Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona is here to talk about the Dream Act Bill being revealed in the House Judiciary Committee today. The legislation, if passed, would provide a pathway to citizenship for more than 2 million undocumented people who came to the country as children. As liberals fight amongst themselves, this legislation is poised to be controversial...again. 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.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, at some point, maybe during this program, if not by tonight at 9 for sure, we're going to have two pretty big breaking news stories.
So stay tuned with us.
One from John Solomon.
And I understand that Congressman Devin Nunes is in the process of putting something together as it relates to an important item that I think could play a very big role in people understanding even more deeply the corruption surrounding the deep state.
We also have coming up, Bill O'Reilly, Andy Gibbs of Arizona, Dan Abrams, all coming up today.
So let me first start.
Jason, were you talking in my ear?
What did you want to say?
You can say anything you want before I get going.
Go ahead.
Andy Biggs.
What did I say?
Oh, geez.
Andy Biggs.
Thank you.
Thank goodness I have a great staff.
All right.
So big fight today.
You got to understand there's one thing I was thinking about as this was all unfolding today.
And I'm going to play some of the president because I thought it was the right thing to do.
We have had four separate investigations now that have gone on for almost two and a half.
We had the nine-month FBI investigation and leading up to the appointment of Robert Mueller.
Even Peter Strzzok, there's no there there after nine months.
Lisa Page, we had nothing after nine months.
And by the way, this was a full-on, you know, head to top to bottom, head-to-toe investigation here.
That's what it was.
And nothing there.
Then you had the House Intelligence Committee, nothing.
Then you had the bipartisan Senate Committee, nothing.
Then now we have the Mueller Report, nothing.
And a lot of people are thinking, okay, so I've never believed that if you just run on demonizing an opponent in an election, I don't think that's going to get you to where you want to be.
So midterm election comes, Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker again.
It's nothing like the loss of Obama, what, 70 seats total and a lot of the Senate seats.
No, we gained seats in the Senate in the midterm under Trump.
And it's nothing like the bloodbath Bill Clinton had in his first midterm.
Historically, this just is a natural ebb and flow of the political cycle.
And I'm just thinking, you know, for example, a lot of people, Mitt Romney's mad, Trump won, he didn't win, and everybody went in for Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is genuinely a nice person, but they still called him a misogynist and racist.
John McCain, same thing.
It doesn't matter who you are.
This is their main tactic, which I talk about every two and four years.
This is the list that I go down that Republicans are this, this, this, this, and this.
They're not.
It is one big narrative, one big lie.
So now that they have been in power since January, what have the Democrats been doing?
Because we're heading into June now.
Memorial Day weekend is coming up.
What have they done to help make us a safer country, a more secure country, a more united country?
What have they done for our peace abroad, prosperity?
What have they done?
What solutions to the problems that individual Americans are facing?
What are they doing to make their lives better?
The answer is there is no answer because it is rage, psychotic hatred of Trump every second minute, hour of every 24-hour day, and they don't take a day off.
This is all they do.
So here we go again.
They just literally are trashing.
Nancy Pelosi meeting with Democrats.
Nancy Pelosi, I told you about this yesterday, has a big problem.
Nancy Pelosi has this radical left-wing base of her party.
And it's not just Ocasio-Cortez or Omar or Talib or these new congresswomen.
It's not just them.
It's, you know, over 100 of House, Senate members, many presidential candidates, they all want this insane, you know, Green New Deal.
They're advocating for it.
They're running on it, which is the only substantive thing they're talking about, which would be an unmitigated disaster for the country.
Oh, we'll get rid of oil and gas in 10 years, the lifeblood of our economy.
Wow.
And then you compare.
You know, there's always, are you better off than you were four years ago?
Is the country better off than you were four years ago?
And, well, I've given out Obama's record a lot.
If you're a regular listener, you could probably recite it like I can.
13 million more Americans, food stamps, 8 million more poverty, worst recovery since the 40s.
All of that.
What do we have under Trump in two and a half years?
Record low unemployment, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workforce, African Americans, youth unemployment.
And I went over the numbers yesterday.
This was a Quentin Piak poll.
18-year high that people have felt this good about the economy.
Now, the news never reports it.
The mainstream media never reports it because they're corrupt.
And they have been peddling lies and conspiracy theories for two and a half years as well.
They have been the active participants and enablers of the whole process.
And they're just not going to change.
So, you know, President Trump all of a sudden is that you have Pelosi and Schumer.
Now, think of this.
When Obama's in his second term, Pelosi and Schumer weren't saying walls are immoral.
They were not saying that in any way.
They were actually sounding like Donald Trump.
We played that tape many times before of everybody, all these big Democrats.
They weren't saying that the crisis at the border was a manufactured crisis.
No, that it was immoral to build walls.
No, they were actually funding spending bills to build walls.
And they talked with great passion and sincerity about DACA and DREAMers.
And all of this now became available to them because Donald Trump put it all on the table.
You care about walls?
I want to build the wall.
I want it done now.
And I want our borders secure because 90% of heroin in this country that leads to 300 deaths a week is crossing that border.
And now we add fentanyl to the mix.
And then we add in a two-year period, 4,000 homicides and 30,000 sexual assaults, violent assaults, 100,000 violent assaults.
And so the president has the statutory ability to do it on his own.
It just makes it harder.
And the president, they weren't able to override the veto.
Now funds are being transferred from the Defense Department and the Pentagon budget, unused funds like past presidents have done, and they are being earmarked to get the border wall up.
I've gotten different answers.
I know that it's reported to, well, there's only 1.7 miles of new wall.
That was one report, but it's been a total of about 115 just new wall.
And when you add all the repaired sections in there, it's a lot more.
But now the president has the funding to now move forward expeditiously.
And the hope is by 2020, it's four or five hundred miles of brand new wall to keep the border safe and secure.
And, you know, when have the Democrats, so the Democrats come out today and they're all worked up because the president said, you know what?
If we've had four investigations, this is four times now.
I have been transparent.
I have given 1.5 million documents.
I have encouraged everybody in the White House to cooperate with congressional investigators and with the Mueller team.
Even though I hated it, I did it.
I didn't fire Mueller.
I had the right to under Article 2, but I didn't do it.
And so finally we get the report and they just want to go back again.
This is all they're fixated on.
And the president's like, you know what?
You really have no interest in working for the American people.
It's all a show.
And I've been on this now for a number of weeks because it's so true, this selective moral outrage.
And that is, oh, they don't care about, let's see, collusion because otherwise they would look at Ukraine and be asking Ukraine for the information that they are affording us about how they cooperated with the DNC and their emails to prove it in terms of trying to influence our 2016 election.
They're not interested in that collusion.
If they cared about obstruction, they'd look at Hillary Clinton.
They'd read 18 USC 793 in the Espionage Act.
It's a crime.
It's felonies to put top secret classified information on a private server.
She did it.
There's no question, no ambiguity whatsoever.
And then the deletion of 33,000 subpoenaed emails and bleach bit and hammers and SIM cards removed the whole bit.
And so they say they care about obstruction.
Well, Donald Trump, maybe he wasn't found guilty of collusion, but he obstructed.
Well, you need an intention.
And it needs to be an underlying crime.
There was no underlying crime.
It was the president venting about how much time of his presidency is being absorbed because of this witch hunt.
And it was very outspoken.
But if they cared about collusion, they would care about Ukraine.
They don't.
If they cared about obstruction, they would be all over Hillary Clinton and what she did to those emails.
They would care.
If they cared about Russia and influence from Russia, then they would really care a lot about the bought and paid for dirty Russian dossier that Hillary used as a means of basically trying to steal the 2016 election because they literally handed out versions of this to the Washington Post and were feeding information to David Korn and Michael Isikoff.
Well, that was all phony information.
And then what the New York Times suspects is Russian disinformation is what she paid for, to create chaos.
Now, why didn't Robert Mueller have time for that?
Why did the Democrats that seem to care so much about Russian influence, why don't they care that Hillary bought a Russian dirty dossier full of lies that the New York Times is suggesting is likely Russian disinformation.
How did that get ignored?
Then it becomes the basis of a FISA application.
And then we'll get into it later with John Solomon.
Now we know that they were warned repeatedly over and over and over and over again that this dossier should not be trusted, that it wasn't verified, that Hillary paid for it, that Steele hated Donald Trump.
They were warned by Bruce Soar, according to his closed-door testimony in August of 2016.
John Solomon breaks the story.
Christopher Steele is in a panic at the State Department 10 days before the first FISA application is given.
And now we know that, in fact, there's exculpatory transcripts that will be coming out about Papadopoulos and Paige, and they didn't know they were being recorded, apparently, and they were being spied on, Mr. Comey.
And that in those conversations, they said, no, we never heard of any of this ever by anybody.
What are you talking about?
Collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
And no, we'd never participate in anything like that.
And also adding emphasis, I interviewed Papadopoulos last night.
I view that as treasonous.
I love my country.
Uh-oh.
And everybody knew it, and they did it anyway.
They didn't think Trump was going to win.
Now they had to cover their tracks.
And then they tried to use the unverified, dirty Russian disinformation dossier to bludgeon Trump.
And now Trump says, I've had it.
I'm done.
You want to spend your time investigating?
You don't want to deal with DACA, DREAMers, borders, tax cuts, energy independence.
You don't want to help on anything.
I'd love to do an infrastructure deal, but you guys aren't capable of it.
Walked out of the room.
I'm going to play that for you throughout this hour and throughout the show today.
All right.
So with that background I just gave you about Democrats.
They don't have any desire to do anything.
Anyway, so they come in.
They're attacking the president.
And, well, this was Nancy Pelosi, Speaker and Name Only's reaction.
We had hoped that we could give this president an opportunity to have a signature infrastructure initiative to create jobs, to improve the quality of life, to just do so much for our country on the ongoing, not only the jobs it created by building, but the commerce it would promote.
For some reason, maybe it was lack of confidence on his part that he really couldn't match the greatness of the challenge that we have.
Wasn't really respectful of the Congress and the White House working together.
He just took a pass.
And it just makes me wonder why he did that.
In any event, I pray for the President of the United States.
And I pray for the United States of America.
All right.
Well, really?
Okay.
Let's go to Schumer, and then I'm going to play on the other side of the break the president's response.
We were interested.
We are interested in doing infrastructure.
It's clear the president isn't.
He is looking for every excuse.
Whether it was let's do trade first, or whether it was he's not going to pay for any funding, or whether today that there are investigations going on.
Hello?
There were investigations going on three weeks ago when we met.
And he still met with us.
But now that he was forced to actually say how he'd pay for it, he had to run away.
And he came up with this pre-planned excuse.
And one final point.
It's clear that this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part.
It was planned.
When we got in the room, the curtains were closed.
The president, there was a place for him at the front so he could stand and attempt to tell us why he wouldn't do infrastructure.
And of course, then he went to the Rose Garden with prepared signs that had been printed up long before our meeting.
25 now till the top of the hour.
It's interesting you watch the media, the predictable, the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
Nothing but, I mean, they can't even come up with their own individual talking points.
They just share them, you know, manufacture crisis.
It is why should the president, how do you do business with people that have no desire to do anything but bludgeon you every single hour of every day and that are meeting about not just another meeting, but they do nothing but take shots all day long.
And Nancy Pelosi now caving to her radical base.
Look, I will tell you this.
They're not going to get anywhere with what they're doing.
There is, you know, you go back even in the Clinton impeachment era, you go back and you see that the Republicans, even under New Game, they were still doing the things for the country.
The Star Report had 11 specific felonies that would be applicable and chargeable to then president Bill Clinton.
It's not the same as the Mueller report, but it didn't help the Republicans one bit.
So what have they done to this point, meaning the Democrats, to help make this a more prosperous, greater opportunity society?
Are they for energy independence?
No, they want to eliminate oil and gas.
Are they for a secure border?
No, they only support that when a Democrat's president.
Do they have any plans for tax cuts?
No, they want a 70% top marginal rate for individuals, 90% top marginal corporate rate.
Well, no company will invest in America ever.
And that's going to hurt all the forgotten men and women that have now become employed and on a career track that we haven't experienced in decades.
And that's why every record is now being shattered.
You know, ending or these needless regulations, burdensome regulations, adding to that, lowering the taxes in this country, adding to that an energy boom, the president building two pipelines, removing these burdensome regulations.
Now, for the first time in 75 years, we're energy independent.
That means for the first time in 75 years, we are a net exporter of energy, oil and gas, lifeblood of every economy on the face of this earth.
And now it's happened.
They're not for any of that.
What do they stand for?
What?
Keep your doctor plan and save money?
They're not even saying that.
All they're saying is Medicare for all, but you can't get your own private health insurance.
On top of the 70% individual rate, 90% corporate rate, well, then they want a wealth tax that after you've paid all your taxes, if you save too much, they want another bite at the apple.
And don't worry, when you die, they'll get even another bite at that apple, 40% federal death tax.
And if you're in New York, well, it's another 10%.
It's like you work your whole life, you save some money, you don't get to decide what to do to the money that you pay taxes on.
They want them more.
It's an insatiable appetite that they have.
You know, Pelosi has a meeting just before she meets with the president of the White House.
We believe the president is engaged in a cover of a cover-up of what?
What did he cover up?
You know, again, selective moral outrage here because we know what Hillary Clinton was covering up, the evidence by deleting subpoenaed emails.
They don't care about that.
I don't hear any I believers in the case of the lieutenant governor of Virginia.
I'm mentioning it every day on purpose.
Nobody else is going to mention it.
You know, who in the media is talking about this great economic miracle turnaround that we've had and all the forgotten men and women that I kept pointing out for eight years under Obama that were disproportionately negatively impacted by the Biden-Obama horrific economic policies, the worst recovery since the 40s, the lowest home ownership rate in 51 years, the lowest labor participation rate since the 70s.
That's all changed around because of conservative policies.
And I say conservative because there are a lot of weak Republicans.
The president pretty much had to carry these guys on his back, kicking and screaming half the way, which drives me nuts because these are the things that work for the American people.
Energy is the single greatest wealth producer we have available in abundance.
And if you do it the right way, unlike, say, Venezuela or, you know, Venezuela should be so rich, every person in that country should be wealthy.
If we want to raise the standard of living of every single American, we ought to be producing the hell out of, we have more natural gas, oil, coal, energy supplies than the rest of the world.
And in the process, it pulls us away from countries that we do business with that hate our guts.
And you want to bring Putin to his knees because he is a hostile actor, not a not a he's looking out for Russia, not for the United States.
You know, all the chaos.
Okay, figure out the way to get our natural resources to Western Europe and Asia and other parts of the world at a price that beats him, and that buckles Putin.
It neutralizes Russia completely.
That's their only source of money.
But no, they want to go back and attack the Attorney General.
Now they want another investigation.
They want a fifth do-over.
That's all they seem to care about.
Let me play a few cuts here.
This is the president responding to the events from earlier today.
And frankly, it was the right thing to do.
And the country.
So I came here to do a meeting on infrastructure with Democrats, not really thinking they wanted to do infrastructure or anything else other than investigate.
And I just saw that Nancy Pelosi, just before our meeting, made a statement that we believe that the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up.
Well, it turns out I'm the most, and I think most of you would agree to this, I'm the most transparent president probably in the history of this country.
And instead of walking in happily into a meeting, I walk in to look at people that had just said that I was doing a cover-up.
I don't do cover-ups.
You people know that probably better than anybody.
So I just wanted to let you know that I walked into the room and I told Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, I want to do infrastructure.
I want to do it more than you want to do it.
I'd be really good at that.
That's what I do.
But you know what?
You can't do it under these circumstances.
So get these phony investigations over with.
Nearly 500 search warrants.
Think of that, a search warrant.
Did you ever see a search warrant before?
Neither did I.
This was over 500 search warrants.
And of the 19 people that were heading up this investigation, or whatever you want to call it, with Bob Mueller, they were contributors to the Democrat Party, most of them, and to Hillary Clinton.
They hated President Trump.
They hated him with a passion.
They went to her big party after the election that turned out to be a wake, not a party.
It was awake.
And they were very angry.
These are the people that after two years and $40 million or $35 million, it'll end up being a lot more than that by the time all the bills are paid.
This is what happened.
No collusion, no obstruction, no nothing.
They issued 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers.
Think of that, though.
500 witnesses.
And then I have Nancy Pelosi go out and say that the President of the United States engaged in a cover-up.
Now, we've had a House investigation.
We have Senate investigations.
We have investigations like nobody's ever had before, and there's nothing, we did nothing wrong.
They would have loved to have said we colluded.
They would have loved it.
These people were out to get us.
The Republican Party and President Trump.
They were out to get us.
This was a one-sided, horrible thing.
The bottom line is they said there's no collusion, no collusion with Russia.
We went and we did a rally.
Hardly mentioned today.
And yet, if we lost, it would have been the biggest story in the country, even bigger than this witch hunt stuff that you guys keep writing about.
So here's the bottom line: there was no collusion.
There was no obstruction.
We've been doing this since I've been president.
And actually, the crime was committed on the other side.
We'll see how that all turns out.
I hope it turns out well.
But to my way of thinking, and I know a lot of you agree with me, the crime was committed on the other side.
This whole thing was a takedown attempt at the President of the United States.
And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for the way you report it so dishonestly.
Not all of you, but many of you.
The way you report it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Do you view Congress as a co-equal branch of government, and do you respect their power of oversight?
I respect the courts.
I respect Congress.
I respect right here where we're standing.
But what they've done is abuse.
This is investigation number four and the same thing.
Probably five.
And it really started, I think, pretty much from the time we came down the escalator in Trump Tower.
So I say to you that we're going to get everything done.
We're doing a lot without them.
Let them play their games.
We're going to go down one track at a time.
Let them finish up.
And we'll be all set.
Thank you, everybody.
All right.
So that's the president's reaction, which is the right reaction.
By the way, it is fascinating.
We have other news today.
Robert Mueller's still resisting House Democrats.
Politico pointing out they're trying desperately to get Mueller's testimony.
He doesn't want to testify, but he has too many hard questions he will face.
It is not, again, they think they're going to get something.
Jim Jordan is on that committee.
Mark Meadows is on that committee.
These people, Mueller doesn't want to walk in and have to answer all the questions I've been laying out.
Another bit of news, by the way, Michael Avenatti indicted for embezzling money from Stormy Daniels.
Wow, that's pretty interesting.
But federal prosecutors in New York charged Avenatti with embezzling money that was supposed to be paid to her.
Oops, see Daisy.
He's got a whole heap of trouble in his life right now.
I guess some people weren't expecting that.
I thought he was going to run for president.
Now, the Attorney General Barr, that's like their next big target.
Let's get rid of Barr because he actually follows the law and said, no, Mr. Nadler, what you're asking me to do is to violate the law of the land.
And I'm the Attorney General, and I'm not going to do that for you or anybody else and release grand jury material.
But anyway, they're just, he's focusing on this obscene abuse of power that has gone on here, and he's doing a straightforward investigation.
By the way, he also condemned the rise of nationwide injunctions saying these sweeping orders undermine the rule of law.
He's right.
You know, whether it be the, you know, the vetting issue of people from abroad building the wall, you know, asylum seekers, you know, this is why liberal courts, activist courts, mean a lot.
That's why every election, yeah, it matters who is the president, who they're going to put on the Supreme Court.
Matters a lot for the country and the future.
You know, I had my buddy, his name's Matt Towery.
He's a friend of mine back in my Atlanta days.
He great pollster, still is into it, and his son as well.
And he's reminded me, he was Newt's campaign chair when Newt was speaker, and he vocally was arguing against impeachment of Clinton because he was looking at numbers.
He said the votes aren't there to convict.
It detracted from their agenda.
He wrote all this to me today, and he said, and as you know, Newton and the GOP, they were still advancing their agenda during the impeachment process of Clinton.
And he points out, and I believe that Pelosi knows and remembers that.
And she now knows that her majority has no other agenda but impeachment.
She can't resist, though, because they're going to fire her.
That's why she's Speaker of the House and name only.
And he writes from a purely pragmatic view, this is a disaster for the Democrats.
And I know that she knows that, but now has no choice with her conference.
And he's right.
He's 1,000% right.
Jim Jordan's saying Democrats are plotting a coordinated effort to take down the president.
He's right, too.
He says, I don't think they can help themselves.
They can't.
This is not your old Democratic Party.
This is not the party of Joe Lieberman.
That party's long gone.
This is a new radical, extreme, socialist, real socialist Democratic party.
And by that, they want to control even the means of production.
They want to provide everything, every promise, everything is free.
They want to get rid of every bit of progress because they have bought into another big conspiracy lie, which is, you know, we are destroying the planet.
We've got to get rid of oil and gas and the combustion engine and even cows and airplanes, which they all fly on.
These are very insane times that we're living in.
I will tell you that.
All right, we have some breaking news from John Solomon, and that is coming up.
James, if you can come in.
Oh, there it is.
Thank you.
We have also tonight, Devin Nunes is going to be breaking news on Hannity.
Solomon's breaking news tonight.
And we're about a week away from actually getting the transcripts of exculpatory information on Papadopoulos and Page that, like the other warnings, the FBI ignored and the top officials, not rank and file, because they wanted to use the dirty Russian disinformation dossier that Hillary paid for.
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.
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.
All right, our two Sean Hannity show, that was Bill Barr in his interview with Bill Hemmer over at the Fox News channel.
Pretty revealing, but you take it back the week before, and that's when he told, meaning the Attorney General Barr, Lindsey Graham, no, Mueller's finished.
Are you interested in the investigation into Hillary?
Yes.
FISA abuse?
Yes.
Abuse of powers within the ranks of the DOJ, FBI, and Intel community?
Yes.
In other words, pretty much everything that we have reported.
And it's about to get in so many other different ways worse for everybody because John Solomon has been doing great work.
He's the executive vice president, investigative columnist for The Hill.
And what we are now learning is the FBI knew what the State Department knew when they knew it.
How many different times did they have to get warned and still go ahead with the dirty dossier?
Because before the FISA warrant was filed, State Department sent the FBI that memo from Kathleen Kavalek, who John first reported last week, showing that Steele was at the State Department.
That's not supposed to happen.
And he was peddling this discredited intel alleging Trump and Putin had this secret computer channel at Alpha Bank.
And Trump was planning to release the first declassified, he is now planning FISA abuse documents probably within the week.
And a new poll showing a majority of Americans support this probe.
Mark Meadows, Trey Gowdy, others saying the evidence is growing daily that FBI leaders, again, not rank and file, looked the other way to ignore all of this exculpatory evidence, even what we told you about last night,
where Carter Page and George Pompadopoulos, there are transcripts, and where there are transcripts, that means there are likely are tapes, and them very, very specifically saying exculpatory things that was not included before they filed the FISA application.
John Solomon joins us now.
John, how are you?
I'm doing well, Sean.
Good to be with you.
I want you to put it more in your terms because there was far more exculpatory information that should have been paid attention to.
No verification of anything in the dossier, which we now know is unverifiable because the author doesn't stand by it.
Hillary paid for it, and they used it anyway.
I mean, how do you say this is nothing but premeditated fraud on a FISA court to deny the constitutional rights in a free and fair and open election?
Of all the things that Christopher Steele told, these wild theories that he had at the State Department on October 11th, a month before the election, the only one thing that was sent over from state to the FBI to check into was this claim that there was a secret communication device at this alpha bank in Moscow that allowed the Trump people at Trump Tower to talk to Vladimir Putin about how they were going to rig the election.
As we know, there was no rigging.
There was no collusion.
None of that went on.
But this theory had been infiltrated by all of the different Clinton partisans.
In July, a group of computer scientists at universities, big supporters of Hillary Clinton donors like L Gene Camp, started peddling this on the internet.
Michael Sussman, the attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, hands the same allegation to James Baker, the general counsel of the FBI, to get it to the FBI.
That's a very rare thing.
We've talked about this many times.
The general counsel of the FBI is not normally a recipient of intelligence, nor should he be involved in that process.
But he walks it in.
I can tell you that the Clinton campaign was peddling it to me in late 2016.
I checked into it in early October.
The FBI told me flatly, we checked into this.
There's nothing there.
This is bunk.
It's innocuous computer pings related to spam emails, what they told me.
And I talked to other intelligence people.
So by October 17th, by October 8th, this had been knocked down multiple times, sent into the FBI, and then Steele sends it in.
Why is that significant?
It is the first evidence that Steele provided something to the government that the government knew was false, was inactionable, not correct, before they filed the FISA a few days later on October 21st.
So a very important revelation.
There's no doubt from the text messages we've seen from Stroke and Page, from the communications from Kathleen Kavalik at state to FBI, that the FBI was aware he was out of this chain of command, talking to state, peddling something that was knowingly false, and yet they continued to represent him as reliable, credible, without any derogatory information as the primary informant supporting the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
That in and of itself is a very significant and important revelation.
The first known piece of wrong intelligence proven before the FISA was filed.
That's why this is significant.
You see, once again, the partisan nature of flooding the FBI, all these different Clinton syncophants flooding the FBI, trying to force the FBI to investigate something that they didn't really believe was true.
Well, don't forget the circular reporting, too.
I mean, you got to remember, well, the same sources, for example, Steele's feeding source A, B, and C.
It's all the same source, but they present it as though it's independent reporting.
And either the FBI fell for it, Hood Wink and Sinker, which would really concern me, right?
or more likely they were complicitous and willfully ignored the obvious signs that this was a political dirty trick.
That's what the IG investigation is supposed to get to the bottom of and what the Bill Barr investigation is going to get to the bottom of.
It's very telling in that interview with Bill Hammer, the words, the very careful words that Bill Barr used.
The answers given to me so far are inadequate.
The FBI and CIA aren't telling me the truth is how you interpret that so far.
I think there was a thumb on the scale.
That's exactly what we've been saying for two years.
We expect out of the five buckets that Devin Nunes and you have now, and frankly over the show, all of us have gone over many, many times.
Right.
But this is there are transcripts of Papadopoulos and Page.
They were being surveilled, unbeknownst to them.
The importance of this is how exculpatory what it is they are saying and it was ignored, just like they ignored Bruce Hoare's August 2016 warning that Clinton paid for it.
It's not verified.
Steele hates Donald Trump or Kathleen Kavalek's warning admonition to the FBI.
This was your breaking story.
She warned everybody 10 days out of the first FISE application being signed.
This is important if they're ignoring all of the truth and exculpatory evidence that's right in front of their face.
Yeah, I think that.
So if you take the first part of what we just talked about, the FBI had overwhelming evidence to question the credibility, reliability, accuracy of its informant, right?
That's what this is all about.
The Kathleen Kavalak transmission not only raises questions because they knew the computer tether thing was a bogus story.
Remember, Kathleen Kavalik also noted herself.
He told him something that she could disprove in a few seconds.
He told her the Russian hackers who were targeting Hillary Clinton were being paid out of the Russian consulate in Miami, and Kavalak, in the diplomacy court, knows very well, writes to herself, there is no Russian consulate in Miami, clearly questioning the credibility of the source.
In 45 minutes, she could figure out he was peddling things that were inaccurate.
So that's derogatory information about the informant.
Now let's go to the second obligation that the FBI has.
If it has evidence of innocence of the people it's targeting, a la George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, those are two names we know were in the FISA warrant, so they were targets, then it has an obligation to disclose that to the court along with any of the evidence that the FBI thinks shows their guilt.
We have been talking since last fall that there were transcripts of episodes, and I'm going to highlight two.
One is Carter Page, August 21st, with Stefan Halper, now a publicly identified FBI informant.
They met at a Virginia farm.
Carter Page says he knows during that conversation he made several exculpatory statements.
Most importantly, denying that he ever met with Igor and Igor, the two Russian senior officials that Steele had alleged he had met with, one of the main important focuses of the FISA warrant.
So the FBI, if Carter Page's recollection of that conversation is accurate, the FBI would have known Carter Page was telling people, I didn't meet with those two guys.
It's not true.
That's called exculpatory information.
Now fast forward another month to September.
We have George Papadopoulos invited to see Halper in London, in Cambridge, I believe it was.
And there are two people, Halper and then a woman named Osra Turk.
That's not her real name, it turns out.
She was an FBI informant or an FBI government investigator posing as a different person.
They have a series of conversations.
George Papadopoulos tells me, I told them that day when they asked me, was the Trump campaign involved in hacking?
There's no way we're involved in hacking.
We would consider that treasonous.
Again, another statement of exculpatory information made unwittingly to people who are actually FBI informants posing as other people.
If those transcripts exist, as I've been told for about eight months, and they are released, they will be another piece of that puzzle that the FBI not only hid problems with Steele, they failed to tell the court the evidence of innocence they were gathering through informants on the main targets of the Trump campaign.
John, when we started this, and you guys wrote the first piece, I believe, in March of 2017?
I don't even remember anymore.
March 2017, absolutely.
Okay.
And by the way, I hear the Samantha Power issue in terms of 300 unmasking requests as a United States ambassador, or U.N. ambassador rather, is going to be a big issue, much bigger than we even thought.
My source is telling me, I assume, you know, it seems like we talked to a lot of the same people.
But there's so much more to come on this.
And I don't think the media is listening deeply enough.
They don't know what we know and what we've known for how long we've known it.
And it's just fascinating to me that they even attempt to get back in the game at this late hour, but it's not anything they really want to report, meaning the truth on any level.
I want to ask you a sort of random question about Loretta Lynch contradicting the, quote, telling Comey it's a matter, not an investigation issue.
There was another point that the Washington Examiner picked up that I found interesting when Loretta Lynch was before the committee.
I want to talk about the spring, summer, autumn 2016.
Carter Page at the time, suspected of being a Russian asset.
George Papadopoulos had allegedly told the Australian, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
One thing all of these persons had in common was each was the subject of a FISA court investigation, which we now know, and all were directly connected to Trump as Attorney General.
You had the authority to oversee FISA applications and the process.
Is that correct?
She said yes.
After which the Justice Department lawyer, a gentleman by the name of Bradley Weinsheimer, cut in to say Jackson Lee's question potentially gets into classified information and also equities in an ongoing investigation.
Did we get an inadvertent reveal there?
It's possible.
Also, it could have been that the Attorney General was somewhat confused by the question because it was a long question, right?
I think one of the dynamics we see time again, and let's keep in mind that that person representing Loretta Lynch that day works for the Trump Justice Department.
One of the frustrating things for people that are advocating for transparency is you see time and again members of the Trump government today making it hard for us to get answers.
We've seen it with Christopher Wray.
How long did they hold back that State Department document that we discovered?
And we only discovered it because Dave Bossi had Citizens United sued to get it based on information I knew.
And remember, Congress wasn't giving it.
You see the Justice Department person trying to prevent Attorney General Lynch, former Attorney General Lynch, from answering and giving us some more transparency about what she knew and when.
You have Dan Coates, the DNI, for the Trump administration.
He's had for seven or eight months now 55 transcripts that Devin Nunez and the House Intelligence Committee.
Not a single one of them have been declassified yet.
In nine months, I mean, we could have paid a part of the Chistine Chapel by now, and yet we don't have any of those documents out.
So within the government and within these heads of branches, Chris Wray, Dan Coates, the Justice Department, there have been repeated efforts to try to thwart our ability to get information.
And I think that that's what Bill Barr is saying when he says, I find the early answers inadequate.
I'm not getting my questions.
They don't add up.
There's still a deep state or a bureaucracy within these agencies that are making it hard for the determinant to get the truth, to get the truth.
All right.
And you're going to be breaking news tonight on Hannity, correct?
I mean, pretty big news.
Yeah, I personally am going to try to take an action.
No, no, no, stop.
Stop.
Stop it.
No, not until you got to get your eyes dotted.
I know you're not there yet.
Stop.
I'm helping you out here.
All right.
John Solomon, Executive Vice President, Investigative Calmness for the Hill.
Thank you.
We'll have that breaking news tonight.
President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage.
Might stop manufacturing a crisis.
This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis.
Folks, the president has manufactured one heck of a political crisis for himself.
Donald Trump is manufacturing a national security crisis.
You will hear them say that this is a manufactured crisis.
It's not a national security crisis.
The big scam of the whole address was that there's a crisis.
There's not a crisis.
The notion that we have a crisis there, a security crisis, is absolute nonsense.
It remains a Seinfeld shutdown.
All about nothing.
What happens when there is a real crisis?
When there is a real emergency?
Does he take to the airwaves?
Do we give him the airwaves?
Do we believe him?
There is not a crisis at the border.
It's a manufactured crisis for the president to get a political win.
He's determined to convince you there is a crisis at the border.
Even though an intelligence official tells Sin and no one is saying this is a crisis except them.
People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.
The president's decision to end DACA was heartless and it was brainless.
When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.
Hundreds, hundreds of thousands of families will be ripped apart.
If you don't think it's illegal, you're not going to say it.
I think it is illegal and wrong.
Tens of thousands of American businesses will lose hardworking employees.
And the argument there, Mr. President, is Americans don't want to do the work.
We just can't find American workers to do the work.
Mr. President, that is a crock in many instances.
It's just not true.
In my view, Trump's decision to end the DACA program for some 800,000 young people is the cruelest and most ugly presidential act in the modern history of this country.
I cannot think of one single act which is uglier and more cruel.
We've got to do several things, and I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.
People have to stop employing illegal immigrants.
Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx.
You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.
You know, ity, this is not a problem that the people who are coming into the country are solely responsible for.
They wouldn't be coming if we didn't put them to work.
My proposal will keep families together and it will include a path to citizenship.
The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century.
If this huge influx of mostly low-skilled workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole, it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and puts strains on an already overburdened safety net.
Immigrants aren't the principal reason wages haven't gone up.
There are those in the immigrants' rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws.
But I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.
It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision.
And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.
These are students, they're teachers, they're doctors, they're lawyers.
They're Americans in every way, but on paper.
Who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.
Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earn citizenship.
Right there, you hear for yourself.
Literally, all these Democrats, by the way, glad you're with us.
24 now till the 23 now till the top of the hour, 800 941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
They flip, they flop, they flail.
They don't care about the borders.
Now, there's been an issue of, well, how many miles have been built?
Well, there's been literally the repair because of damaged infrastructure on the walls.
That's all happened under Trump.
And over 115 miles of new wall built.
And yeah, the goal is to get before 2020 somewhere between 400, 500, 600 new miles of wall on our southern border.
So a person that would know the truth, he's lived there his whole life, is Congressman Andy Biggs of Arizona.
And how are you, sir?
I'm great.
How are you, Sean?
Okay.
Is it 1.7 miles a wall or is it 115 miles per wall built?
Well, it's more if you count everything that's gone up that's new and all that's been repaired.
So, you know, there is more fencing up, it's going up, and we've got more designated areas.
I think those of us who live along the border, we want it up faster yet.
I mean, so progress is being made, but we still want more and faster.
Okay, so where are we in terms of the appropriation?
I saw that the Pentagon, after the president declared this emergency, and they couldn't override his veto, that the Defense Department had transferred over, which every other president has used.
He has legislative authority that says he has the right as president to stop drug corridors coming into this country.
It's actually written law language, and of course, constitutionally, I would argue that the president, as commander-in-chief, has the right to protect our borders.
Okay, so we're now moving to the point we have a lot of money.
How long does it take to get this job done?
And how many actual miles of wall do you think we finally in the end need?
Well, there's several billion dollars that the president has access to today.
Army Corps of Engineers, in my opinion, is moving too slowly.
And there are places and concerns that can get out there and build this stuff at over a mile a day if we just turn them loose.
We're fighting everybody from, you've got courts that are being, we're fighting.
We're having to fight environmentalists.
We're having to fight these mayors in southern Texas.
So they're trying to put down speed sticks while we're trying to accelerate the project.
So I think we can get ultimately, and what we need to have is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 miles.
And if we had that, I think it would be a tremendous slowdown of what's happening along the border.
But we also have to couple it.
Congress is not doing a darn thing, as you know.
Congress needs to pass asylum reform laws to help this situation out.
I mean, the fact that you have between 4,000 and 5,000 people crossing over every day, this is a relentless problem that we have.
It really is.
And, you know, when we give out the crime statistics, it was eye-opening for me.
And you know how many times I've been down to the border.
I've talked about it enough.
Nobody needs to hear it again.
When I sat in that briefing with Governor Rick Perry at the time, 642,000 Texans victims of crime, some petty, many petty, some very serious, including murder.
That's when I hear people say that it's immoral to build walls or this is a manufactured crisis, and yet 90% of our heroin crosses that border.
Kids are brought across the border in sex trafficking, young children.
And fentanyl now is a part of this equation.
And I'm like, well, the violent criminals that come here, not for a better life, the 99%, but the 1% that would kill innocent people or involved in some type of sexual assault, violent assault.
It all happens.
How did they get away with it?
This is not a real crisis.
This is immoral.
This is a manufactured crisis.
Yeah, you know, Sean, we're actually doing a bill today where we just wanted people, like if you're a DACA applicant, we just said, look, how about this?
If you get convicted of a DUI that has seriously bodily harm or death involved, you don't get DACA.
They would not even go for that.
My friends on the other side of the aisle, they do not think there's a real crisis.
They are not interested in protecting the American public.
They're not interested in protecting our border.
They don't understand that this is a national security crisis.
They don't care about the fentanyl and opioid addictions and the overdoses that are killing people.
To me, it is just absolutely legislative malpractice for these people to continue to try to create this narrative that there's no problem because the whole country now knows there's a problem.
Even liberals and New York Times and Jay Johnson know there's a crisis, but we can't get the Democrats to move to either fund the supplemental that the president has wanted, to try to detain people.
And you know this, you've been down to the border, but literally almost 200,000 people just released into our country this year since January alone that we really can't track.
We're not going to be tracking them.
Well, I mean, that's such an important point.
We can't track them.
I mean, that's insane.
Let me shift gears a little bit.
The president, here we have now four separate investigations, no evidence of collusion or conspiring with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential race.
That's all the Democrats are talking about.
Now, Nancy Pelosi is caving to the radical fringe of the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leftist socialist views in her party because otherwise she probably wouldn't survive, right?
Yeah, you're exactly right.
What we're doing in the Judiciary Committee for the last two, three months really is a trial run for an impeachment.
They're now, when they go to Hope Hicks and they want Hope Hicks to come in and people like that, they are now conducting an impeachment investigation, but they just are afraid that the American public will reject an impeachment process against this president.
So that's where they are.
And Pelosi's given in day by day, she's giving him she has to because the left wing of her conference holds her hostage because they elected her.
She needed their votes.
Well, so now this is what America can expect from the Democrats.
They're never going to give the American people solutions to their problems, the issues that they're facing every day.
They're not going to make us safer, more prosperous, more secure.
And it's just going to be never-ending Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Not once did the president invoke executive privilege, 1.5 million documents encouraging every employee to talk to the special counsel and all of these congressional committees.
And now they want to redo again.
We've had four separate conclusions at this point.
And what do you think of those that say, you know what?
I'm not paying lawyers for this.
Yeah, I don't blame them.
It's just because the Democrats won't let it go because they put all their eggs in that basket.
They're political eggs.
That's where they think they have to be.
And, Sean, you know, this language that Nancy Pelosi used just today, that there's a cover-up?
Guess what?
That goes back to the Nixon impeachment because that's really what got the American public turned around.
And she's trying to see if she can float that public narrative.
It is no cover-up.
The cover-up came from the Democrats.
The people who started these investigations, who came in and said, said, We're going to look at, you know, we're going to go into FISA and get some warrants and spy on American citizens.
They used bad information, bad documents, and then when that started coming out, they covered that up.
And this stuff is starting to get peeled back, and bars are peeling it back.
Inspector General Horowitz is peeling it back.
They're the ones who are covering this up.
And it's an outrage.
It's an outrage.
All right.
I want to thank you so much.
Thanks for being with us.
As always, Congressman Andy Biggs, appreciate your time and keep up the good work.
Straight to the phones we go.
Don Iowa.
Don, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
Thank you for taking my call.
It's a pleasure, and I appreciate everything you do.
I appreciate you giving me this microphone, sir.
I can't do it without you.
Well, sir, I'm a Marine veteran, and you let President Trump know that we all support him greatly.
And the purpose of my call was because I heard today that New York state has made some new laws that allow them to release President Trump's taxes.
And I think the wise thing for him to do at this point would be to seal them.
You know, it is interesting, sort of like a health care bill you pass and you've got to pass it to find out what's in it and keep your doctor plan, save money.
But that's not the plan they have or wanted for themselves, is it?
They keep saying taxes, taxes, taxes, but that's only because Mueller didn't give them what they thought they were going to get.
So let's just move on to another conspiracy theory.
But, oh, don't ask us to reveal our taxes or, you know, there's issues and investigative possibilities.
For example, for Elijah Cummings, I read yesterday and some entities that his wife was involved in with people that have business before his committee that he chairs.
And it's the same with a lot of these corrupt politicians in Washington.
By the way, you know, I want the list of all the millions of dollars that were paid out as settlements between congressmen and their staffs.
It's coming out of tax.
Why does the taxpayer have to pay that?
And then you get to bury it and not reveal it.
So there's so much corruption all the way around.
It just is typical standard fare, unfortunately, right?
Absolutely.
Yeah, this is a Hail Mary by the impeachment talk is all a Hail Mary by the Democrats.
All right, good call, Don.
Appreciate it.
800-941 Sean is our number.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show.
It was a very positive meeting, a respectful sharing of ideas, and I think a very impressive presentation by our chairs.
We do believe that it's important to follow the facts.
We believe that no one is above the law, including the President of the United States.
And we believe that the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up, in a cover-up.
And that was the nature of the new.
So I came here to do a meeting on infrastructure with Democrats, not really thinking they wanted to do infrastructure or anything else other than investigate.
And I just saw that Nancy Pelosi, just before our meeting, made a statement that we believe that the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up.
Well, it turns out I'm the most, and I think most of you would agree to this, I'm the most transparent president probably in the history of this country.
And instead of walking in happily into a meeting, I walk in to look at people that had just said that I was doing a cover-up.
I don't do cover-ups.
You people know that probably better than anybody.
So I just wanted to let you know that I walked into the room and I told Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, I want to do infrastructure.
I want to do it more than you want to do it.
I'd be really good at that.
That's what I do.
But you know what?
You can't do it under these circumstances.
So get these phony investigations over with.
We were interested.
We are interested in doing infrastructure.
It's clear the president isn't.
He is looking for every excuse, whether it was let's do trade first, or whether it was he's not going to pay for any funding, or whether today that there are investigations going on.
Hello?
There were investigations going on three weeks ago when we met.
And he still met with us.
But now that he was forced to actually say how he'd pay for it, he had to run away.
And he came up with this pre-planned excuse.
And one final point: it's clear that this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part.
It was planned.
When we got in the room, the curtains were closed.
The president, there was a place for him at the front so he could stand and attempt to tell us why he wouldn't do infrastructure.
And of course, then he went to the Rose Garden with prepared signs that had been printed up long before our meeting.
All right, we know that's just a bunch of total crock because remember Obama's second term.
Yeah, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, they cared about DACA, they cared about DREAMers, they were willing to fund the wall.
Trump wants to build the wall, negotiate DACA, negotiate DREAMers.
Oh, they have no interest.
So they take all these shots at the president just prior to their supposed meeting on infrastructure.
They've not done a single thing except investigate this president.
We now have four separate conclusions.
The nine-month FBI investigation struck and Page both said, no, we had nothing before Mueller was ever appointed.
Then we have the House Intel Committee investigation.
No collusion, none whatsoever, no conspiracy.
Then the bipartisan Senate Committee, now the Mueller Report.
And the bottom line is, this is all this Democratic Party cares about.
Now Nancy Pelosi, she's not the speaker, she's speaker in name only, now has to follow the radical leadership of people like Ocasio-Cortez.
Anyway, here to weigh in on all the madness is somebody that probably enjoys every second of it because he wrote a whole killing series of 15 number one best-selling books, all things Bill O'Reilly at BillO'Reilly.com.
How are you, sir?
I'm a little teed off today.
I don't think that the American people are being served by any of this.
And I'm one of the American people.
So I'm a little agitated here.
Bill, has the president done a lot for the American people in the two and a half years, mostly by himself?
I think Trump has done some really good things.
Me too.
I think he could manage things a little bit better.
By the way, this is pot kettle when you say that, right?
Because you're both kind of similar.
Oh, come on.
He's much smarter than I am.
And he's better looking.
I'm not talking about that.
He's a fighter.
You're a fighter.
Yeah, I know.
But look, nobody's perfect.
As I said, he's done some very good things, but he doesn't manage things quite right all the time, and that gets him in trouble.
But let's take today.
So Trump sets up the meeting with Pelosi and Schumer.
He wants to get an infrastructure situation to show the American people that he's not unreasonable and that things are moving ahead in the process of making Americans' lives better.
All right?
That's what he wants.
He gets up at 4 in the morning because he's a vampire, he doesn't sleep, and that's what's on his mind.
He wants to do this.
So for Schumer to say that he didn't want to do it isn't true.
So then Pelosi comes out of her meeting where she's under enormous pressure, and you just spotlighted it, from the Ocaso-Cortez crew to back impeachment.
Pelosi doesn't want to do that, knowing that independent Americans don't want it, and that could very well help President Trump at this point.
But Pelosi has to give the radical left progressives something, so she comes out and tells reporters, well, there's a cover-up.
We believe that Trump's covering up.
That's to protect her butt from the far left.
Trump hears that, immediately goes ballistic.
And this is my criticism of Trump.
Rather than stepping back and saying, all right, this is bull, and I'll explain it to the country later, he says, I'm going to get Pelosi and Schumer, and I'm going to throw them out of the office and say, when you finish with the stupid investigations, come back, we'll do infrastructure.
And that's what happened.
So that was the sequence of events.
The thing is, I do know the president pretty well.
I mean, I didn't know he was a vampire, or that's what you called him, but in all seriousness.
He's like you.
I don't sleep a lot.
I don't want to sleep a lot.
You both have so much on your conscience that you cannot rest.
It's not that I'm working, Bill.
But here's what's important to me anyway.
How do you support a wall and willing to fund a wall just a couple of years ago, but you won't do it with Donald Trump?
How is it possible that you act like you care about collusion, but you won't at all look at the evidence that exists in the Ukraine wanting to give us the evidence of real collusion?
Here's a stronger question.
Well, I know I like my question.
I didn't finish it.
I know, and you got the most successful TV and radio show.
But I think here's a very strong question.
Okay.
All right.
You just had a two-year investigation by investigators hostile to Donald Trump, and they came back with nothing.
So what do you know, Nancy Pelosi, that they don't know?
Would you please tell us?
Nancy Pelosi cannot.
So then you go back and you say to her again, Madam Speaker, cover up of what?
And then let her toddle away.
So we all know it's a charade and it's a ruse.
And that gets me angry as an American citizen, not a journalist and an analyst, but as an American citizen.
I'm tired of this.
But Bill, the great news about Trump is he is, he gave us the tax cuts.
He's keeping his promises on deregulation.
He's keeping his promises on judges.
He's keeping his promises on new trade deals.
He's kept his promise on energy independence.
He's trying and fighting every day to keep his promise on building the wall.
But there's a problem here.
If Democrats didn't think it was immoral to build walls when Obama's president, but now they call it immoral, that's a lie.
They care about collusion, but only for Trump, not Hillary.
They care about obstruction, but they ignore Hillary's intent to destroy the evidence by deleting subpoenaed emails and bleach pit.
Just like they say, I believe if they can bludgeon a Trump appointee from his high school days, allegations that are made, but they don't say a word about the lieutenant governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia who's being accused of rape and violent sexual assault by two separate women.
And I'm just saying Trump's doing his job.
I don't see the Democrats doing one thing to help the forgotten men and women in this country, not a single thing, except just bludgeon Trump and hope they can beat him in 2020.
Maybe that's why the Democrats are consistently diverting attention away from vexing problems that need to be fixed into the personal, we're just going to make him to be the biggest monster you've ever seen, and therefore ill-informed voters won't support him.
Maybe that's it.
I think it probably is.
Look, if I could sit down with Nancy Pelosi, and she's one of the few Democrats that I never interviewed, she wouldn't come in.
I would say, all right, you're going to, you know, Speaker of the House, how would you solve the border problem?
And I can give you a guarantee she would not have any answer.
You agree with that, right?
100%.
Then I would say, if Donald Trump's not president, how would your guy, whoever it is, or gal maintain the economic prosperity we've experienced?
And first of all, Madam Speaker, have we experienced economic prosperity and why have we?
She couldn't answer that question.
Then you look at her in the eye and you say, do you have a problem with trying to get China to play fair with the world, not just the United States?
You have a problem with the tariffs?
You think she's going to answer that question?
No.
Now, all of these questions should be asked to her routinely by the American press, but they aren't.
But the most glaring question is, cover-up of what?
Of what?
Four separate investigations, Bill.
Yeah.
Four.
Cover-up of what?
But did you hear any reporter ask her that question when she came out of her office today?
Bill, look at the comparisons.
Now, I'm a conservative.
I'm a registered conservative.
I'm not a, I think Republicans, for their part, for the most of them, they are weak, spineless, visionless.
They care more about their own power than serving people.
They're not that much different than a lot of the Democrats, just slight nuance and rhetorical differences.
But I got to tell you something.
Conservatism, what I cared about in 2016 and what I cared about my whole career is what you used to call the folks.
I'm the guy that grew up.
I was a dishwasher at 12 every Friday, Saturday, Sunday night.
I worked all these blue-collar jobs for 20 years of my life.
You know what?
They're the ones that were left behind in the eight years of Biden, Obama, Pelosi.
And now everything has shifted dramatically with all these new records, record low unemployment for every single demographic you can think of.
Well, that's because conservatism works.
Limited government, less regulation, lower taxes.
What if the Democrats, was it their legacy under Obama?
13 million more Americans, food stamps, 8 million more in poverty.
The worst recovery since.
If you understand all that, and I think you're accurate.
If you understand that the capitalistic system requires the government to get out of the way, essentially, all right, then the Democrats have no other hope to defeat President Trump in 2020 other than making him into Jack the Ripper.
That's the only hope they have.
Okay, now, does that win out?
Because the question when Reagan was running for reelection, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
And if I ask you the question, what would your answer be?
No, I'm not economically better off because the new tax law took away the deductions of state and local taxes and mortgage.
Okay, that's a great hang on, but that's a nuanced answer because states like New York and California, New Jersey, you know, those residents got a benefit that the rest of me.
I live in New York.
Okay, is the country, let me ask it this way.
Is the country better off than it was four years ago?
Most Americans.
Most working-class Americans, including the minority groups, are.
They are better off because they have more opportunity.
They have more options in order to make a living.
Okay?
So the answer is yes.
But how many of these people who have more opportunity now have an open mind about Donald Trump?
We're going to see because I think historically, and you write historical books, that peace and prosperity drive elections, period.
Most of the time, but never has a president been as vilified as Donald Trump has been.
Never, ever.
No, no.
This whole republic.
I will tell you, I don't think it's going to matter.
And, you know, I don't think Donald Trump is a public figure you can poll.
Because I think most people that like him, they're like, I'm not telling you.
I just think that he has, he is so taken on the swamp and the establishment.
When they get a poll caller working.
That's watching.
They're working.
They can't answer the poll.
Hey, I'm working.
Call me back.
And they never call back.
So that's what's going on.
All right, Bill.
Listen, I want to just give people notice that.
All right.
So this book is coming out in the fall about Trump, and you interviewed Trump for the book.
Number one, you've got your new podcast, number two.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
And it's on radio stations around the country.
AllthingsO'Reilly at billo'reilly.com.
How's that?
Those are great plugs.
And, you know, I want to tell everybody, I invited Hannity out to my house in Eastern Long Island because there's a great white shark out there.
And I want Hannity and O'Reilly to confront the shark.
North Hannity's got the Cojona.
Oh, come on.
You've never caught a fish in your life.
I can't see you fishing.
I can't see you fishing.
I'm not sorry for the fish, though.
I threw it back.
You threw it back.
You know what?
I'm more the fisherman than you are.
I have to believe that.
I don't see you as a fisherman.
I love fishing.
I got the little hat, but Cabot, the great white shark, is off the coast.
You and I have got to talk to Cabot.
Oh, my God.
Some people say Cabot is Chuck Schumer.
I don't believe that.
No, I don't believe that either, Bill.
Not at all.
All right.
Thank you.
Bill O'Reilly, 800-941, Sean.
Toll-free telephone number.
All right.
Great history book by Dan Abrams.
We'll tell you about it next.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
Glad you're with us.
800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
I don't know how many of you have ever watched on weekends on A ⁇ E, there's this new show out.
It's absolutely phenomenal.
I always tell friends of mine that the most interesting people that you go to dinner with are cops and firemen and lawyers that are involved in crazy cases.
And, you know, you get to learn a lot of real life when you're watching it.
Years ago, the show was called Cops.
That was a hit show, but it was not live taping.
What you see on the AE show is pretty incredible.
And it's hosted by Dan Abrams.
You might see his legal commentary on ABC News.
He's often on GMA every morning.
He owns a bunch of websites.
One of my favorite is Long Crime.
Another one that sometimes I get pissed off at is called Mediaite.
But he's also, he's written a book here that I can't put down.
This is a phenomenon.
It's called Theodore Roosevelt for the Defense, the Courtroom Battle to Save His Legacy.
Kind of pride myself knowing a lot about history, but there was more here that I was learning by far than I had ever remembered.
And Dan Abrams joins us now.
How are you?
That's a pretty good introduction.
I mean, that was a great introduction.
I really love it when Media says Hannity sucks.
And, you know, I love those headlines.
What about when Media says Hannity is the number one most influential person in media in the country?
How about when they say that?
No, they do.
You know what is funny?
You know, you guys gave me this great award last year, and I forgot what the title was.
And I went over to the party, and I'm like, 99% of this room hates me.
These 99% of people are not here.
I wouldn't say 99.
It probably was more like, you know, in the low 80s, let's say.
Well, I got to give you kudos.
I know we don't always agree on politics.
We don't always disagree either.
I remember once having a long conversation with you about this whole Russia thing, and I said, I'm telling you, I'm right.
And I think your answer was, well, I will see.
What do you think now?
I was hoping that we would be able to talk about the things we all agree on.
Right.
So I'm going to get to the book, I promise.
No, I know, I know.
And let me, before I answer your question, I will say one other thing that you and I were, I believe, the only two journalists in the country was the Duke University La Crosse rape fraud allegations.
Everybody was, how wrong was the media?
It was only you and me.
That was it.
We were the only ones saying, where's the evidence?
Where are the facts?
And I got to tell you, Sean, I still have, they're no longer kids, right?
They're grown-ups now in their 30s who come up to me and they say, you know, I was friends with one of the Duke La Crosse players.
And, you know, you were, there were very few people out there who were willing to focus on the facts and focus on the evidence.
And I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.
And I know that they mention your name as well.
Do you know how I got that story right?
You know my story with Richard Jewell.
I've said it many times on the air, right?
The day that the Atlanta Journal Constitution comes out with hero security guard fits the profile of the lone bomber because he lives with his mother.
And I was on the air at the time.
That is so insane.
That is not, that's not guilt by accusation.
That's guilt by accusation.
And it doesn't mean a thing.
He probably doesn't make enough money to live in his own house.
Anyway, I didn't know that at the time.
And I became very close friends with Lynn Wood, who's a phenomenal attorney.
I didn't know Richard Jewell was listening to my show, my local radio show in Atlanta.
I got one of the first interviews with him when it all settled down.
And it turned out this guy did save people's lives.
And it taught me there.
That's why when the Duke La Crosse case came up, I went out to Garden City like a real reporter.
And I met with many of the kids and their families.
And I started digging like you did.
I went to Duke.
I went down there to North Carolina and sat with the players, sat, and I came out of that and I said, either I am the biggest fool who has ever walked on the planet or this didn't happen.
Look, if I get something wrong, look, the 99% of the media that hates me and what I represent on Fox, in other words, I will tell you, I'm a talk show host.
I do straight news, and I have hundreds of hours I can produce.
I do investigative work like the deep state reporting on Obama's background.
Nobody would vet him.
And I will tell you, you have to do your job and work.
And that's what annoys me so much about the whole Russia conspiracy thing.
I digress.
I want to get to this book.
No more dramatic courtroom scene has ever been enacted, reported the Syracuse Herald, May 22nd, 1915, as it covered the greatest libel suit in history.
This is the greatest story, you know, in light of today's events and through the news prism of today, this is more relevant than ever.
Why don't you take us into this story?
Yeah, so this is Theodore Roosevelt being sued.
It's 1915.
He was president until 1909.
He ran again in 1912 when he split from the Republican Party.
And he got into it with the party boss who had effectively been responsible for him not getting the nomination in 1912.
He called him, he basically said the head of the Republican Party and the head of the Democratic Party together, they're in cahoots.
They're corrupt.
They're trying to make sure that the citizens don't get a chance, for example, to elect senators directly.
Back in the day, it was the state legislatures that were effectively appointing senators.
And so the party bosses had enormous power.
And this really upset Roosevelt.
His point was the people should be able to elect the senators directly.
And he accused them of being corrupt.
William Barnes, the head of the Republican Party in New York, former head of the National Republican Party, sues Roosevelt for calling him corrupt.
You can imagine.
Teddy Roosevelt wasn't just a former president.
This wasn't, you know, Grover Cleveland.
This guy that said something about a big stick.
Exactly.
You know, speak softly, carry a big stick.
This is a guy who, when World War I started, wanted to once again put together a volunteer force because he was too old to go to Europe and fight.
This is a guy who, you know, put his money where his mouth was.
So he put his mouth in a lot of places.
And Barnes sued him.
And as you can imagine, the former president of the United States on the witness.
And by the way, the money would have devastated him.
It's true.
He'd come from a wealthy family, but he'd blown a lot of his money in a bad cattle investment in the 1880s.
And so money mattered.
I mean, meaning, you know, he was thinking post-presidency, you know, about the books that he wrote.
How much money am I going to make?
He would negotiate because it mattered for keeping his family comfortable.
He was sued for $50,000, well over a million dollars in today's money.
And he testifies for eight days.
And we have a full transcript of the trial from 1915.
We had to go up to Syracuse to get it.
It has been a footnote to history.
But Theodore Roosevelt cared enormously about this case because in the end, Barnes goes after his lawyer, goes after Roosevelt.
Lawyer doesn't like him, doesn't like him politically, doesn't like him personally, and tries to tarnish his legacy, basically saying that Roosevelt's as corrupt as any of the people he's accusing of being corrupt.
And it enraged him.
And so there's this fantastic trial.
You know, it is an amazing thing.
You have developed now a real passion, and I have it as well, but I don't have the time that I really like to spend researching, you know, filling four hours a day.
I know you're also doing your own radio show night.
Only for an hour.
Yeah, well, but, you know, I know that, you know, you had a bestseller out, which was called Lincoln's Last Trial.
Where did this love of history come from?
And how did you decide on writing this book on this case?
Because as you get into the details of it, I mean, this is drama at the highest levels.
I mean, you described in one point, I think, if I remember reading, all these reporters, they didn't travel the way they do today, but all the newspapers, they were sending reporters to follow this trial, and it captivated the nation.
And it was front page of the newspapers throughout the country.
Look, how did I get interested in history?
Probably the way that most of us who are interested in history.
Good parenting.
You know, my dad was really into history.
You know, one of the things I think you would like about my dad is that, you know, he, for example, represented Mitch McConnell in the Citizens United case.
Because for him, it's about principles.
It's not about partisanship.
It's not about which side is he on.
The bottom line.
We need more of that, Dan.
No disagreement.
So, you know, so I dedicated this book to my son because I'm hoping that I can pass along that love of history.
I think it's so important.
You know, when people always talk about this has never happened before and this has never happened before.
You know, you take a step back and you say, you know, a lot of this stuff has happened.
Not exactly, not just like this, but history is such a great guide.
And I read Levin's book, and it's called Unfreedom of the Press.
Very different genre than what you're doing here.
But he does give us a history of the press in America.
And, you know, starting with like Thomas Paine and the great pamphleteers and the beginning of the last century was, oh, we've got to now begin to be balanced.
But prior to that, you know, you had the Democratic papers, the Republican papers, you had newspapers clearly identified with one party.
So there's been an ebb and flow in terms of, you know, objective news gathering versus opinion versus a mixture of all, right?
But you want to know a great story.
And in that regard, people forget that major political leaders owned media entities, meaning people, very few people know.
Abraham Lincoln owned a German newspaper.
Why?
Crazy.
Because the German vote was really important to him.
And so he wanted to own a German paper, and he did.
And, you know, and Charles Fairbanks, who was Roosevelt's vice president, owned a paper that Roosevelt ended up having a real issue with.
In fact, Roosevelt actually used the Department of Justice to prosecute media entities in 1908, who said things that he was insisting were not true.
That's how angry Roosevelt became.
And look, there are definitely some comparisons, by the way, between Trump and Roosevelt.
You know, Roosevelt was a frequent critic of judicial opinions.
He insulted his opponents.
He called liberals from New York and Massachusetts shrill eunuchs.
By the way, imagine if they had Twitter in the day.
Look, I think Roosevelt would have been a big tweeter.
But look, the book is focused.
The reason we thought this was such a great story is in part because Roosevelt's so interesting.
And the idea of such an interesting, outspoken guy on the witness stand for eight days.
This is Roosevelt unvarnished.
He's being cross-examined here for days and days and days about his love.
He goes on.
You know, and that's the interesting thing here because, you know, I'll go back to Mark's book and his history and then dovetail it into this great trial, which it literally did captivate the entire nation at the time.
And this, what, it was eight days of testimony and it never stopped.
But I just, I look, for example, at some of our past presidents, they used to be in the street dueling with each other and the allegations of affairs and the allegations of immoral behavior.
I mean, that was flying across in the Jefferson Hamilton era as well.
You know, it's a really good point because one of the things we point out in the books, this is 1915, is that this was sort of just the first generation where people were really going to the courts to resolve their civil differences.
Even in the mid-1800s, you had people engaging in duels to resolve their differences.
Abraham Lincoln was almost in a duel.
He actually went and showed up for a duel at one time in the 1830s.
So, you know, now we're finally at that point where people have put the duels behind.
Maybe we should bring that back.
I know a few people I like to duel.
Yeah, you know, it's a dangerous business, though.
You better be a good shot.
I've been a marksman since I'm 11, Dan.
And fast.
And pretty fast, yeah.
And we train every day.
We're out of time.
I can't believe it.
The book's phenomenal.
I'm really enjoying it.
This now, your second history book, correct?
Yes, it is.
It's in bookstores everywhere.
It's Theodore Roosevelt for the Defense: The Courtroom Battle to Save His Legacy, Eight Days in Syracuse.
It's got amazing details, and it's in bookstores everywhere, Amazon.com, and we'll put it up on Hannity.com.
And I'm really enjoying it.
Congratulations.
Sean, thank you very much for having me on.
I really appreciate it.
All right, appreciate it.
800-941-Sean, quick break.
We'll come back.
We have an unbelievable breaking story that I will tell you about at nine o'clock.
Actually, two, one with John Solomon, one with Congressman Devin Nunes, all coming up as we continue our search for truth against the deep state.
Straight ahead.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Now, we have two big breaking news stories that are coming tonight.
Number one, just mentioning the Nunes letter as it relates to the Telegraph, Christopher Steele, Teresa May, spies were apparently briefed on explosive dossier before Donald Trump.
So we have Devin Nunes, John Solomon's big breaking news, Lindsey Graham, Mark Meadows.
Also, Sarah and Greg, and Laura Trump is going to join us all tonight at 9 on Hannity.
