Former Senator Joe Lieberman, joins us to talk about the state of the democratic party, from the extreme anti-semitic remarks from the new members to the push from Rep. Nadler for more investigations, there seems to be no end in the search for a crime with zero evidence. Finally, we will get the Senator’s take on the state of the United States and their relationship with Iran. 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.
He is to meet with the British Prime Minister May.
What a mess Brexit has become over there.
And why?
Because you have a bunch of politicians that want to circumvent the will of the people of Britain because, and she can't get the deal done.
I don't think she's long for the political world there.
The president having a back and forth with this wacky mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and a direct attack on him.
And the president took to Twitter as he was landing in the UK.
And anyway, the president, you know, appeared to make him while he was flying over British airspace, but using Air Force One.
And anyway, the mayor, Khan, wrote for the British newspapers, which is like the best-known old left-wing Sunday paper the day before the state visit.
And Khan compared Trump to most fascist and authoritarian leaders of the past century.
And, well, in kind, President Trump pointed out to Khan's poor record as mayor where crime, particularly violent crime and murder, has been soaring and suggested that Khan and his Labor Party politicians spend more time doing their job properly than attacking the leaders of key British allies.
And then Roasted Khan is a terrible attempt at leading London.
And the president also said that Khan had been foolish, was a stone-cold loser, and very much very dumb and incompetent, like the mayor of New York, Comrade Bill de Blasio, which kind of made me chuckle a little bit.
And a lot of the news is making a lot of big deal.
Trump's hairstyle at church changed.
Okay, there's big news for everybody.
President changed his hairstyle.
There you go.
There's a lot happening on the deep state.
What's really fascinating is all the nuanced new information we're going to get to in a second here.
The president's attorney, Jay Seculo, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, stops by.
Senator Lieberman on the state of the Democratic Party.
It's really not a pretty picture in any way, shape, manner, or form.
It's actually very ugly for the Democrats.
And they don't know what to do at this point.
So I think there just is a belief among Democrats that they've got to double down on the most radical, the most extreme ideas if they want a shot at getting the party's nomination.
And maybe historically, it's been, you know, you've shown wisdom if you kind of appeal more to the base of your party and then you kind of go a little bit to the middle in the general election.
The problem is, is the positions that these candidates are taking are so far radical left.
If they ultimately get the nomination, and I guess somebody will at some point emerge, I'm not feeling it for Joe Biden.
I don't see that this guy has what it's going to take to campaign not only against Donald Trump, but even in the primary.
The guy takes off every other day.
He can't get crowds.
He can't stop from putting his foot in his mouth every other second.
He's got a history now emerging that is an extraordinarily ugly one when you view his speeches through the prism of where we are today as a society.
And he's going to have to answer all of those questions one way or the other.
All the left wing have kind of united and said, no, we don't want any part of crazy, creepy, sleepy Uncle Joe.
And so he's being attacked by everybody else that is in this field of extreme candidates.
And he is extreme.
And then he also has Russia happened on his watch.
Add that to the miserable list of failure of the Biden-Obama years.
And, you know, one of the main questions people ask themselves every four years, are you better off than you were four years ago?
Well, when we have the best economy we've had since 1969, and we're setting record low unemployment for every single demographic group in the country, especially groups that were disproportionately, negatively impacted under Biden-Obama policies.
And you got record low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workplace, youth unemployment, and you have nearly 2 million more jobs available than we have people on unemployment available to fill the slots.
That was not a problem ever for the Biden-Obama ticket, ever.
Their numbers were atrocious.
The only problem was they had a media compliant in their back hip and they did cover for them every step of the way.
And, you know, what do people want to vote for?
Peace and prosperity.
Are we more prosperous?
Is there more opportunity?
Are we more secure as a country?
You know, you can start with the Democratic position.
Why they would ever take on, not even the abortion issue, but, well, first of all, deliver the baby.
I'll tell you what will happen.
And then, you know, we'll make sure the baby's comfortable and then the mother will decide whether or not the baby is ever given any medical attention.
Okay, that is now, we're not talking about a fetus anymore.
We're talking about a full-term baby person born, breathing, alone, independent of the mother.
And that means a human being is right in front of you.
And you have to be pretty darn callous to just say, we're going to let the mother decide if that baby lives or dies as the baby is alive right there in front of you.
Or when the, when the, remember when it was being sold in the House of Commons, it was, well, the question went out there.
So you're saying under your bill that a woman can have an abortion even during the birthing process in, you know, normal term, full nine months.
And the answer was yes.
Even if, for example, a woman is in labor and a woman has dilated and is about to give birth to a child.
That child fully capable of living independently outside of the mother's womb.
It's not abortion.
This is murder.
This is infanticide.
This is, but that's what the 2020 candidates are doing.
The Atlantic had a good piece on this.
2020 candidates are going all in on abortion rights.
That's not about a right to choose at this particular point.
You know, I love what you ask liberals anytime, do you want the government to have any say in whether you must carry a baby to term?
What a woman can and cannot do with their body.
They'll all say no.
All right.
Is that for the first three months?
Maybe where there's no viability as a factor at that point?
Is it for six months?
Is it for nine months?
Is it after the baby's born?
And this is where they've gone.
And this is how extreme they've become.
Interesting to watch out in California over the weekend, Democratic presidential hopefuls.
You know, well, crazy, creepy, sleepy Uncle Joe was absent at the California state party gathering on Saturday as, you know, his opponents took a chance to make some digs at the former vice president.
Some say if we just calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses, Elizabeth Warren said, and a clear reference to Biden's comments that the GOP may have an epiphany after Donald Trump is gone, but our country is in a crisis.
But then they just go hardcore left.
Most of these Democrats have adopted economic policies that guarantee this economy tanks.
You know, Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax on top of the proposal that we have a 70% top marginal rate, all based on a myth that the rich don't pay their fair share.
It's just not true.
When you have 10% paying 75% of the federal income tax bill, you have complete and full redistribution.
When you have such a small percentage of people contributing, and then the rest of your, you know, and then for business, all right, we've had great business investment in this country and we've really only just begun.
I know people are worried there might be slow and economic slowdown based on some of the trade issues with China and Mexico that are ongoing with the president.
But by the way, that would be a hiccup in my view.
If we want to raise the standard of living of every single solitary American, we've got to do the exact opposite of what these 2020 candidates are proposing.
Oil and gas is the lifeblood of every economy in the world.
We happen to, as a country, be blessed with vast amounts of resources and the ability to extract it and the ability to use it and the ability now for the first time in 75 years, we're energy independent, meaning we don't have to ask countries that despise us and the Mideast for the lifeblood of our economy.
And now we're a net exporter of energy and we've got pipelines for natural gas now that are in the process of being finished.
And the president finally opened up Anwar for drilling there where we have vast resources of oil that we've not tapped into, that we have the ability now to tap into.
And as soon as we figure out the way, which we can do, because I believe in American ingenuity, to take these vast resources that are second to none in the world, and we can then start selling our oil and our gas to countries that right now find themselves dependent on either the Middle East or on the hostile regime of Vladimir Putin and Russia.
You want to bring Russia to its knees, just compete with the sale of natural gas, oil, energy to Western Europe, we win and Putin comes down to his knees and the threat that was once Putin and Russia go away.
It'll be that simple.
We'll buckle their economy and we'll do it, hopefully, without having to fire a shot.
And you want to get Putin back for the interference that he has, that he's committed in all these countries and all these, that's one of the ways to do it.
So then you add the new Green Deal to their proposal, 70% top marginal rate for individuals, 90% corporate top marginal rate.
Then on top of it, then you have Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax after they've taken your 70 or 90%.
We're not even including state income taxes, 13.5% out in California between New York State and New York City.
That's another 13, 14% on top of the 40% you're paying nationally.
All right, then if you're smart enough, if you're thrifty enough, if you save some money, well, then they want another bite at the apple because they can then use that money to provide free daycare.
Already providing free pre-K.
We're going to take it all the way through college now.
It's not like we haven't messed up the educational system enough because we pay more per capita than any other country in the industrialized world, but yet we come in 737 and reading and math and science.
I mean, we're not getting a good bang for our bucket as we go forward now, but everything's going to be free, and it's going to have free guaranteed healthy food, a free guaranteed job, guaranteed Medicare for all.
Good luck with that.
You can't buy your own private insurance anymore, and everything will be free.
And then we'll get rid of the combustion engine, oil, and gas, and we'll live on some fantasy that we're going to create new energies that are going to solve all our problems, but it's all got to be done in 10 years.
But then we only have two years to survive if you believe the likes of Ocasio-Cortez.
That is the modern Democratic Party.
And they're all buying into it.
They're all selling this.
They all think this is a good idea.
Between that and hating all things Donald Trump, that's all they represent.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show on a Monday, we got a lot of deep state news.
We'll hit that as well.
The more that I think and see and examine all things with Mueller last week, it became an unmitigated disaster.
There had to be some mess up here.
My gut tells me, and I can't prove it, just my gut, as I went back and I watched him again, and I'm thinking, you did not write this.
He was struggling as he was reading it.
It didn't seem familiar to him.
And, you know, the worst thing you could ever do is read a speech that somebody else writes for you, and especially if you didn't really take the time to become familiar with it, because the legal issue at hand is so profound, and it would have meant so much more if what he was saying were true, at least to the left, although I didn't really see it as a big deal either way, but because the Attorney General,
the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of Legal Counsel, all on their own, were quick and clear and direct in saying that any consideration of any Department of Justice policy as to the constitutional question of whether you can or cannot indict a sitting president, you know, that was dealt with in their decision-making specifically and was not a factor, which means they only relied on the evidence.
And they made their decision almost imminently, immediately.
Now, sure, there was a lot of lead up to all of that.
Mueller was also given an opportunity to go over Barr's note, and he chose not to.
And when you look at the team, who could have written what he was reading?
Well, I guess he could have written it himself.
Certainly didn't seem like he was familiar with it.
And then when he had to team with the Attorney General, Barr, and the Special Counsel's Office and come out with a clarification and a correction, basically saying what I said for nine and a half minutes, I didn't mean any of it because just the opposite is true.
And it was never a factor.
The Justice Department policy as it relates to indicting a sitting president in our decision not to decide on obstruction of justice.
It was always going to be the Attorney General's decision, which it was, which by law it is.
And the new Attorney General made it in consultation and agreement with the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of Legal Counsel.
But didn't make Barr look good at all.
We'll continue.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour.
I mean, it is, it's almost funny.
Hillary's so desperate.
You know, we can't have, you know, a dual system of justice in America.
I'm like, yeah, that applies to you.
And she just had a touch.
Then, now, remember, she rigged the primary, and I could not, for the life of me, understand why more Bernie people weren't mad because the whole system was rigged in her favor.
You know, with the super delegates, and it just Bernie never had a fair shot.
It was all an illusion that there was even a race going on in 2016.
But so Hillary, this is the New York Post, Cindy Adams, apparently spent some time with each other.
And Hillary's like warning her fellow Democrats that unless they sideline crazy Bernie before it's too late, he's going to torch the entire Democratic Party.
Now, why is she mad at Bernie?
Bernie's the one that should have been mad at her.
Bernie's the one that got cheated out of the primary not her I need an ambulance.
That was a Bernie supporter.
I mean, that's how there were a few Bernie supporters that lost it.
So Hillary is now sounding the alarm about, you know, her 2016 primary opponent saying that Bernie would rather go scorched earth than graciously lose a race.
I'm like, no, that would be you.
In a recent off-the-record conversation, Cindy Adams, Clinton sounded off on this field of Democratic presidential candidates.
And according to Cindy Adams, Clinton has no good words for Sanders, writing that the Obama-era Secretary of State believes, quote, anyone overtaking him in a district considered his, he'll burn the place down.
And judging by the Vermont Senator's recent remarks, there looks to be no love lost between him and Clinton.
Megan McCain on the View asked this March whether the two had met to discuss the 2020 race, and Sanders bluntly replied, I suspect not.
And you're not interested in any advice from her?
And I think not, he said.
And if you think about the bad blood here, it gets even worse because, I mean, but Bernie got ripped off.
Even Donna Brazil tells the story when she wrote her book, how when she became the interim DNC chair and, you know, talked about all the money that was siphoned away by the Hillary campaign, they had it all wrapped up and that she had to make the dreaded phone call to tell Bernie, yeah, it's pretty much true, you got ripped off and didn't want to make that call.
So creepy, crazy, sleepy Uncle Joe, he was AWOL.
He was missing for around 10 days around Memorial Day.
Anyways, AWOL this weekend from a slew of political events in San Francisco, including the California Democratic Convention and moveon.org's big ideas for him.
But that didn't stop the progressive audience from booing Biden when his candidacy was referenced by Bernie in a flyer handed out at the convention on Sunday by a group of action for a progressive future and asking the question, where is creepy, sleepy, crazy Uncle Joe and portions of the crowd at the convention openly antagonistic to any moderate candidate.
They didn't mention Joe Biden by name, but they made clear references to his campaigning on the notion that Trump's four years will be treated as an aberration.
Bernie Sanders' comments actually prompted the audience to boo Biden because he said, as you all know, there is a debate among presidential candidates who have spoken to you in this room.
There were those who have chosen for whatever reason not to be in this room about the best way forward.
And Sanders said, as the attendees were booing, so let me be as clear as I can.
In my view, we will not beat Donald Trump unless we bring excitement and energy into the campaign.
And then the swings at Biden, you know, that then poured over into the airwaves on fake news, CNN.
Seth Moulton, another Democratic 2020 candidate.
He's like a congressman, isn't he?
I don't even know who half of these people are.
I'm just going to run for president.
I think I'll run.
Mayor Pete from South Bend, Indiana, somehow feels qualified to be president.
Moulton said it's a mistake because we should have had a lot more, been a lot more careful about going into Iraq.
Kamala Harris had to flee the stage as some left-wing nut case ripped the microphone from her hand, and she looked pretty petrified, walks up, rips the mic out of her hand.
This was at the moveon.org big ideas convention.
And a left-wing nut who commandeered the stage in the name of animal rights.
And as Kamala Harris was fleeing the stage, her husband came to the rescue and helped subdue the unhinged fellow progressive.
As if on cue, the male protester jumped on the stage where three women were talking, wanted to make sure that his idea was heard above and beyond anybody else's, just as the senator was answering a question about the gender pay gap.
The protester's been identified as Aiden Cook, only said that he wanted to turn attention to a much bigger idea.
Excuse me.
We don't have enough 2020 candidates.
Let's have anyone jump on stage and say whatever they want.
Rudy Giuliani has weighed in and said that predicts this Russia hoax is going to result in at least three to five high-profile indictments.
I think he's probably right.
Said it on Justice Pirro's program, Judge Piro's program.
And it could very well be higher.
You know, but they're still clinging to their fantasy and their rage and their hate and their psychosis.
Jerry Nadler, why would he want to call this John Dean has been living off Trump bashing since before he got elected?
Now he's all over it since he got elected.
He's another one of these people that hasn't gotten a single thing right up to this point.
And now they've been searching for a Trump insider who would blow the whistle on the president's Russia gate collusion the way the Nixon White House counsel, John Dean, did during Watergate.
And the only problem is they've talked to everybody in the White House.
There was no lid to blow here.
No tapes involved in this particular case.
No obstruction because nothing happened.
And we have four conclusions now that say that nothing happened.
It didn't happen.
You know, why is that so hard for these people to comprehend?
You know, it's just like you watch Gerald Nadler and the cowardly shift.
They keep saying there's certainly a justification to impeach Trump, but they don't give any evidence to impeach Trump because it doesn't exist.
And they just keep lying.
I don't know if they've convinced themselves, but maybe they just believe their own conspiracy theory in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Or they're just that political, you know, the level of political hackery is that high because they're just denying simple and fundamental and basic truths.
Donna Brazil said Russia is the reason Hillary Clinton is not president.
That's not true either.
That's not the reason.
If anyone had any help from Russia, it was Hillary's dirty Russian dossier that she paid for.
Just unbelievable.
Rob Reiner, meathead, piles of evidence of collusion in the Mueller report.
No, there's not.
Does he know how to read?
I'm beginning to think he may not.
Because reading would be an exercise of great weight on such liberal minds that believe that they're right, even though all the evidence and truth contradicts that.
So this is an interesting Epic Times had a really fascinating piece today.
You know, a report indicating that a key piece of evidence cited in the Mueller report to back the claim that Trump may have obstructed was doctored to exclude all the exculpatory details.
So in other words, the Mueller report actually quotes a transcript of November 22nd, 2017, the voicemail message from the president's attorney, John Dowd.
Now, this had all been out there and it broke late Friday.
And I'm looking at this and I'm like, do you people just like recycle news when you're bored and nothing is working in your favor?
You just recycle old news?
Anyway, the full transcript, excuse me, was released on May 31st in the court filing in the Flynn case.
And it shows that Mueller's team selectively edited the transcript for the Mueller report.
And the edited version in the Mueller report concealed Dowd's sympathetic tone at the outset of the message.
They cut out the language that would show that Dowd discussed two separate matters, and they omitted the fact that Dow specifically cautioned Flynn's attorney that he wasn't requesting any confidential information, which blew the entire argument that these fake news channels have been running with, you know, since late last week.
In response on Twitter, Dowd said, you know, in a statement to an attorney who noted the discrepancy, he said, it's unfair and it's despicable.
It was a friendly, privileged call between counsel with no conflict.
And I think Flynn got screwed.
Okay.
Anybody that now knows what the deputy FBI director did to General Flynn, oh, you don't need a lawyer.
They knew darn well they were setting him up.
And then Comey bragging that he'd do something on day four of the Trump administration, take advantage of the chaos, something he'd never do if Obama was president or George Bush was president.
He's going to send his FBI agents in there to start looking into an investigation into Flynn when we now believe that they had secretly unmasked and literally identified General Flynn and used raw intelligence against General Flynn without getting a warrant to set him up for a perjury trap, which was what they did.
Now, Congressman Clyburn, close ally of Nancy Pelosi, insisted that last week or over the weekend that less than 20% of House Democrats support impeachment, but apparently nobody shared that news with a key member of the leadership team because James Clyburn says that impeachment hearings have already begun.
They're already underway.
He's the third highest ranking Democrat in the House, said in an interview on Sunday, Democrats are already laying the groundwork for an impeachment in Congress.
They're going to need some evidence.
But it sounds like you think that the president will be impeached, or at least proceedings will begin in the House at some point, but just not right now.
Yes, exactly what I feel.
I think we've already begun it.
We've got all of these committers doing their work.
We're having hearings.
We've already won two court cases.
And there are other cases that are still to be determined.
So why should we get out in front of this process?
Why don't we just continue to go along?
And we are right now, we're winning this issue.
Why should we go out and make missteps and cause us to lose a court decision that will have people saying, why didn't you take your time?
Why did you get out in front of this?
Yeah, why didn't you take your time?
This is not good.
By the way, as we speak, the president is taking part in a state banquet with the UK Royals, Her Majesty the Queen.
You know, you look at this the same way I would.
I'd rather go to an Irish bar that has, I don't know, corned beef and cabbage, beer, shot of whiskey, than fight like this.
Why are you laughing so hard?
I mean, listen, corn cabbage, beer, that sounds good.
Corned beef and cabbage, right?
I mean, you just look at this and I'm like, oh, you know, yes, we're all polite and dressed to the max and we have our gloves on.
And I don't know, Melania just looks like one servant behind every individual.
And I'm like, all right, this is a little bit overboard.
You know, and the rest of Oshali crumbs as well as.
If anybody has ever been out to dinner with you, they know it's impossible anyway, because you'd be talking to every single one of those servers.
Oh, yeah, I'm best friends with them.
We'd never get through the dinner.
I'd be like, hold on, Shawn Hand and he's still talking to the servers.
And what's wrong with that?
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.
Don't try and flip the script.
I'm just making a joke.
What does that mean?
I talk to every one of them.
So I talk to everybody.
You do.
I budget, you know, there's the farewell party and the hello party with you before we get to any table, at any dinner, at any event.
All right.
What are these little rules that I don't know about?
Go ahead.
It means I budget an extra 10 minutes at the front and at the back so that you could say goodbye to every single person and hello to every single person because everybody's your best friend.
You mean the people that work at the parties?
Regardless, people you know.
The people that make it a pleasant experience.
People who want to take pictures.
The people that make it a pleasant experience.
The people that are killing themselves to make sure that everybody.
Oh, my God.
You're making this so uncomfortable.
Well, I'm just, you're acting like it's a bad thing.
I didn't say it was a bad thing.
All right.
Well, you're making it sound nefarious.
It's not nefarious at all.
It's very kind and sweet.
I'm just saying that we budget extra time for you.
Extra time.
Back up, you creep.
Get away from me.
Exactly.
Maybe they don't want to say goodbye to me.
And you were from Gentleman who served as Attorney General the last time.
Do you have confidence that he can act with impartiality if he's confirmed to this?
I like and respect Phil Barr.
I know he's an institutionalist who cares deeply about the integrity of the Justice Department.
So I'm sure he'll use the standard career resources he has to judge what he should be involved in and what he shouldn't be involved in.
But Bill Barr is a talented person who was a good Attorney General the first time.
I liked him very much then.
I think he'll serve the Justice Department with Attorney General.
Oh, I think he'd serve the Justice Department well, except now that he's mentioned he's going to go after issues that involve Comey and Comey's signing of the first Pfizer warrant application in October of 2016.
We now know an unverifiable document.
He verified it in that FISA application that everything was true to the best of his knowledge.
And then, of course, just a few months later, saying the opposite, the then President-elect Trump at Trump Tower, it's salacious, but not verified.
The opposite of what he said in October of 2016 and all of the other problems that Comey has, leaking government information for the purpose of getting a special counsel appointed, which he was successful at, and a whole host of other issues.
What did he know?
When did he know it?
How high up does a lot of this go?
There's some indications today that it goes higher than anybody think.
We have polling out today that shows an overwhelming majority of the American people now want the investigation into the investigators to go full on, full board.
Devin Nunes is saying the Mueller report is a fraud to target Trump, suggesting things were purposefully left out, exculpatory information.
And he's now making the request after seeing glaring discrepancies in the Mueller report.
Then we have the disaster of last week when Robert Mueller finally spoke for nine and a half minutes, pretty much sending a message to Jerry Nadler and company: please don't make me testify before Congress because I'm not going to do it.
I'm just going to repeat what's in the Mueller report.
Problem is, then he went on to cite the Justice Department policy that you can't indict a sitting president, or at least the controversy they're in.
And that was the reason why he didn't make a determination on the obstruction of justice side of the investigation.
When, in fact, he stated to numerous people on numerous occasions that that did not factor in in any way, shape, manner, or form.
And, of course, last week you had the news media breathless, hysteria, breaking out once again their final breaths they're taking to milk all things conspiracy theory with Trump and Russia.
Well, they thought they had a big breakthrough because there was once a joint defense when John Dowd and Ty Cobb were the president's attorneys.
And at one point, there was a discussion with General Flynn's attorney, who was part of the joint defense for a period of time.
And all he said was, okay, if there's, I respect this position.
If there's anything that we need to get a heads up on, please give it to me, which would be the normal course of a conversation between a lawyer and anyone else that was part of a joint defense team, which they were for a good period of time.
Anyway, here to sort through all of the legal issues involving this.
He's the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and counsel to the President of the United States.
Probably the biggest case he was involved in his entire life.
And he's how many times have you argued before the Supreme Court, Jay Seculo?
Over a dozen, but this is a very different experience.
Very much so.
Yeah, very unique circumstances.
But I really, there's a part of me that feels we came awfully close to a soft coup in this country.
That scares me.
I think there was an attempt.
So obviously it didn't succeed because we for a lot of reasons, but one of which was we were tenacious in our approach, and the rule of law protected the Constitution and ultimately protects the American people.
But you know, you want to start with, let's start with the ladder that you raised, and that is my colleague John Down.
John Dow did what any defense attorney would do in a joint defense when a lawyer's someone's about to leave, or we're hearing that someone's leaving a joint defense, and to remind them that while they were in the joint defense, that information was privileged and protected.
And there was nothing said.
I mean, they're trying to take a line.
Well, they selectively, here's what happened.
They selectively edited the information they put in the report.
What they didn't do was release the entire transcript.
Then the entire transcript was released, and it shows the exact opposite of what was in that report.
So try to make something in the report nefarious, when in fact it was standard defense lawyer protocol.
And it was done exactly by the book.
But this is a pattern within Bob Mueller's report, frankly.
You know, there's this whole discussion about the president's private lawyers and Michael Cohen and what Michael Cohen said about the private lawyers and what they said.
Yet, of course, Michael Cohen's not exactly a credible witness to say the law.
Can I just stop right here?
So if there's any discrepancy, didn't Michael Cohn's charges, as I understood them, was lying on loan applications, tax issues that he had, lying before Congress.
And then he went back and testified another time, contradicting his first testimony.
And I know that Congressman Jim Jordan and Congressman Mark Meadows have put forward a potential criminal referral for more time that Michael Cohen may have lied to Congress.
And so how much weight do you put in the testimony of somebody that has admitted to doing this in the past in the recent past?
You can put no weight into it.
But the point that I'm making is whether it's a Jod Down conversation or the situation with Michael Cohen, it's the same results, Sean.
It still made its way into this report in a very slanted and biased way.
Now, the American people have seen through it.
I think that any lawyer would see through it in a minute as well.
But I think the reality is, and this is what you have to realize, and this was, I used the John Dowd examples, the most recent.
It shows you the scope and nature of which they were willing to go to create a narrative that just the facts did not support.
So then let's take in a next step.
You mentioned James Comey.
Well, James Comey should have a lawyer because James Comey was authorizing FISA applications based on information that he knew was false.
And I think this is not only going to come out in the Inspector General's report, but when they do the investigation of the investigators and how all this started in the first place, I think this all is going to become, it's going to come to light.
And what the American people are realizing, and you're seeing that in the polling numbers, is in fact that something really bad was taking place.
And it's taken a process to get to the bottom of it, and it's going to take time.
But Bill Barr is an exceptional attorney, an exceptional attorney general.
I think he'll be one of the greatest attorneys.
He's already been a great attorney general, but he's going to be one of the greatest attorney generals in our lifetime.
And he will get to the bottom of it in the appropriate way, utilizing the appropriate protocols within the department.
He will do what they should have done, which is utilize the appropriate protocol and procedures.
And I think that will shed a big light as to exactly what happened here.
Well, what you're describing then, Jay, is premeditated fraud committed against the FISA court by, well, lying in a number of ways, lying by omission by not telling the court.
We know on at least two, probably three separate occasions, James Comey was warned directly, Bruce Orr warned him that Hillary paid for it.
Steele hated Trump, and none of it's verified.
We know that Kathleen Kavlik, when she met with Christopher Steele about two weeks before the signing of the first FISA application by Comey, that immediately warning signs and sirens were sent over to the FBI, so he had to know at that point.
But that means going forward and signing an application to spy not only on Carter Page, but the entire Trump campaign, that would be a premeditated fraud on the court.
And I can't imagine that there are not a whole host of felonies associated with that.
I think that's right.
And I think that the nature and scope of the planned attempt was very deep and went up very high.
I mean, look, you're talking about the director of the FBI.
You're talking about the associate director, assistant directors of the FBI.
You're talking about the lawyer to the FBI director with James Baker.
You've got all these investigations going on now.
And we'll get to the bottom of it.
The American people will find out what happened here, and it's not going to be pretty.
My suspicion is that this was rigged from the beginning.
The question I would have liked to have asked Bob Mueller is, when did you know there was no Russia collusion?
Well, he's going to have to say if he's being honest immediately.
Then why did you continue doing this?
Because it was an attempt to take down the president.
That's what it was.
That's what it is.
And that's what the American people, I think, are now realizing.
Having said that, the fact is we now have a procedure in place which is going to allow the truth to come out.
And it will come out.
And it will come out in the appropriate way in the appropriate venues.
But you're already seeing Brennan and Clapper making statements contrary to Comey.
Comey and McCabe made statements contrary to each other.
You see what's happening here.
Well, I mean, and I think there's a long way to go in all of this.
Now that the president has gone forward with the declassification, now that the new attorney general has basically put to bed all things Robert Mueller, he couldn't be more clear that when he was answering Lindsey Graham's question, did he have enough resources and time?
Do you trust him?
Do you believe he got to the answers, etc.?
Yes, yes, yes.
Are you concerned about FISA abuse?
Are you concerned about a potentially rigged investigation into Hillary in the email server?
Yes.
And then Michael Horowitz's report is coming out, and the Hoover report is coming out.
And now the AG himself is looking into all of this.
I can only imagine, based on what we know, that there are going to be a lot of people that are looking at indictments.
I think that will be determined by the Department of Justice.
I think you're right.
But I think there's something else here.
In a sense, it goes beyond the issue of indictments.
It goes to what was the motivating factor in all this to begin with.
And I think we already know the answer, but we're going to see it in living color real soon.
What do you think?
Do you think it's through the D-Class, for example, where we expect exculpatory evidence that existed that was not transmitted or was purposely pulled back and not being a part of the narrative, but it was apparently deep and profound?
Is it the 302s?
Is it the Gang of Eight?
Is it the FISA applications themselves?
Or all of the above.
I mean, so is it all of the above?
And we saw with the situation with my colleague John Downs, the selective utilization of a statement, a selective utilization of a transcript.
We saw with the allegation that Michael Cohen's even an allegation against anybody else's credibility is absurd, like you, as you mentioned.
But all that made its way into this report.
So then you ask yourself, what's motivating this report?
Why if there was no Russian conspiracy with the Trump campaign, which was the predicate upon which all this started, why was that not the end of it?
Because I've always said, and Sean, we've talked about this a lot, the government's theory of obstruction here was obstruction by tweet.
And this was a president that was trying to defend himself from media attacks, from attacks of prosecutors that had clear bias, investigators that had – I keep asking the same question.
I've been asking this question for a year.
What happened to the evidence that Peter Strzok obtained for the two months that he worked, and he worked there on the project for over a year?
Well, we know what happened.
Andrew McCabe is now claiming that it was he who got rid of Struck and Page, not Robert Mueller.
I mean, Robert Mueller, I mean, it was a deal.
He did.
McCabe's saying he did.
And Robert Mueller had a disaster unfold for him last week, and he gave the statement.
Yes, he did.
But he had already contradicted himself before many witnesses saying that whatever the Justice Department policy may or may not be, that did not factor into his decision not to make the decision on obstruction.
Because they didn't even have a theory, a legal theory of the case that made any sense to anyone.
I think what Bill Barr said in his interview with Jane Crawford was the telling.
This was the legal opinion of a lawyer and maybe a few lawyers in the special counsel's office, not the opinion of the Department of Justice or lawyers that actually do this for a living.
And that's the truth of the matter.
He got right to it when he said that.
I think that was the telltale side of the interview.
I think I'm probably the most adamant if we're really going to get to the bottom of it.
You have to start with the rigged investigation in Hillary Clinton's email server.
And when they were writing an exoneration for her in May of 2016, they didn't interview her or 17 other people.
You know, it's interesting.
Everyone says they care about collusion, but she had top-secret classified information on that server.
That evidence is overwhelming.
It's incontrovertible.
James Comey himself says it was there.
Then, of course, it offers then the intention.
We now understand why 33,000 emails were deleted and the use of bleach bit on the hard drive and the hammers for the devices and the SIM cards removed.
Well, the intent would be clear, and that would be to destroy the evidence.
To me, I don't think any American gets away with that type of behavior, especially subpoenaed documents.
I think, look, I think that's interesting history at this point.
And I understand everybody's concern.
But what really has to be the focus of this, and I'm sure they'll get into all of this, is what started this investigation of a candidate for the president of the United States, as Bill Barr said, spying on a campaign.
The predicate question is, was there a basis for this surveillance or spying?
If there was not, which I think is uncontroverted that there was not, then government agencies at the highest level were doing really bad things to American people.
I think that's much more significant right now than Hillary Clinton's emails.
I think that is a big, big deal, a really big deal.
The other stuff needs to be investigated, too.
But the idea that this investigation started as a, well, I always call it a faux investigation from the beginning.
But it's not only a faux investigation.
The whole thing was, the whole process was rigged.
I mean, look, I know it inside and out better than anybody, and as good as my colleagues.
There's only a few of us.
I know what was going on in the negotiations and all these processes.
And I will tell you right now, but I don't think they were operating in good faith, period.
I never liked the team.
I don't think Mueller can testify because the questions that would be asked by Nunes, Jordan, and Meadows would be devastating.
Like, when did you know there was no collusion?
Why did you hire Andrew Weissman with his atrocious track record, including in Sidney Powell's book, Withholding Exculpatory Evidence, but he was at Hillary's victory party, or the Clinton's own attorney, Jeannie Ray, who worked on the foundation, not a single Republican.
And the next part of this has to be, how do you look at Russian interference and ignore the bought and paid for Russian dossier?
How did you ignore that?
And Nellie Orr and the Fusion GPS connection, which Bob Mueller knows about and did nothing about.
Did nothing about.
Well, he had time for taxi medallions and loan applications.
Well, all of this is going to be, all this is going to be determined real soon.
The American people are going to, you know, I think this is going to move expeditiously.
It's going to be a thorough investigation, and we're going to find out what happened here.
We'll get horror witches report probably in the next couple of weeks, I guess.
And we're going to know.
But I think, look, it's about to be an eye-opener for the American people.
It's going to be an avalanche cascading down on the American people that should shock the conscience of all of us that believe in equal justice, equal application of our laws and our Constitution.
That's why Comey and Clapper and Brennan are saying the things they're saying.
Well said.
All right, Jay Seculo, the Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, Counsel to the President, Donald Trump, 800-941 Sean, toll-free telephone number.
We'll get to your calls this next half hour as we continue.
Are you disappointed that what started out with a lot of buzz suddenly feels as if you're sputtering a little bit?
And what is your explanation for it?
I'm not disappointed.
I mean, I knew this was going to be tough.
This is perhaps one of the hardest things that one can do.
But there are so many extraordinary people, these volunteers who are showing up, knocking on doors, making phone calls for us, the folks that I meet in town hall meetings all over this country who meet this moment with the urgency that it demands, whether it is gun violence,
whether it is making sure that women's reproductive rights are protected, or guaranteeing that we confront the greatest challenge we have ever faced in climate and make the generations that follow us proud because we've freed ourselves on a dependence on fossil fuels, embraced renewable energy, and led not just this country but the world to ensure that we don't warm this planet another two degrees Celsius.
These are the important conversations that we're going to have, and we won't be able to accomplish this in just one media cycle or in a couple of months.
It's a long, hard-fought campaign, and I'm looking forward to meeting my fellow Americans who want to become part of this.
On the asylum laws, do you have any empathy towards the administration right now that says they're being overwhelmed here?
They need some temporary help from Congress to deal with this, whether it's, you know, maybe changing the asylum law.
Are you at all sympathetic to that?
My empathy and my sympathy is with the families who've had to flee the deadliest countries on the face of the planet, who are met with the greatest cruelty and inhumanity in this country's history.
We have the capacity to be able to take care of those families, a family case management program.
Can the city of El Paso keep handling more and more migrants coming over the border?
This country, the United States of America, absolutely can do this.
We had 400,000 apprehensions last year, Chuck.
In the second year of the George W. Bush administration, there were 1.6 million apprehensions on the U.S.-Mexico border.
If we treat people with the humanity that they deserve, if we release them from detention into a family case management program to ensure that they follow our laws at a fraction of the cost to improve our security and ensure that the asylum laws that are on the books are followed by this country, we will be safer, more secure, and we will be living our values.
Anyway, 24 now till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, by the way, what's happened to the Democratic Party?
Senator Joe Lieberman will join us at the top of the hour.
This is not Joe Lieberman's party in any way, shape, manner, or form anymore.
There's a guy that wants to knock down all barriers.
There's a guy that wants open borders.
Of course, we can accept.
Of course, we can pay.
We are spending billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars every year in terms of the impact, the cost on our educational system, our health care system, our criminal justice system.
We cannot afford to take in the world's population.
Do we feel sorry for people that come from horrible environments, countries where maybe cartels run their towns and there's nothing but crime and misery and mayhem and poverty around them?
Of course we do.
But we don't have the capacity as a country to take everybody in.
And we have laws and we have borders and we have a process that we have laid out for people that want to have a better life, that they can be a part of our family without talking about a wall with no doors.
We specifically said many times the door will have walls.
But this is your new radical extreme Democratic Socialist Party.
This is what they want.
You know what you just said?
I have to point out.
It's funny.
It's very funny.
You just said that the door will have walls, which is actually appropriate because it is a door.
It's going to have a wall around it.
The wall will have doors.
I knew what you meant, though.
But I do think we should play one more cut.
Okay.
This is Kevin McAlinen.
And I wonder if Betto even knows who he is.
The U.S. is on track to have more than a million migrants, a million undocumented immigrants enter the country this year.
Of that million, how many do you think are dangerous individuals?
500,000 of the million, 1,000 of the million?
How many?
So last year, we apprehended 17,000 criminals at the border and an additional 808 known gang members.
808.
Yeah, that was on about half the crossing level we're facing today.
The other challenge we have is that our humanitarian mission, processing these families, trying to care for these kids, is pulling our agents off the line.
40% of our agents are involved in processing and care of families and children right now.
They are not on the borderline.
So we don't even know what we're missing with confidence.
We need to be out there on the line securing the border against those that are trying to evade capture, the smugglers bringing drugs across, and as you noted, potential criminals and gang members in that flow.
Look at what we now know.
Did Beto Bozo Robert Francis ever mention 4,000 Americans murdered, homicides in a two-year period?
Did he ever mention the 30,000 sexual assaults against American women in a two-year period?
Did he ever mention 100,000 violent assaults by illegal immigrants?
Is there any consideration of the impact this has on the American economy?
You know, one of the reasons why unemployment is now at its best lowest rate since 1969 is because people cannot get in the way they used to.
And the idea that we're just going to have open borders, the very simple rules.
Rule number one, if you want to be a part of American society to have a better life, I admire your choice.
You've made a great choice.
Americans are open-minded and have open hearts.
But we do have a right to vet that you're not a part of some group or enterprise that would want to bring harm to our country.
We also have the right to insist that if you're going to come to America, you must have the means to provide for yourself for an extended period of time.
You can't come to America and say, I want free medical care and I want free dental care and housing and have the benefits paid for by the American citizens.
You know, if you look at countries like Australia and New Zealand, listen, you don't make it to their shores.
They have border security, and you're in a boat and you're trying to make it to Australia, you're going to get turned back.
They'll give you food, water, medical attention if you need it, but you're not going to be able to go to Australia.
And if you make it to Australia, there's been a number now of prime ministers elected that have said, become an Australian.
You're being a part of our society.
And it's been met with liberal resistance only.
Or merit-based, you know, people that have particular skills that are in need, engineers, or maybe those in the oil and energy sectors.
Now that we are about to have explosive growth in all areas involving energy with the president's deregulation, and we're already seeing the beginning signs of it all, maybe that would be a particularly qualifying piece of information.
But the reality is, you know, this is your modern extreme radical Democratic Party.
Look at how many Democrats now they think abortion is the, not abortion.
They think infanticide ought to be the single biggest issue for 2020.
You know, well, first we'll deliver the baby.
We'll make sure the baby's comfortable.
And then after the baby's comfortable, the mother will get to decide.
And then after that, we'll have a discussion.
In other words, the mother decides if you're going to resuscitate and offer medical aid to an independent human being, child living outside of the womb.
And the woman that put forth that bill simultaneously the same day put forth a bill to protect, ironically, some kind of moth that turns into a butterfly and said that, yeah, even during the birthing process, if a mother's dilating and in the process of giving birth to a child, that would be allowed under the Virginia law.
That was in the House of Commons.
How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?
Or physical health.
Okay.
Okay.
I'm talking about the mental health.
So, I mean, through the third trimester.
The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.
Okay.
But to the end of the third trimester.
Yep, I don't think we have a limit in the bill.
So where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she is about to give birth.
Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?
She's dilating.
Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman.
I understand that.
I'm asking if your bill allows that.
My bill would allow that, yes.
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.
The infant would be delivered.
The infant would be kept comfortable.
The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired.
And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
So, the infant, child, human being, would be delivered, made comfortable, and then the mother would decide whether or not medical attention is granted to the child or the child dies.
All right, as we get back to your busy phones here, Sean, let me ask you a question.
Tell me what you think about this because you have kids that have gone through, you know, all 12 years of grade school and high school.
You know, I am not in this phase of my life yet, but no, you're in the three-year-old stage.
I don't have to deal with this quite yet, but I will soon enough.
You're dealing with the this is Linda, by the way, when she talks to Liam.
You're trying to have a business conversation.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Liam, okay, one repeating it.
Let me ask my question, and you tell me what you think.
I've never asked you this before in private or public.
I'm curious, do you think it's appropriate?
You know, we have in our schools right now, all these kids are learning about issues that we never learned about, you know, when we were in school about their sexuality, and they don't have to get the parents' consent and this, that, and the other.
And I'm wondering if children shouldn't have to see the video of an abortion so that they can understand what it is that they are voting to protect.
Because I really feel like what's happening is that they're just sort of going along with the rest of their schoolmates and they don't actually know.
And I know for me, the first time I saw the video of an abortion, I was like, oh my God.
I mean, that was it.
I mean, that's listen, they've gone so far in some of these schools, they're actually airing Al Gore's Earth in the Balance, which is full of propaganda and falsehoods.
Look, you know what the biggest problem with schools are?
It's simple.
My answer is that's really in the parents' realm.
And there's going to be instances where parents, for whatever reasons, they're not going to be talking to their kids about sex or abortion or drugs or alcohol.
But to me, it would be more of an opt-in for maybe an opportunity for parents that know that for whatever reason they're not going to go there.
That teachers that maybe could take the edge away from them because it's sensitive to them might be an opportunity.
But frankly, Linda, they can't read, they can't write, and they can't do simple arithmetic.
And we pay more per capita per child.
I agree with you.
And I would just say, first, can we teach them to read, write, and do math?
And if we are paying per capita more per child than any other country in the industrialized world, but we rank 37th, I think we need to go back to the fundamentals first.
And all the social indoctrination that goes on in school needs to stop.
We don't teach kids American history, but once in grammar school and once late in high school.
But yet, you know, they're studying the rest of the world every other year.
And I'm like, okay, that's great.
But, you know, what do you know about our framers and our fathers and about branches of government?
And what do you know about the Supreme Court?
What do you know about our laws?
What are our laws predicated on?
What was this country founded on?
One principle.
What principles?
Judeo-Christian principles.
Well, it's like this week.
I mean, how many of them know that it's the 75-year anniversary of D-Day?
They have no idea.
Not many.
No idea.
No idea.
That's 100% true.
And that's sad because they're going into college not knowing any of this.
And it's not even usually a college requirement anymore, to be honest.
But I do think, I really do.
I mean, if we're going to teach our kids sex education and they're going to get all this information at school and they're going to give them the plan B pill without the parents knowing and they're going to issue out condoms and have dispensers for condoms and all these things, you know, then maybe we should also teach them what the consequences are of their actions so that when it happens, it's not such a shock.
And so when they say, well, it's okay if you get pregnant, you know, you can have an abortion up to nine months.
Well, then you should know what that is.
I would love these kids as a homework assignment to have to watch the show time show trade or Nat Geo on drugs and especially those shows that interview the drug dealers and the drug makers and they actually, which was kind of part of the documentary, the nonprofit you were involved in.
And you don't know who's making these drugs.
You don't know what they are the one.
You know what?
The only problem is with that is that they look at it like it's a movie.
They see a documentary.
It's not a movie when you're seeing dead kids.
Yeah, but they don't relate.
It's too impersonal.
The video games, all that stuff.
It's so violent now.
They can't even differentiate it.
Well, probably everybody listening to this show knows somebody that's addicted to hard drugs, 100% heroin, opiates, sometime, somewhere.
And then probably somebody knows somebody that died because we're losing 300 kids a week.
And it's getting worse, which, by the way, is one reason enough to control our borders because 90% of that crap comes across the southern border.
We're prepared to engage in a conversation with no preconditions.
We're ready to sit down with them.
President Trump had indicated his willingness to have conversations with the Iranians in the past few days.
He said this for an awfully long time, more than just the past few days.
We're certainly prepared to have that conversation when the Iranians conclude that they want to behave like a normal nation.
All right, but the question is, does Iran want that?
Do they understand now the new emerging alliance between the United States, Israel, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates, all against Iran and their nuclear ambitions?
Certainly dropping $150 billion in cash and other currency on their tarmac was not a particularly good idea.
Talking, how could it ever be bad?
Talking about getting rid of nukes sounds great.
Does it have to be successful?
No.
But certainly not talking will get you nowhere.
Anyway, joining us now is former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is with us, a good friend over the years, somebody that I've admired a lot.
And although every time I say it when he's running for election, it ends up hurting him.
He calls me and asks me to stop saying nice things about him, which he did once.
When he was running as an independent, I kept saying, well, I think everyone in Connecticut should vote for Joe Lieberman.
And then all of a sudden it became an ad all over Connecticut.
If Hannity supports this guy, that didn't work out well, did it?
Hey, Sean, you see, I'm not running for office anymore, so I don't mind you complimenting me.
And I think history will note that in 2006, when I got denied the Democratic nomination, lost the primary, Democratic primary, went on as an independent to win.
Your endorsement really helped me win.
And I'll never forget it.
I appreciate it a lot.
One of the many reasons I'm glad to be back on with you today.
You know, it was in many ways, I would argue, that moment when you did not win the Democratic primary.
And let's be honest, I mean, we don't agree on a lot of stuff, mostly things about social issues or government, what the role of government should be in our day-to-day lives.
But we both have a deep understanding of the evil in our time and the evil that we have faced as a world.
I mean, you know, when my father fought four years in the Pacific and we were beating back the forces of fascism and Nazism and communism and imperial Japan and the killing fields in Cambodia, you know, that century that my father fought in, over 100 million human beings were slaughtered by governments.
We have evil today, and I guess some people won't say it, but radical Islamic terrorists are real and they are a clear and present danger to everybody.
They're real.
They're a clear and present danger.
And Iran is too.
And we've got to learn the lessons of the last century.
We let Nazism and fascism and Japanese imperialism go for too long without responding.
Thank God the American forces working with our allies were able to win, and the world has been a lot better since.
But I really want to come back to Iran because on this one, I believe President Trump's policies have been, well, I'd say heroic and historic.
I mean, we were losing based on a terrible Iran-nuclear agreement and an aggressive Iran.
And I think as a result of breaking out of that Iran nuclear agreement and squeezing Iran economically with sanctions, that the president and we Americans have Iran on the ropes.
And I just hope I hope we don't.
I'm sure this is just the moment that Iran is appealing to third parties like the Swiss and the Europeans who are asking us, please talk to them.
Well, as you said, Sean, it never hurts to talk, but these people have to, you know, it's not just trust, but verify as President Trump.
Well, the problem is, you know, I think the problem is cultural, in as much as if you grow up and you and this is in one manifestation or another a common problem under Sharia law as implemented by individual states where women are treated like third and fourth class citizens.
Women are told how to dress, whether they can leave the house, whether they can drive a car.
Christians and Jews are persecuted.
You can't build temples or Christian churches in many of these countries without persecution.
Gays and lesbians are thrown off roofs and murdered in the public square just for being who they are.
I would think that when I speak out and question why highly prominent politicians like Hillary take money from these countries, that I would think this would be a cause where liberals would join Hannity and say, you know what, this is a matter of human rights.
Why don't they?
Well, I don't know why.
I think maybe it's the image.
But, you know, if they delve down a little bit, Iran is really a totalitarian, repressive, anti-human rights state.
And it's a source of aggression and a lot of death throughout the Middle East.
So basically, if you just pull yourself out of the classic sort of, well, if Trump is for it, I'm against it, and look at the regime in Iran, it represents evil.
And it's an assault, if you're a liberal, on every liberal value that you hold dear.
So honestly, I think this is one where we all ought to unite behind the Trump administration policies.
And incidentally, if I have one mild, it's not so much a criticism.
I wish the president wouldn't say that we're not for regime change in Iran.
I agree with you.
We have to be.
I don't think that we're going to fix it by being nice to them.
I don't think they're trustworthy of any deal.
Yeah, exactly.
They've got to be frightened that maybe we will support regime change, although I don't think any of us want to get into a ground war in Iran.
But there's a lot of dissent there.
There's constant protests against the regime.
The people of Iran are really unhappy.
And if they rise up, we ought to do a lot more than President Obama did during 2009, the last time when the people of Iran rose up against these Islamic fanatics and dictators who have destroyed a great country.
Well, they have.
I mean, look, we're old enough to remember when the Ayatollah came back out of exile from France after the Shah of Iran was pushed out.
But we've had moments where the youth in Iran, they have a very strong and populous young generation, and they've looked for American help, and they haven't had it up to now.
But I think certainly the ideal situation is that they do change.
But I'm a little concerned, Senator, about this.
You know, if we start with Vietnam, we lost over 58,000 of Americans, America's treasure.
They're asked to go fight a war, and then it becomes politicized, and then we say never mind.
I mean, and then I look at the way the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were handled.
And, you know, certainly we needed the surge, and certainly we needed boots on the ground.
But the problem is we cannot put American men and women knocking on doors in Iraq and stepping on landmines or driving over them without having up-armored, you know, Humvees.
And that ought to be the work of the locals if they want their liberation and their freedom.
And I think we really got to recalibrate how we think about war, and that means winning, devastating them, and not putting Americans in harm's way because it's going to be politicized in two years, and we're going to say never mind anyway.
Yeah, I agree.
I think a lot of countries who are our enemies think we don't have the staying power to win or the stomach to really impose a defeat on them.
Sean, about two weeks ago, my wife and I went to New Orleans and we visited the World War II Museum there.
It's an experience that I wish every American would have, and particularly students.
But there was a case where we got into it and we devoted our entire society to stopping people who really hated us and assaulted our values.
And we achieved total victory.
There was tremendous loss of life, as you said.
But that World War II generation really are the greatest heroes.
And they give us lessons and inspiration.
And I think they should guide us as we face the threats we do from Iran and Islamist terrorists.
That there's no, you've got to be really careful in believing people who say that they hate us and they want to destroy us, which is exactly what the leaders of Iran and the Islamist terrorist groups have said.
Remember what Hitler said during the 30s and everybody thought he was a fool and crazy and don't listen to him.
Not Winston Churchill.
Not Churchill, right?
Not Churchill.
Churchill was calling the warning.
You know, but it is interesting because we're at this moment and I think maybe we have an opportunity.
I mean, I'm a little disappointed that Israel kind of went a little chaotic in the last elections and the prime minister wasn't able to form his government this time and now they're going to have reelections.
But, you know, the alliances we're now talking about and shared intelligence and working together was probably impossible even 10 years ago, that being Israel, Jordan, the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, the Emirates, everybody in the United States, you know, united against Iranian hegemony.
So I do think there's a moment of opportunity for the world to recognize this can't happen, that a nuclear-armed Iran will create such instability in the world that we may not be able to recover at some point.
I totally agree.
And look, the Arabs and the Israelis are now tied together in the first place because they have a common enemy that they worry a lot more about than they worry about each other, and that obviously is Iran.
But the other additional factor that's happened now is that President Trump has made clear who our friends are in the Middle East and who our enemy is.
And he's siding with our friends, namely Israel and the Arab countries.
And as a result, he's made it easier for them to cooperate with each other and with us.
So part of the fear that the leaders in Tehran have now is that they're not just facing us, squeezing them economically, they're facing the threat of combined Arab-Israeli action against them if it comes to that.
So I think we're going to come back to really hurt them now, and we shouldn't pull back.
So I have a two-part question.
We're watching this scary rise of anti-Semitism in Europe again, but we're also seeing it on an unprecedented level in the United States, Congresswoman Omar, Congresswoman Tlaib, an unwillingness of the Democratic Party to rightly by name call out those people that are saying these things.
And so I'm concerned about that aspect of things.
And on the other hand, I'm more concerned about the rise of anti-Semitism worldwide.
And how dangerous do you think this is?
First off, thanks for asking the question, Sean.
I've got to tell you that in my lifetime, I have experienced just about no anti-Semitism, either in the state of Connecticut when I was running or even when I ran nationally for vice president.
Now, part of that, obviously I always knew there were anti-Semites out there, but it was just unacceptable for them to come out from under the rocks and spew forth hatred.
So I must say I was a little slow to get worried about this flurry of anti-Semitism now, but it is real, and I am worried about it, both in Europe and worldwide.
Hard to believe that we're seeing it again so soon after the Second World War and the Holocaust.
But it's there, and we've got to take it seriously.
I think from all that I can see, it's much worse in Europe than here, but it is here.
Part of it's stimulated.
It's in the halls of Congress here.
If you had told me in my lifetime that I would hear members of Congress give forth the kind of anti-Semitic statements that Congresswoman Omar and Talib have made, I wouldn't have believed it.
So you've got to take it seriously.
You've got to reprimand them.
You've got to push them back.
You've got to censure them, really.
Look at the president, though.
We had so many candidates or presidents that had swore that they would move the capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Well, Donald Trump did it, recognizing the Golan Heights.
Everybody said they would do it.
He did it.
There's never been a greater friendship relationship than I think the United States and Israel have ever had.
And then you look at the president's economic policies breaking record after record.
And then I hear of this new Green Deal Democratic Party, no oil, no gas, no combustion engine, no cows, no planes, and everything's free.
And it doesn't sound like Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman to me.
It sounds like a party that's lost their way.
Well, I hate to say it, but you're right.
And it's certainly not the Democratic Party that I joined when John F. Kennedy was president.
And honestly, it's not even the Democratic Party that it was when it nominated Bill Clinton who got elected president of the United States.
If the Democratic Party continues to be influenced, but what I take to be not the majority of party members, but definitely the majority of the activists in the party, and moves ever leftward with more and more governmental programs and far-out left programs, it's not going to be a viable party anymore.
I mean, and we need two strong parties in the United States of America.
We need two parties.
More with Senator Joe Lieberman on the other side, 800-941-Sean, toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
As we continue, and we'll talk about the rise of anti-Semitism, not only in Europe, but in the United States as well.
And why is the Democratic Party not forceful in condemning and speaking out against it?
That and much more as we continue.
Sean Hannity Show.
All right, as we continue, Senator Joe Lieberman, formerly of Connecticut, joins us.
A very different Democratic Party that we're watching today versus the party he was once a part of.
Do you think Donald Trump's doing a good job as president?
Will you consider voting for him in 2020?
Well, would I consider it?
Sure.
I mean, I haven't decided anything.
It's too early.
I agree with President Trump on some things.
I disagree with him on others.
It's a little like the profile of you and me.
I mean, I don't agree with the way he pulled us out of the climate change agreement, but on a lot of the foreign policy, I think he's made America stronger.
And look, you've got to say, the economy's in good shape now, and you've got to give him as president.
You're going to get beaten up just for saying he did anything good, because if Donald Trump cured cancer, you have half the country that wants to impeach him over curing cancer.
No, this is what we've got to get away from, or we're never going to get it.
We're not going to get together and be unified again as a country.
You can't just be against somebody because he's the leader of the other party.
You've got to go issue by issue.
Some issues I agree with the president, some I don't.
Well, you know, the thing is, and I know he's not an establishment figure, but Donald Trump was specifically elected to be a disruptor, an iconoclast.
And he is unique in the sense that every promise that he made, originalists on the court or the biggest tax cuts in history, his deregulation promises, we're now energy independent for the first time in 75 years.
We're now a net exporter of energy.
If we figure out cheaper and cheaper ways to get our energy to Europe, that's good for world stability.
People won't be dependent on the hostile regime of Putin and the hostile empire of Russia.
And similarly, we don't have to go knocking on the door of countries in the Middle East that hate our guts and control the prices of the lifeblood of our economy.
So I see this as a win all the way around.
He's kept a lot of his promises.
You know, I think in a way, his problem is how unconventional he is personally.
He got a majority of the independent votes against Hillary Clinton.
And in most of the recent polling, he's not got a majority of them anymore.
And it's because I think they don't like the tweets.
They don't like the way he personalizes politics.
Yeah, but the problem is, go before the Wisconsin primary.
There was an ABC Washington Post poll, and he was at a 73% disapproval rating.
Now, he didn't win Wisconsin, but he won in Indiana, and he went on to be president.
I just don't think he polls like any conventional politician, as evidenced by the election night polls that showed he didn't win a single state in the country.
And he went on to shock the world.
Well, he's not like any politician or political leader, certainly not any president we've had before.
Can tell you during the 2016 campaign, and since I would run into either people in Congress today or governors or people who served with me, and we'd all say, Donald Trump has said about 15 things that if any one of us had said it and we're in the middle of a campaign, it would have been over.
But somehow, now part of the, he goes on, and part of it, I think, is exactly what you said, particularly against Hillary Clinton.
The public wanted a disruptor.
The public was angry with the status quo.
They wanted something different.
They weren't sure how he'd be, but they knew he was different.
And they knew he'd had a record as a business executive.
So, in a way, a certain number of them totally believed in him, and a certain other number decided it's worth the risk.
And now he's got to come back next year and convince those people who took the risk that is.
Historically, people vote for peace and prosperity.
Are we better off than we were four years ago?
I think the answer is obviously yes.
We have the lowest unemployment number since 1969.
Record economic growth.
The people that have most benefited from his economic policies, record low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workplace.
And yeah, he's iconoclastic and he hits hard, but I think the American people like it when he's fighting on their behalf.
I don't really see Joe Biden.
If Joe Biden is the guy, I mean, they're like hiding this guy because it almost seems like a Hillary redux here.
And I don't see that Biden has the energy, the intellect, nor the charisma to take the stage away from Donald Trump.
I don't see it.
Well, I know Joe Biden a long time.
He's a good human being.
It's early.
We'll see.
I mean, somebody else may emerge.
And if it's somebody on the far left, the Democratic Party basically, in my opinion, has no chance.
And President Trump gets re-elected.
If they go with somebody new who is center or center left, it's going to be a heck of a battle.
And I'm going to say that.
Well, somebody send my best to Hadassah, your wonderful wife.
She actually was in an audience of a speech that I was given some time back.
And I'm thinking, I don't understand why she stays with this guy.
No, it's compassion, really.
All right, Senator.
Well, God bless you.
Great to talk to you.
God bless you, too.
800-941-Sean, Tolfree, telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
John Chicago, really bad weekend of violence there.
Over 50 people shot.
Why we're not fixing this, I don't know.
Local officials ought to be out en masse.
They ought to consult with Rudy Giuliani because he took a murder rate from nearly 3,000 a year and drove it down on nearly only 300 a year.
John, how are you?
Glad you called.
Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think it should be repeatedly said by Republicans as almost a talking point that Mueller will not enter into court of law or testify in front of Congress where his legally unverified quote-unquote evidence will come under formal legal scrutiny.
He needs to testify under oath.
Until then, everything that emanates from him should rightfully be considered political theater.
And that's about it.
Let me tell you, with all of this now unraveling before the fake news media mob's eyes and the Democratic Party's eyes, it's just funny to watch Adam Schiff and the cowardly shiff and Gerald now do the same thing.
Oh, we've got so much, so much evidence, so much.
It's overwhelming.
You ask them, what is it?
They can't answer the question because there isn't any.
And we've had four separate investigations saying the exact same thing.
Now, at some point, and I think we're there, it's a tipping point.
And people see this as nothing more than political harassment of a sitting president.
And then on the other side of it, people think, you know what?
We didn't vote you into office to be lazy.
We didn't even vote you into office to play politics.
We voted you into office to help make us safer, more secure, build the economy, create opportunities, and take care of the needs of the people that you're supposed to be serving.
You're supposed to be a public servant.
And that's all now factoring in big time.
Anyway, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
Let's get back to our phones as we say hi to Sean in South Carolina.
Sean, how are you?
Where are you in South Carolina?
Anderson, Greenville.
Oh, nice part of the world.
What's going on, sir?
Hey, so Mueller came out on Wednesday.
He ran out on stage.
Didn't tell anybody he was coming out.
He just ran out and gave a five-minute speech and then ran off stage.
But when he gave that speech, he said, well, you know, the report is my testimony.
So I'm confused.
Is his statement that he gave on Wednesday in any way contradicting his report?
And if it is.
Yeah, what it did is it contradicted his past statements that he had made numerous times.
I'm telling you what my guess here is, is that Mueller is more checked out than anybody knows, that he kind of handed it off to the liberal group of Democratic lovers and donors around him.
Probably the one big decision he made is, okay, is there any collusion or conspiracy to collude?
That was fairly easily to determine.
And then they went through this exercise basically out of politics and continued on and, you know, looking into taxi medallions, loan applications and back taxes.
But at the end of the day, there is no case for obstruction, was no case for obstruction.
There is no underlying crime.
There was no intent.
And the fact that the president spoke out regularly and often about his innocence, well, that to me just proves his innocence.
And number two, the fact that he had Article II authority to fire Mueller or anybody else in this whole mess and didn't do it meant that he followed the procedure, cooperated at the highest levels, let everybody testify, never invoked executive privilege, one and a half million documents, even answered questions themselves.
You know, so now that we have four determinations and the Democrats now want to relitigate all of it, it is at this point harassment.
Now, and we can't forget also that guys like Eric Holder, well, they didn't show up for their subpoenas either when they were called to testify, except Obama protected him with executive privilege.
So the president now will rightly say, it's over.
I've given you everything we've got.
I've let you talk to every person around me.
I've let you dig as deeply as you want and go off in any area you want.
And Mueller himself, Mueller can't testify because Mueller then has to answer tough questions of Jordan, Nunes, and Meadows.
He's not going to be able to answer these questions well.
And it's going to make him look partisan.
Why did you hire the Clinton attorney?
Why did you hire Andrew Weissman?
Why did you hire only Democrats?
When did you know there was no collusion and why did you keep going?
If your mandate allowed, you'd pretty much go into any direction, but was specifically designed about 2016 influence, outside influence.
How do you possibly ignore the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier, which we know was disseminated to the American people through leaks to the media, which we know was used as the base of a FISA court application to spy on the Trump campaign?
So he doesn't have good answers.
He's never going to testify.
My guess is never.
And I doubt that Nadler and company will end up holding him in contempt.
And I believe at some point, even the media will realize the well has run dry.
It's over.
And then they'll just move on to taxes.
And then they'll move on to some other fake conspiracy theory about Donald Trump.
And again, they'll wind up empty.
Pretty sick and pretty sad, but we need to get this right.
That's the most important thing.
Thank you.
Tom in Texas.
Tom, how are you?
Hi, Sean.
I'm fine.
How are you today?
Good, sir.
Well, listen, I just wanted to say that, you know, considering that Mueller knew there was no collusion very early after his appointment, I agree he should have shut it down and closed his office immediately, right at that moment.
And I think the only reason he continued was to cultivate understandable indignation and call it obstruction.
Sounds like entrapment to me.
Look, I think a lot of people, I'm going to tell you something.
I am aghast now that we know that the Deputy FBI Director McCabe calls, you know, got a call from General Flynn four days into the job, and the FBI guys are coming to talk to General Flynn.
And he asked specifically, do I need an attorney?
And the answer was given back, no.
And Comey then bragging that he sent his agents into a chaotic Trump White House on day four, took full advantage of the chaos, which, by the way, is pretty typical in any administration.
Nobody knows where anything is at that point.
How do I get my computers working?
How do I do this?
How do I do that?
And took advantage of that, sent in two FBI agents.
It really was an interrogation, but they had just told him he didn't need a lawyer up.
And they set him up for a perjury trap because we now know he was illegally unmasked.
That's right.
This is frightening.
It's all frightening.
I think if the president committed any type of obstruction, it would be obstruction of injustice.
And there's some question.
This whole question of the intelligence community not telling Trump of efforts to infiltrate his campaign and his transition was because they were the infiltrators.
Well, why didn't they go to Donald Trump since in October 2016, Comey signed the first FISA application and verified that the dossier is true, which it was not.
And that means there was no effort to verify it because he had been warned repeatedly by Kathleen Kavalek.
He was warned by Bruce Orr.
He was warned numerous times.
This is a political document.
They hid from the FISA judges Hillary's involvement and payment of it.
They hid Steele's hatred of Trump.
And they also hid the fact that tried to present a document as verified, and it wasn't.
All of these things are crimes.
What they did denying simple fundamental rights to General Flint is a crime.
And now it's a question of the Attorney General says he's getting into all of this.
Who are the people that are going to be held accountable?
Because most Americans would end up in jail as a result of this.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
All right.
Hannity tonight, John Dowd, the former attorney for President Trump, Tom Fitten of Judicial Watch, Lindsey Graham, Dershowitz, also Jeff Lord, Sean Spicer, Mike Huckabee, and Pam Bondi.
Nine Eastern tonight, Hannity, new investigative work by Judicial Watch.
We'll break it tonight.
And more importantly, what is the Attorney General?
