obstructing your investigation?
Danielle, I would never investigate somebody unless and this is the way the FBI works, unless we have probable cause to believe that they're guilty.
And in this case, there was no cause probable cause.
It was a fake piece of evidence that was paid for by political operatives.
I would never have brought that investigation forward.
Danielle?
We know about Papadopoulos.
We know about the Australian ambassador.
We know about the fact that somebody connected to that campaign knew that Russia had hacked the DMC and there was damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
That is probable cause.
You cannot have foreign interference in an election.
And I want to say this again.
I accept the report, as all Americans should.
They did not find criminal wrongdoing.
This will become a political process, and who knows what's going to happen.
We saw what happened with Bill Clinton.
Newt Gingrich got over his skis.
He went too hard, and the Republicans lost the House.
So Democrats are going to have to decide what they do.
But when I see this stuff in writing, I just think if I had a job and I did all this stuff, and I'm thinking about people at home, would you keep your job or not?
This conversation that you're having with us doesn't mean anything because it was a completely fake uh investigation.
And let me tell you something.
If you were standing and you were really hungry and you were standing under an apple tree that was swarming with worms, but there was one small apple up on top of that tree.
Would you even waste your time with that?
No, because it's a spoiled tree.
And that's the way justice works.
We don't look at one thing that one person said and then build a case around that.
We look at the entire case and we say, is there criminal activity going on here?
And one person having one meeting when they were drinking does not make a case.
Right, but it was more than that.
Okay.
There were people who had ties.
There were forces.
There were all of these things that happened in due time.
It was firing James Comey that got the special counsel prosecutor because the president reportedly, and this is in the report, asked uh Jim Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn.
To go easy on Michael Flynn because Michael Flynn, and he was on tape, he was lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during uh the campaign, and I think maybe into the transition.
So folks were worried that there was act there was an actor who was getting rid of people who was investigating his friends because and so they thought there might be something there.
Turns out there was no connection between Russia and WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign.
They could not thread those dots.
And I said anybody in media, anyone on the left who was still banging the drums, the facts are there, you have to live with that, okay?
We deliver this and we have to go on.
And I guess my let me let me go on then.
I'm just kidding.
Anyway, thank you both.
We'll have we're gonna lay this all out tonight because this and and they're so predictable, the media.
Um this is gonna be fun because they can't handle the truth at all.
They can't admit they're wrong ever.
All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
Full coverage of the Mueller report tonight.
Jay Seculow, the great one, Mark Levin, Sarah Sanders, Devin Nunes, Sarah Greg Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz.
