Piers Morgan, who heads up the Daily Mail UK and is a survivor of the fake news network, CNN, stops by to chat about the news of the day, and his take on the candidates entering the race for President. After Monday night’s 5 hours of crazy with every leading candidate in the field taking to CNN’s stage to give their positions, or in Buttigieg’s case his ideas, since the details are just minutiae. Morgan gave his perspective on one of the top contenders.The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio.com and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sean Hannity show, write down our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800.
941 Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program.
By the way, a lot of people are liking we do these these hits on Foxnation.com sometimes on our breaks or after the show.
And everybody seems to really like it.
It's like one of the more popular things that they have on Foxnation.com.
And it's different.
You get to see the radio studio what we do.
Well, we did the I Linda always wants to do Twitter live, Facebook Live.
I'm like, I like the mystery of radio.
I don't have to worry about my hair.
I'm wearing right now a fireman t-shirt, like I always do.
I have about 10 of them.
It's not the same one.
I alternate every day.
And anyway, we'll see.
You know, Matt Tibby writes for Rolling Stone.
Writes a piece today, headline, the press will learn nothing from the Russia Gate fiasco.
And it's interesting because there are some people now on the left that they're not coming out and really saying it, but they're admitting it that they've been wrong and the press has been wrong, and they're recognizing the psychosis, the mass group think, etc.
And they're they're like realizing and recognizing a truth and the damage that is being created.
Both Democrats are seeing it and in the media.
The media mob, part of the media mob, people that have been a part of it.
I mean, for the Washington Post to allow an article that, well, you're just gonna have to admit Fox News was right, kind of is a little bit funny, a little bit humorous.
Or now, well, uh, the New York Times or Bob Woodward, we've got to take this dossier thing more seriously.
Let me tell you why they're saying it now and why they haven't been where we have been, which has been very obvious.
It's not been hard to find where we are for the last two years.
You gotta you basically have to do good old fashion, you know, reporting.
You know, get out there, make phone calls, talk to people, get sources, try and get information.
Oh, it was funny because I was mentioned in the Mueller report.
Do you see all these stories coming out?
Oh, uh, they asked Rines Previs, um, when did you first find out about the Trump Tower meeting?
Now they asked him, this the story broke in the New York Times a year after the meeting occurred, the one that was so often talked about.
You know, the one about the Magnitsky Act that ended up being about Russian adoption, the one we found out that the woman was connected to Fusion GPS, I believe founder, not sure it was Simpson.
I know you know she met with Fusion GPS people both before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
And all these nefarious things were supposed to happen.
Everybody at the meeting said it was a dull waste of time.
That's all they said and kept repeating it.
So they put so Rheinz was asked, and I was surprised by this.
Um, when did you first hear about the meeting?
He goes, well, actually, a week before the New York Times broke it, I got a call from my friend Sean Hannity, and Sean Hannity said, uh, I'm hearing all this buzz and this noise on some meeting that might have occurred with Trump Tower and Russians.
What's that all about?
And so I I did not have all these people say, why didn't you go with the story?
I guess now they're viewing me as a the great investigative journalist that we know our team is, and they're saying, Because I didn't have the story wrapped up yet.
I didn't have all the sources, I didn't have all I didn't have all the details, but I had heard rumblings of it, and I know Sarah and John had been working on it.
They were still at Circuit News at the time.
And I all I had heard was chatter.
No details, no specifics, just noise, as you call it.
And then when you hear noise like that, you kind of start digging a little bit.
And I was I really I was calling right when I'm hearing about this.
What do you know about it?
That's basically how the conversation went.
See all these articles, but what did Sean Sean Hannity had the story and held it back?
I'm like, it was first of all, it was a year after the meeting, and one week before the New York Times broke open the story, which means that probably everybody was talking about behind the scenes, all sources there, you know, sources are often shared.
Or maybe it just means that my sources were a little bit better than the New York Times, and maybe I was a week ahead of them.
I don't know.
I don't know how to interpret that.
A year after the actual meeting.
I didn't know anything about the meeting.
Nothing.
I just said, what is this noise?
Why do I keep hearing this keep coming up?
And I know exactly some of the areas.
I remember some of the areas where I've heard the noise from, but you know, I had to have my memory recollected recollected.
You know, just joke.
I'm joking.
But so Tibby writes this piece, Rolling Stone, and you know, it's a great question.
It's a sad statement that the press is going to learn nothing from all of this.
You know, on and they he talks about February 15, 2016, National Review, unprecedented action.
I remember this well, all-out plea to Republicans to stop Trump before it was too late.
By the way, has there ever been a more conservative governing president in our lifetime?
Well, not really.
You have Reagan and now Trump.
In terms of justices, oh, promise made, promise kept, tax cuts, the highest in history.
Uh regulation, deregulation.
You never had anything like this.
His positions on foreign policy.
His economic success speaks for itself.
I none of these people in the press ever talk about it.
So many people, even I had conservative friends, you know, saying, I don't see him governing as a conservative.
I said, Well, I kind of know the guy, and yeah, I know he donated to politicians in both parties when he was in New York as a builder, and he even said publicly, sadly, that's how the system works.
You want to keep building.
Oh, you have to go to Uncle Joe's party, or you gotta go to this person's party, and you're gonna act like you even like them and care about them because they have the ability to shut down your entire business.
It's horrible the way the system works.
Anyway, so they were calling themselves never Trumpers, the conservatives against Trump, and there were many of them.
You know the names of a lot of them.
There's no point going over that again.
And conservative media, you know, we were out there like we often are.
We we take our own position.
We did our own vetting of Obama.
Many, nobody else really in the media went as hard about his background associations, his ideology, his thought process, going into his books, going into his church of 20 years, going into where he started his political career.
And we did it because we just thought it was and knew it was the right thing to do.
And I came to a very, very firm conclusion on who Obama was.
And I felt that Obama was an indoctrinated, rigid, pretty radical ideologue who was hiding his radicalism and never showed any propensity or willingness to even entertain other ideas.
That was my conclusion.
And it turned out right.
He still believes he was a great president.
He doesn't want to hear about anything negative.
He's it's eight years he's president, and he was still blaming George W. Bush for the economy that he inherited.
He doesn't understand economies.
He doesn't understand peace through strength.
He appointed liberal justices to the Supreme Court.
So with the with now that we have the Mueller report, and it can't be any more clear, what Tibby is asking, um, you know, it's shocking to see national media voices after the release of Robert Mueller's report, patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves for a three-year face plant.
They must know will haunt the whole business for a long time.
I don't think Matt, I don't think they do.
I don't think Matt's a fan of mine, but this is a thoughtful column.
He noted that with a few exceptions, Mueller invest his investigation repeatedly supports news reporting that it was done on the Russia probe over the last two years.
I don't know where Bowder's coming from here.
Otherwise, intelligent guy, he doesn't like me either.
I don't think anybody in the media likes me.
I had a complex, I would be coming out.
Anyway, Bowder added the report showed several instances where the president and his team sought to mislead the public.
That would be the news media, David.
How do you miss this?
He actually congratulated the New York Times and Washington Post.
All they did was say this is a slam dunk.
Russia collusion the whole time.
That's all they said.
And he said about Trump, he called fake news folks fake news.
It wasn't, and neither were some of these stories.
I mean, the coverage is mind-boggling.
Listen to these people now patting themselves on the back.
I need a drink.
This was an investigation at its core about Donald Trump's daily, sometimes hourly, assault on the rule of law in this country.
As the country's chief executive, he sat in his pajamas watching Fox and Friends maligning the FBI.
Rule of law had a deficit because Donald Trump had been kicking it in the teeth.
Can I just talk about this issue of the president's concerns about leaks?
You know who else was concerned about leaks?
Richard Nixon.
This report is a gift to the government of Russia.
This is a very proud moment for Vladimir Putin.
The amount of uh information that leads to collusion and obstruction activity is really quite expensive in this report.
There's significant there's a sick there's significant material in here that we did not know on the question of collusions.
It's here in substance, in nuance, in context, and it's there for it's all a lie.
Everything that they say that they found, they didn't get it four times now.
No collusion.
And for all these people, here's the the great irony in all of this to me is Hillary Clinton literally making the statement and saying that, oh, this is outrageous.
Obstruction of justice, Donald Trump, and she had an underlying crime, a slam dunk case.
It's the espionage act.
She warned every other State Department employee to not do what she herself was doing, that it's a violation of law and a felony, and then we know after the underlying crime what the intent was to erase bleach bit, destroy, and take out Simcor.
I mean, it couldn't be.
And they're not stopping.
Now, Lindsey Graham's gonna join us later.
You know, he talked about well, there's gonna be a stampede to impeach Donald Trump.
I don't know if it gets there.
It doesn't really matter.
It won't matter.
Now, the president has been the single most cooperative of any president in modern history with an investigation.
Sorry, I know I got this tickle in my throat.
Single most.
And he's now saying he's gonna fight all subpoenas.
Remember, he never ever used executive privilege, not one time.
He let every single employee go testify that Mueller wanted over at the special counsel's office.
He let this for all the talk about obstruction because he said it's a witch hunt and that he wanted to fire Mueller, or told some, I want you to fire Mueller, and they didn't do it.
Oh, I want to get rid of Rosenstein, never did it.
Well, just like the special counsel's office, they they were gonna secretly tape a president of the United States.
They didn't do it or invoke the 25th amendment.
They didn't do it.
Now the president's saying enough.
And he's gonna fight every subpoena.
Now he'll use executive privilege.
Democrats now they want Trump to they want to impeach the IRS commissioner.
That they're trying to embolden and empower as a weapon against Trump and turn over the tax returns.
Elijah Cummings now wants to hold the White House witnesses in contempt.
Nadler wants to jail all Trump officials who won't comply with his subpoenas.
All of these people have done this before.
How much cooperation Should any one administration give when we know the answer?
The answer's been given four times.
Hey, Jason, you got Hilary going on about obstruction, because this cracks me up.
She's wrong on so many different levels.
Let's put it.
You're a lawyer.
Did Donald Trump obstruct justice as you read the incidences as Mueller lays them out?
Well, I think there's enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted, but because of the uh the rule in the Justice Department that you can't indict a sitting president.
Stop right there.
The Attorney General Barr made the determination, along with the Office of Legal Counsel, along with attorney uh Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein of all people, not with any consideration over the question of whether you can or cannot.
The evidence did not rise.
But you want to talk about any other person, any Christian Saucier took six pictures inside a submarine, violated the Espionage Act, never shared those pictures with anybody, was just pride of where he worked for the Navy in the submarine, and got a year in jail.
The Espionage Act.
And that was her underlying crime.
Do any of you, do you think other people that have subpoenaed emails, Hillary, 33,000?
You delete them, you acid wash the hard drive with bleach bit, and you bust up your devices, and Aid does with a hammer in case there's any emails on them, and you take out the SIM cards.
This is after you have top secret classified information on a server that you told your own staff in the State Department never to do or have.
It's a violation of law.
25 now till the top of the hour, 800 941 Sean Topfrey telephone number.
All right, Jason, let's go back to the beginning.
I'm gonna let it play out in full.
But okay, if we're gonna talk about how everybody else would be treated, well, there is no greater example than the dual system of justice we have than this.
Even Strzok and Paige were mocking about Hillary Clinton.
The idea that the fix is in being run by Loretta Lynch, the same Loretta Lynch that met with her husband, the same Loretta Lynch that called it a matter, not an investigation.
The interview was done by Peter Strzok, who said that Hillary should win a hundred million a zero.
Uh let me tell you, when you're being investigated and you're being interviewed by the FBI, you you don't get to have friends in the room, not lawyers, friends, like happened in her case.
You don't get to have that.
Uh 100 million and one zero because Trump is loathsome, and we have an insurance policy.
You know, think to yourself just the obstruction alone.
Think to yourself, remember the Freedom of Information Act request in Tom Finton and Judicial Watch, and how they were able to what?
Discover when they found out that really there really was top secret classified information, they only sampled 40 emails.
They were freaked out because of the impact that this could have on foreign policy, our relations with other countries, uh sources and methods, people's lives potentially put in jeopardy.
So there are a lot more.
And if you did what she did to subpoenaed emails, you know you'd be in jail.
I said it to Alan Dershowitz.
I said, could you get me out of prison if I did this?
Nah, I'm a good lawyer.
I'm not that good.
Listen to what you want.
Um did Donald Trump obstruct justice as you read the incidences as Mueller lays them out.
Well, I think there's enough there that any other person who had uh engaged in those acts uh would certainly uh have been indicted, but because of the uh the rule in the Justice Department that you can't indict a sitting president, uh the whole matter of obstruction was very directly uh sent to the Congress.
I mean, if you read that part of the report, it could not be clearer.
I mean, I, you know, as I read it, basically what I thought it was saying is look, we think he obstructed justice.
Here are 11 examples of why we think he obstructed justice.
But we're under the control of the Justice Department, and their rule is you can't indict.
That's not the rule, by the way.
You know, in the sense that that was not the consideration at all, and they went out of their way to tell us that.
I mean, the whole thing here, and it's interesting because in a piece that was in on Fox News.com, the Whitewater independent counsel, Robert Ray explained why he believes Hillary is exactly wrong in the claim that Trump would have been indicted if he weren't president.
Ray said he believes the report disputes that, adding that Barr speaking to the special counsel Muller prior to the release of the report and his press conference, which went into specific details, you know, also corroborate why the decision was made, because it didn't rise to the level of obstruction.
Look at what they're saying here.
Well, he said to somebody, I want to fire Mueller, fire Muller.
Okay.
He said it often.
He called it a witch hunt.
He was he was obstructing.
Well, there's no underlying crime.
What was he obstructing?
And remember, you need intent to obstruct.
There was no we know the intent behind the emails.
It was to obstruct and destroy evidence in what was a real underlying crime, crimes, felonies.
You know, and Ray said he believes that the report disputes all of it, and that's why the attorney general, before the report was released to the public, went back to the special counsel, apparently on more than one occasion.
And he said, Ray said during an appearance on Fox and Friends, and he continued claiming the purpose of going back to Mueller was to inquire about whether the reason why Trump was not indicted is that he's a sitting president.
The answer that came back is no.
That's not what I'm saying, meaning Mueller.
It was poorly written, also.
It was like a uh it was a political document, and I sense that Mueller probably had just the conclusion and told others to write it up.
Who knows if they've even read it?
And so I know people in some quarters don't want to listen to what the attorney general actually said, but while that is a reasonable question, Hillary's got it exactly wrong.
That's not the reason.
You know, so I know people in some court they don't want to listen to this.
And the former prosecutor's comments came amid Clinton remarks during the Time 100 summit in New York on Tuesday, in which she said that Trump would have been indicted by the special counsel if he weren't president.
I think there's enough there.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Ray went on to say, unlike Trump, Clinton has to think to thank Departmental Policy, former FBI Director Comey's discretion for not charging her with the crimes that we have laid out on this show so many times.
By the way, it's going to all happen.
And I'm going to tell you the order in which, well, I'm not sure exactly the order.
But we're going to get the FISA application issue dealt with, likely with criminal referrals involved, um, because this was a fraud committed on the Pfizer court.
It's not in dispute anymore.
I mean, Nunes, Grassley, Graham Memo said the bulk of information in the Pfizer application.
They did not specifically say the opposition party candidate paid for it.
And then we're gonna get the Pfizers themselves.
Then all those people that sign those FISA applications are gonna have to answer questions.
The bottom line is does it rise to the level?
Okay, well, he wanted to get rid of Rosenstein.
He wanted sessions out.
He's frustrated.
It's a witch hunt.
You know, it goes back to the famous Trey Gowdy question.
If if you're if you're not guilty, damn it, act like you're not guilty.
How does one act when they're not guilty?
I think Trey Gowdy was going after Trump at the time because Trump Was speaking out about his innocence.
I actually think that is the reaction of innocent people.
They want to speak out about their innocence.
And more often than not, if you have an attorney involved in this, they tell you, no, don't.
Be quiet.
Don't talk.
Don't say anything.
Let us do the talking.
I mean, it's it's very common.
It frustrates many, many innocent people.
Okay, you know, think of this when, and I've said this before.
That I have friends of mine that tell me in the FBI.
No, no, no, you can never talk to the FBI.
I'm like, well, no, no, no, I want to help the FBI.
My gut is to help the FBI.
This is the world's premier law enforcement agency.
By far.
Still is, except because of the actions of a very few.
It's been tarnished.
We have the best intel people in the entire world.
They they work tirelessly day and night to keep we, the American people, safe.
Yet a few bad actors.
Now everybody's worried.
Look, I'm not even sure at the end of this if FISA survives because of the abuse, misuse, the fraud, and how the court, you know, what are the consequences of that?
No, we got a lot of questions here that have to be answered.
By the way, one of them is the Ukraine.
Rudy Giuliani's been saying, and John Solomon's been reporting.
Ukrainian officials are seeking to give the United States their evidence because they are admitting publicly they sought to undermine Donald Trump in the 2016 election and were working on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
They did it by questioning his fitness for office.
Also worked behind the scenes to secure a Clinton victory.
That's Ukraine.
I thought we didn't like foreign countries influencing our elections, but I guess it only matters to the media if in fact it happens to be Donald Trump.
They're not interested in anybody else.
You know, they're only interested in getting Kavanaugh.
They're not interested in the lieutenant governor of Virginia.
I'm going to keep saying that every day.
Somebody's got to hear it in Virginia.
They're going to let this go.
And Terry Mikulov wants to run for president.
Well, apparently he's backing out.
Now we have other news here.
What about Bernie's collusion?
This is a good point.
Donald Trump spent his honeymoon in the former Soviet Union in the 80s, during which he engaged in diplomatic outreach efforts to the Soviet Union and up to and including establishing a sister city program with a Moscow suburb.
That collusion.
I think Rudy's right.
Now Ukraine is investigating Hillary's campaign, the DNC conspiracy with foreign operatives, including Ukrainian officials and others to affect the 2016 election.
Wow.
And there's no comey to fix the result, he writes.
This is getting interesting, more interesting by the day.
And I think by the time we get to the truth, you're going to be shocked at what you find.
Oh, by the way, poor Beto Rourke, the uh officer in Beto's DUI case claims that he fled the scene.
No doubt he fled the scene.
This is in the Washington Examiner, former police officer who arrested Robert Francis Beto Bozo O'Rourke.
The cheapskate.
He only gave less than 0.3% of his earnings the last 10 years to charity.
I mean, why are liberals only generous with other people's money?
O'Rourke claimed at a debate against Ted Cruz last year that he did not leave the scene while he was intoxicated.
I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification of defense.
I will not try to provide one.
But the police officer who arrested then 26-year-old Robert Francis is now retired.
He told the Texas Tribune he remembers the incident quite differently.
Oh, yeah, we have contradicting stories here.
I stand by my report.
Then his supervisor who signed the incident report said O'Rourke did something to the lead lead the officers to believe that he was trying to get away.
What they put down, I I believe them.
Of course you believe them.
Probably Robert Francis did it all.
Kamala Harris now is backing off, I see, on voting rights for terrorists.
I mean, she's flipping and flopping and flailing all over the place.
I think we should have the conversation.
Do I think people that commit murder, people who are terrorists, should be deprived of their right, yeah.
That's how it changes just to cut.
Let's put my finger in the air, and I'll tell you what I think on any given day.
Say what you will about Donald Trump.
That's not him.
He is staying he's stood by his uh governing agenda and fights for every item on the list.
Now here's an interesting development in the quest for the 2020 nomination, and this was on Fox News that Barack Obama plans to remain on the sidelines right now in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Two sources familiar with Obama's thinking say the former president has made clear he does not plan on endorsing early in the primary process, if at all.
They add that the Obama prefers to let the candidates make their cases directly to voters, and that former First Lady Michelle Obama feels the same way.
He's not likely to endorse in a primary.
According to a source, he believes that the Democratic Party to move on, voters have to pick the leaders.
Well, crazy creepy Uncle Joe don't want to be tied to him any closer.
He's clean and articulate.
Wow, that's storybook, man.
And speaking of creepy crazy Joe, just when Biden thought it was safe to go start sniffing hairs and rubbing noses and shoulders again.
Well, the woman who kicked off the Biden Grope Gate scandal has re-emerged from the shadows and the Hill reports, Lucy Flores, this Novada state legislator accused Biden of inappropriate touching in 2014.
You know, is uh back and now saying, frankly, to me it demonstrated that his promise to take this very seriously, that he was going to listen, that he was going to learn to learn to to me that indicated he didn't mean that at all, she said.
Incredibly disrespectful.
That he said at a touching event.
Crazy, creepy Uncle Joe.
Now, this is interesting if you look at the AFL CIO president, Richard Trumpka, saying that he opposes the Green New Deal, championed by Ocasio Cortez, these presidential candidates.
He's asked during a forum at the nonprofit economic club of D.C. about the proposal, and he said that as currently written the proposal is a bad idea.
Bad idea.
None of your guys will ever work again.
And you better pay attention to what Comrade de Blasio is doing if you care about your workers.
Well, we're fighting all the subpoenas.
Look, these aren't like impartial people.
The Democrats are trying to win 2020.
They're not going to win with the people that I see.
And they're not going to win against me.
The only way they can maybe luck out, and I don't think that's gonna happen.
It might make it even the opposite.
That's what a lot of people are saying.
The only way they can luck out is by constantly going after me on nonsense.
But they should be really focused on legislation, not the things that have been let this has been litigated, just so you understand.
This has been litigated for the last two years, almost since I got into office.
Now, if you want to litigate, go after the DNC, crooked Hillary, the dirty cops.
All of these things, that's what should be litigated.
Because that was a rigged system.
And I'm breaking down, I am breaking down the swamp.
If you look at what's happening, they're getting caught, they're getting fired.
Who knows what's gonna happen from now on, but I hope it's I hope it's very strong.
But if you look at drain the swamp, I am draining the swamp.
Thank you very much.
All right, that was the president earlier today, uh, hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941 Sean Tolfrey uh telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
President, the most cooperative of any investigation ever going on in a modern day presidency.
And by the way, that includes Barack Obama, that includes the Clintons, uh, all of that includes George W. Bush's administration.
They all exerted Executive privilege.
This president, none.
Not once.
Nobody, I I I could not believe the idea that the White House general counsel, Don McGahn spent 30 hours with Mueller.
He seems to think that he's the one that saved the Republic.
Not exactly.
If Don Donald Trump had it even within his authority to fire Mueller under Article Two of the Constitution, he could have fired him.
Just because you're complaining about a witch hunt.
That's not obstruction, just because you're complaining about Rod Rosenstein.
That's not a w and it's a witch hunt.
That's not obstruction.
None of it.
So now that we have the look at what the Democrats are moving in a thousand different directions because they can't accept now the fourth definitive investigation that says no Trump Russia collusion.
First, the FBI nine month investigation, even struck and page said, nope, we had nothing.
No, there or there.
Then of course we have the House Intel Committee, their investigation.
Nope, nothing.
Then we have the bipartisan Senate committee.
Nope, nothing.
Now the Muller report can't be any more clear on any of these issues.
Well, then we'll we'll let's weaponize the IRS for no real reason at all, except that let's go after his taxes.
That'll help we'll get them there.
I'm sure there's a reason why he was audited all those years.
Anyway, so now they want to impeach the IRS commissioner for not turning over Trump's taxes.
Elijah Cummings wants to hold stonewalling White House witnesses in contempt on the same issue.
Unbelievable.
Nadler wants to jail Trump officials who won't comply with his subpoenas.
Why does are they gonna pay for the attorneys in DC a thousand dollars an hour for a decent attorney?
Maybe eight hundred if you're lucky, six hundred if they give you a cut rate.
But these people have all been interviewed.
Maxim Waters claims America's clamoring for impeachment.
No.
Now Lindsey Graham is going to join us at the bottom of the half hour.
He's going to be telling us where his investigation is going to be going.
And uh also the he believes there's going to be a Democratic Party stampede uh stampede to impeach the uh president.
Anyway, here to sort through all the legal issues on all of this.
Uh we have Alan Dershowitz, who uh professor Harvard, and he contributed an introduction to Skyhorse uh publishings edition of the Mu a Muller Report.
Uh Greg Jarrett, his bestseller, the Russia hoax.
All right, I want to ask you both here's where I think we've got to go in this.
We now have evidence that Hillary's investigation was rigged from the beginning, even struck in page recognized such 18 USC.
Uh 793, the espionage act is clear.
That's the underlying crime.
The intent to take subpoenaed emails, delete 33,000 of them, bleach bit your hard drive, eliminate the evidence, speed up your devices, remove SIM cards.
That would be an intent to obstruct.
I think we got to make that one bucket.
Number two, we got to get into the whole Pfizer abuse.
The inspector general will weigh in on that.
Was there fraud committed to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign?
We also have to get into the spying of the Trump campaign, Stefan Halper, who enlisted him, etc.
Then we need to get into the whole issue of why did we have a 350% increase in unmasking American citizens in 2016?
That's an important bucket.
Then we've got to get the release of the Pfizer warrants, gang of eight information, 302s, as we've been telling you, five buckets there.
Then we've got to get into the question of, okay, those people that tried to undo an election and bludgeon a president.
When did they know that there was no collusion?
And why didn't they investigate Hillary's dirty dossier, which the New York Times suggests this week could have been all disinformation to create chaos from the beginning.
We'll start with you, Professor Dershowitz.
Where white where do we go next?
Well, I think the most important thing is the way in which the Pfizer court was misled.
Uh we now know for certain that the information provided to the Pfizer court in the exparty application was incomplete.
It was not the whole truth, it was a half truth.
And a half truth is a lie.
And I think there should be an investigation conducted by the Inspector General.
Apparently that's going on.
But also by the Pfizer Court itself.
The Pfizer court was misled.
And I think there was a contempt of court committed by those A, who submitted the Pfizer application without indicating the source, and B failed to correct the Pfizer application once they got more information about the source, and indeed sought renewals of the Pfizer application.
So those are, I think, very important areas for any civil libertarian, because remember, FISA warrants can be issued against any of us.
And if it can be done without any consequence based on misleading and incomplete information, then we're all victims.
And so I think you start with anything that involves every American potentially a victim of a violation of civil liberties.
That has to be the first order of business.
Do you think the president is right before I get to Greg Professor?
The President is right saying, you know what, you've had your four investigations.
Uh we're going to fight everything now.
He'd never he never used executive privilege.
He could have.
He could have prevented people from talking to Mueller.
He could have fired Mueller.
By the way, I think you'll even agree.
He could have done so legally under his authority under uh Article Two.
Without a doubt, and in the introduction to my book, I go through the whole obstruction of justice uh argument presented by Mueller.
Muller turns out to be dead wrong on the law.
He has some idea that if in fact the president had decided to fire Mueller, indeed, firing Comey, he thinks could be an obstruction of justice.
He just has the law wrong.
By the way, uh on the Amazon reviews, everybody's ganging up on me.
All the anti-Trump people are writing terrible reviews saying I never should have been allowed to do the introduction to the book because I'm objective and honest and nonpartisan.
So I urge any of you who read uh the my introduction and who think differently, uh, write uh a review saying my my introduction is objective, it's nonpartisan.
I end by saying I would have written the same review, the same introduction if the shoe had been on the other foot.
If Hillary Clinton had been impeached improperly or been subject to an investigation improperly, I would have been defending her as well.
I am not defending Trump on a partisan basis.
I'm defending civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Well, uh I want to say I just ordered uh Professor's book, and I anxiously uh look forward to reading uh the obstruction of justice.
Why doesn't he just give us a free copy?
I mean we're friends, Professor.
You got it.
Deal.
But you know, this is why prosecutors should never comment on uncharged crimes.
It's unfair to the uncharged person.
Muller went out of his way to smear Trump with the patina of a crime that he couldn't prove.
Muller didn't find sufficient evidence for an obstruction charge.
If he had, he would have said so.
So what he does is he turns the law completely upside down and he says, Well, I couldn't prove the president didn't obstruct.
Uh you know, prosecutors are not in the business uh of exoneration.
They're in in the business of proving crimes based on evidence.
Exactly.
Muller couldn't prove an obstruction and when Comey went after Hillary Clinton that way, we all objected.
Democrats and Republicans alike.
Why is it different when uh Mueller goes after people who have not been charged and sets out non-criminal conduct that he disagrees with?
That's just not the proper function of a prosecutor.
If Muller could not prove an obstruction crime, and he could not, then he should have simply stated that he wasn't recommending any charges.
Anything other than that is blatantly unfair.
I agree.
I agree.
And let me let me ask you this unclear when it's done to uh to Trump.
Is Trump right not to cooperate any further, considering there's been four separate conclusions and investigations on this?
Well, you know, he has to listen to his lawyer on this.
Uh I think that's a very important thing.
Well, what would you advise saying he I would have c I would uh certainly advise them not to testify.
Uh my advice to him was don't don't pardon, don't fire, don't testify, and don't tweet.
He listened to three of them, but not the fourth.
Uh But right now, I would say it depends.
If if you think the investigations by Congress are improperly motivated and don't have a legitimate legislative purpose, you have no obligation not to raise your constitutional privileges.
And remember, executive privilege is designed to protect all Americans, not just the president.
It's designed to protect the president C from improper intrusion by the legislative or the judicial branch.
And so it's there as part of our separation of powers and checks and balances to protect all Americans.
He's not just doing it in a self-serving way.
And Nadler Nadler is now taking the position.
Well, you've waived the privilege because uh McGant uh spoke with the special counsel.
No, as special counsel is an employee of the Department of Justice, so you've got uh one branch of the Department of Justice, White House Counsel, talking to another uh branch uh of the executive.
Uh so i it's not a waiver of a privilege at all.
You can actually never wave executive privilege.
It's been invoked by almost every president.
The first was George Washington who invoked it.
All right, when we get back, I want both of you to debate the question as to what we do with the Hillary quinton question and how far back who needs to be held accountable.
As we roll along, Alan Derschwitz, Greg Jarrett with us.
All right.
What are your thoughts on the president challenging these subpoenas?
Who's going to win this battle, Greg Jarrett?
Well, I I think the president will, because it does appear that this is nothing more than presidential harassment.
You know, there has to be a reasonable basis for this.
Uh that is to say, there has to be some sort of articulable factual basis for the investigation that indicates that a crime has or or uh will take place.
Well, there's none of that here.
This is a fishing expedition, a safari uh to search for anything under any rock they can find to damage Trump.
I think the president has a solid legal basis to oppose it.
What do you think uh Alan Dershwitz?
I have a slightly different view.
I think that if subpoenas come from the legislative branch, they don't have to be looking for crime.
They can be looking for information relevant to their appropriate role of legislating and uh oversight.
But there comes a time, and it happened during the McCarthy era, when the Supreme Court or other courts will look at subpoenas and look at uh requests for testimony and say, enough's enough.
Uh you've now exceeded your legitimate authority, and you're just doing this to harass or expose the proper function of Congress.
I think uh don't you think we're at that point, Professor?
Come on.
Well, no, that's the point.
And I think uh the courts will look at it on a case-by-case basis.
They're not gonna just say willy-nilly that no subpoenas will be enforced.
They'll look at every subpoena, they'll look at whether there's an articulable basis for any legitimate legislative purpose, and I think they will begin to refuse to enforce some of them as they did during the McCarthy period.
But about all the one.
What about all these people that are going to be called back again that can't afford these lawyers that are very expensive?
Listen, Professor, what do you charge an hour?
A lot.
You don't you don't want to know.
Half of my cases are pro bono and the other half are pretty expensive because I do represent a lot of very wealthy people.
And even if you're wealthy, uh getting these subpoenas can really, really be very expensive.
Washington lawyers do charge in excess of a thousand dollars an hour.
And the hours accumulate because you have to do the research, you have to check out all the facts, and so we're talking easily about six-figure legal bills that can sometimes get up to the seven figures.
Yeah, Greg.
Yeah, I mean, look at people like Jerome Corsey was never charged with anything.
He was threatened.
Uh they tried to pressure and extort him into signing a false statement implicating Trump, which would have been a lie.
Um, you know, that's the equivalent of attempting to suborn perjury.
He had to hire a team of lawyers to represent him.
Uh, you know, and his bank account is empty as a result of the government.
Well, let's look at General Flynn.
We have both McCabe bragging well, I don't he doesn't need a lawyer, then call me bragging, ha, I wouldn't do this in the Obama or Bush administration's Top two FBI guys.
They're setting him up.
I mean, Professor, and then he loses his house.
Now he's millions of dollars in debt.
They threaten to go after his kid.
This is how we treat 33-year veterans that put their lives in harm's way.
Look, it's a terrible, terrible thing, and it's been a terrible thing for many years that prosecutors do abuse their authority.
You know, the idea of arresting people at gunpoint, whether it be somebody who is like uh Stone or somebody who is Felicity Huffman, uh, whatever you think of them, you don't have to arrest these people at gunpoint and threaten them and show how powerful and strong you are, and you don't have to run a machine of them.
You can write them a nice letter saying if you have any information, please provide it.
But you know, it turns to harassment at some point and I gotta let you both go.
Thank you, Professor Dershowitz.
Thank you, Greg Jarrett Lindsey Graham next.
This was an investigation at its core about Donald Trump's daily, sometimes hourly, assault on the rule of law in this country.
As the country's chief executive, he sat in his pajamas watching Fox and Friends maligning the FBI.
Bill Gard didn't walk into that room with the scale at zero.
Rule of law had a deficit because Donald Trump had been kicking it in the teeth.
Can I just uh r uh talk about this issue of the president's concerns about leaks?
Well, Drake, what I did is I looked on my shelf for the Watergate Senate Watergate Committee report.
I looked at the Iran Contra report.
I also looked at the the uh Ken Starr report, which is too big to big to bring to the set here.
It's four volumes over two thousand words.
And I've got to tell you, I read all those, and in four hundred words, Mr. This report uh but from the special counsel is more damning than all those reports about a president.
I mean that is the predictable freak out, of course, by the left-wing media, Democrats.
They cannot accept now four separate findings, no Russia collusion, none whatsoever.
Anyway, joining us now is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, and well, you've been saying that in spite of four separate reports and it's done, and none of this is gonna happen, that they're gonna stampede towards impeachment anyway.
Well, we can see the process now beginning to unfold before our eyes, and you know, the predictable names and characters, Maxime Waters and you know, Chairman Schiff and who by the way did collude and Nadler and the rest of them, they're going nuts.
Well, so here's what I think you need to look for.
Number one, the Mueller report should be the last word on all things uh Russia and Trump, all things obstruction of justice, but it won't be.
So uh there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
If you don't believe me as Mueller, that's what started this whole mess as the two obstruction of justice.
How can you say President Trump impeded the Mueller investigation?
Give me one example of where Mueller was impeded from doing his job.
Quite the opposite.
You've got the best research team probably on television.
What I would like you to do for your show is to give a list of the things that the White House did to cooperate with Mueller, the number of documents, the number of people that were allowed to be interviewed by Mueller.
I would suggest in the history of the investigating of the presidency, nobody has been more cooperative than the Trump presidency toward Mueller.
We know they handed over almost one point five million documents.
When we know this is the first time an administration has not invoked executive privilege and Can I just stop you right there?
Okay, obstruction of justice has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Name an event that actually impeded uh Mueller from doing his job.
You've just laid out one point five million documents turned over by the Trump administration to Mueller voluntarily, and they refuse to claim executive privilege at any stage in the process.
How the hell is that obstructing justice?
Can I ask you, you know, the people that are supposedly care about other people?
You know how much it costs when you have to hire a Washington, DC lawyer and you're a staff person that works for the President and they drag you in there ten, fifteen, twenty hours.
Uh now they want to drag you back again and what ask the same questions over and over again just to come to a different conclusion where the evidence doesn't support it.
Uh what do you recommend I that what point does this get labeled what it is?
This is harassment.
People can't afford these lawyers that are working for the government.
Frankly, even senators and congressmen can't afford it.
Well, hell no, I couldn't afford this, so I don't know if there's some fun we can create to help these people.
But here's what's happening.
I'm not used I I refer to my previous testimony.
I don't I don't know if that's a smart move because you know, I don't think they've got anything to add criminally, but let me just say this.
We'll deal with that issue.
But what I want your listeners to understand is that sometimes you and I have disagreed.
I thought Mueller needed to be allowed to do this because there was a conflict with Sessions, he was part of the campaign.
And I thought to make sure Mueller had the resources and the time to finish the job.
He has now finished the job.
President Trump came out of this thing great.
He was cleared uh without any doubt uh about colluding with the Russians, and there was no effort by Trump to impede the Mueller investigation, so it's over for me.
Now what do you have?
You have people taking the document and trying to turn it into an impeachment document.
You have to really be unhinged and hate Trump to want to know more about the Mueller investigation.
This is not about learning more.
It is about getting a different outcome.
They can't stand the fact that Trump withstood two years, $25 million, 40 FBI agents, 2,000 subpoenas, whatever the numbers are, and he made it through.
It's driving them crazy.
So they're unhinged and they're coming after Trump, Sean, not because he did anything wrong, because they want to destroy his presidency.
But this is where we are now.
If it's not that, well, let's move on to taxes.
They want to now impeach the IRS commissioner for not turning over Donald Trump's taxes.
Elijah Cummings wants to hold uh the White House, a White House witness in contempt of of Congress.
And by the way, this is also about you know, at some point, every time you go under oath, you know that they're setting perjury traps for these people.
Nadler wants to jail all Trump officials who won't comply with his subpoenas.
The President has laid down his marker.
Enough.
He's not gonna allow this anymore.
And I think the president's right, and I also believe that he's on you know, sound legal and constitutional footing that he does not have to cooperate anymore.
Everything he's allowed everybody that they ever wanted to talk on these issues.
Maxime Waters is claiming America's clamoring for impeachment.
She's been clamoring for it before the election.
Okay, we've gone from an inquiry based on a special counsel trying to find out if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians two years later, 25 million dollars later, 40 FBI agents later, we know the answer is no.
So everything they're doing now is to try to destroy the Trump presidency and his family.
This has got nothing to do with the truth, the rule of law, this is political revenge.
What is playing out in front of us is using the power of the Congress to oversee the executive branch, abuse that power to destroy the president and his family.
And if I were President Trump, I would fight back.
If there's a site we could go to get money to help these people in the crosshairs of this, count me in, I'll write a check.
Okay, so you now are an important member of the United States Senate with a lot of subpoena power in its uh powers itself.
Uh we now know that the general counsel under Jim Comey, the FBI's top lawyer, thought that Hillary should be indicted.
Uh we know that Strzok and Page were laughing because they knew the investigation was rigged, and Strzok himself, who said that Hillary should win a hundred million to zero because Trump is loathsome.
He did the interview with Hillary and also allowed two friends of hers in the room at the time, which is uh doesn't happen.
And so we have that aspect.
Then if we care about collusion, the Ukraine is now saying, Well, we're guilty, we colluded with the Clinton campaign and offering us evidence, nobody seems interested.
Then you got the dirty Russian dossier that the New York Times even acknowledged this week.
Uh could have very likely been as Hillary bought and paid for misinformation on purpose, and it Was used as the foundation for the Pfizer warrants.
Where when do we get those people and hold them accountable?
Well, it's gonna start.
Uh uh Bob Barr uh is uh excuse me, Bill Barr is gonna testify uh the the attorney general May first before my committee in the Senate about his uh view of the Mueller investigation, the decisions he's made and why he made them.
Then that ends it in the Senate, and we're gonna move on to four areas.
I'm going to look at how the Clinton investigation was handled, not in a way to go back and put her in jail, but find out why she was basically given a pass.
Slow down.
What if it what what if it's proven that investigation was rigged and laws were broken?
Well, that that's why you need a special counsel.
I don't want Lindsay Graham to do that.
I want somebody outside of politics to look and see if there's criminal liability regarding the way the Clinton email investigation was conducted.
The second bucket is the counterintelligence counterintelligence investigation.
I want to know was it a legitimate counterintelligence investigation, or was it a ruse and uh backdoor way to get into the Trump campaign?
I want to know about the FISA warrant, how it could be issued four times based on a bunch of political garbage.
And the last bucket I want to look at is why did they surveil General Flynn in transition?
What was the purpose of surveilling the Trump uh transition team?
And was there an effort after the election to invoke the twenty-fifth amendment?
Those are the four areas I'm gonna look at.
Well, we know that that's all true, that we have enough evidence and testimony to such at this point.
Let me go back to all of these issues.
Uh, because I think the evidence is clear, incontrovertible, it is overwhelming, and that is that the uh 18 USC 793, the espionage act is clear.
You cannot have secret, top secret, classified information outside of a government server.
It was put there.
So you have multiple felonies, it would be for every instance.
We've already here's what I would right.
I would say that if you did what she did with classified information, you'd probably be in jail.
But rather than Sean Hannity can an investigation or Lindsay Graham for criminal liability, I am begging the attorney general to assign somebody to this case for the very reasons you just suggested, independent of the political process, some mutual person to give this a look like they did uh Mueller did Trump.
Well, I think that has to happen.
Then I have you know, I actually think that a lot of things should happen even beyond that.
Um you want you you there's four areas of interest.
The Clinton investigation, why was the counterintelligence investigation started in the first place?
Uh right.
All evidence is now beginning to point that it started much earlier, not as we have been told.
July, well, you know the you know probably more than me.
Um and also we want to get the Pfizer warrants, the bulk of information uh of which was Hillary's bought and paid for Russian dirty dossier, and then you want to get to the issue surrounding General Flynn.
Well, we know he was illegally unmasked.
We know he was illegally surveilled, we know raw intelligence on the general was released.
And I you know, the fact that you know he's going bankrupt, sold his home is in millions of dollars of debt, and has no idea what his future is gonna be.
You know, a great way to treat a 33-year vet.
And by the way, Comey and McKay bragging how they treated him and tricked him and told him he doesn't need a lawyer, and they would never do this type of thing in the Obama or Bush White House?
Wow.
So uh well, let me just t follow through of that.
Yes, I want to know what authority they had and what information they had, evidence to suggest that they should surveil the transition team.
I want to try to find out who leaked the fact that Flynn was being surveilled to the Washington Post.
Did Obama himself know about the uh counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign before the election?
Did Obama himself know about the surveillance of the Trump transition team after the election?
What was the basis of the surveillance and uh go from there?
I also think we've got to look into the abuse of intelligence.
We had a three hundred and fifty percent increase in twenty sixteen in the unmasking of American citizens.
That's a problem.
Yeah, it is, and uh did the UN ambassador she request unmasking.
So three hundred times, but she says she didn't do it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, so what I want to do is there's really three things going on here.
Horowitz is looking at the um the FISA warrant uh process.
His report should be out in the next thirty days, I hope.
I will take a look at it from a different point of view.
He's looking at it from an in house council to try to find out who inside the FDI DOG needs to be disciplined.
What I want to do is look at it to make sure it never happens again, change our laws if necessary and hold people accountable in a different way.
Uh after the election, I want Horowitz or somebody, including me, to look at whether or not the surveillance of the transition team was lawful, legitimate.
And was there an effort by DOJ type, FBI types, to try to invoke the 25th Amendment against newly elected President Trump.
Wow.
All right.
Uh we look forward to this.
You wouldn't believe this.
You will just promise me to sell this as a movie.
Well, you can't, but if we don't hold them accountable, rigging investigations, trying to steal a presidential election and trying to uh basically undo an election using Russian lies is pretty amazing to me and abusing power all along the way.
Uh all right, thank you so much.
We appreciate it.
Lindsey Graham, Senator South Carolina is with us, 800-941 Sean.
Piers Morgan, by the way, he's gonna weigh in of the Daily Mail uh later in the program today.
We'll get to your calls also.
And uh oh, also we have a Texas town that's not gonna prosecute crimes that they don't feel are are not worthy of reprimand.
Okay.
Law and order.
Forget the forget that forget that co-equal branches of government thing.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity show.
I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy.
Yes, even for terrible people.
Because once you start shipping away and you say, Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not gonna let him vote.
Well, that person did that, not gonna let that person vote.
You're running down a slippery slope.
So I believe that people commit crimes, they pay the price.
When they got out of jail, I believe they certainly should have the right to vote.
But I do believe that even if they are in jail, they're paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.
Unbelievable.
That's terrorists, the Sarnav Brothers Boston bombing.
Anyway, glad you're with us.
News Roundup Information uh overload hour.
We welcome back to the program.
A good friend of ours, Piers Morgan is back with us.
He heads up the Daily Mail UK, and um well, he's a survivor of the fake news network.
Um just kidding.
Um, um first of all, how many views does the Daily Mail get on an average day?
Because that website is so chock full of video pictures, information, news, culture, sports.
You got it all.
And it's it's an amazing operation.
I'm actually editor-in-chief of the US part, actually.
Um I do write for the UK one too, but the US one is the main the main draw now.
And the numbers are amazing.
It's like two hundred and fifty million monthly users now to this website.
It's the biggest English speaking newspaper website in the world.
Uh it has you know well over a thousand staff exclusive to the online in New York, in Los Angeles, in Sydney, Australia, a big team in London.
And you know, it's uh it's a remarkable operation, Sean.
They put up 1400 stories every day.
Uh nothing stays up in its original condition for more than 24 hours.
So constantly rejuvenating, constantly updating.
And I think most people who've come across it realize they're gonna get all the news you could possibly want, and every update as it happens, 24-7.
So it's a good idea.
But the problem is with the website, I like it so much.
It it's the way you put it up, and you have all these sidebar, you know, thing.
I you know what I think I don't want to read about the Kardashians.
I'm like, all right, what are they up to?
You know.
You know what's fascinating, I see.
Well, that's the thing is they they have a really smart uh algorithm system where stories you can see in real time how many people are reading each story.
Wow out of the whole fourteen hundred.
And it moves up, you know there's literally like a Bloomberg stock screen you know going up and down in real time.
So it's a really brilliant way of working out what your readers and viewers, if it's a video, what they really want to watch or read.
And the the team there in whichever city they're in, they can tailor everything in real time up and down depending on the volume of traffic for particular story.
So it's uh it's very scientific.
You know there's a lot of craziness.
I assume you're still doing your morning show uh back in Great Britain.
You have the number one morning show uh on television there.
Um but you really are interested also I just as much as I'm pretty much I'm well interested in the politics of our friends and ally in Great Br Britain and I I cannot believe the Brexit mess you guys are going through.
Not a lot not not unsimilar to what we're good dealing with here in many ways but um like look at Bernie Sanders.
We're gonna let the Sarner brothers vote, we're gonna let uh pet pedophiles vote, murderers vote, rapists.
Abs I mean there is a real parallel you know Sean which is which really uh exercises me.
And the parallel between Britain and America right now is that there is an inability by those on the left to accept democracy.
So the people who profess to call themselves liberals and supposed to stand for everything that's democratic and for democratic freedoms and for honoring democratic elections and referenda and so on, they're just simply refusing to do it.
So in Britain we had the Brexit vote.
Now I, full disclosure, voted to stay in the European Union.
I wasn't completely sure that I was right in that in that vote.
But I I lost 17 point four million Britons and the way I know what that feels like because I didn't want Obama to win and guess what?
I lost.
Right, right.
So we know about winning and losing right in politics there are winners and losers.
It's very straightforward has been for a long time in both our countries.
But what happened in Britain was 17.4 million people voted to leave again sixteen and a half million who voted to stay it was a resounding victory for Brexit and for those who voted to leave.
But here we are three years later and Parliament which is full of three quarters of the MPs there are Romainers who voted to stay in, they are doing whatever they can, driven by the liberal media to try and undo the result of that referendum and to try and stop us leaving the European Union.
I see the same thing with Donald Trump here.
From the moment he you know pulled off this extraordinary thing where he became the president with zero political experience uh all those on the Liberal side have just refused to accept it.
And they saw in Muller for example their white knight in shining armour who is going to deliver their ultimate goal which was to unseat the President of the United States.
And I you know to me it's shockingly undemocratic.
It is pathetic and it's the same in both countries and it's the same types of people that are driving it.
And the ultimate result of all this is that they want to bring socialists back into power in Britain and in America.
In Britain Jeremy Corbyn, who's a very hard left socialist leader of the Labour Party and in in America obviously the front runner right now of the Democrats is Bernie Sanders again a socialist.
This may survive in that situation because Donald Trump already has survived.
Yeah.
Now, they're going to look.
There's a certain psychotic rage that has taken over not only the Democratic Party, but I mean, this whole new green deal.
And we get rid of oil and gas in 10 years and we're going to retrofit every building.
And you can't make a skyscraper with steel and glass anymore in New York.
And we're going to eliminate the combustion engine and we'll eliminate eventually.
You can't own a coward.
eat cow maybe we can import it uh or you know I well the we know what it is Sean it's we won't be flying to Great Britain we'll be we'll be getting on a sailboat to the pond.
Right look it it's this the politics of the student common room right you know where students hang around when they're fifteen, sixteen and they have very idea I idealistic view of the world, very simplistic view.
They've not lived real life.
They don't really understand how things work and they're like yeah we're gonna get rid of all student debt.
We're gonna we're gonna have green energy everywhere and get rid of everything that doesn't fit that agenda so on and so on and so on.
And then you say to the yeah but how are you going to pay for any of this?
And we have the same thing in Britain where they say we're gonna we're gonna rid the world of all known diseases.
Okay, great.
We'd all have to do that.
How are you going to do this?
And when you get to the the nuts and bolts of you know Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, for example, who wants to do everything immediately, right, on the with a left uh agenda.
That's fine.
But when you actually ask her how do you pay for this, she doesn't know how to pay for it.
There is no way of paying for it, other than bringing in, you know, ninety-nine percent income tax for everybody, which is completely unsustainable.
So, you know, there's a there's a reality check coming for this, I think.
I think it's why Donald Trump won.
I think he's why he's enduringly popular with vast swathes of the American people.
I think it's why in Britain, Brexit, what's happened there, which is fascinating, is that because of Theresa May's inability to get a grip of the situation, Nigel Farage, who was one of the main people leading the charge for Brexit, has now created a new party called the Brexit Party.
And guess what?
They are now leading in the European election polls, which are due in a few weeks' time.
But Nigel could Nigel be Prime Minister?
I think they're going to win, and I think the Prime Minister will have to resign.
And the smart money right now in Britain is it Boris Johnson, who is somebody who also, along with Foundation.
He's a character led Brexit.
He's a k he's a b you know I call him Donald Trump with an ability to speak fluent Latin.
Um he's highly intellectual, uh, to a point of pomposity.
He's a great character, he's very, you know, he's quite roguish in many ways.
But he's a guy a bit like Trump who speaks his mind, says what he thinks, and he has a relatability to regular people.
I think my prediction is, even though they tried to kick the Brexit can down the road till October, my prediction is that the Brexit Party under Nigel Farage will do very well in the European elections, and that in our own domestic local elections around the same time in Britain, uh Theresa May's Conservative Party will get a complete drubbing for not having fulfilled the will of the people with the Brexit vote.
So I think that she will be gone by the end of May.
And I think the smart money is by the time Donald Trump comes on his state visit to Britain in the first week of June, that the person he may be meeting is Boris Johnson at number ten Downing Street and not Theresa May.
What do you think?
You know Trump as I have known him oh I've known him well over two decades, and I know him very, very well.
And I describe him as somebody that is pretty fearless, very outspoken.
Uh you you can't talk him into something if he doesn't you can persuade him, but you can't say stop tweeting and he's gonna stop tweeting.
A lot of people try it, it's never gonna happen.
But his ability during this entire time, which has pretty much been since day one of his presidency to compartmentalize this witch hunt, and I agree with his his his words here.
And then also look at the look at the American economy.
Record low unemployment for Hispanic Americans, African Americans, uh Asian Americans, women in the workplace, youth unemployment, every economic record now being shattered.
And on top of it, you know, he's also making progress ab abroad.
Um my my biggest complaint about the the anti-Trump brigade, and I would include CNN in this, my old employers, you know, because I think they've just gone completely anti-Trump.
And that's fine, but that's not balanced impartial journalism, which is what CNN is supposed to be.
And my problem with it is they don't give Trump any credit when he does things right.
And there are lots of things that Trump does.
I mean this for the first two years, the amount of stuff he's done is extraordinary.
I don't agree with all of it, but I do agree with some of it, and I certainly believe that any fair-minded person should give Trump credit when he gets things right.
I think he's spot on about the NATO bills that America has to pay, for example, which are not being paid by the member countries as they should have done.
I think he's spot on about the trade war with China, which has been long overdue.
I think under Obama, China really seized control of the American economy in many ways.
I like the fact that Donald Trump is fighting back on behalf of America for that.
I think he's right that the Iranian deal sucked.
Everybody knew it sucked.
Uh so I think that Trump looks at these things all as a business guy, and he goes, Does this make sense?
From a business point of view for America Incorporated, does this make sense?
And if his gut tells him it doesn't, he goes on the rampage to try and change it.
Now, it's not pretty sometimes, you know, he spews out what he's thinking in real time.
I've got to say, I I love the fact the president of the United States tells us his thoughts and feelings in real time on Twitter and so on.
It's very new, it's very refreshing.
Sometimes it makes my eyes water, And sometimes I wish he wouldn't be so petty with people and so on.
But that's all part of what you get with Donald Trump.
And the bottom line is it's what got him elected.
It turned out the American people were sick and tired of conventional politicians talking in a very robotic, pre-programmed way that didn't relate to them at all.
Politicians who never went down and actually saw how they were struggling in their own lives, how globalization had really hit a toll, I think, on many people in Middle America with jobs sourcing out of America and all the rest of it.
Donald Trump went down there time and again to the ever bigger rallies, and he spoke to them and said, I know what you're going through.
I care about it, I'm gonna fix it.
And that's why he won.
And that's why I believe that Donald Trump is heading for re-election.
I think the more the Democrats right now scream impeachment, the stronger Donald Trump's chances of winning again get.
I think I think you've you analyze him dead on accurate.
It's funny because I think a lot of people actually feign this outrage.
He was elected to be a disruptor.
He's an iconoclastic figure.
He keeps his promises, which is refreshing because most politicians say this on election day, and they have no intention of ever fulfilling what the promises on the other end of that.
Uh, on the other side of this break, we have uh with us Piers Morgan, who is the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail.
Uh, I want to ask you about the rise of anti-Semitism and the impact that's having on Europe, uh now in America, church bombings, and what America might learn on the issue of immigration from Europe.
Um, let me ask you about the rise of these church bombings throughout Europe and the rise of anti-Semitism throughout Europe.
Um big controversy a while back.
Are there no go zones in Europe in certain countries?
I I wouldn't go as far as to say absolute no-go zones, but certainly what has been happening in the rise of anti-Semitism is disgusting and terrifying.
We've seen it in Britain, we've seen it in other European countries.
I also think there's a huge problem remaining with uh immigration and migration through Europe.
Everybody knows this, everyone's terrified of talking about it.
You know, Trump gets hammered all the time for directly addressing the issues on the southern border here in America, but in in Britain and other European countries, people are very hesitant to have this debate in case they get immediately labeled racist, which is what happens.
And yet the bottom line is we've had the biggest migration of people across the continent of Europe since the end of World War Two.
And and to pretend this hasn't been happening is to put your head in the sand and ignore a real and present problem.
And you know, I don't call it necessarily a danger.
I'm not saying all these people are dangerous.
I think many people are genuine asylum seekers, genuine refugees.
But aren't there people that have nefarious intentions?
Aren't they sneaking in?
I think there are also people with criminal intent.
I think there are also people, many people who want a better life and are economic migrants.
So I think there's a whole hodgepodge of reasons why people have been joining this vast amount of migration through Europe.
Gotta I gotta run though.
But listen, uh, we love having you on.
It was great to see you on TV the other night.
And I enjoyed it very much.
Please, any time you're in the States, let us know, or if you have a free time, we'd love to have you back.
Um we'll do.
You gotta read the Daily Mail US, uh, the managing editor.
Here's Morgan.
Thank you, sir.
Thanks very much.
Take care.
800, 941 Sean toll for your telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Uh when we come back, oh, what about a town that's not going to enforce law?
If I'm hungry and I don't have any money, I can just go to the grocery store and take a couple hundred bucks worth of groceries and I'm not gonna get in trouble.
That's what it looks like.
What do you think of this policy?
Well, I think it's very unfortunate.
I think um it's counterproductive.
It it it actually authorizes uh lawlessness, that it's okay to steal.
And um I I think all you have to do is look at cities that have tried this.
You have Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, Baltimore, DC, and they've all the crime has shot through the roof.
So I understand what the DA is trying to do.
John Cruzot is a good man.
I've known him for 20 years.
I think he's just going about it the wrong way.
We as police officers, we see crime victims every day.
And that mom and pop store, which a lot of times that's the only store some of these communities have.
That store's gonna go out of business.
They're not gonna be able to take 1,000, 2,000 worth of losses.
And my greatest concern is that we have an individual who goes in and steal as a simple theft.
The shop owner has had enough.
He's tired of being robbed.
He goes and tries to stop this individual.
So we've taken a theft and turned it into a robbery because the shop owner gets assaulted.
Then even worse than the shot the other shop owner tries to defend the business and pulls out a gun in the state of Texas.
You can use deadly force to protect property.
And now we've taken a simple theft and turned it into a homicide because we didn't do the right thing in the very beginning.
And that's arrest people when they steal.
All right.
Big problem happening in Dallas.
800-941-SHAWN.
We'll get to your calls here in a couple of minutes.
Just wanted to bring you up to speed on a situation down there.
Because now you have police officers and their associations across the state, North Texas.
They're all upset that the Dallas DA...
Uh uh John uh Cruzett's uh criminal justice reform policies and the local agencies are not now are now calling for the removal, but not for removal, but asking him to meet with police agency leaders, so rank and file officers are not getting mixed signals.
This so-called reform means that the office is basically saying they're not gonna prosecute theft of necessary items under 750 bucks, uh, which basically is license to go into any grocery store, any food establishment, steal food, and say, I'll see you later.
They're not gonna prosecute me, which I think is a little bit nuts and sends the wrong message in a major way.
Joining us Michael Maida, um and he is the Dallas Police Association president uh and uh is that really what the they're saying?
That's what they're telling people?
Yeah, and that's exactly exactly what the the new policy says.
You know, it's uh it's uh it's unfortunate that he went public with a policy to you know to authorize what it sounds like you it's authorized uh and legalized stealing other people's property.
Well, I mean, that to me is unbelievable.
How do you get the right to say all right?
So you can go into a grocery store under, you know, all of this, you know, on these conditions and basically walk out and not get stopped.
Can they at least stop you and take the stuff back, or is that gonna be viewed as assault by the people that do it?
Well, no, I mean, I think we as we as officers of the city of Dallas, we are still gonna do our job.
Um we're gonna take that offense, we're gonna file that case.
The problem is the DA is not gonna uh not gonna prosecute it.
So you know, it's almost a waste of our time, but like I said, we're going to do our job.
But what do you tell that shop owner when the shop owner knows nothing's gonna come out of this?
So you know what it's gonna do, it's gonna drive that that small uh mom and pop store that a lot of these communities, those are the only stores that they have, and it's gonna drive them out of business.
So it's like we have you know, mom and pop shops are are totally screwed over in this.
Who's gonna ever want to be in business?
You're right.
And on more more importantly, this is dangerous because you you come into my store and you're gonna steal my stuff.
Um, excuse me, I'm gonna try and stop it.
And then you're not gonna get any backing by the local prosecutors, and somehow they're gonna flip it that you're at fault.
Yeah, and that that is my concern, too.
You know, these these stores are uh the basis of those some of those communities.
They've been there for 10, 15, 20 years and allowing any individual to go in there and steal property up to 750 dollars.
You know, poor people are not gonna go in there and steal.
Poor people do not steal.
And that message that's being sent uh through this policy that they you know they regress to stealing when they need something is just incorrect and wrong.
The uh, you know, the individuals that live in this community are some of the most uh moral and uh law abiding individuals we have in Dallas County.
But this but the criminal, the criminal element who they make a living off stealing will have a field day with this.
Yep.
No, how could you not?
All right, we're gonna watch this.
Uh I really feel bad for the you and your the guys that work, they're gonna risk their lives, arrest somebody, they're not gonna be prosecuted.
I guess they won't even arrest them anymore.
And they'll have to, you know, break up fights when the owners that maybe don't make a lot of money every year, they're just you know, making a living uh, you know, or giving free stuff to people and nobody will will support them.
What's the point?
Anyway, thank you, Mike.
Remember, this is that's the state of Texas.
State of Texas an individual can use deadly force to protect their property, and it's a shame that we might turn a simple theft into a homicide for something that should have never taken place.
Unbelievable.
All right, thank you, Mike.
Uh, let's get to our busy.
But I mean, can you imagine you're a stone no, you can't.
You imagine you're a st a store owner, and that it's be anybody's free to walk in and take whatever they want as long as it's under seven hundred and fifty bucks.
I'll tell you one thing.
I'm starting to get real irritated with people not having personal accountability, and I'm getting real irritated with people getting away with crap, and I'm getting real irritated that we're not supporting our police officers.
You know, you see this story today about this woman who murdered her son, five year old kid.
She murdered him.
You know what?
She doesn't belong in a prison.
She doesn't belong in jail.
She doesn't deserve to eat on my tax dollar.
No, you know what she deserves?
She deserves death.
Death immediately.
The same way she killed her son is how we should kill her.
Do you have a good morning this morning?
Would you like some black rifle coffee?
Sorry.
Oh, listen, I I no I'm I'm agreeing with you.
It's terrible.
We're not protecting the innocent.
You know, that goes to the whole border issue.
I mean, to me, what's so incredible to me is that we have all the statistics.
We know where the drugs are coming from.
We know who's bringing him in.
We have the cartels, we have the gang members, we have the 4,000 homicides plus in two years.
The 30,000 30,000 sexual assaults, 100,000 violent assaults.
When do we care about helping the people here first?
Of all people, Cher said it.
This is twice in two weeks.
Cher agrees with Sean Hannity.
She must be watching my TV show.
And somehow she's beginning to realize uh that letting crazy people, the Sarnoff brothers and others vote is not smart.
Pedophiles uh and murderers vote.
Uh, and then on top of that, we're gonna let crime occur and not save a mom and pop store.
That's that's un Right.
So you you open a store, you put your savings out, you you you finally get it together, you get a lease, you stock it with supplies, you have a grand opening.
Everything you own is on the line.
Forget about it.
And you know what's you know what's really sad is that what we're basically saying to your average law abiding good person is we're not gonna reward you for the good behavior we you do.
We're gonna reward those who are breaking the law because it's not that big of a crime.
Hey, think of this.
You walk into any restaurant, you order a meal under 750 bucks.
Guess what?
You leave.
You leave.
They're not gonna be able to stop it.
That was delicious.
I'm gonna go now.
See you later.
Thanks for the dinner.
What about the three-year-old last night?
Did you hear about that?
Three-year-old boy used to get across the border, left.
Just left in the middle of a field in Texas.
Yeah, use a three-year-old kid.
Three-year-old child, little boy.
It's you know, I'm telling you, we're live, we're living two alternate realities now in this country.
You I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy.
Yes, even for terrible people.
But I do believe that even if they are in jail, they're paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.
I am a strong supporter of the Green New Deal.
Now, we cannot wait any longer.
We have got to make change.
That's how I hear this.
There are people in Washington, DC, supposed leaders, who have failed to have the courage to reject a false choice, which suggests you're either in favor of the second amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away.
Supposed leaders in Washington, D.C., who have failed to have the courage to recognize, you know what, you want to go hunting?
That's fine.
But we need reasonable gun safety laws in this country, starting with universal background checks and a renewal of the assault weapon ban.
Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws.
And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.
You know, would you if you could, would you take the wall down now?
Here.
Yes.
Like you have a wall.
Absolutely.
Knock it down.
I'll take the wall down.
And you think the city, you think if this if there's a referendum here in the city, that would pass.
I do.
Got the green new dealers, the impeached Trumpers, the insanity of the left, the open borders, and then the rest of us that work hard, play by the rules, pay our taxes.
Yes, we pay them, uh whether you like it or not.
You get your kids, you raise your kids, you instill values in your kids.
You wake them up, get them dressed, make their lunch, send them off to school, work your 14-hour day, come home exhausted, maybe on some public transportation, and then the next part of your day is oh, maybe spending 10, 15 minutes with your kids, putting them to sleep, uh, getting a beer, and watching five seconds of TV as long as it's Hannity is it's okay, and then going to bed.
And the sad part is if they go to school in New York, they get to go under build the Blasio's watch, have Meatless Monday, and wonder where 900 million dollars went because his wife can't seem to find it.
Apparently.
All right, let's get to our phones.
Uh all right, let's say hi to Ryan in Virginia.
What's up, Ryan?
How are you?
Hey, hey, Mr. Hannity.
It's a great place to be.
Is anybody in Virginia dealing with your lieutenant governor that's been accused of rape and violent sexual assault?
I don't believe so because he is a Democrat and Democrats can do whatever they want and get away with it.
Unbelievable.
Not nobody's talking, nobody's even talking about it anymore.
No, no, nor the governor, nor uh any of it.
It's been swept under the rug, ignore it, and oh, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.
So there you go.
Yeah, well, unbelievable.
Anyway, that that that's the country.
Go ahead.
Sean, I am a veteran.
I am a conservative.
I am a Republican, and I am a convicted felon.
I was sentenced to 40 months in federal prison.
I have been released.
I am back in my community.
I am working very, very hard to make up for what I did and to rebuild my life.
What I did was horrible and I screwed up.
But I vehemently disagree with Bernie Sanders wanting to allow people that are actively in prison to vote.
Because you're being punished.
You while you're in prison, you are being punished.
Let me ask you.
How many, how many years did you spend in the prison?
Uh I was I I actually spent 29 months behind bars and then uh four months in a halfway house.
Okay, what was the crime?
I I don't know what that was.
What was the crime?
Uh that's uh that's that's my radio because I'm at work.
I I'd rather not say, Sean.
Okay.
Uh probably drug related, if I had to guess.
Uh are you different?
How long ago since you've been let out?
Uh I got out in June of last year uh of of prison.
I was let out of the halfway house in October.
I have 20 years of probation, and according to Virginia law, I cannot apply to get my rights to vote back until after I've served my my probation.
My gun rights are all uh uh the same way.
I don't care about my gun rights.
That that's uh that's a whole nother subject.
But the fact is is I'm uh I'm present in my community.
I am as active in my community as I can be.
So I should be able to vote for my councilman, my mayor, my governor, who I disagree with, my congressperson who I also disagree with, because it's now Elaine Luria and not Scott Taylor.
Um, my senators, both of whom I vehemently disagree with.
As I said, I'm a Republican.
That said, Sean, the only reason that somebody should lose their right to vote permanently is if they have committed voter fraud or conspiracy to commit voter fraud.
Other than that, we are it's if you're uh if you've been released, you're part of the community now.
You need to have a chance to rebuild your life.
Felons are business owners.
They're you know there's a lot of uh a lot of felons that you've never even realized are in your community, and they are just as affected by the rules, regulations, and laws that are proposed and passed by the legislatures in their localities, in their states, and in the federal government system.
So why shouldn't we allow the vote if we've not if we're making a compelling case?
Look, I recently spoke to a bunch of prisoners at Rikers Island.
Well, it was a while back, and um I've never been asked back again.
I use some pretty saucy language in that.
I kind of sounded like Linda for a little bit, but I just laid it out straight.
There was a guy.
Must have been a great speech.
Yeah.
And by the way, Ryan, just don't go back to jail.
Whatever you did, I hope you changed forever, and I hope you learned your lesson, and I wish you the best in your life.
I do have a disagreement.
But you make a very strong compelling case for yourself, which I which I appreciate.
And you remember the result of that.
I go in there, there's a guy that is won't shut up speaking before me.
They're like, oh, they can't take it anymore.
So I finally, I'm I'm like, I'm dying.
They're visibly saying when he got done, they clapped for him.
Finally, you stopped.
So the first thing I said is, all right, I know you guys have been sitting a while.
Uh I asked the crowd, their families, because they had finished this program.
Can I just address them?
They said, yeah.
I'm only going to speak five minutes.
You don't want to be lectured to.
I said, half of you are coming back.
Half are you.
Do you miss McDonald's pizza, fresh air, working, girlfriends, building a life, your kids in some cases?
Because if you do, don't come back here.
Click.
Done.
So yeah, good luck.
God bless you all.
That's it.
Make it make good choices.
And I said, if you have to move away from your crazy family and friends, do it.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Hannity tonight at nine, the president fights back.
By the way, whatever happened to law law and order in this country.
And by the way, Lindsay Graham, four specific areas, his committee will be investigating.
They'll be investigating the investigation into Hillary Clinton.
Also, we will get into also he will get into the Pfizer warrant issue and all the surrounding details.
Why was this a counterintelligence operation anyway?
And the issue surrounding General Flynn.
Finally, somebody stands up for the 33-year vet that both Comey and McCabe brag about having set up and abused power.
Anyway, it's all coming up tonight at 9 Hannity Fox News.
