Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, and author of Collusion, a novel he co-wrote with Pete Early, is having a hard time containing his outrage at the Mueller address from yesterday. He reminds people what it looks like when a President is found guilty and what former Solicitor General Ken Starr statements were against Clinton, where he used the word guilty.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 we hope you write down our toll-free telephone number.
It's 800-941 Sean if you want to be a part of the program.
Alice Marie Johnson, I I love this lady.
A wonderful woman.
If you remember, she had her what life plus 25 years sentence commuted by President Trump.
It was a one-time drug offense.
And if you recall the video was so heartwarming, where she comes out of prison into the arms of her loving family, and I mean her life in prison is an inspiration in terms of, you know, this was a one-time nonviolent drug conviction.
And she was never going to get out of jail but for Donald Trump.
And I frankly, when I saw that video, and then I got a chance to meet her, and she'll join us later.
I just saw a very, very unique and special person here.
And uh how she was able to transform her life and build a life that was productive and had purpose in prison is awe-inspiring.
She's actually written a book.
Today's her birthday.
It's called After Life, My Journey from Incarceration to Freedom, and I'll never forget what she said as she and her family were so happy and they're hugging, and they didn't think that day was going to be possible.
She spent nearly 22 full years in jail.
And she looked into the television cameras, and and by the way, this is the case.
Kim Kardashian was pleading for her case, and Kanye West was doing as much.
And anyway, she said, she looked at I America, thank you for giving me a second chance.
She thanked the president for giving her a second chance and said, I will never let you down.
And what she did in prison was fairly remarkable.
She became a role model, uh, leading all sorts of Bible studies and transformational activities for the prisoners.
And you know, I I honestly we we've got to have some evaluation of prisons in this sense.
Um I would never ever consider any violent felon having a chance to get out.
Because they're gonna, you know, go about the same business.
This was a first offense case.
This is not a death penalty case, which is pretty much what they turned it into.
And there is disproportionate sentencing, I believe, in terms of, you know, what's the difference if if it's powder cocaine or crack cocaine, it's still cocaine.
You know, why is there different sentencing for the for the same?
Um, and I just do believe I've learned a lot over the years.
I used to be one of these guys on the radio, try him, try him, try him, you know.
And then all of a sudden, Barry Sheck, famous, infamous perhaps from the um OJ Simpson case, he started a new organization called the Innocence Project.
And I can't tell you how many times, because of the advancement of forensic science, DNA, uh, the ability to gather evidence that was not possible going back 20 years ago, that based on saved evidence, they were able to prove the innocence of people that were on death row.
Now, I still support the death penalty, but I uh we can't make mistakes.
So the only way you can't make a mistake, I want to see it on video.
Otherwise, you've got to err on the side of caution because you know, all of these new methods and this science of forensics has gotten so deep and profound and sophisticated that innocent people unfortunately are convicted more often than any of us would want to admit.
But more importantly, you know, here we have all these people in prison.
You know, there's gotta be a way to find those people that have in prison without any hope of uh a clemency or a pardon, but if they're changing their lives and they're also becoming productive, that they're nonviolent offenders.
I think we could find a way to thread the needle and allow them a second chance at life.
I mean, it's easy to say, uh, can you imagine just sit for a second?
Imagine 22 years in jail.
Imagine day one in jail when they finally close the door at night, and there you are, and you don't think you're ever leaving that place.
How miserable that's gotta be.
Now, of course, people commit crimes, drug dealing is killing people.
Um, it's gotta be a sense of magnitude, importance, proportionality as well.
And I'll tell you, one of the best things we could ever do is close the border where 90% of our heroin comes from into this country, or the fentanyl problem that we have, or the, you know, we've got to look at the 300 lives that are lost every week in this country because of these opioid drugs.
And by the way, this is not uh just a city problem, it is a small town, big city, small city phenomenon, and it is an insidious targeting of our children to get addicted to this garbage.
One of the best things we can do, you go after the dealers, you go after those that profit, you go after those that have no soul and no conscience.
I mean, they purposely, if you watch these shows like drugs or you know, any or trade or any of these drug shows on Showtime or Nat Geo or wherever they happen to be, I mean, you know, how often do they interview the dealers?
They don't care that they're gonna kill a kid that night.
They just want the 10 bucks.
They don't care.
And on the other side of it, I mean, why are all these kids getting addicted?
Well, are we overprescribing Percocet, Vicodin, Oxycontin, Hydrocodone, and all these other drugs?
The answer is yes.
And I don't think parents or grandparents recognize maybe they had a new hip or a new knee and they have all this medicine in their cabinet, and then all of a sudden teenager Johnny or teenager Susie goes in grandma's medicine cabinet and tries one of these pills and their friends try it and they like it,
and next thing you know they get addicted to it and they can't afford 80 bucks a pill, and next thing you know is they're buying a ten dollar bag of heroin that was you know created in a swamp someplace by somebody that doesn't have a chemistry degree, and they don't care if they kill people.
Anyway, she'll tell her story.
New Gingrich is also coming up today.
I want to go to something that is really fascinating in light of everything that happened yesterday with Robert Mueller that you know, because it's so predictable.
The media in this country, they're so lazy, they're so weak, they're so hyperpartisan that you can predict everything they're gonna do.
So Mueller does his nine and a half minute basically a pleading to Jerry Natal, please don't make me testify.
I think Robert Muller is scared to death if he has to go before Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Matt Gates, Doug Collins, and the Republicans, because he's got a lot of splaining to do as it relates to his conduct in all of this.
When did you know, Mr. Muller?
When did you figure out that there was no collusion or no conspiracy to collude with the Trump campaign and the Russians?
Why did you keep going after that date?
Mr. Muller, why did you hire this team of Democratic donors and no Republican donors?
Why did you hire Hillary Clinton's attorney on the Clinton Foundation to work for you?
Why did you hire your pit bull as the New York Times described, Andrew Weisman?
Why did you hire him as your top guy?
A guy that was at Hillary's victory party on election night 2016, a guy that had lost tens of thousands of jobs for Enron accounting uh in that case he was involved in.
If you read about him in Sidney Powell's book, license to lie, it's a guy that has withheld apparently not more than once exculpatory evidence, a guy that lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court, a guy that sent innocent Merrill executives to jail for a year only to be overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
Why did you hire him?
Why was there where was your sense of proportionality In terms of putting together a bipartisan objective team that wasn't, you know, so anti Trump.
You know, why did you hire Struck and Page?
Why did you not only hire Struck and Page, uh uh the deputy FBI director McCabe says he's the one that fired them from your staff, not you?
And then why did you take Struck and Page's phones and send them back to the manufacturers without getting the information on those phones?
Why did it take Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, to discover the struck page texting?
I'd like it to these are simple questions.
And why is it?
I think perhaps the biggest question, if you had all of this free time, as you did to investigate taxi medallions, Farrah violations, which nobody ever looks at, um, loan applications and taxes.
Why did you not find any time to delve into considering you had a broad mandate?
The major focus was supposed to be about Russia collusion and influence in the 2016 election.
How is it possible that you were drawn into an area of taxi medallions and loan applications, but you didn't even begin to look into a dirty Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier with funneled money from a law firm to an op research group that also hired a foreign national to create a dossier that not even he stands by and
we know is disseminated to the American public lies and the New York Times suggesting Russian disinformation from the get go?
In other words, that information in the dirty dossier, oh, that was leaked to the Washington Post.
That was leaked to David Korn, that was leaked to Michael Izakov.
That was spread to the American people to make uh the American people think that candidate Donald Trump was in the Ritz Carlton in Moscow with two hookers that were urinating in his bed.
Uh, why did you not think that's important?
And would you not think that that would be an influence in the election?
And then I'd like to get into the question of how is it possible you didn't see the dossier being used, number one, it's salacious and could never be verified, that it was used as the basis of a Pfizer warrant to not only take away the constitutional rights of Carter Page, but gave a backdoor into everything in the Trump world.
Now, I'd like to ask Mueller all of those questions.
I dare Rudy Giuliani said it.
I dare Muller to go before Congress and testify.
It's not gonna be what Democrats think.
And I'm gonna tell you right now, if he testifies, I can't wait to see Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and company cross-examine him on when he found out no collusion, why he hired Weisman and Genie Ray and all these other people, and you know, if Muller abided by the rule of law, then the president would have been exonerated.
Um the big news that really came out of yesterday is after the nine and a half minute speech by Mueller, he had to go back and reissue his statement correcting what he said.
And the special counsel's office and the attorney general barr's office, they put out a statement saying, uh, yeah, sorry, I know I said that uh we couldn't do this because of Justice Department guidelines and you can't indict a sitting president, but I didn't mean that because I said it on five different occasions in front of five different people, that that was not a factor.
Why did you lie yesterday?
Because you wrote out the speech.
You knew what you were saying, it wasn't off the cuff.
So what were you trying to do yesterday?
And of course, the media has yet to focus on that major nugget.
He he literally backtracked on everything he said yesterday, and nobody covered the backtrack.
So with all the bro ha over the Mueller nine minute statement yesterday, rambling contradictory, and uh frankly, uh we got him.
Obstruction, impeachment, you know, same predictable, you know, one last opportunity.
Oh, Uncle James, I need you to pull that up, by the way.
Thank you.
One last opportunity to hang on to the conspiracy theory, one last opportunity to advance the hoax and the lying.
And but what everybody misses is oh, after the nine and a half minute rambling, frankly, inarticulate uh statement that everybody said he's giving us a pass to impeachment.
Why didn't everybody report with the same intensity the fact that oh Mueller's office had to release clarifying remarks of Mueller.
Well, let's see what it is here.
They put out a joint statement, the Department of Justice, the special counsel's office.
They did it late yesterday, clarifying the remarks that Mueller made earlier, the ones that everyone focused on.
Uh Kerry uh Kupik is a spokesman, spokesperson for the spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, Peter Carr for the special counsel.
And it says this.
The Attorney General has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice.
Whoopsie daisies.
In other words, it didn't wasn't based on the fact of Justice Department policy that he can indict a sitting president, which we already knew.
The special counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would just not reach any determination, one way or the other, about whether the president committed a crime.
There's no conflict between these statements.
Let me tell you what that means.
Oopsie Daisy, the media screwed it up again.
We seem to be moving toward a place where impeachment may be inevitable.
The dam really seems to be breaking wide open.
But this obstruction point is also impossible to look away from because I think what he was really saying is Congress has a job to do.
They now have the green light if they want it from Mueller's statement that it's the ball is in their court and now they've got to pick it up and run with it and do the right thing.
The Democratic controlled Congress will have no choice but to open an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Every single day that the president sits in that office, he's obstructing justice, right?
Because if he spoke in plain language, what he would have said today was anyone who read my report and said no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration, is a big fat liar.
That's that's what he would have said in English, no lawyer impeachment.
If he had your potty mouth here, the unrestrained and in this case, she knows that she gets one shot at this.
If she blows it and they don't get him impeached in the House, they won't get him in the Senate, which is also a huge factor here.
Um if they don't do the the thing correctly in the set in the house, they never get to go after him again on any of this.
So the train whistle's blowing, and Pelosi's got to make a decision.
And I think that's the tough question for her.
It's always been are you willing to say no to impeachment?
And I think it's Kelly up in the air what she's going to do.
All right, 24 now till the top of the hour.
Of course, the media, they it's almost like they just they just pick and choose.
There's nothing that they have here.
Nobody that I see pointed out the correction, the clarification.
Do you know how profound this is?
Because the reason the clarification was necessary is because uh Robert Muller told everybody just the opposite of what he was saying yesterday.
And you have all of these witnesses that said it had nothing whatsoever to do with Justice Department policy and guidelines on any of this.
And so they issue this big retraction clarification, and nobody pays attention to it.
Again, I go back, the Department of Justice.
All of a sudden, all these people that heard Robert Mueller say, well, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the whether or not the Justice Department policy of whether you can indict or not indict a sitting president didn't factor into the decision.
No, that was not the basis of the of his decision.
You know, you gotta go back and look at the history here.
We had when Bill Clinton was president, the independent and remember, this goes back to 1998.
The independent counsel statute.
And that statute, you can go back and you can look and you can see, and we did a little bit of this yesterday.
There were eleven specific declarations of specific crimes, including obstruction, that Bill Clinton had committed.
That's why he was impeached.
Now you go, uh there is no collusion, there's no underlying crime.
Then you go to, well, he said uh we weren't able to.
And as the attorney general even said today, well, I don't see any reason why he couldn't have made the determination on CBS News.
The Attorney General Barr asked about Mueller not reaching an obstruction charge, says, Well, I I personally feel he he could have reached the decision if he wanted to.
It was within his rights to do so.
So Mueller tries yesterday because I'm kind of knowing Washington the way I do, I assume he's not exactly the most welcome person in the club of the swamp and the sewer and the parties and you know, because all of these people that swing so solidly to the left and hate, they wake up rage hating Donald Trump and their state of psychosis.
So he thought he would kind of.
I'm gonna make a quick statement.
I'm never talking again.
I don't want to meet Meadows, I don't want to meet Jim Jordan.
I don't want to be questioned, I don't want to be put under oath.
My document speaks for itself.
Uh, and I couldn't make the decision, although that contradicted what he had said numerous times in the past in front of numerous people.
So and then so the Office of Special Counsel, the spokesperson, Peter Carr, and the spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, Kerry Kupek, they released a joint statement between the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel,
quote, the Attorney General has previously stated that the special counsel's repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but that but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice.
That's what the media wanted to pedal to you last night.
More lies, more conspiracy theories, more of their hoax.
They thought they could rekindle it all, and they could reignite the fire that they thought they had at one point.
And then it goes on.
The special counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
There is no conflict between those statements.
Now, what it all means is, is that Mueller stepped in it big time yesterday.
And Mueller seemed to have forgotten his own previous statements before all of these other people, before these witnesses.
Which I'm telling you is the reason why he doesn't dare want to ever testify before Congress.
Ever.
Because if he does testify before Congress, he will be eaten alive by the Congressmen like Meadows and Jordan.
That's what's going to happen.
Now, let's go to the Star Report.
Now remember this, Ken Starr had no choice.
He had to issue a report.
People at the time, like Jerry Nadler, they didn't care about the charges against Bill Clinton, which were serious.
There was a multitude of them.
They were significant.
They didn't want the star report released.
They didn't, because the star report was damning.
Now, Mr. Starr in his transmitting uh transmitted letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6E material, that is material that by law, uh unless contravened by uh vote of the House must be kept secret.
It's grand jury material.
Uh it represents um um um uh statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, uh salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release.
Unfair to release.
That was Jerry Nadler then, not arguing he didn't want to be transparent, the same guy that is demanding the full Mueller report be released, which by the way, he could read all but one sentence and seven partial sentences that had grand jury testimony in it.
And literally, and he was the guy that was saying to the attorney general, break the law.
The attorney general can't break the law.
He's the attorney general.
And if he were to go ahead and give a completely unredacted version of the Mueller report, he would have been breaking the law.
So guys like Jerry Nadler and the Democratic Party, they didn't want to ever have to go through another Ken Starr moment or independent counsel moment, and they decided to change the law, and the independent counsel statute becomes the special counsel statute, which we've just seen.
But if you go back to the Star report, oh, it's pretty damning.
I went through some of this yesterday.
I'll just give you a few.
There were 11 possible grounds for impeachment that were laid out by Ken Starr.
And when you look at the independent counsel's referral of Congress, pursuant to Section 595C of Title 28, the Office of Independent Counsel hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton obstructed justice during the Jones Clinton harassment lawsuit by lying under oath,
concealing evidence, and his relationship with a young White House intern and federal employee Monica Lewinsky.
By the way, that was the pre-Me Too era.
After a federal criminal investigation of the president's actions began in January of 98, the president lied under oath to the grand jury, he obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation.
There are also substantial and credible information that the president's actions with respect to Monica Lewinsky constitute an abuse of authority inconsistent with the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
And then it went further in the Star report, and I'll read verbatim.
There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment.
One, President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair relationship or relations with Monica Lewinsky.
That President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about this relationship.
In a civil deposition to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, the president lied under oath about being alone with Miss Lewinsky and the many gifts that were exchanged between him and Miss Lewinsky.
Number four, the president lied under oath in a civil disp uh deposition about his discussions with Miss Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.
And during the Jones case, the president obstructed justice, had an understanding with Miss Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Jones' attorneys.
And during the Jones case, the president obstructed justice and had an understanding to jointly conceal the truth of the relationship with Monica Lewinsky from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means.
And it goes on from there.
There's 11 specific things that are mentioned here.
And in that case, so people like Nadler, they came up with a special counsel statute that gives the authority ultimately to the attorney general of the United States.
Now the acting attorney general that appointed Robert Mueller was at the time because of Jeff Sessions' recusal was Rod Rosenstein.
So the Mueller report comes out, no evidence, no conspiracy, no collusion, then the Attorney General Barr, the deputy attorney General Rosenstein, the Office of Legal Counsel, without any impact at all or consideration of Justice Department policy, as it relates to whether you can or cannot indict a sitting president.
Robert Mueller had every opportunity to write in there that he believes that the president obstructed justice.
He didn't do it.
they then make the decision, which is their decision.
And then, of course, everything gets turned on its head because everybody so hates Donald Trump that they want to leave a cloud of suspicion.
Well, the cloud of suspicion with the clarification by Robert Mueller blew up in Robert Mueller's face yesterday.
And I can tell you that if he ever testified before Congress, I guarantee it will blow up in his face at a level that would shock the conscience.
Just like when now that the president is declassified, the FISA applications and the 302s and the gang of eight and all this exculpatory evidence.
And now that Mr. Durham from Boston, and then we have John Uber in Salt Lake City and the Inspector General Horowitz and the Attorney General Barr himself, who is, and I'll play this maybe in the next hour with Newt Gingrich, who's saying that no, we're done with Mueller.
Muller's over.
He had all the resources.
He has great experience.
I have faith in him, and he's not going back to on his decision.
Muller's over, but I'm interested in what happened with Pfizer abuse.
I'm interested in why this counterintelligence operation was launched in the first place.
Yeah, I'm interested in how they rigged the investigation into Hillary's private server.
That's all that's all now.
Act one, the curtain closed.
Muller's over.
Now the curtain goes up.
And it's Act Two.
And this act actually has evidence.
We will learn and have evidence that Hillary was guilty of violating the Espionage Act, multiple felonies.
We will learn that the investigation into her felonies was rigged to protect the favored candidate who should win a hundred million to zero because Trump is loathsome.
We will learn that FISA, that there has been a premeditated lie and fraud committed on Pfizer courts for the purpose of spying on then candidate Donald Trump and his campaign.
And that that spying continued when he won the election and became the president-elect.
And it continued even further into his time as president.
And that this was a the single biggest abuse of power because the people that think that we, Trump supporters or smelly Walmart people, irredeemable deplorables, people that cling to our God, guns, bibles, and religion, that we had no business making our choice for president known because they knew better than us.
And all of those people that were warned by Bruce Orr in Octo in August of 2016 and warned two weeks out of the first Pfizer warrant being signed by James Comey and the subsequent three other renewal warrants signed by Sally Yates and Rosenstein and others,
we're going to learn that it was all based on the phony bought and paid for Russian Nassier, which for some reason Robert Mueller didn't care about because he was too busy on his mandate to take down Trump and all the associated important subjects like taxi medallions.
So Act Two now will be the revelations of the biggest abuse of power.
And if I was James Comey or John Brennan or James Clapper, I would be, as they seem to be acting, noticeably terrified.
Because what we know at this particular point, in spite of, you know, the pet parrots in the media lying in spreading conspiracy theories.
What we know is we have evidence here.
We have facts, it will be proven, and it's going to shock the conscience of the American people because they rigged a presidential election.
They tried to steal it.
They also rigged an investigation into the favored candidate, and they tried to bludgeon the opposition candidate over and over.
All right.
I know that's a lot to absorb.
Newt Gingrich, when we get back, we'll get his take on all of this.
I think he's totally conflicted because as you know, he wanted to be the FBI director, and I said no.
As you know, I had a business dispute with him after he left the FBI.
we had a business dispute.
Uh not a nice one.
He wasn't uh he wasn't happy with what I did, and I don't blame him, but I had to do it because that was the right thing to do.
But I had a business dispute.
And he loves qua told me.
Uh you look at the relationship that those two.
So whether it's love or a deep light, but he should, he was conflicted.
Look, Robert Muller should have never been chosen because he wanted the FBI job and he didn't get it, and the next day he was picked a special counsel.
So you tell somebody I'm sorry you can't have the job, and then after you say that, he's gonna make a ruling on you, it doesn't work that way.
Plus we had a business dispute, plus his relationship with Comey was extraordinary.
Why didn't he investigate Strupp and Page and McCabe and Comey and all the lies and Brennan and the lies and clapper and the lies to Congress.
I think he is a total conflicted person.
I think Mueller is a true never Trumper.
He's somebody that dislikes Donald Trump, he's somebody that didn't get a job that he requested that he wanted very badly, and then he was appointed.
And despite that, and despite 40 million dollars, eighteen Trump haters, including people that worked for Hillary Clinton and some of the worst human beings on earth, they got nothing.
It's pretty amazing.
They got less than nothing.
And the most amazing thing is how Mueller releases a statement with the attorney general, uh count literally walking back what he had said, as I've been pointing out here, backtracking on his own press conference,
trying to clarify matters uh because he knows darn well what he said was not true, and the actual statement that was released by the special counsel's office and the Department of Justice that the attorney general had previously stated,
the special counsel repeatedly affirmed, by the way, in front of numerous people, that he was not saying that, in other words, that he was not saying uh oh, uh, but for this Justice Department policy, uh, but for the OL uh OLC office, a legal counsel opinion that he would have found the president obstructed justice.
Then the joint statement goes on the special counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would it would not reach any determination, one way or another.
And because we got rid of the independent council statute, because people like Jerry Naller wanted to get rid of it, and that means well, remember, he didn't want the star report made public, but he wanted grand jury material in the Muller report made public.
But the bottom line is as the attorney general had said repeatedly, and Barr now has confirmed uh as and Mueller now has confirmed numerous times, the consideration of Justice Department policy was not the determining factor.
And it just I mean, i it is amazing that nobody seems to pick up on the single biggest news item from yesterday.
Anyway, joining us to discuss this and many other things, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, his new uh book is called Collusion, ripped from today's headlines.
Uh he tweeted out yesterday.
Muller tried today to have it both ways.
If he thought the president was guilty of something, he should have said that he was guilty of something.
Ken Starr used the word guilty eleven times on eleven different counts in his report on President Clinton.
If not guilty, Trump is innocent.
Well, that's the way it used to work in America, Mr. Speaker.
Welcome back.
Well, I think it's the way it still works in America.
I think that Mueller just made a huge mistake.
And I think that it discredits deeply uh everything else he has said.
Uh it's particularly ironic, almost almost funny, that he in the same paragraph says, now, of course, the Russians are innocent until proven guilty, even though they've been indicted, uh, and then turns around and says that he had not didn't have enough information to prove that Trump was was innocent.
Well, he just he just set the standard a second ago for Russians.
If if you are not guilty, you are by definition innocent.
Uh we we don't need a prosecutor to declare you're innocent.
Uh you have an automatic presumption of innocence in America.
Uh and I think I just when he said it yesterday, I just I couldn't believe it.
I it was such a reversal of everything America stands for.
Uh and I I did a uh Facebook Live last night that spent about twenty five minutes.
I don't get quite your audience, but I just wanted to get it out of my system.
And by the time I got around to doing it, there were several great uh op-eds already written, including one by Alan Dershowitz, that just took Mueller's position and shredded it.
Uh and I think people should relax and just say, you know, there's not going to be any conviction in the U.S. Senate.
I have a hunch there's not going to be any real move in the House.
And Miller now has positioned himself to look very foolish.
Well, I think the other thing is Robert Mueller is deathly afraid of going before Congress.
I I thought a big part of yesterday for him was to signal to Jerry Nadler, don't call me before Congress.
I have nothing else to add, and was not articulate in what he said, which is why they had to put out a clarification of what he meant and the things they that he had said before, which he contradicted yesterday.
Um but I don't think he wants to have to answer when did you know that no collusion or conspiracy occurred?
Um why did you hire this abusively biased team, even Hillary Clinton's attorney?
Um why would you hire somebody to be your pit bull with the atrocious record of Andrew Weisman?
Uh and then the very important question, which is well, if you had time to investigate taxi medallions, loan applications, uh taxes and pharaoh violations, uh, why did you give zero time, considering your mandate was broad enough to hit all those issues into a dirty Russian dossier that was, in fact, bought and paid for and used to influence the 2016 election?
How do you avoid, you know, dealing with that elephant in the room?
Look, I I I think that Mueller found himself over his head.
I think he did a very inadequate job.
Um and and but my view is l let's focus people like Lindsay Graham on 2016, not on Mueller in 2019.
I mean, what I want to know is, you know, why did the National Security Advisor seek to unmask an unprecedented number of Americans?
Why the whole story of um the meeting in the airport uh in Phoenix?
I mean, I think if you want to put somebody under oath, I'd like to see the former attorney general put under oath and ask what what did she and Bill Clinton talk about for thirty minutes?
Uh mister Mr. Speaker, I hate to correct you.
We've been friends for you know, thirty years, but uh it was 45 minutes.
That's a long time to talk about grandkids.
Listen, I've no, I always appreciate your passion for accuracy.
And I'll be glad to return the favor one morning.
But uh you're right.
Well, it just makes the case bigger.
I mean, d to suggest to us that they happen to set up a meeting, that they happen to be social.
This is beyond any plausible credibility.
Uh and I so I th I think they're what I'm really interested in is all the things that were done in 2016 that were I think inconceivable.
Uh, how did they avoid going after the guy who uh took a hammer to destroying the the smartphones?
I mean, how can that not be obstruction of justice?
There's just so many things that went wrong in 2016 that we have still not even scratched the surface of, and I'm hopeful that Attorney General Barr is uh going to dig into those and is going to release some documents to enable the American people to understand just how sick the system was and just how bad the decisions were.
Well, I mean, this is a problem that we have.
I call it selective moral outrage.
A few quick examples.
One, well, Democrats claim that they care about uh collusion or outside interference in our electoral system.
Uh we currently have Ukraine willing to admit with evidence uh of the DNC conspiring with Ukraine and officials in a case where they were trying to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary.
Uh we know that Hillary paid for hiring a a foreign agent with funneled money, uh, a Russian dossier that was disseminated to the press, the Washington Post, David Korn, Michael Lizakov, for the means of impacting the 2016 election.
But even more sinister and importantly, denying an American citizen Carter Page his uh constitutional rights, but it also gave them a backdoor into all things Trump campaign.
Uh yes, real spying occurred.
It was never verified.
We now know there were multiple warnings going back to as early as August of 2016 that they knew Hillary paid for the dirty dossier.
They knew it was unverified uh and uncorroborated, and they also knew Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump.
Now, that to me would be far more important and far closer to Mueller's original mandate to investigate than a Farah violation or a loan application or a taxi medallion financial issue.
Well, that's right.
And then look, I I think if you were to there's a case to be made.
I don't think it's it's I don't think this is as important in the short run, but there is a case to be made at some point for looking at the totality of the Mueller investigation.
I mean, I still can't believe that he got away with putting Americans into solitary confinement for as long as he did, uh, which was clearly a mental health problem.
I mean, uh the the Russian woman he was trying to break actually served over half of her total prison time in solitary confinement.
Now, I mean, I think in that sense, there's a whole question of the entire Miller investigation.
But I think it's currently so tainted uh by by the fight over President Trump.
I'd like to let it go for a little while and focus back on what I think was the real story in 2016, and that was the methodical protection of Hillary Clinton.
And I see the dossier as a part of the Clinton campaign.
I think all these things are wrapped together in a desperate effort to win the presidency uh and to protect her from herself.
And uh luckily for the country's future, they failed.
But we need to know more about them.
They say they care about collusion, outside influence, but they didn't care about the dirty dossier.
They say they care about obstruction, but here we have Hillary Clinton clear, overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence that she had top secret classified information on a server, violation of 18 USC 793, the espionage act, and then, of course, the real obstruction, subpoenaed emails deleted, uh acid washing a hard drive with bleach pit, busting up devices with hammers, removing SIM cards.
Uh that would seem to be the intention would be to literally eliminate all the evidence of the underlying crime.
Nobody talks about that, the same people that scream, just like, oh, they might care about allegations of sexual assault with a high school student named Kavanaugh, but not a Virginia lieutenant governor.
Uh I don't hear any of the I believers talking about the allegations of rape and violent sexual assault in his case.
Right.
Well, I mean, I think hey, you're right.
There is this whole problem of of selective outrage, and if you're a conservative, you're gonna get beaten up, and if you're a liberal, you're gonna get protected.
But beyond that, uh, I think that the country deserves to know the facts.
I think that there is an immense amount to be learned, and I think that uh if uh the attorney general follows through, as I hope he will, I think on the next four or five months, we're just gonna learn an immense amount that's gonna repaint the story of 2016 in some ways that will really be startling for most Americans.
Got to take a quick break.
We'll come back.
Uh new Kingrich is with us, 800-941 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
By the way, his best selling book is on the market, ripped right out of the headlines.
It's called Collusion, Amazon.com, Hannity.com, bookstores everywhere.
All right, Mr. Speaker, we've got a call for you.
I think this is fairly entertaining.
You're gonna want to hear this.
Tom in California.
Hey, Tom, you're on the Sean Hannity show with Speaker Gingrich.
How are you?
Oh, I'm doing great, Sean.
What's going on?
It's had uh uh a quick uh nickname for Newt.
I like your nicknames, is uh America's prime minister.
Just because of his uh sense of history and and just how he uh patriotic he is.
Kind of kind of like America's Church Hill.
Well, listen, that's a very nice compliment.
Uh and I'll take it.
Uh well I can let me add one thing.
Newt Gingrich is an intellectual force of nature.
He is a educator, he's a professor at heart, he is a historian, and he loves his country and he knows and understands the the things that matter most, and this is why, Mr. Speaker, this is so important.
It's about the rule of law, equal justice under the law, equal application of our laws, and not allowing a few deep state uh arrogant bureaucrats to undermine an election because they think we're smelly Walmart voters that like Donald Trump.
Well, look, I I think it is unbelievably important.
I hope every listener understands that we were at a turning point in 2016, and we now know that if Hillary Clinton had won, that the corruption would have sunk deeper, that the the bad guys would have gotten promoted and protected, and that we would rapidly have ceased to be the country that the founding fathers created.
And I think what Miller said yesterday was such a startling contradiction to the very essence of America.
Because the essence of America is not, you know, the he sounded frankly like he was in Russia or Venezuela or somewhere.
You know, in those kind of countries, the government decides whether you're innocent or guilty.
Yep.
And you know, you don't get to decide.
The government decides.
But in America, you're endowed by your creator certain inalienable rights.
You have something to do, or you want to stick around and maybe we'll take some calls in the next half hour.
I'll be glad to take some calls.
All right.
Quick break.
We'll come back.
Former Speaker of the House, New Kingrich.
We got an amazing Hannity tonight at Dine.
I'll tell you about that and more as we continue.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, toll-free.
Telephone numbers 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
What I've been saying, Mr. Speaker, is you know, when Lin Lindsey Graham was questioning the Attorney General Barr about Mueller.
Do you share my concerns about the Pfizer warrant process?
Yes.
Do you share my concerns about the counterintelligence investigation, how it was opened and why it was opened?
Yes.
You share my concerns that the professional lack of professionalism in the Clinton email investigation is something we should all look at?
Yes.
Do you expect to change your mind about the bottom line conclusions of the Mueller report?
No.
Do you know Bob Mueller?
Yes.
Do you trust him?
Yes.
How long have you known him?
Thirty years roughly.
You think he had time he needed?
Yes.
You think he had the money he needed?
Yes.
You think he had the resources he needed?
Yes.
Do you think he did a thorough job?
Yes, and I I think he feels he did a thorough job and and and had uh adequate uh evidence to make the calls.
Do you think the president's campaign in 2016 was thoroughly looked at in terms of whether or not they colluded with the Russians?
Yes.
And the answer is no, according to Bob Muller.
That's right.
He couldn't decide about obstruction.
You did.
Is that correct?
That's right.
You feel good about your decision?
Absolutely.
Mr. Speaker, let me interpret the way I hear that.
The Mueller issue is over.
But this attorney general, the things that I have and others have been discussing now and and literally unpeeling the layers of the onions for two years are now front and center.
And that would be yes, in fact, Hillary Clinton's email investigation in the server.
She did violate the law and she did obstruct justice.
Yes, he's concerned uh about a dirty Russian dossier that Hillary paid for with funneled money through a law firm to an op research firm to a foreign national uh that was uh we now know unverifiable because its own author says he has no idea if any of it is true.
Uh the Pfizer abuse by omission lying, not telling the Pfizer judges in the application that in fact uh Hillary paid for it, and then further at the top of a Pfizer application it says verified, but nobody verified anything, and they used it as an effort to spy on an opposition party candidate and spread disinformation.
Now the act two begins and the curtain rises on what is the biggest abuse of power scandal in history.
Well, look what I was really struck with in that exchange, Which I thought uh was really fascinating and I thought that Lindsey Graham did a great job of setting that whole thing up.
Um I really for the first time understood how deeply frustrated Trump must be, because imagine that Barr had gone in as his attorney general on day one.
What a different world we'd be in.
Uh, because Barr gets it.
I mean, Barr understands uh that that in the real world uh that we faced uh a really sick establishment doing some things that were really profoundly wrong, uh and that uh that needs to be f you know fixed and that he's gonna fix it.
And uh if we'd had that kind of an independent, hard nosed uh attorney general from day one, we would just be in a totally different place now.
What do you make now that we know we have identified and now the president as of last week has approved the declassification of the FISA applications, the 302 conversations, uh gang of eight information, uh exculpatory evidence that was withheld uh on purpose uh in specific cases.
Um and then you look at, okay, well, they they literally rigged an investigation for the favored candidate that struck himself said should win a hundred million to zero because Trump is loathsome and if he does win, don't worry we have an insurance policy to take him out, which we now know as the Russian dossier.
But they rigged an investigation, then they lied to a Pfizer Corps, premeditated lies because they were warned, all of them in August of twenty sixteen by Bruce Orr.
They were warned two weeks before the first visa application by a State Department person, Kathleen Kavalec, who met with Christopher Steele, who was in a panic because he had a deadline of election day and others warned as well, but they did it anyway.
That's premeditated fraud against the court.
What would happen if I did that?
Well, I think right now you'd probably be uh in deep trouble, but if you'd been one of the chosen gang, you could have done all that and gotten away with it.
I mean, that that's the point I was making a minute ago.
If if Hillary had won, none of this would have come out.
These guys were all protected.
They were all counting on her winning.
They were all confident that that was going to happen.
Uh and the result was that they were basically violating the core rules of the United States and doing things that that can only be classed as corrupt.
And I think that that to suggest anything less uh makes no sense.
But but I'm also, you know, as you know, I I've write novels uh such as Collusion and I you know was a historian at one time.
So I I approached these things and I try to think ask myself, what you know, what's the real big story?
Well, the real big story here is pretty straightforward.
The real big story is a group of people did some really bad things.
That group of people happened to be at the very top of the United States government.
It is certain that the attorney general was part of it.
Uh it's very possible on all the way into the Obama White House, uh, and it's very possible that some of the things we're gonna learn in the next few months are gonna come right back and lead to the question of whether or not Joe Biden knew anything.
Um but his defense of course is that he knew nothing, he learned nothing and remembers nothing, so uh Biden might be able to skate.
But I do think this thing I I I don't see how this could have happened without people above this group knowing something serious was going on.
What does it mean if we don't get this right?
Because what you're really describing is a situation where the favored candidate is not prosecuted because that candidate is is the chosen one.
And then the other candidate, it you literally are using lies, disinformation, phony, uncorroborated, verified dossiers.
They're spying on the Trump campaign in a multitude of ways.
You got Stefan Halper, well, he's spying on Carter Page and Papadopoulos and S Sam Clovis, and then we even have, you know, ripped out of a novel, uh a blonde bombshell flirting with Papadopoulos to get information, uh, does he know anything about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia?
Uh and then the FBI and especially Comey says, Well, we don't spy.
Sounds like spying to me.
Well, look, I mean what what you have to start with, Comey's understanding that you have no idea whether anything he says is true.
Uh uh I mean, the the guy doesn't seem to have a compass of any kind, and has uh has said all sorts of contradictory things, has done things that were clearly totally wrong.
Um and and I thought it was fascinating that Dershowitz, in his analysis of what Muller did yesterday, said that as bad as Comey was uh when he went through that whole press conference about Hillary, that what Mueller did yesterday was even worse.
Uh so you got these guys who who have some really bad habits uh and who are really arrogant and who for some reason think that they have the right to define innocence and guilt when in our system that's reserved to a judge and a jury, not to a prosecutor.
All right, let's go to our phones.
New Kingrich uh has agreed to stay with us, take a couple of calls here.
Alan is in the great state of Ohio.
Alan, hi, how are you?
And say hello to former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Hello, Sean.
Hello, Mr. Speaker.
It's an honor to speak with both of you.
Thank you.
Uh Sean, in regard to Robert Mueller's news conference yesterday, it's very obvious he's a deep deep state operative.
Um and I feel like we need to absolutely flood center Lynn DeGram's office with calls and emails to subpoena him to come up with an answer to Congress for this travesty that he's perpetuated for two years.
I think he should uh I want him to testify.
I think Mueller's scared to death.
I don't know what the noise is.
Mr. Speaker, I think he's scared to death to answer questions from Jim Jordan uh about the team he picked, about the decisions he made, about ignoring the dirty Russian dossier, meanwhile getting you know distracted on issues such as Farah and Taxi Medallions.
Um I think he has a very he would have a very difficult task, and I suspect that Jerry Nadler and company will protect him.
Well, look, I I think I mean when you come down to it, uh it's it's a situation where um he can't he would shrink every hour he was uh there as a witness because once you start asking these questions, there are no good answers.
I mean, just the question how could you have picked all left-wing Democrat lawyers and had nobody who was for Trump on your on your legal team?
Uh and the question you raised earlier, which I think is the most fascinating, which is when when did you reach the conclusion that there in fact had been no Russian collusion by the president?
And why would you not have told that to the country in order to clear the President of the United States as he travels around the world uh from this thing hanging over his head?
Well, before his clarification yesterday, the nine and a half minutes he spoke, uh all he did was leave a cloud of suspicion, and then it took the cleaning up by the attorney general, his office together to say, no, no, no, we didn't mean what we said for nine minutes.
This is what we really meant.
It had nothing to do with any Department of Justice policy that would prohibit the indictment of a sitting president.
That was not the basis of the decision, which he had said multiple times before.
Yeah, well, but but that's the whole point.
I d I don't because if I understood it correctly, he actually read that statement.
He did well, I think he did.
I mean, which means that which means he sat he sat down somewhere and he wrote out a statement that he didn't mean, which he read and then had to come back.
So he's now cleaning up the statement which was designed to clean up the four hundred and forty-eight page uh report.
Yep.
I mean th there's a there's a point here where it becomes an absurdity, and that's why I think having him testify might be dangerous, because you have no idea where he's gonna wander off to.
Oh, I think he uh I think he will not have satisfactory answers to many of the questions we're raising, like you couldn't find one Republican.
You really had to hire Hillary Clinton's attorney.
You had to hire the guy with that Sidney Powell writes about that withheld exculpatory evidence as your pit bull, uh the guy that was at Hillary Clinton's victory party.
You know, it's uh and and frankly, I want to go back to the point I keep raising, which I'm just astonished has not had much deeper uh impact, and that is this whole question of of of uh putting people into solitary confinement when they have not been convicted of anything.
Wait a minute.
We we know what Judge Ellis said.
We know this isn't about taxes.
We know this is about putting the screws to Manafort in the hopes that he sings or composes uh for the purpose of getting to the president.
That's what it was always about.
Right.
But that but that strikes me just when you say it, that has a chilling effect to me.
Because because it suggests that we should somehow be comfortable that this is the opposite of the rule of law.
The whole point is the you you the the end can't justify the means.
Not under the rule of law.
All right, quick break.
More with uh former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich.
There's new book collusion in bookstores everywhere.
And as we continue, Newt Gingrich is with us, his brand new book is out.
Amazon.com, Hannity.com, bookstores anywhere.
Uh rip from the headlines called collusion.
Let me go to uh your wife's home's uh state of Wisconsin.
Attila is uh has an important question.
Attila, you're on with uh Newt Gingrich on the Sean Hannity Show.
Hello, gentlemen.
How are you doing today?
Good, sir.
Greetings from Kiwani.
Yes.
Uh thank you, uh Sean for diligently uh presenting the facts.
Uh thank you and your team.
And Newt, you said you were you're a historian.
I hope you're there uh to present the facts so liberals aren't rewriting history.
But um do you think, Sean, gentlemen, uh that this declassification order, do you think it's gonna stand or is is President Trump going to re be rescinding it again?
Not even close.
It's not a matter anymore if it the question is no longer if it's when this information becomes available.
It is not a question anymore.
And remember, you do have the inspector general investigation, you have the Durham investigation, the Uber investigation, and the Barr investigation.
So it will all be put brought together at a time, and I think it will collectively blow the minds of the American people about how deep this went in terms of corruption and abuse of power.
Mr. Speaker.
I think that uh first of all, the President's put himself in a pretty good position.
He doesn't have to do anything.
He has delegated to Attorney General Barr.
He trusts Barr.
Uh I am confident that Barr is very methodically working this because that's the kind of lawyer he is.
And Barr, as I think he proved now for the last couple of weeks, is fearless.
So he's he's gonna grind forward.
Things are gonna come out.
Sean's exactly right.
Things are gonna come out which are gonna stun people and shock people, uh, because really bad stuff was done.
And I think that uh the country needs to learn what really did happen.
And I think we now have an attorney general who has the courage to help the country learn that.
All right, speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich.
By the way, his new book is called Collusion, ripped from today's headlines, and it is on Amazon.com, Hannity.com, bookstores anywhere.
Uh Mr. Speaker, we always love having you, especially these days you can stay longer.
Thanks so much for being with us.
Talk to you soon.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
We seem to be moving toward a place where impeachment may be inevitable.
The dam really seems to be breaking wide open.
This obstruction point is also impossible to look away from, because I think what he was really saying is Congress has a job to do.
They now have the green light if they want it from Mueller's statement that it's the ball is in their court and now they've got to pick it up and run with it and do the right thing.
The Democratic controlled Congress will have no choice but to open an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Every single day that the President sits in that office, he's obstructing justice, right?
Because if he spoke in plain language, what he would have said today was anyone who read my report and said no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration, is a big fat liar.
That's that's what he would have said.
In English, no lawyer is a very good thing.
If he had your my potty mouth here.
The unrestrained and in this case, she knows that she gets one shot at this.
If she blows it and they don't get him impeached in the House, uh they won't get him in the Senate, which is also a a huge factor here.
Um if they don't do the the the thing correctly in the set in the house, they never get to go after him again on any of this.
So the train whistles blowing, and Pelosi's got to make a decision.
And I think that's the tough question for her.
It's always been are you willing to say no to impeachment?
And I think it's totally up in the air what she's going to do.
I am gravely disappointed in the Justice Department For their attitude, uh their uh misrepresentation of the Mueller report to begin with, their uh hiding behind something that you could never find in the Constitution, that the President is above the law and their misrepresentations even under oath.
The Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the president accountable for his misconduct.
Unfortunately, Special Counsel Muller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the president because Department of Justice policy prevents a sitting president from being prosecuted.
That policy, in my opinion, is wrong, but it prevented the special counsel from pursuing justice to the fullest extent possible.
Therefore, as Mueller again highlighted this morning, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies, and other wrongdoing of President Trump.
We will do so.
Make no mistake, no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.
All right, that's uh Jerry Nadler couldn't be more wrong on the facts.
You know what's so amazing in this, and by the way, glad you're with us.
News Roundup Information Overload Hour, Sean Hannity Show, 800 941 Shauna's on number.
You know, so Mueller does his little nine and a half minute thing, and uh then all of a sudden, you know, the media goes to wow, we we've got new life into our fantasy of impeachment and conspiracy.
Now, of course, there is this Russian dossier, they don't care about that.
There is an underlying crime of the espionage act and collusion with Ukraine.
They don't care about that.
They don't care about obstruction when you have an underlying crime and the intent of taking subpoenaed emails and deleting them and bleach bit clean your hard drive and bust up your devices and pull out your SIM cards.
Uh, why?
The intent is obvious to destroy the evidence, so none of that matters.
It only matters it's if it's Trump.
You know, if Justice Kavanaugh is uh accused in high school of just about every other weekend spiking the punch and having girls drugged and and wasted and put in rooms and boys lining up in halls, and they are systematically on a regular every other weekend basis involved in the gang rape of young teenage girls.
They're gonna believe that, and everyone's gonna say I believe, but no I believers with the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia.
It is all a lie.
They care about Russian interference, they don't care about Russian interference.
If they did, Mueller wouldn't be looking at Farah violations, taxi medallions, uh, tax issues, loan applications.
Uh, he might have looked at Hillary's dirty dossier, uh, bought and paid for by her and using a foreign national to build it.
We now know it's full of lies and its author doesn't stand behind the document.
Maybe they would have paid attention to that.
And just like, well, after this big brew ha-ha yesterday, you look at what Mueller does.
Well, he ends up backtracking.
As you have the Department of Justice, Mueller's office releasing a joint statement to clarify the remarks.
You know, so despite of this bizarre interpretation and insinuation that maybe Mueller was planning on working and morphing the rule of law yesterday.
One thing was clear, he um he didn't want to go to war with attorney general barrels there are over three witnesses that heard Mueller say just the opposite of what he said.
And then when you look a little bit further and dig a little bit deeper, the the media, in spite of their, you know, breathless hysterical reporting and takeaway and foaming at the mouth, um, it appears and it looks as if Bill Barr uh called Mueller out on what was a contradictory statement that he made in front of many others on multiple occasions, at least three occasions.
And now all of a sudden they have to release a joint statement.
Oopsie Daisy, the Attorney General, and by the way, Kerry Kupac is a spokesman for the Department of Justice, Peter Carr, spokesperson for the Special Counsel's Office after the Mueller debacle.
The Attorney General has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly, repeatedly, that means again and again and again and again affirm that he was not saying that, but for the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice.
The special counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
There's no conflict between these statements.
You know, if you look at that analysis, you know, and everything in between here is Mueller basically is admitting that he never had the authority to conclude, but he did.
Could have.
Anyway, joining us now, we have Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillimer with us.
Um Jonathan, it's amazing that they ignored the joint statement uh clarification of Mueller's statements because of the three witnesses that said, well, hang on, Mueller didn't say that in the past.
He said just the opposite.
Well, they're Sean, they're not interested, and they've shown this over and over again.
They're not interested in totality of the facts.
They're not interested in statements that don't affirm the truth.
They're only interested in statements that affirm what they believe.
And I and I think, you know, when you I just re-listened before uh I came on.
I just re-listened to Mueller's statement.
And one thing really stuck out in particular.
Out of all the jargon that he says this way or that way, one thing that he particularly says is that based on the fairness doctrine, they could not charge somebody with a crime that could not be uh proven in a court of law.
Well, that means that it it did not happen.
They don't have evidence.
There's not evidence to prove that in a court of law.
So by the way, and it was there would have been nothing to stop Robert Mueller from saying that he believes the threshold in terms of a crime being committed, he believes was committed.
He could have said all of that.
Of course, and that's what makes no sense.
He leads everybody down this road in these statements.
I think for pure political reasons, he leads these people down this road, having them have the hope that there's something there, and I'm talking about people on the left is hope that something is there that he just can't talk about because he can't charge a sitting president.
But then he says this one little thing that based on fairness, he could not charge somebody where they could not prove a crime in a court of law.
That means that there was no crime.
Well, they have no evidence for a crime.
Hey, Danielle, you know, when the attorney general remember, we had the independent counsel statute because people and we got rid of it because of people like Gerald Nadler.
Gerald Nadler did not want the Star report released.
Star was doing his job at the time.
In the 11...
You literally had eleven specific crimes laid out by then independent counsel Ken Starr that were committed by then president Bill Clinton.
And Bill Clinton ended up paying nearly a million dollars.
He lost his law license, and he was impeached.
Very specific there's no such thing in the Mueller report.
Nothing that comes near to this.
And you add to the fact that there's no underlying crime, and the fact that the president complained loudly that he was innocent and complained that this was a witch hunt is hardly any obstruction when he allowed everybody that worked for him, including the White House counsel to testify.
One point five million documents are handed over.
He answered questions.
You can't cooperate anymore, and he never ever used executive privilege, not one time.
No, you're right, Sean.
Um it's good to be back with you.
Um and of course, Jonathan.
You know, Ken Saw and um Robert Muller were operating under different uh statutes as you indicated.
So the Star report, you're right, Madler worked really hard to make that public.
And actually, even under special counsel regulations, it was meant to be uh confidential, and it was actually the the attorney general who had the power to make it public or not.
And I know there's been a lot of uh upset about the fact that it was public, almost like the Clinton uh incident where James Comey came out and said she did all these bad things, but we decided not to prosecute here.
Uh the difference is that the special counsel was required to reply write a report, obviously required to investigate.
But they were he was also required to make a decision about whether they would prosecute or not and explain why.
And that's why we have all of this information out there in the public sphere to fight over, I guess.
There's no fight though.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back on the other side.
Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillam as we continue.
Your calls at the bottom of the half hour, an amazing Hannity tonight, nine Eastern.
As we continue, Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillam are with us.
Because number one, there's no underlying crime.
We've had four separate determinations.
The FBI nine month investment.
That doesn't matter.
Oh no, no, no.
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
It matters.
Because the whole purpose of the appointment of the special counsel was to look into Russian influence in the twenty sixteen election.
Now it's I don't disagree with you.
Okay.
So they looked into it.
The FBI did a nine month investigation.
The House Intel Committee did an investigation.
The bipartisan Senate committee did an investigation.
Correct.
And Mueller couldn't be more clear that there was no collusion.
No, I I totally agree with you, Sean.
But my point is that you can have an obstruction of justice prosecution without an underlying crime.
That is very instances of that in the law.
But I will agree, yes, he did not find it.
But like for example with the Russians.
Hillary Clinton, now that we know it's incontrovertible evidence, she had top secret classified information on the private server.
That is a clear violation of eighteen USC seven ninety-three, the espionage act.
And then we look at the obstruction aspect of Hillary Clinton, then okay, she's subpoenaed 33,000 emails, she deletes them, acid wash the hard drive with bleach pit, busts up devices with hammers, remove SIM cards.
Well, that would be destroying the evidence and obstruction, a classic case, uh a slam dunk case, isn't it?
Uh so obstruction requires a showing of intent.
And uh what other intent would there be to destroy the hard drive and bust up devices and erase, you know, clean the hard drive.
Well, she sat with the FBI.
Uh there is a 302, I don't think we're ever gonna get it.
But she explained why that was done.
And I also I want to correct the record because uh we we spoke recently and I said that those documents were not under subpoena, and I was wrong.
They were under subpoena, uh, and they were, as you know, bleach bitted by somebody in Colorado.
And you could say and and Hannity's been right the whole time.
Go ahead.
You can finish the sentence.
Hannity was right the whole time.
I'm not gonna go there, but you know what, when I'm wrong, and I said something that was wrong.
Okay, you were wrong, but was I right?
Um what did you say that it was under subpoena?
Yes, you were right, they were on a subpoena.
All right, Jonathan.
This is a historic day with Danielle McLaughlin.
Let's let's cherish the moment.
I feel like the moment by saying that Daniel's also wrong about one other thing.
And that is when we talk about obstruction, we're talking about when there is an investigation going forward where they are seeking evidence for a crime, and someone gets in the way of that investigation from going forth, that's obstruction.
But when an individual and uh let's say an investigation is based upon false evidence that is made known that it is false, that individual no longer has a requirement to uh follow the investigative um uh uh leads of this the whatever investigative party is carrying out the investigation, because at that point it should be in a court of law.
It should be dismissed.
And so what you know.
I don't agree.
All right, final thoughts.
Go ahead, Danielle.
The the obstruction statute is clear about you can obstruct an investigation, which may go nowhere, or a proceeding.
So you could you could possibly obstruct something that had to actually gone to court, but if it there was an investigation, even it didn't go anywhere.
The statute doesn't talk about false evidence, even if it were here, which I don't think it was, but you can obstruct just an investigation even if it goes nowhere under the federal statute.
All right, we're gonna have to end it there.
Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillam, thank you both for being with us.
Appreciate your time.
And this is a historic day.
Danielle admitting Hannity was right.
I can't wait for fake news CNN and Conspiracy TV MSNBC to say those words.
But I guess hell will freeze over before that happens.
Last year, I heard through friends the story of Alice Johnson.
I was deeply moved.
In 1997, Alice was sentenced to life in prison as a first-time nonviolent drug offender.
In June, I commuted Alice's sentence.
When I saw Alice's beautiful family, greet her at the prison gates, hugging and kissing and crying and laughing.
I knew I did something right.
Alice is with us tonight, and she is a terrific woman.
Terrific.
Alice, please.
Alice, thank you for reminding us that we always have the power to shape our own destiny.
Thank you very much, Alice.
Thank you very much.
The only way that I was able to make it through that time, and this is the truth, was my faith in God.
I knew that one day he was going to bring me out.
And I lived my life with an eye toward one day walking out of those doors a free woman.
And the day that I got the news that President Trump had granted my clemency and giving me a second chance in life was the best day of my life.
All right, that was President Trump as well as Alice Marie Johnson.
I will never forget this video as long as I live, because a woman that spent 20 plus years in prison, running out into the arms of her loving family, in large part it was a one-time drug offense, nonviolent offender, and she goes to jail and becomes a rock star in terms of not only changing her own life, but changing the lives of so many other people while she was in prison.
And I'll never forget what she said that day.
She thanked the president, and then she thanked the country and she said, And I promise I will never let you down.
And I thought one of the more most touching moments I've ever witnessed, and my hope is is that we find every Alice Marie Johnson that is in any prison in America.
We're not talking about Michael Dukakis and, you know, a revolving door weekend furloughs for people that have violent backgrounds, but those that have perhaps been disproportionately sentenced or harshly sentenced for one offense.
Well, our good friend Alice Marie Johnson is back with us.
She's got a brand new book that has just come out.
It's called After Life, My Journey from Incarceration to Freedom.
Uh the forward is written by Kim Kardashian West, and uh I had an opportunity to meet her, and she's more wonderful as a human being in person.
Uh Alice Marie Johnson, welcome back.
How are you?
Sean, I am fantastic.
Today is my birthday, and I am celebrating my birthday and remembering the day that Kim went to the White House to meet with the president.
Happy, happy birthday.
By the way, I watched the whole hour you did on Fox.
I thought it was unbelievably compelling.
Uh and by the way, you and your family, you guys really, I mean, we could have a band put together.
I saw the singing in the segment.
It was really awesome.
Um your story, I don't know what it is.
So many people, something horrible happens to them.
Man, and if you go to jail, how many years were you in prison?
I was in prison 21 years, seven months, and six days.
And what was your original sentence for?
My original sentence was for a drug conspiracy.
And it was a one-time offense, correct?
Yes, that was the first time I had ever been in any type of trouble.
I went in at 41, Sean.
Wow.
And before then I had no criminal background whatsoever.
What was your ultimate sentence if Donald Trump had not intervened?
It was life plus 25 years.
Now, I don't know how you can get 25 years added to life without the possibility of parole.
I was told that I would leave prison as a court.
Well, when you got in prison, let's walk Through that process from day one until the day you got out.
I gotta imagine you just think it's over.
Life is over.
And how bad was it when you first went in?
When I first heard that door slam and that key turned in the lock that not only locked me in, but it locked my family out of my life.
It was devastating really.
But from the after that, I made a decision, Sean, that I was going to live life the best that I could while in prison and impact my environment for good.
That was that became my purpose.
At what point did you make that decision?
How long had you been in prison before you made a conscious decision?
I I can't let this kill me, and I I've got to have some purpose in my life, and I'm gonna change how long into your sentence did you know it was it was very quickly.
Very quickly I made that decision when I realized that this this is where I am.
I really shunned, honestly, I cried out to the Lord and I asked him if you can use me, I'm available.
Let me ask you this.
Describe what got you arrested.
Tell us the event that led up to that.
Uh yes, I lost my job of I was a manager with FedEx.
I lost my job of ten years.
After that, I lost my son during this whole time, but I became frantic with bill collectors calling.
I'm not making excuses, Sean, because what I did was wrong.
But really, when you I was in a my life was spiraling out of control, and an offer came to me to be a part of a conspiracy to use my phone to pass messages, actually to pass numbers, not even messages, and that's how I became involved in what would ultimately be the thing that they said would take my life.
Okay, so you got involved, you know these are bad people.
I'm you're very smart, you knew this was drug related, correct?
Yes, I did, and I made that bad decision.
So I'm not making excuses for it, but I certainly don't believe that that decision warranted a life without the possibility of parole.
I agree with you.
And and what was the ultimate thing?
How did they catch you?
Well, they um I just know that an arrest came down.
They caught someone else who became a cooperating co uh cooperating witness for them for them, and he actually was the one who was involved.
He was much more involved.
So witnesses, I was offered a very low sentence, but other witnesses came forward to try to get their co-defendants who testified against me to lower their own sentences.
The very people that I that I can say that I worked for now said I was their boss.
Now, how you can I was the worst boss in ever, having never sold or used drugs.
So that's the that's a big thing that is wrong, this whole conspiracy theory of being a net thrown out to be caught up in something and charged with something that that is not your role.
And so you get this sentence as nightmare sentence, you think your life's over, the door locks behind you, uh uh uh uh a lifetime you think this is never gonna end because in in reality it wasn't supposed to.
It was not supposed to.
But you made a decision very early that okay, uh I need to find a purpose for my life, and this is where your faith comes into play.
And what did you do from there to change your life because you ended up changing the lives of many people in prison?
Yes to the point where the warden of the prison was advocating for you to get out.
Yes, she was.
Not only the one, the captain, my case manager, other staff members, other other inmates, other women were also writing letters on my behalf, trying to bring me to the attention of someone.
They loved me so much there.
I started writing incredible plays.
I st I that were the biggest inmate participation programs in prison.
I started mentoring women, I sat with women who were dying.
I worked with the first ever special Olympics for women who had physical and mental um uh you know, needs there.
And so I not only did I do that, I started writing for outside women's ministry.
I became known as a woman who was in prison that was right outside of prison.
I'm not calling myself the apostle Paul, but I was writing letters to women for women's conferences to encourage them and I started getting letters from them asking me for prayer.
And how many Bible studies did you be a part of while you were in prison?
And how many did you run?
And how many people do you feel that you were able to change their lives, turn them around and and as a result they they got off a bad road they were on and changed their hearts.
Oh my goodness, Sean, if I could put a number on that because the impact I was able to impact society because these women were being released back into to their families and to their communities.
I've received so many letters from family members and from women who were telling me thanking me for what I did in their life.
So hundreds, maybe a thousand I I can't even put a number on it because not only did were their lives impacted, but they went back out and they impacted the lives of their families because who was released back into the community was not the same person who went in.
You know I understand that Barack Obama had released a lot of people and at some point you were on the radar.
What happened in that case?
I wish I could answer that too.
I just know that um three times I was denied uh clemency and there is no explanation that is ever given as to why you are denied.
So you don't know what you did wrong or what you need to do better which things uh you know that I which thing that I left off of my petition.
So I knew that I was a very good candidate because at the time I met all of the criteria for that project I had 20 years I I had I walked out of prison with a clear cur with a clear conduct not only did I not have a criminal record but when I walked out of prison I didn't have a disciplinary record either.
So I can't I don't know why it was denied.
Now you met some other famous people in the prison including I as I understand a Heidi Fleiss was there but yes I I saw them.
Did you help them no uh I didn't really know them I saw them really from a distance I mean yes I walked the compound with them but I didn't personally um really really I don't know if I impacted their lives maybe they came to some productions that I did while in prison and those were life changing for many.
So I can't personally say that I did.
How did Kim Kardashian and Kanye West get involved in your life?
Well I did a I I'd been speaking via video at Yale University, New York University, the University of Washington Seattle, Google, YouTube platforms and I was asked to do a video op ed and it went viral and someone tweeted it out to Kim who she followed and she tweeted out this is so unfair and she uh reached out to her personal attorney who tracked me down in prison which wasn't too hard and told me that a wealthy uh
And Famous Woman wanted to help me.
And if I wanted that, I didn't have to think about it long, Sean.
It was a quick, I believe so.
Yes.
And so from that time on, Kim got the ball rolling.
They put together an incredible team of four attorneys.
And she started her quest.
She reached out to Ivanka Trump.
And then Ivanka presented it to Jarrett.
They called my group Team Alice.
And so both Ivanka and Jarrett became members of Team Alice.
And their mission, they were on a rescue mission to free me.
And so they were able to get an audience with the president himself.
And Kim went on my birthday one day.
one year ago with uh one of the attorneys Sean Hawley to have a personal meeting in the Oval Office.
But Sean I want to say this it wasn't just because uh uh Kim was a celebrity and of course Kanye got involved he knew of my case and he was incredible with his support of me but Kim did not just present something as a celebrity I also had a worthy case to present before the president so it wasn't just a celebrity status.
You got to bring something before him and I know he had opposition from his own self some of his own staff members to granting my clemency and I've been determined that I will make the president proud for what he did and I will represent this country well and make the people in this country who believed in me proud of what I've been able to accomplish as a free woman.
I saw in the interview you did with Fox that you were asked the question well what percentage of Alice Marie Johnson's or people like you that are turning their lives around or or in prison because frankly I think that every Alice Marie Johnson needs to be discovered and found.
Thank you.
And given release as you've been given it.
But how many people have turned around in prison and nobody will ever know about them?
Oh, there's so many.
I told her at least a third, but it's that number is probably higher than that.
People who have rehabilitated, who pose no risk to society.
Retribution is enough.
So why are they still there?
Whose families are waiting for them just as my family was waiting for me, Sean.
It's a bit of a well, it's an honor to get to know you, and um I'm so happy for you, and you are such an incredible role model for so many.
Uh Alice Marie Johnson, she has a brand new book out today, her birthday.
It's called After Life, My Journey from Incarceration to Freedom, uh, forward written by Kim Kardashian West.
And uh it's uh I'm so happy for you, I'm so happy for your family.
Sean.
Uh, you're an inspiration and a far better person than I'd be.
I'd be very bitter if I was in there for 20 years.
Uh God bless you and all you do.
We really appreciate it.
God bless you too.
Sean, I really appreciate you too.
Thank you for having me on today.
All right, Alice Marie Johnson, thank you.
All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today.
Let not your heart be troubled.
Hannity tonight, nine eastern on the Fox News Channel.
We got a great show.
News and information you will not get from your corrupt lying conspiracy theory media.
Tonight, Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Finton, Sarah Carter, Geraldo, Dan Bongino, Pam Bondi, and Emily Campagno.
It's all coming up tonight, nine Eastern on Hannity.
