Hogan Gidley, Principal Deputy White House Secretary, joins to discuss the President’s remarks yesterday. The President’s immigration plan will prioritize highly skilled workers in his new merit-based immigration system. In a quick summary, the proposal would judge immigrants with a points-based system that would favor high-skilled workers -- accounting for age, English proficiency, education and whether the applicant has a well-paying job offer. Who could possibly oppose merit?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.
And as you know, Sean and I never promote the stock market or investing in it, but I'm sure you've all seen the great GDP numbers, the awesome economy that Donald Trump is giving us.
And we want you to benefit from it as well.
So now we've discovered Dr. Richard Smith, his incredible financial software tools.
They're trusted by thousands.
It tracks over $20 billion of investments.
And if you're planning for your retirement, you have any money at all invested in the stock market, you need to go to Hannity.com forward slash retirement right now.
Check it out.
Hannity.com, retirement.
All right, happy Friday.
And yes, we made it.
And glad you are with us.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of this Friday extravaganza, a lot of news to get to today.
I thought Bill Hemmer's interview with the Attorney General Barr is everything that we've said, and it is all going to be done.
We're going to get to justice.
And by the way, I don't take a lot of joy in the fact that there are people that are likely facing jail time for the things that they have done here.
hang on i gotta send a text all right there you go so So I, but it's not the 99.9%.
We got to remember that.
You know, occasionally you get these stories about a bad cop.
I remember the first person that used that term was Joe DeGenova.
Dirty cops.
I remember like flinching at the term because you don't want to think about people in the highest levels of power abusing that power, corrupting the awesome responsibility that we give them or people in the intelligence community, you know, turning those powerful weapons that we need in an ugly and dangerous and evil world against us.
You don't want that happening.
And it has happened.
And the attorney general laid it out today, what happened.
We're going to go over a lot of what he said, and I'm going to sort of talk around a few of these things because I think it's that important.
This interview, I thought Bill Hemmer did a phenomenal job.
My colleague at the Fox News channel, all credit to him.
And he was nice enough even to come on the air with us last night.
Before we get to that, we got to welcome.
So Ethan had the baby.
Well, no, Ethan didn't have Ethan's wife had the baby.
What time, JCON?
About what, 4:30 this morning?
4:35 in the morning.
And it is name.
I think the name is still being bandied about.
I have not been.
I didn't get any.
I've been texting.
He doesn't write me back.
I'm like, geez.
They haven't decided on a name.
They're still deciding.
They're still deciding.
Okay, but mother and baby are healthy and everything went well.
They're doing well.
They're doing well.
So we have another member of the Hannity crew.
We're very excited for the new bundle of joy.
I know.
And Linda's getting her big reward next week.
So we're really happy about that.
We're so proud of her.
Really fun for her to be on the West Coast.
Yeah, it's exciting.
All right.
We'll talk more about that when she gets back.
All right, let me go to Barr.
I mean, it's like one thing after another that he's saying here is it takes your breath away.
We have a long two-minute montage that Jason put together, and I think I want to start with that, Jason.
And because if you're paying attention, and this goes to the heart of what I never understood, I always liked Jeff Sessions, and I don't know where he was for all of this.
And that became problematic.
All right, let's listen to the Attorney General William Barr on Fox.
How do you think John Brennan and James Clapper handled the Russian investigation?
Well, again, I don't want to speculate about the facts at this point.
At all.
I know some facts, but it's premature to be discussing.
Can you tell us what the Steele dossier had to do with this?
What role did that play?
Well, that's one of the questions that we're going to have to look at.
It's a very unusual situation to have opposition research like that, especially one that on its face had a number of clear mistakes and a somewhat jejun analysis and to use that to conduct counterintelligence against an American political campaign is a strange would be a strange development.
I'm not sure what role it played, but that's something we have to look at.
Do you smell a rat in this at this point?
I don't know if I'd describe it a rat.
I would just say that the answers I'm getting are not sufficient.
Just to follow up on that, Republicans have said for months that these men, Brennan, Clapper, maybe James Comey, had it in for Trump.
Do you think that's true?
Again, I'm not going to speculate about their motives.
In the period of time between Election Day and the inauguration, did anyone in government or in intelligence, did they take action to justify their decisions?
Between Election Day, did you say?
Between Election Day of 2016 in November and Inauguration Day.
I think there were some very strange developments during that period.
That's one of the things we want to look into.
Such as?
Such as the handling of the meeting on January 6th between the intelligence chiefs and the president and the leaking of information subsequent to that meeting.
Was that meeting in New York City?
Yes.
In Trump Tower?
Yes.
What questions do you have about what happened that day?
Again, I'm not going to get into that at all.
But it's on your mind.
That's one of the things we need to look at.
Can you characterize how far advanced you are in understanding that meeting?
We're still in the stage of gathering all the information.
Now, we knew yesterday, this is what's pretty fascinating, there were suspicions, according to Jim Baker, James Baker, the general counsel.
You know, I can't figure out James Baker.
I don't know what to think.
And I know there's a criminal referral on him, but he was the one guy that knew the law.
He was the top lawyer for the FBI under Comey that said, yeah, Hillary broke the law here.
Why are we arguing about this?
And he basically was surrounded and overruled by his top colleagues.
And so that's interesting to me.
And also, he said they were very concerned that that meeting that the Attorney General was talking about, Barr, at Trump Tower.
Now, this is the warning meeting.
Well, there is a dossier out there and it's salacious, but it's unverified.
And the thought among Baker and others were, oh my gosh, James Comey is trying to blackmail the president and hold something over the president's head.
Now, in the course, this does, it makes sense.
Because, for example, why if they thought there might be some collusion in the Trump campaign with Russia, at what point did they not think that, well, we don't have any reason to believe Donald Trump has ever colluded with Russia?
Well, maybe we need to give him a heads up and maybe he'll work with us.
That never occurred to them.
Or the fact that, okay, Donald Trump never came from the political world.
He was a businessman.
He didn't hold any office before this.
Now, I knew Donald Trump for 20-some odd years, and I guarantee you, every time he'd hire somebody, you're my guy, right?
All right, I got you.
I'm counting on you.
Get this building put up.
Get this done.
I need this done by this.
That's how he rolled in that world.
So when he says to Comey, all right, you're my guy, right?
We're working together.
We're on a team here.
Comey could have just gently said, it's a little different than in the private sector and broke it down.
But no, he didn't want that.
You know, he felt the need, the compulsion to write down notes after he left that meeting.
But the problem is what he told then President-elect Trump in January of 2017, before he became president, before he was sworn in, that the dossier is salacious and unverified.
Now, the biggest problem with that is in October before the election, James Comey's name is right there on the verified.
It says it right on the FISA application.
Nunes, Grassley, Graham, memos all say the bulk of that information is the bought and paid for, perhaps New York Times is right, Russian disinformation of Hillary Clinton.
So he's verifying it in October of 2016.
So you want to talk about the strange period in between that Barr is acknowledging exists, the Attorney General?
Yeah, that's strange.
Because if you put in a FISA application that is a warrant to spy on an American citizen, and you're putting in there information that wasn't verified, never corroborated.
Now, in retrospect, we know unverifiable as its own author.
When Push came to shove under oath, under the threat of perjury, in an interrogatory in Great Britain, I have no idea if any of this is true.
It became the basis of a document that our FBI directors signed as verified and corroborated, and they purposely withheld where it came from.
And we've learned in the last few weeks that everybody, including Comey, by the way, even Andrew Weissman, that Bruce Orr in his closed-door testimony warned everybody, it's unverified.
Clinton paid for it.
Steele hates Trump.
Be careful.
That was August of 2016.
And then, of course, 10 days, we learned from John Solomon's reporting.
This woman at the State Department met with Steele, said Steele has a deadline.
His deadline was Election Day.
And he's trying to get dirt on Donald Trump in the state.
And then she warns the F, she did the right thing, warning the FBI.
So that's 10 days before Comey puts that signature on the FISA warrant.
Then in January, oh, it's unverified.
Yeah, that sounds strange.
That sounds like the Attorney General gets it.
And when we get to the bottom of it, wow, think about this.
They would not tell FISA court judges in a FISA application to spy on an American citizen, Carter Page.
But more importantly, Carter Page has never been charged with anything.
As a matter of fact, Carter Page, as he has said in interviews right here on this show, you know, part of his work caused him to travel abroad.
And as he traveled abroad, he would go to countries like Russia.
But he had such a good relationship with our Intel community, and he is an American patriot, that when he came back and the government wanted to debrief him, he willingly sat and had what gave whatever answers they wanted to help and assist his country.
He's never been, he sat down once for Mueller.
That was the end of that.
He wasn't the they used that as a ruse to get into the Trump campaign and spy.
And they did it in a multitude of other ways.
Now we know.
Now we know that Stefan Helper was spying on Papadopoulos, who was, you know, also we even have the blonde bombshell flirt in this novel that showed up, apparently flirting with Papadopoulos to get information.
You can't even write a novel like this.
You know, and then you get it in Sam Clovis and Carter Page.
So that all went down.
There's multiple entries of spying here.
You know, Comey's saying, we didn't spy.
Well, what is a FISA application?
It's a warrant to spy.
And I don't know why they think that they're going to get away with this.
Never mind the fact that you have the same group of people with all the evidence you'd ever want in terms of violating the Espionage Act.
And Hillary Clinton, they all did everything they could do to get her off and rig that investigation.
But by doing the spying and doing the doing this FISA and paying for the steel crap that they use to deny civil liberties to people, you know, they're doing all of this stuff to rig an election after they rig the investigation to save the favored candidate to beat the candidate that wasn't favored.
And then a lie to that candidate, oh, no, it's not verified.
Months later.
Meanwhile, a second FISA warrant application had been approved in the interim.
You have to re-up those every three months and then try to bludgeon him with an insurance policy, which is this whole fake, fraudulent conspiracy and hoax because just the opposite seems to be true.
That's why I call it the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in American history.
And it's only as we go through some more of these cuts.
And then we've got Greg Jarrett and Alan Dershowitz.
And then we've got Scott Ullinger coming on today, retired CIA ops officer and Russian intel ops expert.
You know, everybody knew Russia did this.
They've done it to so many other countries.
They've done it to us in the past.
Devin Nunes put out an article in the Washington, either the Times or the Examiner, I forget now, in 2014 warning Russia would do this.
We know Putin's a hostile actor, but it's better to get along with him.
And you know, the best way to take Russia down to his knees is keep producing more energy.
That's that, it is the heart and soul of that economy and get it cheaply to our allies in Western Europe and around the world.
And for the first time in 75 years, we are energy independent and now a net exporter of energy.
All right, got to take a break.
We'll come back.
A lot to get to here.
This is all coming clearer every day.
And I'm hearing, yeah, that Horowitz investigation may be as early as next week.
What's up, everybody?
Linda from the Sean Hannity show here to talk about your money.
Retirement, your money, it's like your health, right?
You know, you don't think about it until you don't have it.
And a lot of people are making really bad mistakes, especially with their retirement.
They're not retiring with enough money.
And you know what?
It's 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.
It tracks 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 tool until now.
Why?
Because we've never seen anything like this before.
So see it for yourself.
Go to Hannity.com retirement.
That's Hannity.com forward slash retirement and check it out.
Well, the first step is find out exactly what happened.
And we're trying to get our arms around that, getting all the relevant information from the various agencies and starting to talk to some of the people that have information.
The thing that's interesting about this is that this was handled at a very senior level of these departments.
wasn't handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counterintelligence activities are conducted.
It was sort of an ad hoc small group.
And most of these people are no longer with the FBI or the CIA or the other agencies involved.
This appears to run deep.
Why is it so hard to figure out?
Well, there are two things here.
One, no one's really looked at it.
I think there's a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened.
The fact of the matter is Bob Mueller did not look at the government's activities.
He was looking at whether or not the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russians.
But he was not going back and looking at the counterintelligence program.
And we have a number of investigations underway that touch upon it, the main one being the Office of Inspector General that's looking at the FISA warrants.
But as far as I'm aware, no one has really looked across the whole waterfront.
Nobody has looked across the entire waterfront.
And Mueller did not look at what the inner workings were.
Now, the problem is, is that Mueller had a broad mandate, and the broad mandate entitled him.
What time are we out, JC On?
I'll explain this on the other side.
The mandate was broad enough to look at taxi medallions, taxes, and loan applications.
Why not the dossier and FISA?
Hey, guys, it's Linda, the executive producer for the Sean Hannity Show.
You might also know me as Sean's daily sparring partner, and now that he's a ninja, of course.
And every day we argue about all sorts of things and talk about lots of stuff, including the incredible economy that the president has given everyday Americans.
And just like that, well, we want 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 and without enough money.
And if that's not shocking enough, even if you think you've got your financial act together, chances are there are retirement killers out there that you don't know anything about.
So have no fear.
We have one of the brightest financial minds in America to help make sure your investments for your future retirement are on the right track.
I'm talking about Dr. Richard Smith, the founder of TradeSmith.
And his mission is to help Americans be more financially literate.
That's right.
Put the power, put the knowledge back in your hands, make better investment decisions and avoid catastrophic mistakes that could cause your retirement to be a disaster.
That could cause your retirement to be a disaster.
Thousands and 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 your retirement, you're in a financial fight for your future.
Please do yourself a 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, eliminate the worry of investing in the stock market.
I want to go back because these comments by the Attorney General, William Barr, about Robert Mueller, and I want to go through a few more of these cuts and really delve deep into what he is saying and suggesting here because there's key words in this that I want you to listen to.
And just this one's from this morning, his interview with Bill Hemmer.
You also said back in April that you thought there was spying going on in the Trump campaign.
When do you think that started?
Well, I'm not going to speculate about when it started.
We're going to find out when it started.
It's been said that it was July of 2016.
Does that sound right to you?
Again, I don't want to speculate.
What I will say is that, you know, I've been trying to get answers to questions, and I found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate.
And I've also found that some of the explanations I've gotten don't hang together.
In a sense, I have more questions today than I did when I first started.
Some of what things don't hang together.
Some of the explanations of what occurred.
Why does that matter?
Well, because I think people have to find out what the government was doing during that period.
If we're worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason, we should be worried about whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale.
And so I'm not saying that happened, but I'm saying that we have to look at that.
Wow.
What he's saying here is that they put their thumb on the scale.
Mueller didn't look into this, but he had the broadest mandate as it relates to a Russian dossier that was used to spy on an opposition party candidate.
You know, he's saying it without saying it, and the answers have been inadequate.
And the explanations don't band together.
And he's right.
He sees much more than he's letting on, obviously.
And I actually think these comments by Joe DeGenova really should be paid very close attention to.
We'll go to cut nine, Jason, because he says Horowitz has already concluded, meaning the IG.
And what that means is I'm sure that he has told the Attorney General what he's been working on and what he's found.
Remember, Horowitz did an extensive job.
He found the page struck text that nobody else would give us.
And this is so clear-cut that the FISA judges were misled and that that is an abuse of power, that they literally premeditated what is a fraud on the court for the purposes of spying on an opposition party candidate in the hopes of influencing an election.
Extraordinarily dangerous.
Here's what DeGenovitz says is happening now.
Horowitz has already concluded that the final three FISAs were completely illegal.
He's now on the brink of finding that the first FISA was completely illegal.
Durham has already used a grand jury in Connecticut.
They've already gotten documents.
He's already talked to the Intel people.
How long has this been going on?
Do we really know how long?
Durham's been working for a couple of months.
So the bottom line is this.
This is now big time.
This is where Brennan needs five lawyers.
Comey needs five lawyers.
Are they lawyered up sufficiently?
Well, I hope Comey has someone other than Mr. Richmond to whom he leaked his memos.
That is profound and deep also.
And I think the fact that Mueller had the opportunity to look into all this.
Now, we made time for Ukraine in the 80s or 90s, whenever, and issues with them that had nothing to do with Paul Manafort's time with the president.
He made time to look into financial taxi medallion issues involving Michael Cohn and loan applications for both men.
And, you know, he had time to go over people's taxes.
I mean, going back decades, which is fine.
And the mandate was brought up when you're investigating some type of Russian election issue to ignore the dirty dossier.
It was known it was dirty, is inexplicable to me, which is why I don't think Mueller ultimately testifies.
You know, Nadler's saying that Barr will face a lawsuit if Congress holds him in contempt.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
They're asking the Attorney General to break the law and reveal grand jury testimony.
It's only one full sentence and seven partial sentences that are redacted for people like Nadler.
It's a show.
It's a circus.
It is, you know, we're going to get the sergeant of arms to handcuff the attorney general of the United States for not breaking the law, for refusing your order to break the law and your lawmakers.
And of course, they don't want to question the Attorney General themselves.
They want to take a 206-year history and precedent of only members that are elected and accountable to the voters.
We want lawyers to question you.
They don't have enough confidence, I guess, in their abilities.
Let's go back to Barr.
Answers to my questions have been inadequate.
We have to see if government officials abuse power.
Let's play this.
You also said back in April that you thought there was spying going on in the Trump campaign.
When do you think that started?
Well, I'm not going to speculate about when it started.
We're going to find out when it started.
It's been said that it was July of 2016.
Does that sound right to you?
Again, I don't want to speculate.
What I will say is that, you know, I've been trying to get answers to questions, and I found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate.
And I've also found that some of the explanations I've gotten don't hang together.
So in a sense, I have more questions today than I did when I first started.
Some of what things don't hang together.
Some of the explanations of what occurred.
Why does that matter?
Well, because I think people have to find out what the government was doing during that period.
If we're worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason, we should be worried about whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale.
And so I'm not saying that happened, but I'm saying that we have to look at that.
Nancy Pelosi, she believes you lied under oath.
What do you think of that charge?
Well, I think it's a laughable charge, and I think it's largely being made to try to discredit me, partly because they may be concerned about the outcome of a review of what happened during the election.
But obviously, you can look at the face of my testimony and see on its face that there's nothing inaccurate about it.
Nothing inaccurate about it.
But again, that's another issue.
The media can't let go of their lie either.
You know, understand for them to admit that they have peddled in anonymous sources, lies, conspiracies, conspiracy theories, and an ultimate hoax while missing the biggest story of their careers, that's too much for a news organization to actually admit that they screwed up and screwed up that badly.
You know, it's that severe.
What is going on here?
And now it's all whether the media or the Democrats want to admit this or not, Mueller's done.
The Attorney General has said so.
And the only thing that remains here is all this story that we've told you that is real evidence, rigging an investigation into a presidential candidate that's favored, trying using phony, unverified one candidate's Russian disinformation to literally as the basis to spy, committing a huge fraud on a FISA court and FISA court judges,
again to influence the election, and then to try and bludgeon a candidate with lies and conspiracies after an election because they didn't want to be caught.
That's why I can't understand why they're all talking.
Now, this is Barr talking about Trump wanting to remove someone because of conflicts of interest is not obstruction.
Now, remember, the underlying crime of collusion, conspiracy, Russia, Russia, the Mueller report is clear.
There has to be some intent.
And the idea that the president, somehow, by complaining about Rod Rosenstein publicly and proclaiming his innocence or proclaim or, you know, showing frustration over two plus years of nonstop interference in the job he wants to do and was hired to do is normal.
Trey Gowdy famously asked, well, you know, if you're innocent, act like you're innocent.
How do innocent people act?
I think they act with outrage that they're being accused of something they didn't do.
That's how I think they would act.
That's how I think I would act.
Anyway, let me get to, if I can, this is what Barr is saying.
The president's saying that publicly because he's innocent, if Mueller would have been fired, but the president had all the authority to fire him under Article 2.
But there would have been another special counsel appointed.
There was no stopping that.
And the president expressed frustration, but let him do his job anyway.
Listen to what Barr said.
That's a misconception.
He was not asked to change his testimony.
That was a reaction to a press story in the New York Times that claimed that Trump had told him to fire Mueller.
And Trump, and I'm just going by what the report said.
I'm not arguing the case, but Trump was mad at the word fire and claimed he never directed McGahn to fire Mueller.
And in fact, elsewhere the report does say that McGahn was told by Trump to talk to Rosenstein to complain about conflicts of interest that Mueller had and have Mueller removed for conflicts of interest.
And there's a difference because if you remove someone for a conflict of interest, presumably someone else is going to be put in to continue the investigation.
And what Trump was being accused of in the New York Times was just outright directing the firing of Mueller.
Wow.
Now, there were conflicts with Mueller.
Remember, the day before Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein to be the special counsel, well, he wanted the FBI job.
And Trump said no.
And they had some conflict in the past.
So Trump's looking at this team of his pit bull Andrew Weissman, only Democratic donors, no Republican donors.
Even hired Genie Ray, who worked for Clinton on the Clinton Foundation.
No wonder why they didn't touch the dirty Clinton, Russian paid for dossier.
So that would be, and there would have been someone else appointed.
Not like it would, but the media was like, it's going to be a Saturday night massacre.
Then, you know, it's interesting to watch when Barr says he's okay with Mueller testifying because I don't think Mueller wants to testify.
Because in spite of what the media thinks they're going to get out of this, he's going to have to also answer a whole series of other questions.
When did he know about that there was no collusion or conspiracy to collude or whatever?
Why did you hire only Democrats?
Why did you hire as your pit bull Andrew Weissman, whose record we've gone over repeatedly?
Why did you not investigate the dossier?
Why did you, it's Russia-related.
Now the New York Times is calling it Russian disinformation.
And those that signed the FISA warrants, and then it would have led to FISA fraud.
I think those of, but Barr said he's fine with Mueller testifying.
You're okay with him testifying.
Absolutely.
He works for you.
Yes.
Under you.
Yes.
Or did.
What seems to be the holdup?
Jerry Nather said this week it will happen soon.
Perhaps it happens in June or not.
Do you have any information on that?
My understanding is that Chairman Nadler is talking this over with Bob Mueller and his staff and trying to schedule it.
So you expect it to happen?
I have no reason to think it won't.
Okay.
I have no reason to think it won't.
I don't think Mueller wants to.
And by the way, I think there are issues of executive privilege that can be evoked by Trump.
Now, he acknowledged that he joked with Pelosi about handcuffs, which I just thought was funny.
Because that's all they've been talking about.
Send the sergeant-at-arms, handcuff the attorney general, make him testify.
Listen.
You reportedly had a conversation with her this week.
Yes.
What did you say to her?
Well, I wouldn't call it a conversation.
It was more like an icebreaker.
I was introduced and I asked her if she had brought her handcuffs with her.
And she said?
I didn't really quite hear what she said, but she wasn't unpleasant about it.
Wasn't unpleasant about it.
I think, come on, that is hilarious.
It shows that he has a sense of humor, which you got to like, especially because everyone's trying to destroy him, which he had to know was going to happen anyway.
And he talks about why are Democrats annoyed that they didn't have a chance to spin the Mueller report findings?
This is a great answer.
Short, but it's great.
What she will say, and Democrats will say, is that you were spinning on behalf of the president.
With the principal conclusions that you released, they leveled charges that you held back the Mueller report for several weeks.
Were you spinning for the White House to buy some time?
No, I wasn't.
I think what they're really perhaps annoyed about is that they didn't have an opportunity to spin and that the fundamental findings of the report were out there for everybody to see and they were not in a position to spin.
Because he released the whole report.
I mean, that's what makes this so profound.
And for the Nadlers and the Schiffs of the world, the only guy we have on tape colluding with Russia is the cowardly shift.
Uh-huh.
Busika.
Yes, what is the damaging, compromising information on Trump?
Naked Trump.
Naked picture Trump.
And has Vladimir seen it?
Yes, but of course.
Vladimir has seen the naked Trump.
Naked Trump.
Okay.
What did he want to do in that whole conversation?
I mean, the irony of this, Hillary's bought and paid for Russian dossier.
The cowardly shifts conversation colluding with a Russian.
You can't make it up, but it's all too dangerous.
Well, the first efforts find out exactly what happened.
And we're trying to get our arms around that, getting all the relevant information from the various agencies and starting to talk to some of the people that have information.
The thing that's interesting about this is that this was handled at a very senior level of these departments.
It wasn't handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counterintelligence activities are conducted.
It was sort of an ad hoc small group.
And most of these people are no longer with the FBI or the CIA or the other agencies involved.
This appears to run deep.
Why is it so hard to figure out?
Well, there are two things here.
One, no one's really looked at it.
I think there's a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened.
The fact of the matter is, Bob Mueller did not look at the government's activities.
He was looking at whether or not the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russians.
But he was not going back and looking at the counterintelligence program.
And we have a number of investigations underway that touch upon it, the main one being the Office of Inspector General that's looking at the FISA warrants.
But as far as I'm aware, no one has really looked across the whole waterfront.
You also said back in April that you thought there was spying going on in the Trump campaign.
When do you think that started?
Well, I'm not going to speculate about when it started.
We're going to find out when it started.
It's been said that it was July of 2016.
Does that sound right to you?
Again, I don't want to speculate.
What I will say is that I've been trying to get answers to questions, and I found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate.
And I've also found that some of the explanations I've gotten don't hang together.
So in a sense, I have more questions today than I did when I first started.
Some of what things don't hang together.
Some of the explanations of what occurred.
Why does that matter?
Well, because I think people have to find out what the government was doing during that period.
If we're worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason, we should be worried about whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale.
And so I'm not saying that happened, but I'm saying that we have to look at that.
All right, a phenomenal interview with Bill Barba, my friend Bill Hemmer, on the Fox News channel that aired this morning.
We actually had a portion of it last night on Hannity.
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-Sean is our number.
You want to be a part of the program.
The Attorney General said a lot here that he is investigating what role the Steele dossier played in the Russia probe.
And the salacious document had a number of clear mistakes.
And it is a very unusual situation to have opposition research like that, especially one that on its face had a number of clear mistakes.
And really basically saying zero vetting.
What I've been saying, that it hasn't been verified.
It hasn't been corroborated.
And to use that conduct, counterintelligence, against an American political campaign would be a strange development.
And the thing is, these are not even issues in dispute anymore.
This dossier was used as the bulk of information for the FISA applications that were used to spy.
And there were multiple ways that spying was done on the Trump campaign, but to spy on an opposition party campaign, and it was paid for by the other candidate.
And it turns out, through funneled money from a law firm to a op research firm, to former MI6 officer Steele, Christopher Steele, rather, who himself doesn't stand by his own dossier.
Anyway, here to help analyze what it is that the Attorney General is saying.
Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst, author of the Russia hoax, and Alan Dershowitz, Harvard professor, who contributed to analysis on the Mueller report for Skyhorse Publishing.
Thank you both for being with us.
Professor, why don't we start with you?
Because number one, I sense a seriousness in this man and a passion for the law.
I can't believe that members on the House Judiciary Committee are literally demanding he break the law and reveal grand jury information and talking about putting handcuffs on him by the sergeant of arms.
And he's saying, I'm not going to break the law.
Well, he's absolutely right.
And he's acting in the highest tradition of attorneys general in the Justice Department.
He says, I will obey the law.
And Congress has no authority to make me violate the law by providing secret grand jury material without court authorization.
And, you know, court authorization here is critical.
It's critical to the steel dossier, and it's critical to this issue.
The big problem with the steel dossier is not only that it is deeply flawed, it's that the people who sought the warrant knew it was deeply flawed and failed to tell the Pfizer court about it.
It's the failure to disclose to the Pfizer court what they knew about the source of the Steele dossier that makes it into a very, very serious violation of civil liberties and something that the Pfizer Court should be extremely concerned about.
We're all awaiting obviously.
It seems to me, though.
You know, we've had revelations, Greg Jarrett, in the last week.
Well, actually, over the last number of weeks that are stunning to me.
One Bruce Orr, closed door testimony, said he warned everybody, Hillary paid for the dossier.
It's unverified.
Steele hates Donald Trump.
And that was in August of 2016.
Now we learned that, in fact, a State Department official had literally met with Steele, this Kathleen Kavalik, and in fact, warned the FBI 10 days prior to the first FISA application being filed and signed by Jim Comey, which again, at the top of the FISA application, it says verified.
It's an unverifiable document if its author doesn't stand by it.
And also, Jim Comey in January of 2017 went to Trump Tower and said, yeah, there's this dossier.
It's salacious and unverified.
So, you know, I think he's in a whole heap of trouble over this.
Oh, absolutely.
All the people who affixed their signatures verifying for its authenticity and its truthfulness when they knew it wasn't are in legal jeopardy.
You have to understand that for them, the dossier was their holy grail.
It would deliver them from Trump.
But now documents have emerged, and Kathleen Kavalik's is just one of them that prove it was really just a hoax.
The FBI took this phony political document.
It was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and they effectively weaponized it to destroy Trump, to surveil on an associate of his campaign, to gather incriminating evidence that didn't exist.
And now they've been caught red-handed.
So it's extremely important that a U.S. attorney by the name of John Durham will get to the bottom of this.
He has the power to do what the Inspector General doesn't have the power to do, and that is to compel testimony, to present it to a grand jury for potential indictments.
Well, what the horror was.
That's exactly right.
That's exactly right.
And it's so important because, you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And these folks believed that getting rid of Donald Trump was the highest interest of the United States.
And when you have people with that kind of zealotry, that's when the greatest violations of civil liberties occur.
Whether it's on the right or the left, when you have zealots who are convinced that they have truth on their side with a capital T and it's only they who can prevent disaster from happening to this country, they will do anything because they believe that the ends justify the means.
And here we have just a perfect example of zealots who were convinced that it would be a disaster to allow the voters in the Electoral College to determine who the president was.
And so they were going to essentially pull off a coup to make sure that the quote right result, in their view, occurred.
And whether you are a liberal or a conservative or a Democrat or a Republican, you have to be concerned with that approach, especially when it comes from law enforcement.
And so I'm very happy that this is all coming out.
As a liberal Democrat, I'm very happy this is coming out.
Whether it hurts the Democrats or helps the Democrats, that's a short-term issue.
The long-term issue is the rule of law.
The rule of law in the Constitution.
And I know this gets a little sensitive, and I think you think I'm being political, Professor, but I'm not.
I do believe that the law 18 U.S.C. 793 on the Espionage Act is clear.
And we do know that there were top secret and classified documents on Hillary's private server.
And the subpoenaed emails that were deleted, the bleach bit, the hammers to devices, and the SIM cards being removed, that would be intent and obstruction, the intent obviously being to destroy evidence.
That's not political to me.
You get to see that.
I'm happy to see it investigated.
I'm happy to see everything investigated.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Make sure that the law is equally applicable to Democrats and Republicans.
Agree.
There's no thumb on the scale of justice.
That's why we agree.
We agree.
And, Greg, but I think you're more convinced as I am.
Oh, I absolutely am, as I point out in the book.
There are seven potential felonies that Hillary Clinton committed, and some of them she committed in the case of the statute you pointed out, 793, 110 times.
You see, there are 110 classified documents that Comey found that were on her private server.
So that alone would render, arguably, 110 felony counts on a single statute.
So, you know, this, nobody's above the law.
You know, you don't get a get out of jail free car just because you're running for president of the United States and, oh, gee, it's all over and, you know, let bygones be bygones, which was Trump's mistake after the election.
And so, you know, I think this needs to be investigated thoroughly, and I hope it will be.
All right, got to take a quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue with Greg Jarrett and Professor Dershowitz on the other side here on the Sean Hannity show.
All right, as we continue with Greg Jarrett and Professor Alan Dershowitz.
You know, I guess at this point, and I'll go to Professor Dershowitz first on this.
I don't see how those people I look at this.
They had it's all premeditated to me.
If you're warned about the dossier, you purposely hide where it came from.
They didn't put a big Hillary Clinton paid for this, and they knew it.
And they're testifying in that application that it is verified and corroborated, and it's not.
And they do it because of a political agenda.
And we know the people involved had a political agenda against Donald Trump in this particular case.
You're talking about really an attempted coup against the President of the United States or a candidate at first, then a president-elect, then a president.
Am I overstating that?
No, I think you're also talking about a fraud on the court.
And it's so important to emphasize that the Pfizer court takes its applications ex parte.
That is, there's no adversarial system.
So the other side never has a chance to respond.
That's why people who file applications for Pfizer warrants have a special obligation, a special obligation, more than they would at a trial, more than they would in other proceedings where the other side has a chance to respond, to be completely candid, completely thorough, to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and never to deny the court negative information that might impact on a decision not to grant the warrant.
That's what's so important, and why this is such a violation of civil liberties and why it's important for the Attorney General, the Inspector General, to look very, very hard on this, and also for the Pfizer Court to look very, very hard on this and perhaps think about some contempt for speeds.
Greg, I mean, how many felonies could we possibly be talking about here?
Well, fraud on the court, conspiracy to defraud, deprivation of rights under color of law.
It could be perjury.
I mean, they signed their names to this or at the very least, you know, making a false and misleading statement.
It's also obstruction of justice.
They're actively interfering in a judicial process by concealing evidence and deceiving the judges.
So I identify six felonies in my book.
There could be more.
But these are very, as Professor Dersowitz points out, these are very, very serious violations.
It is almost comical now that James Baker, the former general counsel of the FBI, is out there trying to rationalize what are, to me, corrupt acts.
And I don't think anybody's buying it.
I mean, especially since none of these guys can seem to get their story straight.
They're pointing the finger of blame at each other, Comey and Clapper and Brennan.
But, you know, as I said, it's even worse than that.
Then you've got Strzok and Page pointing right at Lorena Lynch saying she brigged that investigation.
So you're saying nobody's buying this.
But you're saying nobody's buying this.
People are buying it because people have taken partisan views of this.
And if the goal was to get Trump, then everything goes and we don't care.
We're not interested in civil liberties or what happened.
And so people are buying it.
And I think it's very important to keep emphasizing how the court was misled and how they fail to provide all the information necessary for the court to make the kind of decision it's supposed to make on a next-party basis.
Greg, what's your response to that?
Yeah, you know, the professor is right.
The mainstream media seems to be buying what James Baker is peddling.
Democrats are certainly buying it.
But I don't think that a judge would buy it.
The FISA court would buy it.
And I don't think an inspector general has bought it.
And I think he's probably finished his investigation.
And when John Durham reviews it, I'm completely confident he ain't going to buy it.
So I think there will be criminal referrals.
All right.
I want to thank you both for being with us.
Professor Dershowitz, thank you.
Greg Jarrett, thank you.
Greg, you're going to stay with us as we continue and talk about the Russian Intel Operations Expert.
We're going to talk with Scott Ullinger, who's going to join us next as we continue and much more straight ahead.
How do you think John Brennan and James Clapper handled the Russian investigation?
Well, again, I don't want to speculate about the facts at this point.
At all.
I know some facts, but it's premature to be discussed.
Can you tell us what the steel dossier had to do with this?
What role did that play?
Well, that's one of the questions that we're going to have to look at.
It's a very unusual situation to have opposition research like that, especially one that on its face had a number of clear mistakes and a somewhat jejun analysis, and to use that to conduct counterintelligence against an American political campaign is a strange would be a strange development.
I'm not sure what role it played, but that's something we have to look at.
Do you smell a rat in this at this point?
I don't know if I'd describe it a rat.
I would just say that the answers I'm getting are not sufficient.
Just to follow up on that, Republicans have said for months that these men, Brennan, Clapper, maybe James Comey, had it in for Trump.
Do you think that's true?
Again, I'm not going to speculate about their motives.
In the period of time between Election Day and the inauguration, did anyone in government or in intelligence, did they take action to justify their decisions?
Between Election Day, did you say?
Between Election Day of 2016 in November and Inauguration Day.
I think there were some very strange developments during that period.
That's one of the things we want to look into.
Such as.
Such as the handling of the meeting on January 6th between the intelligence chiefs and the president and the leaking of information subsequent to that meeting.
Was that meeting in New York City?
Yes.
In Trump Tower.
Yes.
What questions do you have about what happened that day?
Again, I'm not going to get into that.
But it's on your mind.
That's one of the things we need to look at.
Can you characterize how far advanced you are in understanding that meeting?
We're still in the stage of gathering all the information.
Horowitz has already concluded that the final three FISA were completely illegal.
He's now on the brink of finding that the first FISA was completely illegal.
Durham has already used a grand jury in Connecticut.
They've already gotten documents.
He's already talked to the Intel people.
How long has this been going on?
Do we really know how long?
Durham's been working for a couple of months.
So the bottom line is this.
This is now big time.
This is where Brennan needs five lawyers.
Comey needs five lawyers.
Are they lawyered up sufficiently?
Well, I hope Comey has someone other than Mr. Richmond to whom he leaked his memos.
All right, that first was Bill Barr.
I mean, him on FISA, it is mind-numbing what he's saying because everything we said is going to happen is happening.
And then Joe DeGenova, that Horowitz has already concluded that the final three FISAs were completely illegal.
And Durham has already has convened a grand jury.
And he's working now for a couple of months.
And he made those comments on Fox.
I mean, pretty amazing stuff.
We continue with Greg Jarrett, author of the number one bestseller, The Russia Hoax.
Scott Ullinger is with us, retired CIA ops officer, Russian Intel Operations Expert.
And welcome to you, Scott.
Let me ask you this.
When the New York Times reports, especially on the FISA issue, which is now really becoming a focus for everybody, that it's likely Hillary bought and paid for Russian disinformation, and it becomes the basis of a FISA application.
That is even worse than what we thought.
We're not supposed to have foreign spies putting together dossiers that are full of lies in the first place.
And in an interrogatory, Chris Steele said he doesn't stand by his own document.
Then it's used as the basis for a FISA warrant.
It's an unverifiable document.
They don't tell the FISA quarters we discussed the last half hour that Hillary paid for this thing.
And yet they spied on a political campaign.
I mean, it's kind of scary to me.
Absolutely, absolutely, Sean.
And it's incredible that this happened.
I mean, the Steele dossier, for an intelligence professional like myself, I realized it was garbage more than two years ago because Christopher Steele was literally speaking to former Russian officials on like an open channel.
He was not having a clandestine meeting.
So why would you think that any official Russian would give you anything other than what Vladimir Putin directly wanted to get out to us?
And that's the whole point of having clandestine sources.
They provide you information that is compromising.
But calling someone up on a telephone in London to Moscow, you're not going to get a real scoop from somebody that way.
So the Steele dossier was inherently poisoned from the get-go.
Well, you're a retired CIA ops officer, Russian Intel Operations Expert.
You know, I've been told by many people that know that Russia has done this not just to us, to everybody.
And I go back and I'm like, in 2014, before the 2016 election, Devin Nunes, then House Intelligence Committee chair, was saying they're going to do it in 2016.
And that's under Biden Obama.
All of this happened in Brennan and Clapper and Comey.
And I'm just like, now all of a sudden, it becomes they try to throw this somehow on Donald Trump when they had a duty and obligation, did they not?
If the head of the Intel Committee knows, they've got to know too, don't they?
Or am I just inferring something and it wouldn't be true?
No, that's absolutely true.
And in fact, the Obama administration dropped the ball by de-emphasizing the danger of this before six months before the elections took place.
But anyone who understands the way the Russians operate knows that they've been doing this since the Russian Revolution.
I mean, the whole reason they subsumed the Iron Curtain was because they rotted those governments from within, the countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and then eventually brought them into the Soviet empire.
So they're old hands at disrupting internal government functions and affecting political perception.
Greg, I mean, this gets into all of this.
I don't understand why America is still hackable.
Does that make sense?
I think I read we have 250,000 IT employees for the federal government.
I think I always view America with the belief that we have the best of the best.
But you have these instances where we keep hearing about our top secrets being hacked into.
I know there's some very smart, creative people out there with nefarious intentions that always want to hurt us.
But after you get hacked 100 times, do you not say it's where we're allowing this to happen?
Why haven't we built the defense systems up to prevent this from happening to us?
And maybe it's a moving target, I assume, at all times, but still it is.
It is a moving target in this sense.
For every antivirus program you can introduce to protect your system, nefarious actors who are skilled at cyber espionage, like the GRU in Russia, they come up with a way around it or a different entrance to computer systems.
So it is, you're right, it's sort of a constant moving target.
You have to continue to upgrade and look for ways to protect your system.
So it's an interesting point that you bring up because it was always a silly proposition that the GRU and the Russians somehow needed the Trump campaign to help them hack into the Podesta emails and the Democratic system and Hillary Clinton emails.
There was nobody sophisticated on the Trump campaign to do that.
The Russian intrusions began before the Trump campaign.
And so they didn't need Trump's help.
And yet, when you look at the Mueller report, so much time and attention is focused on their efforts to try to prove that Trump colluded in the hacking of email systems.
And it's just silliness to even consider it.
All right, quick break.
More at Scott and Greg on the other side as we continue.
And we'll look at the president's new immigration policies at the top of the next hour.
We'll get to your calls as well in a little Friday concert series.
The Sean Hannity Show is up next.
on for Sean's Conservative Solutions.
Alright, as we continue with Greg Jauer and Scott Ulinger.
I know it's a moving target, Scott, and I wouldn't begin to, I barely can download an app for crying out loud.
That's how pathetic I am with computers.
All right.
That's not my thing.
My young kids, can you do this for me?
That's what I say all the time.
Just you do it.
And I think I'm like a lot of people, I know the level of sophistication.
You know, I've had people on this program say that every phone call, every text, every email is recorded and stored and megadata stored.
And even our own government does it all.
And I'm fine with having the best intelligence.
I believe we have the premier law enforcement agency in the world with the FBI.
I really believe that.
And the 99.9% that should never be tainted by what some bad apples did at the top.
And I really believe that.
It pains me to ever even talk negatively about this great agency in any negative way.
But abuse of power occurred.
And I believe with the intelligence community too, the world's premier intelligence community.
But those tools are so powerful.
If we turn them on the American people or we use it for nefarious political reasons, you know, at home, everything we stand for is a constitutional republic.
All of our rights, they're not only diminished, they're destroyed.
And that seems to have happened.
That's right, Sean.
And that's why I'm very alarmed at everything we've been seeing with the Russian collusion hoax from the get-go.
I'm really glad that you've been sounding the call for going on two years now because this is the worst political scandal we've ever had.
I mean, this is unprecedented for the CIA to be doing things like installing spies to entrap people in a political campaign.
Now, usually the CIA and even the FBI are bureaucratically, sometimes they're relatively risk-averse.
I mean, they want to avoid what they call the, quote, appearance of impropriety, unquote.
And sometimes that can be even at the expense of not always performing the mission.
But here we have the opposite.
We have people dedicating the tools of the intelligence community to spying on a U.S. political campaign, which is inconceivable.
If you told me 15 years ago when I was in the agency that this would be occurring, I would have refused to have believed it because I saw the agency sometimes be very risk-adverse.
But in this case, they're willing to do something which is not only far behind their mandate, but is illegal.
And yet they did it because under the Obama administration, the entire intelligence community, whether it's the FBI, the CIA, or the NSA, had become thoroughly politicized.
And this is what the American people now have to live with.
You know, Greg, I wonder now, I mean, I wonder if in the end, we actually have to weaken our great work because of a few bad apples.
In other words, with the protections that we now need to put in, well, let's start with surveillance.
All the unmasking that took place, a 350% increase in unmasking in 2016 alone.
Samantha Powers, you know, 300 separate unmasking requests.
I don't want the talent of this agency in this ugly, evil world we live in, starting with the bad actors in Russia and Vladimir Putin himself, by the way, and we can bring him to his knees.
We will outproduce him energy-wise, and that's it.
We would cripple their economy.
That's how you defeat Russia.
But putting that aside, and I just wonder now, you know, what is the antidote?
How do you put in the protections and still do the hard job of intelligence?
Well, exposing corruption tends to put a stop to what I refer to as power creep.
And it happens in agencies like our intelligence community, the CIA, the FBI.
It's happened before.
When misconduct and corruption has been exposed, Congress has taken actions to limit powers and accountability, congressional oversight.
And this happens every 20, 30 years.
It happened about that time back in the 80s when we learned of corrupt acts.
And so it's going to happen again here.
We have now learned that, as Scott said, our intelligence community became politicized and weaponized improperly and illegally under the Obama administration.
And exposure is the only antidote because that precipitates restrictions and changes in oversight.
Well, let me ask you this, Scott, because you know, how bad is it?
How bad do you think the corruption is?
And how vulnerable are we as a country from outside actors, hostile regimes, Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, in terms of their ability to hack us?
Well, I think that this is, in some ways, this whole revelation, investigation by the Attorney General is a good thing.
Unfortunately, it comes at a very bad time when we are uniquely challenged by some significant threats, such as mostly China, to a lesser extent, Russia, and of course, Iran and North Korea.
I'm hoping that was said before, by exposing this corruption to the sunlight and having real reform made, we will reduce this politicization, which will automatically increase the effectiveness of our intelligence community because we very much need it in today's dangerous world.
You know, the curse of any Intel service, and I've seen it in my career all over the world, is politicization.
Once a service becomes politicized, it is usually the path to ruin, and that service becomes marginalized and ineffective.
So hopefully, Barr will put a stop to this.
We'll have a thorough investigation.
People who misbehaved will be punished severely, and then we can move on and have enhanced security for everyone.
Well, I want the right thing.
I love this country.
I love the people that work for this country and protect us and show us all the courage.
I want to be the best at that game because it's not really a game.
Look at the last century alone, 100 million souls destroyed, that we have to be ever vigilant.
So I just hope we got to the bottom of it all.
Scott, thank you for being with us, Greg.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
800-941 Sean Tolfrey, telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
When we come back, Principal Deputy White House Secretary Hogan Giddley joins us, and your call straight ahead.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
This is the most prized citizenship anywhere in the world by far.
Currently, 66% of legal immigrants come here on the basis of random chance.
They're admitted solely because they have a relative in the United States.
And it doesn't really matter who that relative is.
Our proposal fulfills our sacred duty to those living here today while ensuring America remains a welcoming country to immigrants joining us tomorrow.
And we want immigrants coming in.
We cherish the open door that we want to create for our country.
But a big proportion of those immigrants must come in through merit and skill.
The White House plan makes no change to the number of green cards allocated each year, but instead of admitting people through random chance, we will establish simple, universal criteria for admission to the United States.
No matter where in the world you are born, no matter who your relatives are, if you want to become an American citizen, it will be clear exactly what standard we ask you to achieve.
It will be made crystal clear.
We must also restore the integrity of our broken asylum system.
Our nation has a proud history of affording protection to those fleeting government persecutions.
Unfortunately, legitimate asylum seekers are being displaced by those lodging frivolous claims.
These are frivolous claims to gain admission into our country.
My plan expedites relief for legitimate asylum seekers by screening out the meritless claims.
If you have a proper claim, you will quickly be admitted.
If you don't, you will promptly be returned home.
All right, so that's what the president said.
And then there's fake news, CNN.
Now, they claim to be the FACS First Network.
That's what they claim.
Okay, but never mind the fact for two years and running, they only perpetrated conspiracy theories, a hoax, and lies to their audience and the American people.
But anyway, so Acosta tweets, based on what you just heard, Trump in Rose Garden speech paints asylum seekers with broad brush accusing them of misleading immigration authorities at the border.
These are frivolous claims, which isn't accurate.
President said we must also restore the integrity of our broken asylum system.
Our nation has a proud history of affording protection to those fleeing government persecutions.
Unfortunately, legitimate asylum seekers are being displaced by those lodging frivolous claims, and these are frivolous claims to gain admission into our country.
And he added, my plan expedites relief for legitimate asylum seekers by screening out the meritless claims.
If you have a proper claim, you will quickly be admitted.
If you don't, you will be promptly returned home.
That's not a broad brush accusing or painting asylum seekers of misleading immigration authorities at the border.
Anyway, joining us is Hogan Goodley.
He's the principal deputy White House Secretary.
He works for Sarah Sanders.
How are you?
I'm great, Sean.
How are you?
I'm good, sir.
I mean, look, we know Acosta cares about Acosta and Acosta's image and Acosta's life and Acosta's ego.
I get it.
But I mean, just to purposely do it, and then you wonder why it's a waste of time to talk to these people.
I'm telling you, it's worse than that.
We have a million people in this country right now with final removal orders from judges who came here and claimed asylum.
They had their case adjudicated, and it turns out they were not telling the truth, and they did not deserve asylum in this great country, and the judge ordered them removed.
We have a million of those people.
No one reports on that at all.
It is completely brushed under the rug, and you hear reporter after reporter have these biased conversations and biased reporting that tries to somehow paint us as a nation that isn't compassionate.
We're the most compassionate nation on the face of the planet.
We let in 1.1 million people a year into this country legally.
Hundreds of thousands of visas for workers, hundreds of thousands of visas for students.
So to say anything other than the fact that we are generous and we welcome people, not to mention ones who desperately deserve and need asylum, as you just pointed out, you'll quickly be let into this country if that's the case.
The problem is so many are lying and defrauding the system and scamming the system.
We've seen a 1,700% increase in credible fear claims in the last seven years because they know the magic words.
They're coached by the drug cartels and the human smugglers and the child traffickers of how to get in this country.
It's time to change it.
This president is doing it regardless of what the mainstream media try to lie about.
Well, I mean, and that's the hard part.
I mean, and this is what you guys deal with every day.
And then they complain about, you know, well, you don't have enough press conferences.
Those press conferences have devolved into every single Washington Press Corps member.
They're not looking for information.
They're looking for their moment, their gotcha, their own careers are in play for them and what they're asking.
You know what I'm saying?
It's really hard.
Of course.
Listen, we're not going to be responsible for launching the careers of people who just decide to grandstand inside the press briefing room.
Sarah Sanders goes out there every time, delivers the information.
The president gives information on the way to Marine One in gaggles.
He is the most accessible president in the history of the planet.
Anyone who covers the White House and has for decades will tell you as much.
However, in that briefing room, as you just said, so many are auditioning for contracts.
And you see, since we haven't had that many briefings of late because we've been giving the media so much other news and other forms, whether they're gaggles on the lawn or the president directly, those folks who used to get a lot of airtime aren't getting as much airtime because they're not relevant because they don't get to use the White House to try and pad their own careers.
Well, let me ask you from this standpoint.
I mean, you know, for example, it seems like nobody wants to give Donald Trump a win.
And, you know, when the Democrats were offered on the case of immigration, they seemed to care about walls and borders when Obama was proposing it in his second term, and they were willing to fund it then.
And they seemed to care about DREAMers, and they seem to care about DACA.
And the president offered all of the above, and the answer became and evolved into that this is somehow a manufactured crisis and it's immoral to build walls.
So that tells me that this is all about politics.
Absolutely.
They've been playing politics with people's lives for a long time.
You know as well as I do.
Democrats just hate being out of power.
But they'll use DACA to their advantage any way possible.
The president offered 1.8 million people here under the DACA rule citizenship, three times more than Barack Obama, and the Democrats still wouldn't come to the table.
Barack Obama called this a humanitarian crisis from the Rose Garden, and the Democrats cheered and said we have to fix it.
Donald Trump gets in office.
Not only does Donald Trump deliver his first Oval Office address directly to the American people predicting this would happen on the southern border, claiming the crisis was on its way.
He got mocked and derided, as did Fox News, for example, saying that they were lying about all of this.
And in all of that, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer go on and get airtime after his Oval Office address, which is unheard of in the first place.
But they go on television and use the term manufactured crisis three times.
But was it manufactured when Obama called it that?
Was it manufactured when they voted for walls and they voted to close loopholes in years past?
Absolutely not.
This has gotten way out of control.
And Democrats are the party of open borders.
That's their only solution to this because they choose to stand with hundreds of thousands of people who come here illegally and unlawfully every month as opposed to the hundreds of millions of American citizens, and it's time they answer for it.
Well, I agree.
So as we move forward with the president's agenda, you've got record-breaking success.
You've got Democrats that are trying to out-green deal each other, and somehow there has emerged a consensus among the Democratic Party in the Democratic Party that, well, we need to get rid of oil and gas.
For the first time in 75 years, Hogan, we are energy independent and a net exporter of energy.
All the talk about Russia, we can bring Russia to its knees if we out-produce them with energy and get it to our allies and get it to Asia and get it to Australia.
Secondly, record low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workplace.
We have now 1.7 million more jobs available than we have people on unemployment.
This has not happened.
Biden Obama gave us 13 million more Americans on food stamps, 8 million more in poverty, the worst recovery in 40 years, and more debt than all 43 presidents before them combined.
And it's like, what part of this success are they not enjoying?
They ought to be cheering and thanking this president for turning around an economy for the very people they claim to want to help.
The point you just said, which are African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women are now employed at record numbers.
I mean, this president has systematically turned around the economy with deregulation and tax cuts.
And the proof is what you see with the people who are actually seeing success.
And people like Mayor de Blasio, for example, saying with this Green New Deal taking it so far, he's talking about not using glass and steel to build buildings.
I mean, look, this has been tried before.
It's in the story of the three little pigs.
And if history is any guy building with straw and sticks, it just doesn't end well for us.
Well, you can't do that either.
What are you going to use?
You can't use wood because then you're cutting trees.
Exactly.
It's absolutely incredible.
And they still are going down this road.
You mentioned it on the intro.
They're still talking about cover-ups in Russia.
I heard Carl Bernstein of the famed Woodward and Bernstein group the other day saying this is an ongoing cover-up.
What is he talking about?
First of all, he's been scratching and clawing to be relevant since the 1970s.
But every time I hear him talk, it's almost as though he's a 50-year-old man at a cocktail party talking about the one time he threw a touchdown pass in high school.
I mean, it's over.
Watergate's over.
This cover-up he's claiming to be.
The entire thing is public.
Mueller had two years to do this.
Barr put out every word with a few little tenths of a redaction.
And they still can't get over it because they wanted it to be true so badly.
And if they admit that it was a lie, and they admit that they were telling the American people a flat-out lie to their face without proof or evidence, then they're going to admit the fact that the last two years of their life were a complete and total waste and they just refuse to let go.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back more with Hogan Gidley is the principal deputy White House Secretary on the other side than our concert series this Friday.
And boy, we need it.
And your call straight ahead.
As we continue with Hogan Gidley, he's the principal deputy White House press secretary.
He works with Sarah Sanders in the White House.
Now, let me ask you a little bit more details about the President's plan on immigration.
Fewer green cards given to people with relatives already in the U.S. Factors like age, English language proficiency, employment offers also taken into account.
The diversity visa lottery, which offers green cards to citizens of countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S. would be eliminated, will strengthen our ports of entry.
We'll continue to build the wall and all the other technologies that are needed.
A fund paid for with increased fees created to modernize ports of entry.
And, you know, it sounds reasonable, and rightly so.
It doesn't address what to do about the millions of people here already.
And I don't think that should be addressed until the wall is built and it's secure.
Sure.
Well, look, when you spring a leak, obviously you want to fix the leak.
You don't go shopping for a new sink.
I mean, the fact is we have a leak in this country as it relates to illegal immigration coming across our borders in record numbers.
You hit on it.
The plan that the president laid out is not only reasonable, it's rational and actually addresses the problem in twofold.
One is border security, the pieces you mentioned on strengthening some of our infrastructure to scan 100% of the vehicles that come across, 100% of the trade cargo.
I mean, you thought we'd been doing that.
We haven't.
Building the wall, we'll have about 400-plus miles built by the end of the year next year.
But also the merit-based system, as you just said.
We found out that people who come here who are younger tend to assimilate.
Data shows that.
They tend to actually contribute to the American economy and to the idea of what America actually is.
That's important.
Also, people who come here with degrees, people who come here with skills to work in our manufacturing sector.
I mean, the president's bringing back these jobs.
He keeps hearing from the owners of these companies they need more workers.
So we're talking about bringing people in like that, not low-wage workers, low-skill workers to depress wages, but higher-wage individuals who have a skill that can contribute to this country.
It seems rational.
It seems reasonable.
It's no wonder Democrats don't like it because it makes too much sense.
Well, I think this is the thing.
You know, one of the big messages, I think, for the reelection is going to be, are you better off than you were four years ago?
It's a pretty simple answer.
Absolutely.
Across the board, as the groups we just mentioned, as the demographics, the answer is yes.
And when 80-plus percent of this country receives a tax cut, and then the media comes out and has to say you guys received a tax cut, and then they're shocked that the American people didn't realize they got a tax cut, it's because they've been reporting a lie for the last two years saying you didn't get it.
It only went to the rich.
And we find out a majority of the country gets the tax cut.
I mean, this is the type of 93% negative news coverage this president has to endure that no other president in history has had to face.
And he's winning every day, all day for all demographics and all the people in this country.
And Democrats just don't know what to do about it.
Yeah, well said.
All right.
Thank you so much.
Hogan Gidley's the principal deputy White House Press Secretary.
Thank you so much for being with us.
I will take a quick break.
Friday concert series coming up next.
And then right to your phone calls as the Sean Hannity show continues.
Oh, man.
I just get this feeling at this time every Friday.
I'm like, wow, we made it.
Another week.
You know, we're this close now on this FISA information coming public.
It's going to be a shock to the soul and system.
The apparatchik, if you will, the new extreme radical democratic socialist party, they're not going to like what they're going to see.
And there won't be any opportunity to spin this, to lie any further.
And I want to play one more cut of Bill Barr.
I mean, this is so stunning to me what he's saying here.
No one's looked into the counterintelligence probe against the Trump campaign.
And then, you know, answers to my questions have been inadequate.
Just listen to this, and then we'll get right to the calls.
Well, the first step is find out exactly what happened.
And we're trying to get our arms around that, getting all the relevant information from the various agencies and starting to talk to some of the people that have information.
The thing that's interesting about this is that this was handled at a very senior level of these departments.
It wasn't handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counterintelligence activities are conducted.
It was sort of an ad hoc small group.
And most of these people are no longer with the FBI or the CIA or the other agencies involved.
This appears to run deep.
Why is it so hard to figure out?
Well, there are two things here.
One, no one's really looked at it.
I think there's a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened.
The fact of the matter is, Bob Mueller did not look at the government's activities.
He was looking at whether or not the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russians.
But he was not going back and looking at the counterintelligence program.
And we have a number of investigations underway that touch upon it, the main one being the Office of Inspector General that's looking at the FISA warrants.
But as far as I'm aware, no one has really looked across the whole waterfront.
You also said back in April that you thought there was spying going on in the Trump campaign.
When do you think that started?
Well, I'm not going to speculate about when it started.
We're going to find out when it started.
It's been said that it was July of 2016.
Does that sound right to you?
Again, I don't want to speculate.
What I will say is that, you know, I've been trying to get answers to questions, and I found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate.
And I've also found that some of the explanations I've gotten don't hang together.
So in a sense, I have more questions today than I did when I first started.
Some of what things don't hang together.
Some of the explanations of what occurred.
Why does that matter?
Well, because I think people have to find out what the government was doing during that period.
If we're worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason, we should be worried about whether government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale.
And so I'm not saying that happened, but I'm saying that we have to look at that.
All right, let's go to our busy phones here.
Larry is in California.
Larry, how are you?
Glad you called.
I guess you're one of the remaining Californians that's going to just pay and pay through the nose.
Hi, Sean.
How are you?
I'm good, sir.
How are you?
Good.
I just want to make a quick comment on James Clapper's recent TV interview where he was advocating the Inspector General finishing his work before Barr appoints this U.S. attorney from Connecticut.
You know, the reason he's looking at that is this guy can't subpoena the Inspector General.
He can't convene a grand jury.
You know, he can only interview current federal employees.
But now, with the U.S. attorney looking into this, this guy can convene a grand jury, take sworn testimony.
He can file charges.
And to be honest with you, this is the first time that I actually think somebody is going to be charged with a crime.
And that makes my Friday, to be truthful with you.
The only, you know, I don't really take glee in it.
And I've explained this.
I have a, you know, I guess maybe, you know, some people have said to me, well, Hannity, you should, you know, take a bow.
You've been right for two years and all your ensemble team.
You know, I do take pride in my work that we want to be right.
We work hard to be right.
And believe me, if I was as wrong as the rest of the media the last two years, you don't think they'd be bludgeoning me every single hour of every day?
And our sourcing was so good.
Everyone did, you know, basically old school style reporting and investigating and sources and corroborating and all the things that so-called journalists are supposed to do, like we did back betting Obama.
Nobody else did it, and we did.
And I just say to you this, you know, as somebody that just loves law enforcement, to see this and to see that we've got to the precipice where we are and what could have really happened in the end.
If Hillary Clinton wins this election, we never know a thing.
And then it probably only gets worse.
So, you know, I want we have to fix it for the sake of the country, the rule of law.
Anyway, thanks for the question.
Anything else, Larry?
That's it.
Have a great day.
Hey, are you watching the golf on TV today?
I haven't been watching because I got a show to do, but I'll be watching this weekend, no doubt about it.
All right.
Have a good weekend.
All right, my friend.
Thank you.
800-941-Sean Tolfrey, telephone number.
All right, Jeff, New York, the all-new AM710, W-O-R.
How are you, sir?
Welcome to the program.
Good.
How are you?
This is Jeff Rivet from Waterford New York.
Sean, I wanted to make the comparison of how I believe Rob Mueller is behaving very much like Governor Cuomo.
You know, Governor Cuomo started that Moreland Commission, and as it started to point down the road of leading all roads lead back to him, he disbanded the commission.
And I feel like when you look at scenarios like Mueller with the, for example, the attorney that met with Don Jr., all of a sudden, you know, he starts to, you know, do the investigation and he goes back to Eamon Algarav.
Algarav would definitely talk with Mueller, but Mueller wants to do it under subpoena.
And obviously, you know, he's going to get locked up in the United States here.
He won't be able to leave.
It seems like Mueller's leaving everything open-ended that's going to lead back to a bought and paid-for conspiracy.
You know, I'm not even sure how much control Mueller had in all this based on what we're now learning.
You know, he hires these radicals.
These radicals go forward, you know, and write this ridiculous 200 political page document with nothing in it.
And because they found nothing.
And, you know, if he does go and testify, he's going to have to answer many hard questions.
Why did he hire Weissman?
Why did he hire Genie Ray?
When did he know there was no collusion?
Why didn't he wrap it up then?
How did you ignore, with the wide mandate, how did you ignore the fake Russian dossier that even the New York Times now has caught up to us and saying it probably was Russian misinformation, disinformation meant to impact the 2016 elections right at the center of his mandate, having nothing to do with Ukraine from the 80s or tax returns or loan applications or taxi medallions.
I think he's got a lot of tough questions there.
So, you know, we'll see you in the end.
I agree.
All right, my friend.
Yeah, thank you so much.
Super appreciate all you do with Sarah Carter, John Sloman, getting out their good reporting.
It's also Janine Pirro.
It's also Joe DeGeneral.
It's so many.
I can't say everybody, and I don't want to piss people off.
Tom Fitton, all these guys have been amazing.
All right, let's get back to our busy phones.
Thank you.
Dan in Michigan.
Dan, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hey, Sean, good.
How you doing?
I'm good, sir.
Hey, Sean, two quick points with Attorney General Bowler.
One, you know how they were calling him a political appointee.
Well, Anna Kohler and Loretta Lance were political appointees, and every attorney general in the history of our country has been in a political appointee.
And the people voted for the president to make that political appointment.
So that's like the stupidest talk ever.
Sean, you know, the colour of law, abuse of power, prosecutors, police.
Think about Smollett in Chicago.
Think about the prosecutor in Baltimore with those cops, framing them.
Think about the Attorney General in the state of New York using their office for political stuff.
And then, of course, think about how Justice Parvinian did the whole thing with Trump.
The Attorney General of this country has got to bring colour of law, political abuse against local politicians, state politicians, and, of course, the federal, like we're talking about.
They've got to be bringing criminal charges.
This cannot happen.
Well, it can't happen.
And if you don't hold them accountable, there's so many significant issues here.
I mean, nobody cared that they tried to rig Bernie's primary.
They did rig it in Hillary's face.
They tried.
They rigged Hillary's investigation.
It's overwhelming evidence.
You can't even dispute it.
Even Comey admits they just changed the intent of it and gave her a break.
They rigged it.
And Struck and Page are laughing at it, saying, well, that was all run through the Attorney General's office.
Nobody gets away with what Hillary did except Hillary.
You know, think of Christian Saussier, six submarine photos, and it puts him in jail for a year, shared it with nobody.
You know, it's unbelievable to me.
Anyway, good call.
Thanks, Dan.
800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
We will continue on the other side.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
All right, so the great one out with an incredible new book, and it's just hitting the bookshelves today.
And you can get it on Hannity.com, Amazon.com, bookstores everywhere.
And yes, Unfreedom of the Press, a powerful one hour with the great one.
You don't want to miss.
That's tonight, 9 Eastern on Fox News.
Obviously, we'll be watching developments over the weekend.
We're getting very close, I believe, to an Inspector General report on FISA, and the cascade has begun.
The avalanche that we've been telling you is now coming in full circle.
Yes, it's no longer Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
