Sean Hannity Show - Nadler Off The Deep End

May 8, 2019 - Sean Hannity Show

01:30:26

Nadler Off The Deep End

John Solomon, Executive Vice President of the Hill, Gregg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst and Author of The Russia Hoax, discuss Congressman Nadler’s nonsense today, and his sham committee hearing to hold our Attorney General in contempt of Congress. 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.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Hey, it's Linda from the Hannity Show here.
	And as you know, Sean and I never promote the stock market or investing in it.
	But now we've discovered Dr. Richard Smith and his incredible financial software tools.
	It's trusted by thousands to track over $20 billion of investments.
	So if you're planning for your retirement and have any money at all invested in the stock market, go to Hannity.com forward slash retirement.
	All right, glad you're with us.
	Happy Wednesday.
	And the information keeps coming out drip, drip, drip.
	And you ever watch, like, I like nature films all the time.
	Linda makes fun of me.
	I made her watch this one recently about lions because it was so violent about cats on that geo.
	Well, you well, you said you couldn't say so ridiculous.
	Well, okay, in nature, you know, the lion actually kills other animals to eat them.
	And they don't cook them.
	They don't start a fire.
	It's not medium prayer.
	It's not medium wealth.
	I'm not getting into crazy details.
	Is that in the family alliance that lionesses?
	When did you learn how to say lion?
	What's a loyal lions?
	I just say, all right, so we see them and they kill.
	Female lions are a little bit more dominating than the male lions.
	okay because they're just sitting back fat and happy and you know they were pretty lean actually in that video.
	I have to say.
	They weren't like me and my Sherry's Barry.
	Well, they have this really, really cool video.
	You know, I didn't know this until I watched this.
	You know, 80% of creatures are actually underwater.
	And I had not known that before.
	So I felt like I learned something watching that geo.
	Although the problem with any of these stupid nature shows is they all have the, you know, we're burning up the world.
	Oh, my God.
	Global warming, global cooling, blah, blah, blah.
	You know, why do you have to lecture us?
	Just show us nature.
	I want to see nature.
	I love seeing the majestic animals that they have and what these animals can do.
	I mean, you know, God has a wicked imagination.
	If you can create a giraffe, an elephant, a rhinoceros, you know, the most incredible fish in the sea, including great whites and big, massive whales, and then these little minnow fish.
	And I mean, it's sharks, everything in between.
	It's very cool.
	So I'm interested in that.
	It just happens.
	I like to watch those shows.
	But I digress.
	We have John Solomon's report is now out.
	And the headline is, it's about Christopher Steele.
	We gave you a preview on this show yesterday.
	A stunning.
	Now, this is all pre-FISA confession.
	Informant needed, meaning steel, Trump dirt before the election.
	Now, before I get to the details of this, there's another report out today about the Attorney General, Michael Horowitz.
	And this was in the Wall Street Journal that this much-awaited report by the Department of Justice Inspector General Horowitz.
	This, again, this is on FISA abuse, is now expected to focus on the dubious credibility of the Steele dossier and why the FBI used it to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, despite the fact that the dossier was the FBI's own words, minimally corroborated.
	And let's not forget the infamous words of Andrew McCabe: if there's no dossier, there'd be no FISA warrant.
	And then the newness and the Grassley and Graham memos, the bulk of information was the unverified, uncorroborated, dirty, Russian, perhaps even Russian disinformation dossier bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton with funneled money to a law firm, to an op research firm, to a foreign national who himself does not stand by his own dossier.
	This is going to hit home.
	I think so hard.
	So many people are going to be impacted by this.
	I only found out recently from Jason Chaffetz of Utah, now a Fox News contributor, former congressman, that, and I didn't know this, and he did, I guess, an interview.
	I think he was filling in for my show, and I don't watch if I'm off, so I wouldn't have picked it up.
	that John Ratcliffe actually says at the top of the dossier, well, I'm sorry, at the top of the FISA application, it actually has the word verified.
	Uh-oh, that's problematic because, you know, go back, remember, Rod Rosenstein, this was in May of last year, was very clear that, especially in FISA applications, we're talking about career law enforcement officers.
	And when they put their signature on it, they're saying, to the best of their knowledge and ability, what they're putting their name to is true.
	And if they're wrong, by the way, number one, if they're wrong, they have an obligation to immediately correct it, immediately.
	And the second thing is that there are going to be severe consequences.
	The Department of Justice, if we can accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
	We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
	And we have to affix our signature to the charging document.
	That's something that not everybody appreciates.
	There's a lot of talk about FISA applications.
	And many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application.
	A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
	In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
	And that's the way we operate.
	And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
	Okay.
	This is now, we know, an unverifiable document.
	Why?
	Because in the interrogatory in Great Britain, Christopher Steele himself, under the threat of perjury, acknowledged a simple truth.
	He has no idea if any of the information in that dirty dossier is true.
	That means anybody that signed it could not have possibly verified it.
	The great irony is you just heard Rod Rosenstein say it.
	He signed it.
	He signed the third renewal application.
	He signed the last one, the fourth FISA application.
	That's going to be a problem for him.
	Wonder how he spins out of that.
	Now, we do know that there are specific footnotes that actually, you know, footnote number eight, for example, the FBI says it's corroborated, you know, and that it's reliable.
	There are certain declarations I now learn from Jason Chaffetz that it is, that they all are lying under oath here and simultaneously committing a fraud.
	And because the dossier, the dirty Russian dossier of Hillary was so important to this process, there wouldn't have been a FISA warrant but for the dirty dossier.
	Anyway, so back to the Wall Street Journal reporting in this probe of the counterintelligence inquiry that later morphed into Robert Mueller's investigation.
	Remember, nine months, the FBI was looking into Trump-Russia conspiracy collusion.
	Nine months, FBI agents struck and page, no there there.
	Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, we had nothing before the appointment of Mueller.
	So the department's inspector general has now been asking witnesses about the FBI's treatment of information in the Steele dossier.
	Actually, go further in the dossier and they stand up for the credibility of Christopher Steele.
	So they're like, and meanwhile, they fired him like a month later.
	So three of the FISA applications were when Steele had been fired for lying and leaking.
	How ironic.
	Anyway, so those are the questions Horowitz team has been asking the FBI, and they continue to cite Steele as a credible source, even though they fired him.
	Investigators have asked about an internal FBI evaluation of Steele's credibility.
	They found his reporting had been, quote, minimally corroborated.
	Well, minimally corroborated, as the Wall Street Journal says today, does not reach the standard of what you just heard from Rod Rosenstein.
	Even as it also said they had provided he had provided information of value to the U.S. intelligence community in the past, that has nothing to do with the present.
	That has nothing to do with the fact that he was fired for three of the four FISA applications.
	Now, the evaluation, the journal goes on, reflected in a human source validation report written by a unit of the FBI after the Bureau cut off their relationship with Steele in October 2016.
	It did so because of his disclosures to the media leaking about his work for the FBI, and then he lied about it.
	And the last FISA renewal application, that was dated June 2017.
	I'm told pages 10 through 12, 17 through 24, or 34, I forget, are particularly going to be of interest when we get these FISA applications released to the public, which the president said is coming very soon.
	Anyway, that the FBI continued to state they believe Steele had given credible information, given his previous reporting had been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings.
	And I'm not sure as about this time, he was debunking his own FISA application.
	Now, let's go back to John Solomon's reporting from today.
	And that is, if ever there was an admission that taints the FBI's secret warrant that allowed them to surveil the Trump campaign, it sat buried for more than two and a half years in the files of a high-ranking State Department official and John Solomon got a hold of him.
	The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Kathleen Kavalik's written account of her October 11, 2016 meeting with FBI informant Christopher Steele.
	Why was Christopher Steele at the State Department having meetings and apparently in a state of desperation?
	Well, we find out it shows that Steele shows that the Clinton campaign funded the British intelligence operative.
	And here's where the catch is.
	He admitted to the State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary that his research was political and it faced an election day deadline.
	In other words, this is the first direct evidence saying this had nothing to do with getting to the truth about Russia.
	He was putting together a political document.
	Now, that confession occurred only 10 days before the initial FISA application was put in.
	In other words, before the FBI, this first one signed by James Comey, now discredited and justifying the FISA application without which we didn't get the FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page and the campaign's ties to Russia.
	Now Steele's client is quote keen to see this information come to light prior to November the 8th.
	Hillary's pushing it.
	Oh, Hillary's paying for it, and Hillary's pushing for it to get released.
	Now we're hearing it's a disinformation campaign from Russia that she's colluding with.
	How ironic and all of this.
	Anyway, so Kavalik wrote in a typed summary of the meeting with Steele and another colleague from Steele's security company.
	The memos only unearthed a few days ago through the open records litigation by Citizens United.
	And Kavlak's notes did not appear to have been provided.
	The House Intel Committee chair for their investigation, according to former chairman Devin Nunes, they tried to hide a lot of documents from us during our investigation, and it usually turns out there's a reason for it.
	And in this particular case, Senate and House judiciary investigation said they didn't know about these notes.
	And one member of Congress transmitted the memos this week to the Department of Justice Inspector General, fearing its investigation of FISA abuses may not have had access to them either.
	And nonetheless, the FBI was doing their best to keep much of Kavlak's information secret by retroactively claiming that it was classified when it wasn't classified.
	Do you understand what they do?
	They just lie with an abandoned.
	It's pretty remarkable.
	Sad, but it's remarkable this can all happen in the United States.
	What's up, everybody?
	Linda, executive producer from the Sean Hannity Show, here to talk to you about your money, your retirement.
	Your money is like your health.
	It's something that you don't think about until you need it.
	So many people make disastrous retirement mistakes, and they're retiring without enough money, and that is just wrong.
	But have no fear, meet one of the most incredible financial minds in America, Dr. Richard Smith.
	And Richard's extraordinary tools are trusted by thousands of Americans to track over $20 billion in the stock market.
	And his tools can help you reset your retirement.
	You're going to be hearing a lot from Sean and me about Richard, and literally, we have never endorsed any financial software until now.
	Why?
	Well, because some of his customers say he's created lightning in the bottle.
	So go see for yourself.
	Go to Hannity.com, retirement.
	That's Hannity.com forward slash retirement.
	All right, as we roll along, deep state.
	This is getting interesting and more interesting by the hour.
	It's, I think all of the noise over what's happening with Jerry Nadler and the testimony of the Attorney General Barr in 206 years, we've never had the House Judiciary Committee members not question witnesses or people that come before their committee.
	It's never happened.
	And now, you know, a guy like Nadler that didn't want a single word of the star report out, just a phony hypocrite that he is, well, you know, and just, you know, apoplectic about the whole thing.
	Well, now they're saying, by the way, the White House, after never invoking executive privilege, after being the most cooperative with the Mueller investigation, allowing every White House employee, including the White House counsel, to go before Mueller's committee, 30 hours, Don McGahn, the White House counsel.
	That's unheard of.
	And then 1.45 million documents, questions answered by the president, unprecedented cooperation.
	Every other administration invokes executive privilege.
	Now they're saying, stop, enough is enough.
	This now becomes about presidential harassment.
	And for all the people that have to then get their lawyers signed up again and pay $1,000 an hour before they go and answer the same question, the questions they've answered these committees before and the same questions they answered before Mueller's witch hunt team should not be forced to pay even more money to be asked the same dumb questions.
	And Barr, frankly, should wear Nadler's contempt citation.
	That's a badge of honor because they're too scared to debate or question them themselves.
	They're too dumb.
	Hey guys, this is Linda, executive producer for the Sean Hannity Show.
	You might also know me as Sean's daily sparring partner now that he's a ninja, of course.
	Well, today I'm here to tell you about how to fight for your retirement, and that's right, fight.
	There's a huge crisis in America.
	Millions of people are retiring without enough money.
	And don't make that you.
	We have one of the brightest financial minds to help you make sure your investments for your future retirement are on the right track.
	And I'm talking about Dr. Richard Smith, the founder of Tradesmith.
	His mission is to help Americans be more financially literate, make better investment decisions, and avoid the catastrophic mistakes that could cause your retirement to be a disaster.
	Thousands of people trust Dr. Smith's investment tools to track over $20 billion in the stock market.
	And I'm telling you, you should too.
	When we're talking about retirement, you're in a financial fight for your future.
	Do yourself a serious favor, folks.
	Register right now for Dr. Smith's special online event, The Great Retirement Reset.
	Go to Hannity.com forward slash retirement.
	That's Hannity.com forward slash retirement.
	Eliminate the stress and worry of investing in the stock market.
	Register now at Hannity.com forward slash retirement.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
	Look, I'm more torn on the issue of Mueller testifying, and the White House is saying enough is enough.
	Now, remember, Mueller worked for the Department.
	Well, he worked for the executive branch because the Department of Justice is the executive branch.
	And so he actually, his boss in the end, ended up being the Attorney General Barr.
	And you're reading these reports.
	Mueller is about, you know, negotiating.
	How come he gets to negotiate the rules of testifying when everybody else is told what the rules are?
	I mean, it's kind of just obvious hypocrisy.
	I don't think this would be particularly easy for Robert Mueller in the slam dunk or the position that he wants to be put in at this time.
	Because while the Democrats are going to try and dig into the political 200 pages, it was a political document that basically said nothing.
	I mean, and even Rod Rosenstein got mad over this and was very outspoken in saying if you either have it or you don't have it when you're involved in the report of anybody when it comes to the deep state, Rosenstein had a few choice words for the media, FBI leakers, and the Obama administration.
	He was speaking at a dinner.
	He was honored by the Armenian Bar Association.
	Rosenstein defended his handling of the probe, recalling how he had promised to, quote, do it right during a Senate confirmation hearing, take it to the appropriate conclusion.
	And this is what Rod Rosenstein said, which is the truth.
	It's not our job to render conclusive factual findings.
	We just decide whether it is appropriate to file criminal charges.
	And he said a senator told him that you're going to be in charge of the Russia investigation.
	I want you to look me in the eye and tell me you'll do it right and you'll take it to its conclusion and you'll report your results to the American people.
	And Rosenstein agreed to the first two things, the senator asked.
	And then he explained, I did not promise to report all results to the public because grand jury investigations are ex parte proceedings.
	It's not our job to render conclusive factual findings.
	We just decide whether or not it is appropriate to file criminal charges, which he said no.
	And in most cases, after an investigation, and even if it's close, even if it's a close call, sometimes for people it is.
	You know, you had, well, I think a group of those protecting Hillary Clinton, obviously that whole thing was rigged from the beginning, her investigation.
	There's never been a bigger slam-dunk case on violation of the Espionage Act or obstruction of justice than Hillary Clinton's.
	And the fact that the media ignores it, they only care about getting Trump on obstruction.
	They don't care about Hillary's obstruction.
	Far bigger case with her, as I have said many times.
	But, you know, he said there were critical decisions about the investigation that had to be made before he got there.
	The previous administration chose not to publicize the full story about the Russian computer hackers and social media trolls and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America.
	Talking about the Obama administration, he added the FBI disclosed classified evidence about the investigation to ranking legislators and their staffs and lawmakers and their staffers, and then some selectively leaked details to the news media.
	He then reminded his audience that the then FBI director James Comey announced during a congressional hearing that there was a counterintelligence investigation that might result in criminal charges.
	And then the former FBI director alleged that the president pressured him to close the investigation and the president denied that the conversation occurred, he continued.
	So what happened?
	Because then Attorney General Sessions chose to recuse himself.
	Now, Rosenstein was left with the job of overseeing it to its conclusion.
	As acting Attorney General, it was my responsibility to make sure the Department of Justice would do what the American people pay us to do, conduct an independent investigation and complete it expeditiously.
	And the bottom line is that there was overwhelming evidence.
	Russian operatives had hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens.
	And that was only the tip of the iceberg of the comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, he continued, which I'm going to comment on in a second.
	Now that the special counsel's investigation is over, he said our nation is safer.
	Elections are more secure.
	Citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence schemes.
	But note, not everybody was happy with my decision, in case you didn't notice, because he said it outright.
	It's not our job to render conclusive factual findings.
	We've got to decide whether it's appropriate to file criminal charges.
	And by the way, there was no consideration as to the Department of Justice policy or constitutional question about indicting a city president.
	That was never brought up.
	But the full point of this is, you know, in most criminal cases, they don't have the level of an indictment, then it's over.
	It's done.
	And in this case, the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Office of Legal, it's done.
	Now, we never had a real investigation into Hillary's email server with top secret classified information on it.
	If we did, I'm pretty sure she'd be indicted by most, if not all.
	If her name was not Hillary Clinton, she would have been indicted, charged with felonies involving the Espionage Act, mishandling of classified top secret information, and then she would have been charged and convicted.
	There's no doubt of the conviction part of this as it relates to obstruction of justice because there was intent, and the intent was obvious, and that was to destroy the evidence.
	Nobody else is going to delete 33,000 emails and clean your hard drive with bleach bit and bust up devices with hammers and take out SIM cards.
	The intent was obvious, destroy the evidence of the underlying crime.
	That was the intent.
	And for all these people, I keep saying they're a bunch of hypocrites.
	They are so phony.
	I believe, but I don't believe, I don't believe in talking about believing in a Democrat being charged with violent rape accusations and violent sexual assault accusations.
	You know, Paul Sperry, you know, back to Mueller and in him, whether he goes before Congress or not, and we might have, again, more executive privilege exercised.
	God, why should they?
	At this point, because it's a never-ending fishing expedition.
	I mean, the New York Times, going back 30, way over 30 years, oh, we found some information from some of Trump's taxes.
	Well, by the way, Hillary was just begging China to release it.
	Did she collude with China?
	Because that was the accusation.
	I hope Putin's listening.
	Same exact thing.
	What's the difference?
	Anyway, so they're there.
	And what do you find out?
	Okay, everything we've already known about Donald Trump.
	That, yeah, the casino business in New Jersey, Atlantic City, went in the sewer and people lost a fortune along with him.
	And then the real estate decline in New York.
	He writes about it.
	Art of the comeback.
	Then he's fighting with banks to stay afloat and stay alive.
	And the fact is, he won.
	And he ended up keeping the doors open, the Trump organization open.
	And he's still a billionaire.
	The end of the story means something to this.
	Okay.
	Most businesses, you know, I think in the restaurant business, I know so many people that want to be in the restaurant business.
	I'm like, don't do it.
	I've been in, I worked in restaurants 10 years.
	Don't do it.
	Why?
	I just, I want to, we cook the best food.
	Are it best food?
	Great.
	Now, to open that, to open a restaurant, think about it.
	You now have to build out an expensive kitchen with commercial-grade cooking, et cetera.
	You got to build all the fire code safety requirements in two.
	That's not cheap.
	Then you got to pay either rent or whatever.
	You got to buy some property and get a location.
	That's not cheap.
	Then you got to build a bar.
	Then you got to build a dining room.
	Then you got to build another dining room.
	Then you got to build a nice bar.
	And, you know, on and on and on.
	Then you got to hire, let's see, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, busboys, a chef that can cook.
	And, okay.
	And let's say you have an opening night, you do really well, and then you're going to pay your light bill, your rent, or your mortgage payment.
	And how many, how much is somebody going to pay for a cheeseburger?
	How much is somebody going to pay for a steak?
	How much is somebody going to pay for, you know, a fresh fish?
	And then you got to figure out how much fish to buy before the fish goes bad and you can't serve it to your customers.
	I mean, and then you got to pay for all of this.
	And let's say you pay $6 per fish.
	You can charge $18 per fish.
	All right.
	How much are you paying all your employees to make the fish, deliver the fish, clean up the fish when it's all done?
	It's not easy.
	A lot of businesses go under.
	I'm telling you, I've been in business myself.
	It's a lot scarier than you'd think.
	Back to Mueller, though.
	Paul Sperry says, Real Clear Investigations, that, you know, an excellent reputation for meticulous journalism.
	He tweeted out last night that certain false claims contained in the Mueller report, which were made by whoever authored the report, have now attracted the attention of congressional investigators.
	So if Mueller wants to answer the question, when did he know that there was no coordination or collusion with Russia and why didn't he shut down the investigation then?
	Because John Dowd, Trump's earlier attorney, said, well, Mueller had told him over a year prior that that had happened.
	Then we got the question of how is it possible that why did you hire this group of only Democratic donors?
	Do you think it's fair to put together a special counsel that has as one of its investigating members Hillary Clinton's former attorney?
	Do you think it's fair to hire your pit bull, Andrew Weissman, who attended Hillary's victory party, and the same guy that got tens of thousands of workers at Enron Accounting fired and then lost in the Supreme Court 9-0, a guy that put four Maryland's executives in jail for a year, that got overturned by the Fifth Circuit?
	This is your main guy.
	Sidney Powell writes that this individual had once withheld exculpatory evidence in a case.
	Why would you only hire Democratic donors?
	And then I'd like to know, my own personal self, I'd like to know about Mueller specifically.
	How did you ignore the dirty Russian dossier when you had time to look into FARA violations and taxi medallion issues and loan applications and the Ukraine from years and years and years gone by and not look at the dirty dossier that was at the heart of the 2016 election, which even the New York Times is now saying was Russian disinformation.
	I'd like to know.
	I think I'd want to hear from Mueller.
	The person I like grilling him is somebody like Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows and maybe Congressman Ratcliffe.
	You know, you got Gerald Nadler, the guy that didn't want the Star Report.
	Star Report had 11 specific felony crimes committed by Bill Clinton.
	Listed.
	Quite different circumstance.
	And he didn't even want that report released.
	And that was the law at the time, the independent counsel law.
	You know, Barr, you know, you got voting to slap Barr with a contempt citation today.
	Well, like that's going to deter Barr.
	You're going to be able to change a 206-year rule that allows your lawyers to question the Attorney General of the United States because you guys are too chicken and too dumb to actually do it.
	They can write your first question and they can write questions for everybody on your committee, but you've got to ask it.
	And the problem for most of them is when Barr gives an intelligent constitutional legal answer, they're not going to know what to say next.
	Frankly, if I'm Barr, I'd wear that as a badge of honor.
	You know, because a contempt citation from partisan pariahs, piranhas out there, whatever, you know, they're out there for blood and anything.
	And there's nothing that Barr is going to say that they're going to ever want to listen to.
	The only reason they want it and they're in a full-blown meltdown is because they know the Democratic Party is going to be discredited for all time by what Bill Barr is now going to discover.
	So they're trying to destroy him first.
	You know, they don't care about illegal surveillance.
	They don't care about Russian interference.
	They don't care about the dirty dossier.
	They don't care about obstruction and they don't care about collusion.
	Because if they did, they'd be looking into all of those issues as it involves their friend, Hillary Clinton.
	This is selective moral outrage again.
	And Nadler rejected the White House offer to provide a less redacted version of the Mueller report.
	Well, there was a less redacted version with only 0.1% removed.
	Only three people went to see it.
	He could have gone over and seen it.
	I guess he's too lazy going to dinner or out with friends drinking.
	I don't know what they do.
	And Pelosi now suggests Trump won't accept the results of the next election, or she won't accept the results of the next election if Trump wins.
	Okay.
	Jails will be overcrowded if we start arresting Trump officials because they were thinking about maybe having the sergeant-at-arms put the Attorney General in handcuffs.
	This is how insane these people are.
	This is how much they've lost it.
	All of them.
	They can't handle what has happened here.
	And they're just doubling down on stupid.
	You know, and this whole New York Times tax return.
	Oh, yeah, everybody in Atlantic City, they all lost money big time.
	And I would remind the members that the Mueller report is no ordinary run-of-the-mill document.
	It details significant misconduct involving the president, including his campaign's willingness and eagerness to accept help from a hostile foreign government, numerous misstatements, if not outright lies concerning those acts, and 11 separate incidents of obstructive behavior by the president that more than 700 former prosecutors have told us warrant criminal indictment.
	If Congress is not entitled to the full unredacted Mueller report, one must wonder what document we would be entitled to.
	Our exhaustive negotiations with the Department of Justice have unfortunately left us back where we began, with unprecedented obstruction by the administration that has now announced its intention to block all attempts at congressional oversight of the executive branch.
	It is our constitutional duty to respond.
	Let me be clear.
	The information we are requesting is entirely within our legal rights to receive and is no different from what has been provided to Congress on numerous occasions going back nearly a century.
	But no matter the fact that the law and history clearly support the release to Congress of this kind of information, the Trump administration has taken obstruction of Congress to new heights.
	Unauthorized surveillance and political surveillance.
	And of course, spying did occur, as if we're surprised at this particular point.
	And it continues to unravel on an hourly, daily basis about all of this.
	Joining us now, we have investigative reporter John Solomon and Executive Vice President of the Hill that he is, Greg Jarrett, number one New York Times best author, The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
	John, your big breaking story is Steele's stunning pre-FISA confession.
	Informant needed Trump dirt before the election.
	We had a timeline, and we have State Department, apparently, connections and meetings and other things that we didn't know before.
	That's absolutely right.
	In fact, these documents, according to Devin Nunez, were kept from the House Intelligence Committee.
	Senate and House Judiciary Committees tell me they also never got these documents.
	So for two and a half years, a significant communique with the central FBI witness in the Russia case was kept from Congress.
	And there may have been a good reason.
	And here's why.
	It shows, very overtly, Steele told the State Department that he had a client who needed to get all the dirt on Trump out by the election day.
	In other words, his mission wasn't an intelligence operative.
	It wasn't an FBI informant.
	It was a political hack job.
	And he was very overt about it.
	It's the opening statement that the State Department woman wrote in her notes about his intentions.
	And it was so important she literally opened her notes saying it.
	If the State Department could figure that out within a few minutes with Christopher Steele, an hour-long meeting, you would think the FBI could have figured that out before they used him to justify the FISA, before they used his uncorroborated dossier as the primary evidence, and before they vouched for his credibility, claiming under oath they had no derogatory information about Christopher Steele.
	I'm going to be able to report tomorrow more documents that have now been discovered belatedly show that the government did have derogatory information.
	Specifically, Christopher Steele was in violation of his FBI informant agreement before the FISA warrant was issued.
	And he may also have had some of his information overtly debunked, meaning it was proven false before the FISA.
	So rather than the FISA relying on an unverified dossier, we are going to be able to show tomorrow that part of his dossier and information was actually debunked before it was used in the FISA warrant.
	That's how bad these belatedly discovered documents portray the FBI.
	Let's go into a little more detail.
	The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State you're talking about, a woman named Kathleen Kavalek's written account.
	This happened October 11th, about a week before or so, 10 days before the actual FISA application went in to spy on Carter Page and thus the Trump campaign.
	Anyway, this was a meeting with Christopher Steele himself, and, you know, who was funded by Hillary Clinton.
	And she makes a confession in all of this that, in fact, that this needs to be released because I've got to get it out before the election.
	I've got to get this dirt out on Donald Trump.
	And basically, you know, 10 days before the FBI used the now discredited dossier.
	Now, we also have closed-door testimony that I think corroborates this, although in many ways, you're right.
	This is the first direct evidence that we have.
	But Bruce Orr's recollection and his testimony behind closed doors confirm the same.
	And that even brings us back a little earlier that Bruce Orr told all the people in the upper echelon of the State Department, the FBI, and for whatever reason, even Mueller's pit bull, Andrew Weissman, was briefed on this as well, that the dossier was unverified, paid for by Hillary Clinton, and created by a guy, Christopher Steele, that absolutely loathed and hated Donald Trump.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	And so we had that body of evidence from the handwritten notes and testimony of Bruce Orr.
	And now this adds a new element, which was there was a specific deadline by which Christopher Steele had to get the information out.
	And it explains why he ultimately violated his agreement and went to the news media.
	We now know belatedly he leaked stories, some or one, which the FBI then later used as a justification, as independent evidence of the Christian Steele.
	Are these the leaks to Issakoff or David Korn or the Washington Post?
	Yeah, Issakoff and Korn are the two, and they use Issakoff as a corroborating piece of evidence when, in fact, it was the same piece of evidence.
	The same sourced evidence, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	So very significant issue here.
	But what's really important now is how much more did they know was wrong with this.
	So if we can now show, there's not an iota of doubt that the FBI knew and the government knew that this guy had a political motive and an election deadline.
	What else was wrong in his dossier before they went to the court?
	The status has always been it was unverified, right?
	I think we're going to know tomorrow for the first time that there was specific information disproven before the dossier was used and a specific violation revealed by before Steele's dossier was in.
	So Steele committed a violation of his informant agreement before he went.
	And quite frankly, most of the people I'm talking to today say the mere fact he went to the State Department was a violation of the FBI agreement.
	You're not supposed to go tell anyone what you're working on or release any of that evidence.
	So that's a very, big, important point.
	Now, a big development happened since I was on your show last night, Sean.
	Remember, the document was almost entirely redacted except for that tantalizing line.
	Well, today the FBI has agreed to unredact the large portions of this document.
	So we're going to get to see a lot more of it tomorrow.
	That's a big development.
	Remember, this document was unclassified.
	And then a few days ago, the FBI decided to suddenly retroactively declare it was classified and keep us from reading the whole document.
	Tomorrow, you'll be able to see.
	And this is what document in particular?
	Kathleen Kavalik's notes.
	Yeah, you should be able to see it.
	And what else was that?
	It sort of was interesting, Greg Jarrett, too, because it's similar to the Freedom of Information Act request that was put in by Judicial Watch.
	And we start reading the reaction of the FBI to the Hillary Clinton email server scandal when they only tested 40 emails.
	And out of the 40, 40, I'm sorry, out of the 44 were top secret classified.
	And they were like, oh, my God, this is going to have profound implications on American foreign policy and potentially hurt sources and methods.
	What is your reaction to Steele's pre-FISA confession that this is all political?
	And we now know a lot of the dossier was debunked before it was used in the application.
	I learned for the first time that on top of a FISA warrant, apparently, is the word verified.
	In other words, what is below is verified to be true.
	Oh, yeah, there's a verification certification.
	And on the very top of the front page, it says verified.
	So incredible, groundbreaking, and important discovery by John Solomon as his usual reporting.
	This is really key.
	You know, we know that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC were paying for the phony Russian Steele dossier against Trump, but they wanted their money's worth.
	And so here you see it's not just Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele trying to get the media to do stories to damage Trump before the election, but now it appears that pressure was being applied to others in government.
	And Kathleen Kavali Act's Cavalik's written account is really important.
	It wasn't just unverified information used to lie to a court to spy, but rather debunked information.
	Okay, then let's go through the legal aspect of this.
	You know, I say it my own way, and that is that, look, I just happen to know judges.
	It's really funny.
	I met Judge Judy one day, and I asked her, you know, when people are not respectful to the bench, how do you react to that?
	You should have seen her face.
	It was like a visceral reaction.
	And it's basically you show courts and court judges the respect they've earned and deserved.
	And that would be, yes, Your Honor.
	No, Your Honor.
	Yes, sir.
	No, sir.
	Yes, ma'am, no, ma'am.
	And anything short of that is you better watch out.
	The first time I appeared in front of a federal judge as a defense attorney scared the hell out of me because the judge was tough.
	He wanted the truth.
	He didn't want anything varnished in any way.
	And, you know, it sort of put the fear of God in you.
	Well, that would be the same with the FISA court.
	I suspect they have.
	All right, I want you to be able to.
	Let me come back.
	I want you to tell us the crimes, though, that are in play here now that we know a lot of the information was debunked and also political and was not part and became such a big part of the application process in FISA, okay?
	And as we continue, John Solomon is with us.
	A new investigative report out in the Hill about Christopher Steele and the stunning pre-FISA confession that the informant needed Trump Dirt before the election.
	That makes it political, number one, and number two, he was trying to get all the help that he can get.
	Greg Jarrett is an attorney and, of course, the author of the best-selling book, The Russia Hoax.
	All right, so we have all this information.
	I want to look on the legal side of John's report, Greg Jarrett, and that is that now we know that there was a fraud perpetrated on the court, and it had to be premeditated, knowing what we now know about John's report, knowing that Christopher Steele himself didn't stand by his own dossier.
	That's right.
	James Comey, the FBI director in October of 2016, along with Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, were the two who signed off on that 1st October 2016 FISA warrant.
	It appears that they deceived the court and concealed evidence, and that is a fraud on the court, and it's several other felonies.
	Even if after the filing date they discover new evidence that casts a new light on the representations they made to the court, they are duty-bound under the law to immediately alert the FISA judge who signed off on the warrant to spy, because that changes the circumstances.
	Why have we not heard from the FISA judges at this point?
	I know that Lindsey Graham said he's going to go to John Roberts, who appoints FISA judges.
	The FISA judges have, I believe, met with Horowitz, the Inspector General, and turned over the evidence they have and the suspicions they have, the misrepresentations that were made.
	And I suspect that will be a very pivotal part of the Inspector General's report, which will be coming out very soon.
	Yeah.
	And let's go a little bit into what you're coming out with tomorrow.
	Is this more evidence?
	For example, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Kathleen Kavalek, you know, her written account about Christopher Steele going to the State Department.
	Is it more State Department contacts or other contacts in the government that Steele had, John Solomon?
	It is State Department, more State Department documents, but also her notification to the intelligence community of what her concerns were.
	And I think when we're done tomorrow or next week, much like Greg's book predicted and had right months and months ago, footnote 8 of page 15 of the FISA warrant, the original FISA warrant dated October 21st, 2016, will be one of the most important pieces of evidence there.
	It says the FBI, under oath, said that this Christopher Steele's, quote, reporting has been corroborated.
	And two, he's been deemed to be reliable.
	And three, quote, the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information concerning Mr. Steele.
	Those three statements are likely to have been proved, will be likely to be proven false when these newspapers are not.
	And the penalty for that?
	Greg Jarrett?
	Well, it's depending upon the felony.
	It's up to 10 years, could be longer.
	You've got multiple felonies.
	Do you see anybody being involved in this conspiracy to commit fraud on the court, getting away with it?
	I don't see how.
	I mean, look, that footnote is on page 159 of my book, and now in light of what we know, and it's clear they were lying to the court.
	All right, thank you, Greg.
	You have that right.
	You really did.
	Thank you.
	Well, great work by both of you.
	John Solomon, look forward to your report tomorrow.
	Greg Jarrett, thank you for your great analysis, as always.
	All right, when we come back, I know we haven't hit the phones.
	We'll hit the phones.
	Wide open telephones, 800-941.
	Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
	Bill O'Reilly comes to join us at the top of the next hour.
	He's wrapping up a book about Donald Trump.
	We'll talk to him about that and more on the media and how wrong they've been and much, much more.
	800-941, Sean, your calls are coming up next.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
	Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza, we're going to get to the busy phones we have here as I watched yet another box of Sherry's berries being eaten by Linda.
	What are the pink, shimmering glitters?
	Shimmer Sugar.
	Shimmer Sugar.
	Is that what it is?
	Shimmer Sugar.
	Oh, it's a great Mother's Day gift.
	What are you doing for your?
	Listen, I know Linda's mom.
	What are you doing for your mom on Mother's Day?
	We're actually having a barbecue at my house.
	My mom's a very special lady.
	I like her.
	She sure is.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	I'm a pretty big fan.
	Well, your mom's a nurse.
	You know what's funny, though?
	I asked you once, do you tell your mom everything?
	You're like, oh, yeah, everything.
	Sure.
	I mean, like, everything.
	I'm actually very, very lucky.
	I'm best friends with my mom.
	You know, a lot of people don't have that relationship.
	Well, I don't think you should be best friends with your mom or dad until you're older.
	Oh, no.
	I've loved her forever.
	No, it doesn't mean you didn't love her, but you can't be a kid's best friend.
	You got to be dad.
	You got to be mom.
	And then when they grow up, then you can be their best friend.
	Yeah, but she was one of those people, you know, she was able to.
	Like, you'd go on a date, and whatever happened on that date, you would tell them.
	You're a middle of a sentence.
	Okay.
	Wait a minute.
	You'd go on a date.
	And when you got home, it wasn't a loud date.
	When you would go out on a date, you would tell your mom everything.
	I did.
	Anything that happened, you'd tell her everything.
	I did.
	Wow.
	That's close.
	For sure.
	You don't want that same relationship with MK.
	That's either close or you were a nun, one or the other.
	I pretty much was a nun because my father always told me growing up, and this might be too much information for our audience, but I'll share it with you.
	My father always said, Go ahead.
	I'll know.
	I just was like, Yeah, I think I'm just going to wait.
	I'm just going to wait forever.
	I'm not going to do anything.
	And I didn't.
	I didn't do anything.
	I think I got to steal that line.
	Yeah.
	Considering prom is coming up and driving me nuts.
	It's scary.
	It's really scary.
	You know, the problem with kids, and this is not a diss on kids.
	I like, I love kids.
	But if you're a male and you're 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, your brain is not fully formed.
	That is a medical fact.
	And you just want that brain to form and fill in a little bit before the, you know, maybe they're ready to make better decisions.
	Yeah, I would say that I'm going to give Liam until he's about 30.
	And if by 30.
	You're not going to give Liam anything.
	You think you're going to give Liam.
	Liam is going to dictate what's going to happen because I can see it already.
	All right.
	I want everybody else in that other room there to put on their microphones and tell me if this is true or not true.
	The typical conversation with Linda and our three-year-old kid goes, Liam, Liam, Liam.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	What did you have a better story for the team?
	Hold on.
	T-Mo and I all had a conversation with Lawrence.
	What did mommy say?
	Get your money shoes off the couch.
	Get your one, two.
	What did mommy say?
	What happens if mommy gets the three?
	Okay, Liam, you know what's going to happen.
	One, two, and he doesn't move.
	And it's like, what did mommy say?
	What is the punishment?
	You never get to three.
	I've never heard three come out of your mouth ever.
	He's just two.
	And he doesn't budge after two, and then you start over again.
	First of all, if he listens to that conversation, one, two.
	What did mommy say?
	Then you go back and explain it again.
	They essentially use these same tactics on you.
	That's probably why you find it so irritating.
	No, I find it amusing.
	The whole thing is amusing.
	All right, what were you going to say?
	So last week, in a true Mother's Day, true, not Mother's Day, but mom interaction with my son, I had to talk to him.
	He needed to talk to me during the day in the middle of the show.
	And I said, all right, I'll FaceTime with you real quick.
	So I'm FaceTiming with him, and he's on the potty because he's potty trained now, but he's very excited when he makes number two.
	So the whole team got to hear Liam make his number two and announce it.
	And he goes, mommy, home poop.
	It's a big one.
	And everybody in the studio, we all just died laughing.
	Even Jason thought it was funny.
	No, that's very funny.
	All right.
	Well, we got to send, will you do me a favor, send mom for me two big boxes of Sherry's berries because I know mom likes them a lot too, because I think you might have shared only one with her because you don't, you hoard all of the Sherry's berries that they send into us and get the ones with the shimmering sugar that she likes, okay?
	I will, boss.
	I know she's.
	She put it on my credit card.
	You know how to do that.
	I do.
	I know how to use that credit card.
	Thank you.
	John in Atlanta News Talk WSB.
	What's up, John?
	How are you?
	Glad you called, sir.
	Hey, good.
	It's fun to listen to you guys banter back and forth.
	After 34 years in private practice, I have a universal truth that I've learned that good parenting yields good kids.
	Doesn't matter on the age.
	I've just watched that forever.
	But actually, I was calling in about President Trump pardoning Lieutenant Bihenna, which I think was long overdue.
	It was a very gracious and smart move.
	My big question as a military guy all those years ago is who ran the GOAT rodeo that wound up putting this guy in jail in spite of all the rest of the military people saying you don't have the facts.
	He shouldn't be there in the first place.
	I can't answer the question, but I did say this on radio yesterday and last night on TV.
	There's a long list now of military people.
	We've talked about the case of Clint Lawrence.
	He still has a 30-year sentence, and we have new evidence in his case, and nobody seems to want to hear about it.
	We talked about Christian Saussier.
	I mean, he was the one that took the six pictures inside the submarine because he was so proud of where he worked.
	He didn't share it with anybody.
	He didn't put it online anywhere, and it was of no security danger to the U.S.
	He, you know, Hillary gets off scot-free.
	He went to jail a year.
	Now, in the case of Michael, he went to Leavenworth for five years.
	And, you know, this guy, I mean, it's so easy, I guess, to sit in the comfort of our homes or churches or workplaces or parks and just sit there.
	Yeah, well, maybe he didn't make the right decision.
	But, you know, it turns out that he had a witness that said that this particular al-Qaeda terrorist tried to get his gun and he had to defend himself.
	I don't know why.
	And then they withheld exculpatory evidence.
	The prosecution did.
	And how anyone can do that, how we would ever treat an American soldier whose life is on the line for us that way and not give him every due process and every due consideration, you know, it shocks the conscience.
	And they ended up throwing this guy, wasting five years of his life.
	And I'm glad the president pardoned him, but I want to go through all of those military cases one by one and put them all under review.
	I totally agree.
	Now that he's free and the facts are coming out, you know, it really it is.
	Who ran this COAT rodeo that put him in jail?
	And if they ignored facts and did this to this soldier, time to have a little chat if they did find out and make them accountable.
	They came up with a forensic expert who was hired by the prosecution against Michael.
	And the forensic expert, you know, actually gave a demonstration to the prosecution.
	Unfortunately for them, it corroborated Michael's story.
	And not only did they not tell the defense, then they never called him as a witness and sent him home.
	I mean, it's pretty outrageous.
	You've got to love the justice system.
	You shake your head, bud.
	Listen, I never thought, I'll give you an example.
	There's this project that's run by famed attorney from the OJ case, Barry Scheck.
	It's called the Innocence Project.
	I have always, my entire career, been a supporter of the death penalty.
	They have found so many instances with the advancement of DNA collection where all of these people have been either given life sentences or death sentences.
	And then years later, because DNA techniques have grown and become so far more sophisticated, where we find out innocent people are on death row or innocent people have been given life sentences.
	And now people that have served 20 years in jail, we find out they were innocent the whole time.
	And the magnitude and the number of mistakes made scares the hell out of me.
	And frankly, I'll support the death penalty, but you've got to have irrefutable evidence, something like a videotape.
	Otherwise, it's got to be life in jail.
	And these techniques are getting better every day.
	Just watch forensic files any one night, and you can see what they're able to do with these new techniques to extract DNA and fibers.
	And I mean, it's pretty amazing work.
	It's great scientific work if you like it.
	Anyway, John, thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	Peter, Illinois, next, Sean Hannity Show.
	What's up, Peter?
	Hey, Sean.
	How you doing?
	Hey, I just want to doing great.
	I just want to know when the time comes for the indictments to start coming, because they should be coming soon.
	You know, all the stuff with Nadler and trying to hold Barr in contempt is just a way to say, well, he's not worthy and we don't believe these charges and they're coming out.
	I want to know which one of the weasels out of Strzzok and Paige and these guys is going to flip first and spill the beams on everybody else.
	I think that's a good point.
	Which one?
	I don't know who's going to flip first, but I know there's a lot of flipping going on.
	What's happening, and we're only getting that insight.
	You're very smart.
	When these guys go behind closed doors, Nellie Orr, Bruce Orr, Peter Strzok, Baker, Paige, what we're finding is the formation of a circular firing squad.
	I mean, Strzok and Paige have both said in their own way that after nine months of the FBI investigating Trump-Russia collusion, just before handing it off to Robert Mueller, there was not one shred of evidence, nine-month investigation.
	They've also said that as it relates to the Hillary Clinton investigation into the illegal use of the server with top secret and classified information on it, they've basically saying the whole fix was in, except that those decisions were being made by the attorney general at the time, Loretta Lynch.
	Then you got James Baker saying that he was recommending they indict Hillary Clinton.
	So a lot was happening behind the scenes and a lot of disagreement.
	I got a report from a very good source of mine.
	I haven't been able to confirm it with another witness, but somebody told me that Andrew McCabe was out in Salt Lake City last week.
	Now, what are the odds that Andrew McCabe is out in Salt Lake City, except that he's probably meeting.
	We know there's been a criminal referral as it relates to him leaking.
	So that would then put him, in my view, just a guess, a total guess, in the offices of John Hoover.
	Well, that would probably mean that he is, you know, singing like a little bird in the hopes that he'll get a lower sentence or no indictment at all.
	So I think you're going to see a lot of that happening.
	And the only difference is now they're only catching up to where we've been for two years now.
	So it's going to take a while, but as you can tell from John Solomon's report this hour, it's happening and it's going to happen more expeditiously, especially because the Pfizer report in particular and the leaking report, those have been worked on for some time.
	My one source that knows a little bit about the IG and the IG report said to me, it's going to be devastating.
	But I don't know.
	I mean, I don't like to predict these things.
	I just have sources and we do our digging and we make our calls.
	And, you know, I'm trying to piece together a lot of times what's coming up next.
	As they say in my business, I'm going to give you the whole load today.
	Romney wants to let the, he said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules.
	Unchain Wall Street.
	They're going to put you all back in chains.
	Think about what happened out in where Gabby Difford, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.
	Well, I say they're going to start to see unemployment grow this spring.
	It's going to take employment, girl.
	I'm sorry.
	Number one job facing the middle class.
	And it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word.
	Jobs.
	J-O-B-S jobs.
	See, I went to the big guys for the money.
	I was ready to prostitute myself in the manner in which I talk about it.
	Chuck Graham, state senator's here.
	Chuck, stand up, Chuck.
	Let him see you.
	Oh, God love you.
	What am I talking about?
	I tell you what, you're making everybody else stand up, though, pal.
	Now is the time to heed the timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt.
	Speak softly and carry a big stick.
	End of quote.
	I promise you, the president has a big stick.
	I promise you.
	Now, I'm like the token black or the token woman.
	I was the token young person.
	Speaking of dignity, it means we have to protect, which is not happening now, the single most important right you have as an American, the right to vote, the right to vote.
	And folks, last year, 24 states introduced or enacted at least 70 bills to curtail the right to vote.
	And guess what?
	Mostly directed at, quote, people of color.
	You see it.
	We got Jim Crow sneaking back in.
	No, I mean it.
	It's all why?
	Why?
	Because they know.
	You saw it in North Carolina.
	You saw what happened in Georgia.
	You saw what happened in Florida.
	Why?
	Because you know, if everybody has an equal right to vote, guess what?
	They lose.
	They lose.
	All right, there it is.
	And that's not even touching the surface as it relates to the gaffe machine that is Joe Biden.
	Of course, he was saying, well, Margaret Thatcher told me about Trump.
	Like, okay, now he's talking to the dead.
	800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	Joining us now, Bill O'Reilly, All ThingsO'Reilly, is on billo'reilly.com, including the book that he's now writing about Donald Trump called The United States of Trump and how the president really sees America.
	That's, I guess, scheduled for a fall release, correct?
	Yeah, it looks like the 24th of September.
	We will have it in the bookstores for everybody.
	How are you doing, O'Reilly?
	Now you started this little radio show, and you're doing like a Paul Harvey type of thing, right?
	Yeah, we're doing a little radio thing every day, a 15-minute thing that we took over from the Paul Harvey franchise called the O'Reilly update.
	Are you doing the rest of the story and everything?
	Have you added the rest of the story?
	I love the rest of the story.
	I thought that was one of the best features.
	And I have to admit, I'm stealing it from Harvey.
	I mean, I admit.
	You're not stealing it.
	I think you're working with the Harvey family.
	If they didn't give you permission, you wouldn't be able to do it.
	So you're not stealing it.
	It's not identical to that.
	I mean, legally speaking.
	But instead of the rest of the story, I'm calling it the O'Reilly update, What You Might Not Know.
	I like that.
	And that's the third block.
	I do a commentary in the second block and hard news in the first block.
	But I enjoyed your Biden montage coming in, and I just am looking forward to the debate between Trump and Biden.
	You'd think it's Biden.
	I said this, and you know I said this, six months ago.
	Okay.
	The others don't have any vehicle to get their name known at the level that you would have to win against Donald Trump.
	So even though many in the Democratic establishment don't particularly like Biden because of a variety of reasons, they know that if you run a Corey Booker or a Mayor Pete or they're not going to be able to get known because the media now is fixated on Trump.
	He sucks all the air out of the room.
	And, you know, his opponent, as much as they want to prop people up, all right, it's still going to go back to Trump.
	Everything is Trump.
	So Mayor Pete can run around and tell everybody how clever he is.
	But if you do a survey, 90% of the voting public doesn't know who he is.
	So therefore, Biden is going to be the guy, I believe, unless something happens.
	And of course, that's always a possibility.
	And, you know, he's a guy that could say anything at any time, just like the president.
	So these guys going after each other is going to be quite amusing.
	You see, I think there's a good chance it's Biden, too.
	I don't like to make early, early, early predictions because I do believe that Biden's going to have to at least pretend to go even more left than he really is, although he's a pretty, you know, left-wing guy in terms of the way his governance, especially under Obama.
	Here are his biggest problems to me, and nobody talks about it.
	As we now begin the process and we will be taking in an avalanche of information about how bad this abuse of power, rigging Hillary's investigation, trying to steal an election, spying on the opposition party candidates, everything with Russia, Russia, and everything that has gone wrong with it.
	It all happened on Biden-Obama's watch.
	So you're going to have this drip, drip, drip now, probably leading to significant indictments of high-level officials in the Biden-Obama administration.
	That will be on them.
	And if we vote peace and prosperity, that's a problem because after eight years, Obama Biden gave us 13 million more Americans on food stamps, 8 million more in poverty, lowest labor participation rate since the 70s, worst recovery in eight years since the 40s, lowest home ownership rate in 51 years.
	They were the only administration in history never to reach 3% GDP growth in any one of their eight years of service, and they accumulated more debt than every other president before them combined.
	And when you have to compare that to Trump's new record, record-breaking economy based on cutting taxes and ending burdensome regulation.
	And when you compare Trump's foreign policy to dropping $150 billion on the tarmac in Tehran for Muellers and for Mullahs there that chant death to America, I don't think they're going to win on that front either.
	And I think people are going to vote the way they always do, peace and prosperity, and all the other noise is going to go away.
	I don't know.
	I think people vote a motion these days.
	And so the churn, whatever the churn is, is going to dictate how people turn out.
	So if you look, and I did in the upcoming book on Trump, two things.
	First of all, I wasn't surprised by this New York Times report.
	I mean, I got this a year ago, but it's even more debt.
	The story, how Donald Trump got out of it, got out of debt because of the casino misfires in Atlantic City.
	That's the story.
	Fascinating, fascinating story about Donald Trump.
	You raise a good point.
	Bill, he's still a billionaire.
	He's still $7.57.
	He's right, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders is right by saying, well, this is a fake story because it's real in a sense that the Trump organization, which he took over from his father, okay, got in a lot of financial trouble.
	That's absolutely true.
	And the miscalculation was the casinos.
	But how he got out of it, and I'm not going to tell you because I want people who pre-ordered the book, it is amazing.
	You know, you're a masterful salesman.
	I know how he got out of it.
	He played hardball with those that were holding his debt.
	He went into tense negotiations.
	He told them he's going to get out of it.
	Now, he was not the only person that was going through that type of turmoil economically because literally Atlantic City, and we did not grow up that far from there, collapsed.
	The gaming industry in Atlantic City collapsed.
	The New York City real estate market.
	You're on the right track.
	You have the general tone of it down, but I'm going to provide specific.
	You're going to love this book, Hannity.
	This is one of the few books going to keep you off.
	I like your books.
	I don't know how you do it because I can't stand writing.
	I despise it.
	It's a killer.
	Because I had to report the book as well as write it.
	I had to report it because everything that has been written about Donald Trump, not everything, but 90% of it is bull.
	It's not true.
	And I'm not using any anonymity.
	Give us this insight, if you can.
	What did you learn by writing a very different book about Trump?
	Something you learned about him that most people would be surprised about?
	That he is a man who everything he does is transactional.
	Everything.
	Everything he does is the negotiation.
	Mr. President, I need you for 20 minutes tonight on TV.
	I'll give you 10.
	But really, I wanted 15.
	So we end up, I just learned I double the time that I really want.
	That's the only way you get it.
	Then if he says no to 20, I'll give you five.
	He'll still give you 20.
	Yeah, but he conducts himself in a way that I've never seen a human being act the way that he acts.
	Now, that has a positive side and a negative side.
	All right.
	And then I get into very specifically because I've known him, I think, even longer than you've known him.
	All right.
	And I was so surprised about some of the things that I found out because he's not a guy that he's not going to his high school reunion.
	You know what I'm talking about?
	He's not.
	He doesn't look back.
	I had to pull it out of him, drag it out of him.
	At one point, he called Melania in.
	We were on Air Force One.
	He goes, where's Milani?
	Where's my wife?
	Tell Bill to stop.
	That's exactly what he said.
	Tell Bill to stop.
	You can't be annoying, O'Reilly.
	Let's be honest.
	I mean, that's not.
	Well, I know I'm a non-set the story.
	That's not hyperbole.
	I bet that happened.
	You used to hang out with him.
	I would see.
	Melania ran out of there so fast.
	You were always a little more public than I was, and you'd go to nick games and baseball games with Trump.
	What was that like?
	Well, he is very interesting.
	Why does he wear a tie to a baseball game?
	I never understood that.
	I wasn't going to get by 40 points, right?
	So I want somebody with me who's going to amuse me.
	So I would say to him, tell me about this.
	And he's honest.
	You know, most people, they don't really want to get, you know, I don't want to tell you.
	He just lays it out there.
	So I would almost have a list of people when we go to the Yankee game or the Knick game or whatever that I say, tell me about this person.
	What happened here?
	How'd you get this done?
	You know, that kind of thing.
	I'll give you an example.
	He was like Michael Jackson.
	He saved his career at one point.
	And I said, well, tell me about that.
	How did that happen?
	How does this guy conduct himself?
	So you can see how fascinating, and Trump has no filter.
	He just tell you.
	And, you know, this lies, business, and all this stuff.
	They peddle about him.
	It's a stream of consciousness.
	He talks in a stream of consciousness.
	And, you know, he exaggerates, but anybody would know it's an exaggeration.
	It's like, come on, Washington Post.
	I mean, this is the way the guy pumps it up.
	This is how he makes his points.
	Everybody knows that.
	Here's my two observations.
	He's a fascinating study.
	He's a fascinating study.
	He has endless, endless energy.
	I don't care if it's three in the morning.
	He's a vampire.
	Yeah, okay.
	He never sleeps.
	But I think the one characteristic that stands out the most, and you tell me if you disagree, is when people ask me about him, he is fearless.
	He does not care.
	He's unlike every other politician.
	They all hide who they really are.
	He wears who he is on his sleeve every single second moment of the day.
	But here's something you may not know.
	He gets his feelings hurt.
	He doesn't show it.
	Never, ever show it.
	But he does.
	And the other thing that's fascinating about Trump is how loyal his three oldest children are to him.
	Because he wasn't the dad that takes you bowling, you know, is hanging out with you.
	It's not what he did.
	But those three kids, for whatever reason, okay, are so loyal to him.
	And I would say to most parents across the country, if you had children, adult children, who loved you that much, you did something right.
	And you will never see any of that in the media or in the discussions or anything like that.
	Never.
	I just think that's so brutally unfair.
	Look, if he cured cancer.
	I'm going to go to the beginning of this conversation.
	When he runs against Biden, I mean, that is going to be a free-for-all.
	I'm going to enjoy that immensely.
	If he cured cancer and gave every American $5 million and adopted the new Green Deal, these people on the left would still hate him.
	That's how psychotic they are.
	But I got to let you go.
	Bill O'Reilly, thank you for being with us.
	Breaking news now.
	Here's Sean Hennedy.
	All right, as we continue, we got some breaking news.
	800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, we have an announcement.
	Garland Tucker is announcing his candidacy today for the United States Senate from the great state of North Carolina.
	He's going up against incumbent Tom Tillis, who has, well, not exactly been the most conservative for the people of North Carolina.
	A statement by Garland Tucker about his decision to run.
	I hope this campaign will be a debate between Senator Tillis and me about issues like spending, immigration.
	I am a conservative.
	I believe we need less government, less spending, and a secure border.
	And when President Trump proposed to cut foreign aid by 30%, Senator Tillis opposed the president's spending cut.
	I agree with Trump, and I wouldn't have to think twice about cutting foreign aid.
	When President Trump made the emergency declaration to build the wall, I agreed with the president.
	Senator Tillis disagreed and published an op-ed in the Washington Post opposing the president.
	And two weeks later, when Republicans across North Carolina sided with Trump, Tillis flip-flopped.
	I've never before seen a candidate for public office, but I've never been one myself, but I've watched Washington politicians offering lip service to cutting spending and then voting for more and more spending.
	That's the way the Washington swamp works, and that has to change.
	That's why I am a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
	Arlen Tucker joins us now.
	Uh-oh, this sounds like this is going to be a big, big primary fight going on in North Carolina.
	How are you?
	Sean, how are you?
	Thanks for bringing me on your show today, and I'm very pleased to make this announcement right now on your show.
	So thank you.
	Well, you're a successful businessman, and you also authored two books.
	You founded two specific companies.
	You were the CEO of Triangle Capital Corporation from 2001 to 16.
	You retired, and then you were serving as the director of Triangle Capital until it was sold for a billion dollars.
	So obviously you have some knowledge of how economies work.
	How do you judge the economy under Trump?
	And what would you do differently than Tillis?
	Well, the economy under Trump is really phenomenal.
	I think what he's done to get this country back on the right track in the last two years is, well, as a longtime conservative, I would say it's right out of the Reagan Thatcher playbook.
	It's just really exciting to see what he's done to the economy.
	When I'm elected Senator of North Carolina, I'm going to support him 100% on what he's doing with the economy for sure.
	I think the two issues that are going to be key in this race and really all across the country are immigration and government spending.
	And I'm really looking forward to having a debate with Senator Tillis because we've got some substantial differences on those two issues.
	Have you spoken with any of the guys in North Carolina?
	For example, obviously I'm good friends with and a fan of, I think, one of the best congressmen we have.
	He's the head of the Freedom Caucus.
	Mark Meadows has been a rock star.
	And he, to me, is the one example of how people should serve their constituents.
	He makes promises and he goes in every day, rolls up his sleeves with Jim Jordan and the other Freedom Caucus guys, and they fight hard to keep their promises.
	I could not agree with you more, Sean.
	In fact, I would say if Mark Meadows had been willing to run in this race, I certainly wouldn't have jumped in.
	He's exactly the kind of man we need in the Senate and the kind of senator I would hope to be.
	Yeah.
	So tell us, what is it particularly about Tillis that you think warrants this primary?
	Well, the starting point for me, I guess from a personal standpoint, is I've been very disappointed with Tillis, and it's primarily on these two issues, immigration and government spending.
	Basically, in a nutshell, he ran on a conservative platform back in 2014.
	In immigration, for instance, he was opposed to amnesty.
	He was for sealing or securing the border.
	No sooner than he had gotten to Congress and he co-sponsored a bill that not only provided amnesty but provided a clear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, which I think is totally the wrong thing to do.
	When the emergency powers issue came along, he wrote the famous Washington Post op-ed, and then when he got a lot of pressure from conservatives back home, he flip-flopped on that issue.
	But I think on immigration, he's been very, very weak.
	What we need there is a merit-based immigration system once we've secured the border.
	And I was really pleased to read about what Trump is rolling out.
	I think he's calling it the Kushner Plan.
	And I think that in conjunction with securing the border, is exactly what we're going to need in immigration.
	Well, we're going to follow it very closely.
	And have any of the politicians in the state now, have they taken any position about you versus Tillis in terms of who they're supporting?
	I know it's early.
	Well, not that I'm aware of.
	Word, we were looking forward to, and we are formally making the announcement right now on your show.
	We had to.
	Yeah, I'm sure Senator Tillis is going to love me for this interview.
	Listen, to me, my attitude is very, very simple.
	Whoever's going to be the guy that goes in, rolls up their sleeves, and fights for their promises and their agenda and the president's agenda, which I have advocated 30 years on the air, I'm for.
	I'm tired of Republicans that go to Washington.
	They make all these lofty promises, and then when push comes to shove, they don't fight for anything.
	Well, I've got a favorite quote I ran across about a year ago that I'm going to be using in this campaign, and it was by Stanton Evans, who's a famous conservative.
	He said he'd noticed over the years that a lot of people run for office on very conservative platforms.
	They talk about draining the swamp, but when they get to Washington, they figure out that the swamp really wasn't a swamp.
	It was a hot tub, and they sit down in the hot tub and start enjoying it.
	Well, I think that's what's happened with Senator Tillis.
	He ran on a very good conservative platform in 2014, but in terms of his votes on spending and his votes on immigration, he's just not delivered.
	All right.
	Well, listen, we're glad you're in the race.
	We're going to follow it closely.
	Garland Tucker out of the great state of North Carolina, thank you, sir, for being with us.
	We appreciate your time, and we will follow it as it unfolds.
	Thank you.
	Sean, thank you.
	People can get in touch with you.
	How do they do that?
	Thanks for asking.
	If you'll go to garlandtucker.com, we'll stay in touch with you.
	We'll keep you posted on the campaign, and we're going to need plenty of help.
	All right, sir.
	Thanks for your time.
	Garland Tucker in North Carolina, 800-941-Sean, toll free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Let's say hi to Bob is in Orlando.
	News 96.5 WDBO.
	What's going on?
	I love your program.
	Love the people on it.
	I'm granging all of them.
	My question is: today Fox News said that Dems are accusing of having Russia implant Trump in the White House.
	Why would Russia and Putin want Trump in the White House when they got everything they wanted from Obama and Hillary?
	They got 20% of our uranium.
	They went into Crimea.
	They went into Ukraine.
	They're playing footsie with Assad, and they're definitely playing footsie with China and North Korea.
	They're doing anything they wanted under Obama, but Trump's a hard ass.
	Why would they want a hard ass in the White House?
	They don't.
	You know, listen, I keep saying nobody's understanding this.
	You know, he's not.
	You think of all that we now know, and I'm very interested if we do finally confirm that Hillary's dossier was full of Russian disinformation from the get-go.
	How ironic would that be in light of the bull and the lying and the conspiracy theories and the hoax that we've now had?
	I want to find out that.
	But Donald Trump was not saying tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election.
	Tell you tell Valerie.
	This is my last election, I believe.
	Yeah, after my election, I have more flexibility.
	You know, this is a bunch, bull.
	Look, I have a simple plan, and you can bring, literally bring the hostile actor, Putin, and the hostile regime, Russia, right to their knees.
	And it's there is a way to simultaneously make this country more safe, more secure, and more prosperous.
	We have more oil and natural gas than anybody else on the face of the earth.
	We figure out the means to not only extract more at faster pace, at a faster pace, but also to get it to our Western European allies at a cost that is competitive with Russia.
	They would rather have it from us.
	The same thing for China.
	You want to end this embargo, this standoff with China.
	It's going to end anyway.
	They're not going to have a full-on trade war, trust me.
	This is the president negotiating.
	If China doesn't believe he will do it, then they're not going to budge.
	This will force them to realize the president means it.
	But anyway, that is their entire economy.
	You want to stop Russian interference and chaos in our elections and all the other shenanigans, their support of Iran and Assad and Syria, their involvement in Venezuela as we now speak.
	Well, look at it, Venezuela.
	It's a very sad situation.
	That was the richest state in all of that area.
	That's a big, beautiful area, and by far the richest.
	And now it's one of the poorest places in the world.
	That's what socialism gets you.
	Well, they want to raise your taxes to 70%.
	Steve, Mr. President, what sort of complications does the Russian involvement now post?
	Russia has to get out.
	Mr. President, have you, you've just said Russia needs to get out.
	Have you in any way communicated that through Mr. Bulta or through your representative at the United Nations?
	They know very well.
	They know very well.
	We support the people of Venezuela.
	We're sad that they have been starved by Maduro.
	They've been denied food and medicine and basic humanitarian needs having been met.
	The United States has gotten supplies there to them.
	Sometimes those have been obstructed or burned.
	But we stand with the people of Venezuela and we stand with Juan Guaido.
	Maduro has to go.
	We've made that very clear for a number of reasons.
	The WE is the president, the vice president, Secretary of State, Ambassador Bolton.
	I think that Secretary of State Pompeo put it best this morning when he said this is Operación Libertad, and this will finally get the Venezuelan people the freedom that they need.
	And 3 million Venezuelans have fled to neighboring countries like Colombia and Brazil.
	So they have, they've told you all you need to know.
	I'm sure they would prefer to be in their home country, but they simply can't stay there and be expected to survive or thrive.
	So we are watching it, monitoring.
	I got a briefing this morning before I came out and monitoring very closely the situation there.
	We want a peaceful transition.
	Chavez stuck around for about 20 years.
	These things don't happen overnight, but in three short months, I think the world has seen the horrors of the Maduro regime.
	The average Venezuelan has lost about 20 pounds and over a year.
	That's just a tragedy.
	As the president has said many times, Venezuela was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
	It's now you've seen what's happened to the people there.
	So these dictators to cling to power and wealth for their own purposes, they must go beginning with Maduro.
	He's actually a brave person.
	And because I know what he's going through, I'm speaking to our people all the time.
	He's a brave guy.
	And what's happening in Venezuela said, when you look at 20 years ago, it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world, if you think about it, and now they don't have food and they don't have water and people are dying from hunger.
	It's a very, very serious situation.
	What are your red lines in Venezuela?
	I don't want to say, but we have lots of options and some of them are very tough options.
	Is there a tipping point for military intervention?
	There's always a tipping point, but certainly I'd rather not do that.
	I just want to help the people.
	The people are dying.
	They have nothing.
	These were people that were living well 20 years ago.
	Catherine, they have nothing.
	They don't have water and food.
	And they're dying of hunger right on the border.
	It's terrible.
	Yeah, we can do it.
	We can break them financially.
	It's what Reagan did.
	They couldn't keep up with our military expansion and still feed their people.
	It doesn't work that way.
	So, you know, we could win the Second Cold War, if you will, by doing it that way.
	But nobody ever talks about it.
	I mean, you get the added benefits.
	Everybody's standard of living will rise in America.
	Truck drivers will be making $100,000 a year and be trained to be good truck drivers for energy.
	Then you're going to have, you know, the net effect of not having to rely on countries that despise us and hate our guts for the lifeblood of our economy.
	That's the answer.
	I've been saying it for years.
	Now it's finally happening.
	Donald Trump has made us energy independent for the first time in 75 years.
	We are now a net exporter of energy.
	This is, it's sort of like an American gold rush, except unlike the Middle Eastern countries or the Venezuelan dictatorships or the oligarchy that exists in Russia and it could actually go and be shared with all we the people.
	We could all benefit.
	I don't know why we don't do it.
	All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
	Yeah, shocking.
	Nadler's Judiciary Committee.
	Oh, they want to go after Barr.
	You know what they're afraid of?
	As I've been saying all day, they are scared to death.
	Barr is getting to the bottom of it.
	All right, we'll have that showdown tonight, Hannity, on the Fox News channel.
	Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Congressman Doug Collins, Greg Jarrett, Sarah Carter, Geraldo Rivera, Joe Concha.
	We'll have the media meltdown on this as well and the meltdown over the president's taxes.
	It's all coming up 9 Eastern tonight.
	Set your DBR.
	Hannity, Fox News.
	We'll see you then back here tomorrow.
	Thank you for being with us.

▲