Sean Hannity Show - Taking on AOC

July 22, 2019 - Sean Hannity Show

01:32:51

Taking on AOC

Scherie Murray joins the show to talk about her race against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is a conservative, a legal immigrant, and a proud businesswoman and mother. She is ready to take all talk no action AOC to task. Is there a path to victory? Some think maybe!The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	All right, buckle up.
	Glad you're with us.
	Happy Monday.
	And write down our toll-free telephone number.
	You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
	It's 800 941 Sean, if you want to join us.
	You know, you watch the deep state.
	You watch the people that have lied for over two years.
	You just watch them.
	You just listen to them.
	You just is the anticipation for what they think is massive, and you just begin to figure out that they don't have a thing.
	And I am predicting that the only thing that I am somewhat concerned about is Muller changes his mind all the time.
	Now, based on what Robert Muller has said, he's going to stick to his report, stand on the nature of the report.
	He originally said as to part two, the obstruction.
	First of all, you know, he he went through great, great detail over how hard it is.
	You know, you just can't say somebody obstructed when there's no underlying crime.
	He was never denied anything.
	Uh the White House publicly encouraged everybody to testify with all congressional investigations and with the special counsel investigation.
	And then, of course, the White House handed over one and a half million documents and the president himself answered questions.
	Then it went on for two and a half plus years, and you would think that maybe at some point that we'd start getting to what the real crimes are here and all of the other important issues that they have purposely avoided, but at times you you get frustrated.
	But I think that's all about to change this week.
	And I don't really care what any of these people like Adam Schiff have to say, or or people like Jerry Nadler, because I don't think I think this is once again wishful thinking on their part.
	I mean, if you go back over the Mueller report itself, what did it say?
	And this is the fourth investigation complete.
	Now they want investigations five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten.
	But the FBI said, and you can quote Peter Struck of all people who hates Donald Trump, who thinks that Hillary should win a hundred million to zero, that had the insurance policy in place, and the the guy that you know wrote the exoneration for Hillary before the investigation,
	the guy that was a part of the sham interrogation of Hillary, where they actually allowed other people to be in the interrogation room at the time, and all of all of this special treatment they gave Hillary anyway, and and of course, his, you know, the the comments about Smelly Walmart, Trump supporters.
	So this is a guy that also said, and people forget, yeah, there's no there.
	And Lisa Page in closed door testimony when asked about, well, the FBI nine-month investigation before the appointment of Mueller into any collusion, a conspiracy with Russia.
	Well, had to say, no, we had nothing.
	Those were her words.
	Then the House Intelligence Committee, they had nothing.
	And you would think, well, maybe that would put an end to this.
	No, then bipartisan Senate Committee, nothing.
	Let's go back to the Mueller report.
	What are the words in the Muller report?
	That the investigation, meaning the Muller investigation, this is their words, did not establish the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in Russia's in its election interference activities.
	So what part of that is, you know, let's look at this here.
	What part of that don't people understand?
	Now, we all know because we've interviewed many constitutional experts and attorneys on this program.
	And the president under Article II powers also had the ability to fire Mueller any time that he wanted to fire Mueller.
	He didn't do it.
	Now, did the president complained?
	Yes.
	Did the president call it a witch hunt?
	Often.
	Was it in the end proven to be true?
	No.
	It was the president was screaming about his innocence.
	Turned out he was innocent, was frustrated at the amount of time that he and his team had to spend dealing with this, these trumped up charges.
	And I think, like a lot of us, Have a lot of questions for Mueller about the so-called priority of his investigation.
	You know, how is it that wait first?
	The first most obvious question, Mr. Muller, when did you know what you ultimately put in your report that the Trump campaign that you couldn't establish that they coordinated with the Russian government in their election interference activities?
	When did you know?
	Once you knew that, why did you keep going?
	Why, and we just found this out last week.
	Did you pick somebody like Andrew Weissman?
	If you read License to Lie by Sidney Powell, who is now General Flynn's attorney, well, there are instances spelled out in specific details about how Weissman literally withheld exculpatory evidence.
	Any prosecutor will do that will do that?
	Means that they do not care about the law.
	They don't care about truth, they only care about wins and losses.
	And some of them get so caught up in the winning and losing of the cases they forget about what their principal job is, which would be the administration of justice.
	And I think one of the harder questions that you know Muller's gonna have to answer is about Weissman.
	Why would you let this guy who is withheld exculpatory evidence?
	Why would he become your main guy?
	Why would you allow Weissman, who was at Hillary's victory party?
	We learned last week, end up hiring the people that ended up being the special counsel team, and not one of them was a Republican.
	Most of them had donated to only Democrats.
	So there's a political taint right from the get go.
	Why would you ever hire Genie Ray, who is Hillary Clinton's attorney?
	How did you how would you set it up that way?
	Now, you had time, Mr. Muller, for fair investigations, which are rarely, rarely prosecuted, and loan applications that people lied on and tax violations that people cheated on taxes in years gone by, two very stupid things to do, by the way, as a side note to anybody out there.
	Don't do it.
	It's against the law, don't cheat on your taxes.
	It's against the law, don't lie on a loan application.
	Okay, why did you have time for that?
	Farer violations, taxi medallions, but you didn't have time with the broadest mandate possible to look at election interference, especially Russian.
	How did you not and in any way, shape, manner, or form, want to get to the bottom of the fact that Hillary Clinton, the other candidate in this case, not only was exonerated when the evidence was overwhelming and incontrovertible, and other people have gone to jail for far less?
	Christian Saucier is the first name that comes to mind.
	He took six pictures of a submarine, but violation of the espionage act.
	How is it possible that Hillary Clinton had marked emails, top secret, classified special access programming information on an outside server?
	A clear, no ambiguity, clear, compelling case of a violation of the espionage act.
	And then, of course, any other American, I would think, that have subpoenaed emails that deletes them, cleans the hard drives with bleach bit, acid washes them, and then busts up the devices just in case any of the evidence lingers and pull out SIM cards.
	How is that not obstruction?
	How did you not investigate the dirty Russian dossier?
	There's a lot of legal issues associated with that.
	You know, did they take campaign funds?
	Did they funnel it and tried to hide it as a legal expense when they knew that the law firm they hired, Perkins Coey, was going to go out and hire an op research group, Fusion GPS, that went out to hire a foreign national, and that in the end the foreign national and push came to shove, wouldn't even stand by his own dossier and said under oath, under the threat of perjury, that I have no idea if any of this is true?
	How would you not look at the fact that the first Pfizer application was signed in October 2016?
	And I'd like to know what part of that was not part of Russian interference, considering that same information was leaked to conspiracy theorists and friendlies of the Democratic Party, um, like Michael Izikov, a left wing hack, or David Korn, a left wing hack, or the Washington Post, you know, obviously an anti Trump pro Hillary publication.
	How could you not see that as interfering with Russian lies in the middle of an election?
	How do you not look at the fact that Andrew Weissman, your number one guy, was hanging out hopeful on election night at Hillary Clinton campaign headquarters?
	How do you ignore the fact that Weissman himself, that he himself was briefed by Bruce Orr about the contents of the dirty dossier in August of 2016?
	But according to all accounts, you use that as a roadmap as part of your investigation.
	And in that meeting, he was told Steele hates Trump.
	It's not verified, and Hillary paid for it.
	But they used it anyway.
	How, in fact, was it not a conflict of interest for you, Mr. Muller, when the day before Rod Rosenstein hired you as special counsel?
	You had interviewed with Donald Trump for the position of FBI director, and in that meeting, you were told exactly why James Comey was fired.
	How is it possible?
	Now that we know all of this information about Russia about Ukrainians and their attempts to sway the American public and influence the election by digging up and providing dirt on Manafort and others in Ukraine, and they're offering all of that information.
	How did you ignore that aspect when you had the broadest mandate possible?
	You know, what do you know about this Professor Massood?
	Who I think John Solomon's going to be talking about later this week.
	John Solomon has breaking news today and is going to break it on the program later, but we now find out that two weeks after being appointed, Andrew Weissman secretly offered a plea deal to a Ukrainian oligarch by the name of Dmitry Fertash.
	This is only two weeks into the investigation into your being hired, and you also apparently subcontracted out the hiring of all of your staff to Andrew Weissman with his atrocious track record.
	And anyway, we didn't know before the details of all this.
	I'll let John Solomon tell you about it at the top of the next hour, but people with direct knowledge of all of this, that the deal was a really sweet deal that would have been made for this Ukrainian oligarch that would have served multiple purposes and would have had a lot of consequences.
	And, you know, what part of that didn't you want to investigate or understand?
	If the mandate was about interference, well, why not Ukrainian interference?
	If the mandate was about Russian interference, how do you not want to know about the Russian dossier that was leaked to the public before the election?
	If you don't want if you want to know about Russian interference, as the New York Times characterizes the dirty Clinton bought and paid for dossier as Russian disinformation from the get-go, and then that Russian disinformation from the get-go was used to obtain a Pfizer warrant to spy on an American citizen and then spy on all things Trump campaign, Trump transition Trump presidency.
	How did you ignore that part of the investigation as well?
	You know, as it relates to the dossier, you know, you you have a lot of questions to answer here.
	And what about a conflict of interest?
	Are you not a witness even in your own case?
	And does the president under Article II powers, did he not have the power to fire you if he wanted to?
	And why didn't you sign any of the Pfizer warrants after you were appointed?
	You would have had the ability to at least sign the third renewal, the fourth Pfizer warrant, but that ended up in the hands of Rod Rosenstein.
	How did that happen?
	Who wrote this report?
	What is the motive?
	How do you get to obstruction when there's no underlying crime?
	How do you not look into the other candidates and Russian interference with Hillary and direct interference and direct payments and direct lies that were told the American people before the election?
	How do you not look into that Russian disinformation leading to a counterintelligence investigation against Donald Trump, then candidate, transition member, And everything else.
	How did you feel about James Comey?
	Did he violate the espionage act by leaking intelligence in order to get you appointed?
	I mean, is I have a ton of questions we'll get into later in the program for Comey.
	All of it is out there.
	All of it is available.
	And Muller's team, you know, they're listening looking for some type of agreement.
	Well, we have the evidence.
	Your report said that your investigation did not establish, and I'm quoting to verbatim that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in these in their interference activities.
	Okay, that means he's exonerated.
	Well, then how do the Democrats then go to interpret what it is you're saying?
	Now, when I read and I see your, you know, you you yourself point out in the second part of the report how there was, you know, not really a motive.
	Anyway, 800 941 Sean is a number you want to be a part of the program.
	Now we also have this ongoing battle.
	All right, first it's stormy stormy, then it's Russia Russia, then it's collusion collusion, then it's s hole s hole.
	Now it's racist racist.
	Thousands of times a second, that's all the media says.
	And I'm just going to lay out the history.
	This is all they ever do in campaigns and at other times.
	You know, you just read the headline.
	I mean, they're raising expectations so high.
	Yes, I believe this reaches the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, Nadler is saying.
	Could begin impeachment proceedings.
	Substantive evidence that Trump is guilty of these things.
	Um, and Schiff saying he believes Trump can be indicted.
	So the Democrats are probably going to focus on five things that is in the report on the obstruction side.
	Okay, well, they didn't find obstruction to the point where they felt that they could recommend anything.
	All right, he directed the White House counsel to fire Mueller.
	Well, the president had every ability himself to fire Mueller.
	It makes no sense.
	Or that Corey Lewandowski, that uh that you know, former campaign chief asked Sessions to reassert control.
	Why did he give up control in the first place?
	President complained about that publicly.
	And well, witness tampering to discourage Manafort and Cohn from cooperate, just the opposite happened because everybody ended up cooperating in the end.
	And if the president has the ability and power and authority under Article II to fire Muller, none of it's significant because he didn't do it.
	I'll explain.
	All right, glad you weather's 25 till the uh top of the hour.
	We have John Solomon breaking news on Andrew Weisman's bad behavior.
	And it raises a lot of questions that I think will be coming up in the hearings this week.
	Look, Byron York has a great, great piece out.
	We'll put it up on Hannity.com.
	Democrats think they've got a slam dunk obstruction case against Trump, and they don't.
	When you really get to the nuts and bolts of all of this.
	Now remember, there's going to be two hearings this week.
	One is the in the Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee.
	Judiciary will focus on volume two of the report, the so-called obstruction analysis, where they did not, well, by the way, they covered allegations of obstruction.
	And uh the first volume is going to be pursued by the Intelligence Committee, conspiracy coordination.
	Well, that's we already know the answer to that because we actually have the Mueller report, and it couldn't be more clear because they say over and over again they did not establish in any way, shape, matter, or form that in fact the president ever or his campaign ever coordinated with the Russians.
	All right, so that part was always removed from the get-go.
	Then the questions we know the Democrats on the Intel Committee, but how are they going to establish conspiracy or coordination when the Mueller report decisively says that in fact the president did not do that?
	Okay, issue one.
	Then it's interesting as Byron York points out that the Democrats want to focus on five specific episodes of that they say would prove obstruction, which of course the Office of Legal Counsel, the attorney general, and the deputy attorney general at the time, Rod Rosenstein, determined never happened.
	And that is that, well, Trump told White House counsel Don McGann to fire Mueller and then publicly lie about it.
	Well, Don McGann never fired Robert Mueller, nor did the president.
	Numerous constitutional scholars sit point out that the president also brought in very specific reasons why he might be fired, which was his conflicts of interest, of which there were many, not the least of which is they had a personal issue going back years ago related to a golf club.
	And number two was well, the day before he got hired as special counsel, he was applying for the job as FBI director, and Trump said no, and it would then make him a witness in his own case.
	And I don't think that that's gonna fly very well.
	Um, or the fact that maybe Cory Lewandowski was asking Jeff Sessions, you know, because Jeff Sessions at the time, remember, we told you cited the wrong statute and the wrong law justifying his recusal.
	Greg Jarrett was the one to broke that wide open.
	And again, well, it never happened.
	When the initial resignation letter from Jeff Sessions came in, the president did not accept it, and he remained on as the attorney general.
	But what's not there, as Byron York points out, is the evidence that's not included in the Democrats' report, or what their choice of evidence that they're not going to be including in this particular case, and that is that the firing of Comey, you know, well, that was their first big issue as possible obstruction.
	That that is not going to be in the Democrats what the Democrats are highlighting, nor the conversations with Trump and Comey that Comey wrote up in his famous report in his famous memos.
	Probably the Democrats have even figured out what we figured out is James Comey has a lot of explaining to do himself, in spite of him sending out a list of his own questions to try and help the Democrats in their efforts this week.
	Anyway, nor is the president's efforts to talk about the public story that about the Trump Tower meeting, yet the incident was often characterized as obstruction.
	They're not bringing that up either, apparently.
	And the Mueller investigation was not obstructed by anybody.
	As a matter of fact, publicly, the president and his team made it known to everybody that they want everyone to cooperate with congressional investigations and with the special counsel investigation.
	Well, that kind of takes that narrative and blows it out of the water.
	Or it's important to recall, Mueller could never establish an underlying crime.
	That's what it he was supposed to investigate.
	That was supposed to be the core of all of this.
	He was going to investigate whether or not Donald Trump, in fact, and his campaign conspired against the Russians.
	Well, again, I'll read from the Muller report.
	It said that the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government.
	So that can't be any more clear than what you have here.
	If you don't have an underlying crime, that's one of my big issues.
	Hillary was guilty of an underlying crime, the espionage act.
	Hillary was guilty of real obstruction when she deleted subpoenaed emails and then the bleach bit and then the hammers and then the sim cards are gone out of nowhere.
	So Mueller could never establish the underlying crime.
	In Hillary's case, you could.
	The fact that they're the same players, and that we found out from the first Inspector General report that those players hated Donald Trump, that they actively worked to help save Hillary Clinton and her campaign by not applying the law equally, that they ignored real obstruction of justice.
	I would think that Republicans at different points during these hearings are going to bring all of this out and ask, well, why wasn't that important?
	Now, the Mueller report also included a lengthy section in part two, quote, legal defenses to the application of obstruction of justice statutes to the president.
	Now that includes extraordinarily compelling arguments against the report's own instances where they say obstruction could have occurred.
	Well, if you can't prove an underlying crime, and you can't and and you have the legal defenses and what the law actually requires to prove such, well, then you run into massive legal problems.
	But Byron York points out this is not a legal proceeding, it's a political one.
	And that most of these lawmakers are dumb and don't know the law, you know, as we saw even over the weekend saying, well, what are the high crimes and misdemeanors?
	They don't know what the high crimes and misdemeanors are because there hasn't been any.
	You know, everything we heard this weekend from Nadler and Schiff, they've been saying for two and a half years that we've got all this evidence, but they've not been able to produce any of it.
	And I doubt they're going to be able to produce it in one day worth of hearings, one before Schiff's committee and the other before Nadler's committee.
	And I also think once the Republicans dig down deep into what has not been looked at by Mueller, it's going to make Mueller look pretty political.
	And I'm not sure Muller's going to have the ability to answer a lot of these important questions, especially about the dirty Russian dossier and the impact that had on the 2016 elections.
	And then the FISA abuse.
	How did you not investigate the fact that Russian lies were used as the basis of four separate Pfizer applications that resulted in spying on the Trump campaign, the Trump transition and the Trump presidency?
	So one of the things that uh that our our friend Byron York concludes is that, you know, legal analysis may dominate cable TV coverage is not going to really apply, and that the president's defenders will make common sense defenses that do make sense to the American people that are not lawyers.
	So whatever legal argument they might be making, you know, is based on nuance and constitutional understanding.
	And then Muller has a problem of, well, why did he take three separate positions on why he didn't make a final determination on obstruction?
	First, he said it had nothing to do with DOJ policy or constitutional considerations about whether you can or cannot indict a sitting president.
	So that's going to become an issue.
	You know, the Muller report contends the president's behavior changed in June of 2017.
	Washington Post reports that Muller, less than a month in office investigating Trump for obstruction, and Mueller suggesting that Trump began to obstruct the investigation.
	Well, that narrative is countered by one and a half million documents handed over and a public declaration encouraging everybody to cooperate and anybody that's subpoenaed to go see the special counsel or go to whatever congressional investigation is ongoing.
	No, but not one time was executive privilege ever invoked.
	Or the idea that the president told senior advisors that the special counsel had conflicts of interest.
	I think that's true.
	And ethics officials similarly clearing the special counsel's office.
	And on June 14, 2017, the press reported the president was being personally investigated for obstruction.
	The president tweeted out that this is a witch hunt.
	President tweeted out all sorts of things.
	The president might have asked Don McGann, I have no idea whether he should have the special counsel fired, but it that too never happened in the end.
	And the Muller report, you know, Muller reports that Trump was upset by the appointment of Mueller, knowing that this could harm his presidency and his agenda and his ability to get things done.
	And Trump told associates that the new special counsel had conflicts of interest.
	And the, you know, the fact that he had an issue with Robert Mueller at a Trump golf club in Virginia, or that Mueller had applied for Jim Comey's job just the day before.
	You know, Trump called McKe called Don McGahn.
	Why did Don McGahn ever testify in the first place?
	One has to ask.
	How does the White House counsel not invoke executive privilege in that particular case?
	But he went and spent some 30 hours with the special counsel.
	It doesn't sound like somebody's really trying to hide something or obstruct something if you're allowing even the White House counsel to talk to the special counsel.
	And on top of all of it, you have at the very very top of the pyramid, you have the president with the legal authority to fire Robert Mueller because of the conflicts of interest.
	And then at the end of the day, even though the president vented anger and talked about solutions of firings and all sorts of things, the president never did any of it.
	McGann never called Rod Rosenstein.
	McGahn never asked to fire Mueller.
	McGann never talked about what the conflicts were, and the president himself could have done all of this, and the president did not do any of this.
	And, you know, by the way, McGann called, You know what, Rheinz Privus and Steve Bannon said he might resign if this happens.
	Well, McGann didn't tell either Priebus or Bannon what Trump wanted, although previous remembers McGann told him the president was asked asking him to do something that he thought would be dumb.
	You know, there was another call.
	There was not a third call from Trump at that point to Don McGann.
	Don McGann didn't resign.
	Rod Rosenstein was never called.
	Muller wasn't fired.
	Muller didn't resign.
	Jeff Sessions didn't resign at the time.
	And in late November and early December, McGann began an extensive series of interviews with Mueller's prosecutors.
	And by the way, the New York Times cited four people familiar with the matter.
	Trump ordered Mueller firing but backed off when the White House counsel threatened to quit.
	All right, so he was advised that's a bad idea and eventually went along with the advice of his White House counsel.
	How does any of this, again, there's no underlying crime?
	How does any of this become obstruction of justice?
	You've really got to stretch really far and wide to get there.
	All right, one of the other things that I want to get to here is so you got all these democratic socialists.
	Let me play for you.
	We have a problem in this country as it relates to this Trump hate rage psychosis that exists, which is every second minute hour of every day.
	If you notice what the media mob does, they wake up every day and they all get on the same page, and they all end up using the same phrases and the same arguments, and they get all hysterical and they get all worked up and they repeat over and over again whatever the point happens to be.
	They never do it with Democrats, they only do it with Republicans.
	Now, I remember Mitt Romney was probably the one of the nicest guys in the world that tried to make Mitt Romney out to be a racist.
	Joe Biden saying they're gonna put y'all back in chains.
	I remember Al Gore when he's running for office saying Republicans have the wrong agenda for African Americans.
	They don't want to even count you in the census.
	Hillary Clinton said similar things.
	Barack Obama said similar things.
	We had Missouri radio ads that says if you elect Republicans, black, you know, churches are gonna burn.
	You had the James Byrd ad in 2000 that said it was like my father was killed all over again because George W. Bush didn't support hate crimes legislation when in fact he supported the death penalty for these evil, you can't even call subhuman beings that dragged this poor man to his death.
	And you can't have a bigger penalty than the death penalty.
	John McCain, who was always loved by the media, well, even he was called a racist when he ran for president.
	This is standard operating procedure.
	So we've gone from the media mantras.
	If you follow the bouncing ball, it becomes Russia, Russia, Russia.
	It goes to collusion, collusion, collusion.
	Then it goes to stormy, stormy, stormy, and then it goes to s hole s whole s hole.
	And then it goes to, well, where we are today, racist, racist, racist.
	There was a three-day period last week where more than two thousand times the media mob in this country said the word racist.
	Now, why do we point these things out?
	Because your media is corrupt.
	Because your media has an agenda.
	Now, do they do the same thing with the Democrats?
	Have they pointed out the virulent anti-Semitism of Congresswoman Omar, the controversial comments of Ocasio Cortez when, you know, calls America garbage, or the fact or the comparisons of the detention centers to concentration camps?
	No.
	Do they talk about Congresswoman Omar and you know her comments how Israel has the world hypnotized and may Allah awaken people around the world to Israel's whatever powers?
	No.
	They talk about her using the term it's all about the Benjamins or comparing Israel to Nazi Germany?
	No.
	They have used virulent anti-Semitic remarks.
	They have used really remarks that trash this country, Congresswoman Omar, saying pretty much that America was to blame For a terrorist attack in a Kenyan mall in 2013.
	No, we were not.
	That would be Al Shabaab that was responsible for that.
	So my point is, this is your media.
	We'll get into more details.
	We also have John Solomon today.
	This week we'll have a chance to ask questions of Robert Mueller, the special counsel when he appears and answers questions about that 400 page report he turned in.
	He's already said he's not going to go beyond those 400 something pages.
	What is the purpose?
	What do you actually think you're going to learn?
	Well, since most Americans, you know, in their busy lives haven't had the opportunity to read that report, and it's a pretty dry prosecutorial work product.
	Uh we want Bob Mueller to bring it to life to talk about what's in that report.
	It's a pretty damning uh set of facts that involve a presidential campaign in a close race, welcoming help from a hostile foreign power, not reporting it, but eagerly embracing it, building it into their campaign strategy.
	All right, expect the show that's gonna be Robert Mueller this week, and yeah, well, I guess they're telegraphing where they think this is gonna go.
	And um, you know, we want we want the American people to hear from Robert Mueller and saying, yes, this could be getting Trump impeachment proceedings for what?
	I have in front of me, I have the Mueller report, and it says the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities, meaning the Russians.
	Um, what part of that?
	All right, well, what about obstruction?
	Well, if you look, how did the president obstruct when there's no underlying crime?
	The president cooperated.
	1.5 million documents handed over.
	Everybody encouraged to testify.
	The president answered questions of Mueller and his team, but this now being the now a fifth and sixth investigation, four separate investigations, including the Mueller report, all saying the same thing.
	What the Mueller report says, they didn't establish the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government.
	Nadler saying, just like they've been saying for two and a half years, substantial evidence that the president's guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
	Well, what is it?
	We've been waiting.
	What is it?
	Well, it's going to air evidence of wrongdoing.
	And Adam Schiff, again, he's been saying, again, the biggest liar on TV that won't take three hours we've offered him on this radio show.
	One hour on TV.
	Well, Trump could easily be indicted.
	He's essentially an unindicted co-conspirator.
	Did they just make this up?
	By the way, a federal judge sided with a Russian company rebuking Robert Mueller recently, which is pretty interesting here, chastising the special counsel for stating the Russian government was behind election year social media trolling where there's no evidence that was ever presented by prosecutors.
	Where is that evidence?
	That's a good question.
	Said his Nadler's name appears more than a hundred times in the redacted version of the special counsel's report, alleged to have served as an advisor to the United Arab Emirates, et cetera, et cetera.
	Well, there's a real good witness for you if ever I've seen one.
	And but they just keep pushing.
	And the cowardly shift, he should be indicted.
	He should be indicted when he leaves office.
	Um and the Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen suggesting Trump and Barr brainwashed the public with lies.
	No, they didn't.
	What part of did not establish the campaign coordinated with the Russian government?
	Now, John Solomon has done amazing work for the last two and a half years, and he's going to have two explosive stories that are coming out this week.
	One will be out and available by nine o'clock uh tonight when we come on Hannity.
	And it is new, you know, that Mueller deputy, in other words, the pit pull, as the New York Times called Andrew Weissman, apparently secretly offered a plea deal to an oligarch.
	One to get himself out of trouble, and two to get information that he thought might hurt Donald Trump.
	Remember, this is the guy that was at Hillary's victory party that never happened.
	This is the guy we learned last week that was responsible almost solely for hiring all of the Democratic donors, no Republican donors, including Clinton's former attorney.
	Uh, he's the guy that put Enron accounting people out of business.
	Tens of thousands of people lost their job.
	He lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court.
	This is a guy licensed to lie by Sidney Powell, gives examples of him withholding exculpatory evidence.
	This is a guy that put four Merrill executives in jail for a year only to be overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	How does this guy become your lead guy?
	How does he become your pit bull?
	How does he become in charge of hiring?
	Well, now we're learning more about Andrew Weisman, John Solomon, joins us with this breaking news.
	What do you got?
	Well, if we take everybody back to the June of twenty seventeen, the summer of twenty seventeen, if we were all reading the mainstream media back then, we thought the Mueller investigation was chugging along and Donald Trump was in giant trouble, right?
	If you remember back that time, now they're watching Hennedy, they might have had a different story, but um the public's perception was that the Mueller investigation was steamrolling ahead and that we were just weeks or months away from big indictments and the fall of the presidency.
	Behind the scenes, we now know that Andrew Weissman and Robert Mueller saw their case crumbling, that the Steel dossier had been dis uh debunked, and that they had very few pieces of evidence left, even hint of any Russia collusion with uh with Trump.
	And so in the on the second week of the Mueller investigation, what I'm able to document today is that uh uh Weissman, not even moved into his new office yet, uh, reaches out to a major Ukrainian figure who's under U.S. indictment since 2014, and basically says, I can wave my magic Muller wand and make your criminal charges go away if you give me some duck dirt on Trump.
	Now keep it keep in mind, Mueller's not even staffed up yet.
	He's not even fully read into the case.
	And he's and here is Andrew Weissman trying to throw a Hail Mary plea bargain to a guy that's been under indictment for several years.
	And uh you'll learn in the course of the negotiations that in his behavior Weissman in seeking a plea bargain and what is known as a proffer from the defendant, suggests the testimony that would be most helpful to him.
	The problem is this Ukrainian oligarch isn't willing to give that testimony, isn't willing to lie, isn't willing to make up any stories, so the deal falls apart.
	But what we find out is that Weissmann's motive for the deal might not not only have been to get Donald Trump, which clearly was one of his motives, uh, it might also have been to make a problem go away for the Justice Department.
	It turns out in the summer of 17, again, not public, uh, the case against Dmitry Fertash, this Ukrainian oligarch, is falling apart.
	The key piece of evidence alleging bribery by this Ukrainian businessman is now deemed to be a fraud, and two of the key witnesses against that the Justice Department used to secure the indictment have recanted their allegations.
	So behind the scenes, you have uh Andrew Weissman, the ultimate fixer, trying to make a a case go away that might involve DOJ misconduct and try to get some Hail Mary dirt play on on uh Donald Trump.
	Neither one worked very well for for him or for the Justice Department.
	How does the how does Muller answer the question with a guy like Weisman's track record, which is only getting worse with this new report that you're putting out here?
	Uh how does he answer the question of why he only picked Democrats?
	Why Andrew Weissman became in control of hiring only Democrats?
	Uh what part of this guy's record of withholding exculpatory evidence, uh causing Americans tens of thousands to lose their jobs, uh his losses in the Supreme Court, putting innocent people in jail, overturned.
	You know, and at what point is he not responsible for hiring a guy whose conduct is atrocious and his track record atrocious?
	Well, that is clearly going to be one of the questions he's gonna have to answer on during Wednesday's hearing if it happens, and I think that it's very important for all the American public to understand why did uh Mueller uh pick Weissman?
	And I think one of the answers is Weisman is emblematic of a of a period in the Justice Department history where prosecutors ran roughshot.
	All of the great stuff that you see in Sidney Powell's great book, Licensed to Lie, Andrew Weissman's the poster child for that cowboy version of prosecutorial pursuit.
	Aggressiveness, withholding, uh exculpatory information, all the things that we also see in the Russia case, right?
	Overstatement of the facts, uh, which you know recently resulted in in in Mueller getting uh uh rebuked by a judge.
	Andrew Weissman is the face of a Justice Department that was operating under the Obama years particularly, and then even going back into the Bush years when you saw the Enron case.
	And I and I think today the problem is that his conduct, not only leading up to the time when he was appointed at uh to Mueller's team, but during Mueller's tenure, is going to raise a lot of questions.
	I think Andrew Weissman has a lot to answer for.
	And the first question is how could you, two weeks into an investigation, before you even know anything, you're already throwing a hail marry plea bargain out there to a Ukrainian oligarch.
	And what sort of Justice Department brings charges against a foreigner and then finds out afterwards that it's evidence was wrong or that they misstated their evidence or that their witnesses are recanting.
	There's a real question about the Obama Justice Department's conduct in this period, starting uh back when Fu Firtash was indicted in 2014 and continuing to the advent of the Russia investigation.
	And Andrew Weissman is at the center of that machine.
	And I think Bob Mueller has a lot of questions to answer on on Wednesday.
	How do we know that that so Weissman's two weeks into the deal?
	He reaches out to the American lawyers for this Russian oligarch, uh Dmitry uh what is it, Fur Tash, and with a tempting offer, give us dirt on Trump in the Russia case, and Mueller might make the Ukrainian oligarchs 2014 U.S. criminal charges go away.
	Um and you're saying that there's evidence that in fact he's basically telling them what they want to hear.
	Yeah, there's very specific things.
	So the way these proffer situations go, and I've covered the Justice Department for 30 years.
	Normally the prosecutors say if you're interested in a plea deal, first off, usually it's the defense that comes to the prosecutors.
	In this case, it's the prosecutors going to the defense.
	Secondly, uh no matter how the conversation starts, the um the normal conduct of the prosecutors, these are the topics we're interested in.
	Let us know if your client has anything and make a proffer, an offer of testimony.
	Here, Weissman shares incredibly private details about what Mueller and his early thinking about the case is.
	And he's sort of suggesting what would be the helpful testimony, sort of leading the witness towards his proffer.
	And I'll give you a couple of examples that um really jumped out to me.
	And what happened was that the FurTash team kept very good records of these contacts.
	So you would know.
	Let me give you one example.
	Something that was not public at the time, but uh was clearly part of the theory.
	They're talking about this guy, Felix Seder, former FBI informant, somebody uh who made a lot of allegations against Trump and there he's uh Weissman's telling the Fur Tash team, we think a company tied to him called Bay Rock is it was secretly investing in Trump's companies.
	That's not public information.
	That's not the sort of thing you should be sharing with a defendant at the time.
	They told him they were looking for dirt on Jared Kushner.
	Nobody knew what we were uh uh Mueller was looking at Jared Kushner at that time.
	They they told him that one of the groups that Manafort was working for might have been in a legal front and that the Russians were trying to coordinate uh uh their work through this illegal front.
	None of that is public at the time, and yet it's being shared behind the scenes uh by um by Weissman to Firtash, a defendant in the criminal case, sort of giving him the idea of what Mueller needs to close these cases down.
	That's sort of what they call in the in the legal business, leading the witness.
	And I think that you know when you see that behavior, it not only shocks some of the Furtash legal team members, it really raises questions among some of the legal experts I talked to in the last day or two about this uh about the documents I have.
	Yeah, all right, got to take a break.
	We'll come back more with the executive vice president and the investigative reporter, John Solomon.
	All right, as we continue with John Solomon, investigative reporter uh and executive vice president of the Hill.
	All right, so let's let's get your take, your preview of what you think we're gonna see this week, besides I mean, they're gonna try and put on a show.
	I mean shift is already moving to discredit the Horowitz report I noticed before its release.
	Um why would we ever, in the middle of uh uh a Mueller investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, why would we be more concerned about Farah violations and loan applications and old tax returns and taxi medallions,
	but not interested in a what the New York Times is now suggesting was always Russian disinformation that Hillary paid for that was disseminated to you know these hacks and conspiracy theorists like Michael Lizakov and the Washington Post and David Korn, why would we care about that and not even ask a single question about a dirty Russian dossier and that being the basis of a Pfizer warrant?
	I but there's no need to think about those things.
	Uh how does Muller answer that question?
	It is is a great question.
	I suspect that Robert Mueller is going to be a dud of a witness, much like uh Michael Cohen turned out to be a dud of a witness, and in fact, backfired on the Democrats as the very first witness in the House Democrats' new investigations.
	And I think the reason why is he's telegraphed wise.
	He has said publicly he will not go beyond what's in the report.
	So I suspect you're not going to be able to do that.
	Do you think Mueller, as Devin Nunes suggested, maybe coordinating with the House Dems about what he's going to say?
	I have a strong reason to believe that Robert Mueller is going to stick to the words that he said uh after his press conference.
	How strong a belief do you have?
	Because that's that let me interpret for the our audience.
	If John Solomon's, I have a strong sense, it means that he pretty much knows.
	So why don't you just tell us what you know?
	I don't want to say I know because no one can predict a person's behavior until it happens.
	But I my reporting suggests that what Robert Mueller said a month ago, which is I'm not intending to go beyond what's in the report, is what's going to be the core of his testimony.
	And I think you're going to hear a lot of times I refer you to the report, and I have nothing more to add to it.
	I think he's going to do that a lot in the course of the hearing.
	That's going to be frustrating to both sides.
	But I think the questions, particularly those from Republicans, are going to be enlightening.
	I think people like Devin Nunez, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan are going to ask questions while a national audience is paying attention.
	That's going to shock the American public because they haven't been able to hear all these things before.
	There's going to be real questions about the conduct of the Russian investigation and Mueller's team and Weissman.
	Well, it's interesting.
	Many Americans hear that.
	Look, if you want to stay, you're welcome.
	I have uh my questions, Jim Comey, the arrogant superpatriot, put out his questions that he wants Democrats to ask, and I have questions that I want to ask Jim Comey.
	Um and if you want to stick around and add to it and what questions you think Republicans uh can, you you're welcome to stay.
	John Solomon, uh, but I don't know what your schedule is like.
	All right, executive vice.
	We'd love that.
	All right, great.
	Executive vice president for the Hill investigative reporter will come back.
	My questions for Jim Comey, and then also my questions for Mueller.
	Well, me and John will put that together as we continue straight ahead.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, we'll get back to our top story, which is you know, it's first it's Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, stormy, stormy, stormy, stormy, s whole, s whole, s whole, and now it's racist, racist, racist.
	They cannot stop themselves.
	Now the arrogant one, the super patriot himself, James Comey has come out with his list of questions and ideas for uh the House Democrats of questions that he wants.
	Okay, I have questions to, and John Solomon remains with us, executive vice president, investigative reporter of the Hill.
	I just uh jotted these down very quickly.
	We'll maybe put them up on the website today.
	But um, how about this?
	Um, what is the espionage 18 USC 793 say?
	Then I'd put the legislation up uh and say, what part of that did Hillary not violate?
	Um, why was the language change, Mr. Comey, and the exoneration of Hillary Rodham Clinton when it was w written in early May from the legal standard, gross negligence, and those words became extreme carelessness, which does not meet the legal standard.
	Um you talk a lot about questions you want answered about obstruction involving the president, but there's no underlying crime because we go directly to the Mueller report that says that they did not establish the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in their election interference activities.
	So in the case of Hillary, there is the espionage act, and she did delete 33,000 emails, and she used bleach bit to clean up the hard drive so they couldn't be recovered, and then of course she busted up devices with hammers, have it had an aid to it, and they removed the SIM cards just to make doubly sure that no data existed or remained.
	Um what about those emails?
	Tell us how that's not obstruction of justice.
	And while we're at it, Mr. Colmany, how many times were you warned about the dossier being unverified?
	We know of two instances directly.
	One was from Bruce Orr in August of 2016, and one was about two weeks prior to you signing the first FISA application, with the bulk of information being the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dirty Russian disinformation dossier.
	So the question is how many other times were you warned about the dossier not being verifiable?
	Um why did you sign the FISA application using the bulk of information as Hillary's bought and paid for Russian dossier?
	Because when you signed it, you were swearing to the fact that it was verified.
	We now know it's unverifiable as its own author says he has no idea if any of it's true.
	And when the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign began, what was the basis for such an investigation and why was there no investigation into Hillary Ronham Clinton and her bought and paid for Russian dossier with funneled money uh into a law firm to an op research firm that hired a foreign national?
	And last but certainly not least, Mr. Comey, you say the FBI doesn't spy.
	We don't spy.
	Your exact words.
	Well, when you sign the FISA application, the first one, and I believe you signed three.
	Well, warrant you putting your signature on a document that will allow spying into Carter Page and also simultaneously backdoor into all things Trump campaign, later Trump transition team and later the Trump presidency.
	How is that not spying?
	You want to add to that, John Solomon?
	I got one more question for Comey.
	Did you knowingly and willfully leak classified memos to your lawyers as part of an effort to get a special prosecutor uh named?
	And if so, were you aware that you were violating the espionage act when you when you did so?
	We have strong evidence that he gave classified MOS to uh memos to his lawyers, and that the FBI scrub teams had to come back and scrub his lawyers' offices to make sure none of that sensitive information got leaked further beyond where it was sent to the lawyers.
	That would be a remarkable irony if James Comey, who preached to Hillary Clinton but refused to indict her, engaged in the same negligent handling of classified information as was uncovered in the uh in the Clinton email case.
	That's what I have for for James Comey for sure.
	Okay, now the next, I think biggest and most important group of questions would be and wood what would you ask beyond uh when did you, Robert Mueller, know?
	When did you know that there was no, well, I'll quote the Mueller report that the Trump campaign, you never established the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in their election interference activities?
	When did you know that?
	What would you add to that?
	Very important question.
	I think the question you asked in the earlier segment's important.
	Why did you hire so many Democrats?
	Why so many loaded political people on your staff?
	Uh I think from today's column, the one that's coming out tonight, why did you know that Weissman was making this offer to the Russian oligarch?
	And why would you make such an offer before you were fully reading to the case?
	Here's one of my favorites, and it's going to involve something that may come to light as early as tomorrow night.
	Who was Joseph Mifsud, the professor who uh approached George Papadopos in the earliest known interaction in the Russia uh collusion uh fantasy?
	Who is he?
	And what did you learn about him?
	And did you really do a thorough job investigating him?
	And then one of my favorites, if your mandate was to investigate all foreign interference in the 2016 election, why did you not look at the acknowledgement by the Ukraine embassy in Washington that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee sought Ukraine's help in finding dirt on Donald Trump that it could make public during the 2016 election?
	And why didn't you look at the efforts of Ukraine's FBI and Ukraine's top anti-corruption lawmaker to publicly put out dirt on Donald Trump designed to help him lose the election?
	Isn't that election interference just like the interference you did not find on Russia?
	Those are all questions that I would ask Bob Mueller.
	Well, I would go even a step further to Bob Mueller.
	Um you clearly had a very broad mandate that was given to you by Rod Rosenstein.
	Part of that mandate led to investigations into old tax returns, FARA violations, which tier to four were never really considered big violations.
	It was like, all right, get that up to date.
	Um loan applications, Tax applications, taxi medallions.
	How is it possible, Mr. Muller, that you put a priority on those items, but you knew when did you know about Hillary's bought and paid for dirty Russian dossier?
	Did you know the Russian dossier was disseminated before the election into friendly media outlets that asked no questions?
	People like Michael Izikov, David Korn, and and the Washington Post.
	That's right.
	Uh was this in and of itself Russian interference in our elections?
	Uh did you investigate who paid for the dossier?
	Did you investigate whether any of the items in the dossier were true?
	Did you not find it important that uh the Trump campaign was spied on based upon what is, according to the New York Times, Russian disinformation?
	Anything else you'd have?
	Those are fantastic questions.
	And I and I think, you know, one of the questions I'd ask him, if you were FBI director, if you were James Comey in the fall in the summer of 2016, based on the evidence that we now know the FBI used to support uh to go to the FISA court, would you yourself have signed that FISA, knowing that the Steel dossier was uncorroborated and the core allegation for the Steel Dor Dossier that they put in the FISA application,
	the one that Carter Page met with those two Russians, knowing that that was not yet verified, would you have have affixed your name to that uh FISA warrant?
	And I'll point out something that's very interesting.
	A lot of people don't realize this.
	The last renewal of the uh FISA uh warrant was uh issued and requested after Bob Mueller uh became special prosecutor in the case.
	But remarkably, he didn't sign his name to it.
	Rod Rosenstein did.
	Why if Muller's in charge of the case and it's now his case, why wasn't his name on that affidavit?
	And was that because he had concerns about what was in that in that uh FISA warrant?
	I think there's some great questions asked about the FISA warrant.
	He's a man who, when he was FBI director, signed a lot of these.
	Would have he signed his name the same way Comey did, knowing what we now know about the case?
	Well, I think the next part of this is did you have a conflict of interest the day before you were appointed to be the special counsel, were you not denied uh by President Trump the position of the FBI, and did President Trump explain to you why James Comey, your friend was fired?
	Yep, that's another great question.
	I mean, listen, if we had Bod Mueller for ten days, I don't think we could get all the questions in.
	And that that is one of the most troubling things.
	Can you think back to a time where such a high profile investigation is not it was declared complete after the 9-11?
	You think of all the big investigations we've had in Washington the last quarter century, Watergate.
	This investigation left us more questions than answers, left us more concerns about the misconduct of the investigators and those investigated.
	It is a very difficult investigation.
	And Mueller's report was supposed to bring clarity to this, and instead it brought obfuscation and omission.
	I think that's going to be one of the themes on Wednesday that will be very important to listen for.
	What about Article Two of the U.S. Constitution?
	Do you believe under Article Two, as many famed lawyers and constitutional scholars believe, that the President had every right to fire you if he so cho if he if he chose to do so?
	Because and the answer would be yes.
	Well, wouldn't that make any charges of the fact that the president at times lashed out at the witch hunt that he still had in his power the ability to fire you but didn't?
	Doesn't that speak volumes about his desire not to obstruct the investigation?
	Yep, and and remember, uh we a lot of people forget this, but when James Comey was fired, everybody thought that was because of Russia.
	But we learned from the IG report, the independent IG, Michael Horowitz, a nonpartisan guy, that the grounds for firing Comey were not only not related to Russia, they were good grounds.
	They were solid personnel uh human resource reasons to fire James Comey.
	He acted badly in the Clinton email case.
	He violated department rules, he usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and therefore he deserved to be fired.
	So if he was fired for legitimate grounds, how do you make the obstruction case uh after an IG has already determined that that was a legitimate firing?
	Those are some of the the questions that I think we're Democrats fear.
	I think they want to try to control this narrative, and I would watch for Democrats to try to cut off Republicans on the good questions, try to interfere with that because they have a lot more to lose and to gain with Robert Muller's questioning on Wednesday.
	See, I agree.
	All right, more with John Solomon on the other side, executive vice president of the Hill investigative reporter, 800-941 Shauna's on number.
	All right, as we continue, John Solomon with us with uh his breaking news story.
	We will have more tonight at nine on Hannity on the Fox News Channel.
	Uh he, of course, the executive vice president, investigative reporter for the Hill.
	Now, when you read part two of the Muller report and the different examples that it brings up, and they say they they wouldn't go either way in in making a decision.
	Is there anything in that report that to you resembles obstruction?
	Now keeping in the context, there's no underlying crime.
	Muller found no underlying crime.
	He is the fourth separate investigation to find no underlying crime.
	Uh is a president that ultimately is innocent, because if you can't charge somebody, that means the evidence doesn't exist.
	Um, regardless of what you think.
	Uh why why did you contradict yourself on different occasions as to whether Department of Justice policy and the Constitution might have prohibited you from indicting a sitting president when you yourself said earlier and then later that that was not a consideration.
	Yeah, those are great questions.
	And you if you read the second chapter, the second volume of the Muller report, it is clear beyond what Democrats have been arguing that the only reason Donald Trump got off on obstruction is because there's an opinion along old opinion Justice Department that sitting presidents can't be indicted.
	If you really read what Mueller wrote, he highlighted many of the problems with an obs obstruction prosecution, beginning with the fact that motive wasn't there.
	There was no underlying crime, as you rightly suggested.
	And in some cases, Mueller went out of his way to point that what looks like obstruction to Democrats might have simply been a president trying to defend his own presidency from an unnecessary distraction.
	So in Mueller's own analysis, contrary to what you hear from the Dems, what you hear in MSNBC, what you hear in CNN, Muller cited the natural flaws that he ran into as a prosecutor when he started to look at this uh obstruction claim.
	And and I think that one of the ones he doesn't mention, but may have been the single biggest reason why they didn't bring obstruction charges on the firing of Comey is that the IG found that the firing was made for real reasons, not for Donald Trump's desire to get rid of James Comey and the Russian investigation, but because the president himself uh uh about because the uh the department itself found James Comey in violation of its policies.
	And remember one other thing there's that famous Lester Holt interview with all the Democrats always waved saying that's the proof that Trump was uh going uh uh firing Comey because of Russia.
	That's not what he said.
	If you read the whole interview, the part that wasn't put out publicly, you see the president saying, I want the Russia investigation to be done well, and James Comey, because of the way he handled the email case, is probably not a guy that's gonna do it well.
	That's basically what the president was saying.
	He was firing Comey on personnel grounds, not on Russia obstruction, and that's probably the real reason uh that Bob Mueller never pulled the trigger on anything obstruction.
	All right, John Solomon.
	We'll have this more more on this breaking news story, Andrew Weissman.
	More news also coming from John later this week, as we have the media hype and probably again let down in boomerang uh on Mueller's testimony on Wednesday.
	We're looking forward to it.
	John Solomon, thank you.
	We'll see it tonight on Hannity.
	When we come back, a lot to get to.
	We'll look at the media, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, stormy, stormy, asshole, asshole, racist, racist.
	They can't control themselves.
	It is one feigned moral outrage after the next.
	At what point does this boomerang back on them?
	Well, the answer we already know is not people don't trust or watch them anymore.
	That's a big problem.
	Or read them.
	Quick break, right back.
	We'll continue.
	News roundup and information overload hours next.
	Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
	The president denies his tweets are racist about the racist tweets aimed at them by the president of the United States, but his racist tweets about who should stay in America quickly got all his attention.
	Nonsense Woodrow Wilson showed birth of a nation in the White House as an American president so flagrant in his racial messaging as this one.
	Today, President Trump amplified his language on race from a dog whistle to a bugle call, driving home his inflammatory and racist attacks on Ford Democratic Congresswoman of color.
	uh the idea that that he's uh he's saying things that are attractive to white nationalists and racists.
	He has joined Andrew Johnson as the most racist president in American history.
	Up today, the question is what do you call someone who says clearly racist things?
	This morning the answer is Mr. President.
	Let me be very clear about this.
	What he said reminds me of what I might hear out of a clan rally.
	He's a racist.
	We've known for a long time that he is a racist, and go back to where you came from as it's peak racism.
	It's proto-racism, it's you know, the original form of racism.
	Um we're at a point where Trump is more racist than neo-Nazi.
	President Trump today denying that his racist tweets were racist.
	But first, we want to start with this week in Russia Game.
	It is as if there are no shoes on the Trump human centipede that are not about Russia.
	Russia, Russia, Russia.
	It does look like collusion.
	It does look like he's listening to Putin more than he is American intelligence, and frankly, I've never seen that before.
	This could be the last nail in the coffin.
	Stormy Daniels is causing stormy weather.
	Porn star Stormy Daniels claims President Trump broke the law, had her bullied.
	Does Stormy Daniels have the president's number?
	It sure seems that way.
	Uh with Stormy Daniels.
	How is Stormy weathering this?
	Stormy speaks.
	It's not clear what he meant by whole countries.
	Are you shocked or surprised by this?
	I'm not surprised.
	And in one way I'm proud.
	I am a proud poller.
	No, we are not all created equal.
	At least not if you were born in, as the president put it, a whole country.
	The word house instead of whole, as in house countries, not whole countries.
	I guess he's a poller.
	Is there a difference if the president said uh whole or house?
	All right, glad you're with us.
	News roundup information overload hours.
	We uh go back to one of our top stories today, and that is your corrupt media mob.
	It is Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, and peach and peach, and peach impeach and peach and peach and peach, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, stormy, stormy, stormy, s hole, s whole, s whole, s whole, sole, s whole.
	Now thousands of racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, and the president.
	Well, if you look at the squad that now is pretty much in in full allegiance alliance and runs the Democratic Party, let's see, they're comparing America to having concentration camps.
	Uh we have virulent anti-Semitic remarks all about the Benjamins, uh, boycott Israel just like we would boycott Nazi Germany.
	Uh another example, um, blame America and our actions for terrorist attacks that happen in uh a Kenyan mall, and the media is unimpressed.
	Never mind the positions that would eliminate oil, gas, everything's free, cows because of flatulence and airplanes and substance, um, and talking down the country.
	Because understand when they say that America is the same as these detention centers that provide food, water, medicine supplies, baby formula, cots, blankets, and and pillows.
	Not ideal, but it did happen in the Obama years.
	It did happen in the Bush years, and the only person that has lifted a pen to fix it was Donald Trump.
	But it is what they can hold on to, cling on to.
	Now by later in the week, they will be clinging on to in the media mob, anything and everything that they can as it relates to Robert Mueller.
	Uh that is just to be anticipated.
	Anyway, uh joining us now, Joe Concha, columnist for the Hill, uh, radio host WRR affiliate in New York, and uh a lot.
	By the way, not much coverage of let's see, British tankers uh that were taken hostage by the Iranian revolutionary guard.
	That that's second place.
	You know, I go back, I never I'd never forget all during the Obama years.
	It was, you know, the Chris Matthews crowd, the MSDNC crowd, the Roswell Rachel crowd, the conspiracy hoaxers, you know, all saying dog whistle.
	Everything was anybody that disagreed with Obama, dog whistle.
	You know, we have a h how could this ever happen?
	It There's a decision that has been made to play the race card.
	Um, I've got a whole history that I'll get to this half hour of the Democratic Party every two and four years.
	They use it as their strategy to play the race card.
	Now their policies don't do particularly well.
	Those disproportionately negatively impacted by the Biden Obama years, especially in the economy were minorities in America.
	Those that have now disproportionately, in a good way, been positively impacted by the policies of deregulation, lower taxes, job creation, incentivizing companies to build here.
	America first, controlling the borders happen to be.
	Well, we have record low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workplace, and youth unemployment.
	But I guess results don't mean a thing in this in this rhetorical battle.
	Joe Concha analyzes all of this now for a living.
	About how many times do we have a count yet?
	I know it was thousands of how many times the media Democrats have said racist in the last week.
	We had Sean, and thanks for having me on.
	Let's see.
	It was from Sunday to last Tuesday.
	Uh, that not the media, just two networks.
	CNN, MSNBC said the word racist eleven hundred times in the span of 48 hours.
	That's almost physically or mathematically impossible to do.
	You would have to literally say it like every seven words or something, right?
	So what is it up to now?
	I don't have a more recent count, but everything I've seen probably tells me that if we're seven days out uh from last Sunday, eight days out, it's probably up around 10,000 times just on those two networks alone.
	And you know, you we've all read the book.
	It's called The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
	It's the media that cried Wolf now.
	And if you keep saying this word over and over again, I don't know, I'm just spitballing here, Sean, but I'm pretty sure it loses its impact.
	In other words, everybody's numb by it.
	It has no meaning anymore.
	Everybody's a racist.
	Think about it.
	If you're pro-ICE agent, you're a racist, right?
	Uh if you maybe you're against reparations for slavery, therefore you are a racist.
	Maybe you just disagree with the policy.
	Maybe you say, hey, that's the wrong way to go about this.
	No, no matter, it doesn't matter what your argument is, it always goes back to who the person is.
	Are they bad or good?
	Are they racist?
	Remember, even this this isn't just Donald Trump.
	Mitt Romney, right?
	As milk toast as it comes, who really, really try to get along with the media and proved to everybody he's a nice guy.
	And what did Joe Biden, the current 2020 Democratic front runner, say?
	Said, y'all, he's gonna put you all back in chain.
	John McCain that compared to running a campaign uh that that was a uh equivalent to George Wallace.
	It doesn't matter what kind of Republican you are, George W. Bush, oh, he didn't respond to Katrina properly because he doesn't like black people.
	I mean, it's it doesn't matter.
	You have an R next to your name, you're automatically a racist, and it could be Trump, it could be Bush.
	It does not matter, Sean.
	Those are all you know, great examples.
	But you're right.
	I mean, Mitt Romney, I think, is the perfect case in point one point I've made in my own way, and that is that Mitt Romney is a nice guy.
	His family, they're nice people.
	Uh Mitt Romney doesn't like the style, certainly, of Donald Trump.
	Mitt Romney tried to be nice, tried to be liked.
	John McCain was loved by the media, except when he ran for president, they all slandered him.
	They made sure that they would say and do anything and everything to make sure that he loses.
	And then he passes away.
	Then they're back to liking him again, or when he's bashing Trump.
	Then they really liked him uh prior to to his passing away.
	Um it's it's fascinating, and it's a it started out as something every two and four years.
	A radio ad in Missouri, black churches are gonna burn.
	Uh, the James Byrd ad in 2000, it was like my father was killed all over again.
	Uh, and it goes on from there.
	I got some examples.
	Let's play a couple.
	Many Republicans talking coded racial language about takers and losers.
	They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe.
	If you accept the support of Klan sympathizers before you are president, you all accept their support after your president.
	He's gonna let the big banks once again write their own rules.
	Unchained Wall Street.
	They're going to put you all back in chains.
	It's wrong what the leader of the Republican Party and this Congress are doing in blocking an accurate census.
	because they don't want to count everyone that they don't think they can count on.
	They are in favor of affirmative action if you can dunk the basketball or sink a three-point shot.
	But they're not in favor of it if you merely have the potential to be a leader in your community and bring people together.
	Don't tell me we've got a colorblind society.
	June 7, 1998 in Texas.
	My father's killed.
	He was beaten, chained and then changed.
	Oh, because he was black.
	So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation, it was like my father's killed over again.
	When you don't vote, you let another church explode.
	When you don't vote, you allow another cross to bird.
	All right, quick break.
	We'll come back more with Joe Concha on the other side.
	Then Shuri Murray is running against AOC.
	We'll talk to her.
	He is a uh radio host on WOR New York.
	Imagine um Joe Concha if Donald Trump said his mentor was J. William Fulbright, known segregationist.
	Imagine if Donald Trump said that his mentor was Robert Byrd, the former clansman.
	Uh imagine just for a second here, if Donald Trump had said any of the things we just played here.
	This happens, you know.
	Oh, one person asked, Well, how is it possible that they they've they're making a decision to use racial divide in politics?
	Well, what is that that we just played there and predictably happens every election cycle, Joe Concha?
	Yeah, and and those are from other elections where uh Donald Trump wasn't involved, and we saw 2016, and that was pretty ugly.
	You know, remember from a media perspective anyway, Sean, that Access Hollywood tape somehow escapes NBC under locking key and ends up in the Washington Post two days before a key presidential debate, right?
	And and how did that happen?
	I I I always look back on that and I say, Well, why wasn't an investigation done?
	Who pulled the trigger on that to make sure that Donald Trump, any other candidate, would have been roadkill at that point?
	And I think that's that's Trump's strategy at this point, Sean.
	The president says, you know what?
	If I play nice like Romney did, or try to get along like McCain did, I'm gonna get run over too.
	I gotta hit back twice as hard as I'm getting hit.
	I cannot play nice.
	This will not be a civil election, any way, shape, or form.
	And don't hand me this whole thing that, oh, well, if Biden runs, at least he's civil, at least he's moderate.
	All I know is he told Al Sharpton just a couple of years ago when he was when he was running alongside of Barack Obama.
	He was asked, uh, why do you think Republicans are against voter ID laws?
	And he said, quote, they don't want blacks voting.
	I mean, that that's the type of stuff that should be called out by our media, but of course they can't.
	Or even with Elon Omar, right?
	The things that she said.
	How many times have you seen in media reports over the last week or two during this whole controversy?
	Has anybody mentioned her saying this?
	Quote, Israel has hypnotized the world.
	May allow, awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.
	How many times has that been mentioned?
	No.
	She sits down with Gail King and and I who I thought was hoping would do somewhat of a tough interview.
	Of course not.
	She walks out and says, Oh, they all love the country and didn't really ask any tough questions.
	No one read that quote back to Omar.
	No one says back to Alexandria Costco Cortez, you called America garbage.
	How do you define that?
	Why do you think that?
	And what do you think you can do to fix it?
	I never see these questions because they're worried about never getting access to these folks again.
	And isn't that a shame that that's the game we're playing at this point?
	Ooh, I think it's a good idea.
	It's also all about the Benjamins.
	It's comparing numerous comparisons.
	AOC is one of them to America to Nazi Germany.
	And of course, the same with Omar, you know, claiming that boycotting Israel is akin to uh uh boycotting the Nazis back in World War II, and I'm like, no, there's no equivalent at all.
	Zero.
	None.
	Get to a library sometime.
	Read some books about the Holocaust, where uh people for starters, those Going to these migrant facilities along the U.S. southern border, which you mentioned, people down there are doing everything they get they can to keep these people as comfortable as possible.
	Uh in Nazi Germany, uh they were thrown on trains, bought the concentration camps, and they weren't killed right away.
	They were worked until they couldn't be productive anymore on something like 400 calories a day.
	And you're gonna make that comparison?
	That should be a game ender for an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	Instead, she just keeps getting interview after interview, softball after softball, and she knows it, and that's why she knows she could keep getting away with it, because she's never gonna be challenged by anyone almost in this media, and then she stays away from anybody who would actually ask any tough questions.
	So look, she has to run for uh office again in 2020.
	She's getting primary by a couple people right now.
	I know people in her district, they absolutely do not like she's making it all about her and not not helping the constituents of the 14th district of New York.
	Well, one of those people that will be challenging her is a woman by the name of Sheree Murray, and uh she's gonna join us coming up in the next half hour.
	No, there you go.
	Perfect.
	Joe Concha, perfect setup, and then Joe Concha comes on uh WOR in New York after that.
	How great is that?
	Perfect.
	I gotta go lead.
	Thank you.
	He gets good ratings, so he makes me look good.
	Okay.
	800 941 Sean Tollfree telephone number.
	You want to be a part of the program.
	Quick break.
	We'll come back, we'll continue.
	We got an amazing Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel.
	Bridges, they fill our skyline.
	Rising above our city, their arches are more than stone and steel.
	They connect us, they help us move forward and cross from place to place.
	That's why we build bridges to be connected to one another.
	I'm Sheree Murray.
	I was nine years old when I came to America with my family.
	We migrated from Jamaica from my first job working as an intern at the New York City MTA Jamaica Bus Depot to attending City University, then opening a business and helping minority men and women find employment in the media, to becoming a mother and a community leader.
	I've been building bridges and crossing them my whole life.
	I've built bridges between constituents in our community and elected officials that represent them, between different nationalities and races, and between political parties.
	Lawmakers should be working together to build a stronger, safer, more prosperous America.
	But your representative in Washington chooses self-promotion over service, conflict over constituents, resistance over assistance.
	Queens and the Bronx need someone who will create jobs instead of turning them away.
	Someone to unite the fight in Washington and help you build a bridge to a better future for yourself instead of pushing for a pay raise for herself.
	You deserve someone fighting for you, not fighting for the limelight.
	You deserve someone who will focus on immigration, infrastructure, and education.
	That's why I'm running for Congress.
	I believe bridges are about connecting us, bringing people together, and getting us to where we need to go.
	Join me.
	Let's unite the fight and build new bridges together.
	Bridges that will unite us and take us to a brighter future for the next generation.
	I'm Cherie Murray, and I approve this message.
	All right, Sheree Murray is now announced.
	She announced on Hannity the other night that she is running for the seat of well, the real speaker of the house, and that would be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pelosi, speaker of name only.
	By the way, for you dumb people in the media, and there's so many of you.
	You know, you're out there saying Hannity is spreading a conspiracy theory.
	He's saying that that it that something happened.
	And it the real speaker's Ocasio-Cortez.
	That that she's already speaker.
	And I'm like, you people are so dumb.
	I'm saying the people that have the most influence.
	The people that are impacting the minds and policies of the 2020 Democratic Presidential Hopefuls.
	That would be the squad led by the new Green Deal herself, Ocasio Cortez.
	Now, before we get to Cherie Murray, let's play a little bit of the hits just to remind you of some of the, well, incredibly, well, let's just say controversial ideas of Ocasio-Cortez.
	The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.
	And your biggest issue is your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?
	How many years until the world ends again?
	We have 12 years left to cut emissions by at least 50%, if not more.
	Medicare for all would save the American people a very large amount of money.
	Maybe we shouldn't be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
	You make more than 10 million in one year.
	Your 10 millionth and one dollar gets taxed at 70%.
	Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world.
	Should is it okay to still have children?
	But we're here to say that an agency like ICE, which repeatedly and systematically violates human rights, does not deserve a dime.
	Is it still okay to have children?
	The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't do it, fix climate change.
	And all you care about is how we're gonna pay for it.
	Medicare for all it's gonna save lives.
	How did Obamacare work out?
	Um and uh what about these people that eat hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?
	I don't know anybody that eats hamburgers for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
	But Shuri Murray is with us.
	She is challenging AOC, born in Jamaica, West Indies, migrated to New York City with her family when she was nine.
	Uh Cherisse, so nice to have you on this program.
	It was great to have you on Hannity the other night.
	How's the campaign going?
	It's going well, Sean.
	Listen, we have some astronomical numbers to report.
	I started out the campaign launch on Wednesday with 600 Twitter followers.
	We're now upwards of 130,000.
	So I just want to America.
	Thank you.
	Tell me, um, well, first let's go talk a little bit about your life, your background.
	I found it extraordinarily intriguing.
	Um, and why you decided to get into this race.
	Thank you, Sean.
	I am from Jamaica.
	I was born in Jamaica.
	I came to the United States of America with my family at the age of nine.
	I've been here ever since.
	I went to Andrew Jackson.
	I went to CUNY.
	I have two degrees.
	And I'm now on your uh show here in my bid for Congress.
	Why am I in the race?
	Um, because it's an opportunity to build bridges.
	We see the Congresswoman burning bridges down on every single issue that she has tackled from the job killing Green New Deal to burning the bridges down for the Amazon deal here in New York to the rhetoric that we're now seeing on the national stage.
	This scene looks like a scene out of the mean girl, Sean.
	Well, I I've watched this and I listened to the policies.
	You just heard what they heard.
	By the way, why would we bother?
	If the world's gonna end in 12 years, I'm kind of thinking, well, let's just have a big party.
	This is ridiculous.
	We need a legislator who is focused on policy.
	Let's talk about the issues, not the limelight.
	And I think that's what we're seeing control the narrative these days.
	Just uh words that will just stroke emotion, negative emotion, incentivize violence, um uh just not support the rule of law.
	This is the narrative that we're seeing on the national level, and it's spewing over into an international level too, Sean.
	It's dangerous.
	You look at the Green New Deal that she laid out, and one interesting side note to that is her chief of staff said, uh, the funny thing about the Green New Deal had nothing to do with climate change when we started, which has always been my position that it is a uh a political um agenda that is being driven here in the name of quote climate change and the environment, and it's predicated on the idea that we should be socialist, but uh under the Green New Deal, we would eliminate oil and gas in ten years.
	Yes, and it's going to cost everyday New Yorkers and people across this country more money in their own.
	More money is gonna result in the biggest economic collapse the world has ever seen.
	And it will be immediate.
	The president is doing a great job.
	The economy is booming, uh, the stock market is booming, we have low unemployment rates.
	These are um just records that no one can run against, and she's introducing policies that will reverse that.
	Uh, you have a predominantly immigrant community in the Queens and the Bronx in the 14th Congressional District.
	Issues like immigration would be uh uh a first starter for a freshman congresswoman.
	But that wasn't her first policy push.
	It was the the job-killing Green New Deal.
	What do you make of the comments and the battle she has ongoing with Nancy Pelosi?
	For example, last week, Nancy Pelosi said, uh, if you have anything to say to me, say it to my face.
	And within hours, uh, Congresswoman Ocasio Cortez was out there slamming Pelosi and not only once, but well, two of the four squad members suggesting the Pelosi is racist, picking on people of color.
	I don't know that her manner is going to be effective in the long run.
	You're elected to legislate and introduce policy, specifically to get that policy signed into law.
	I have not seen AOC work across the aisle.
	I have not seen her champion issues that are uh important to the constituents in her district that elected her into the House of Representatives.
	There are issues like infrastructure, education, everyday kitchen table issues that I don't hear the Congresswoman talking about.
	I'm in this race to bring the focus back to the residents of Queens and the Bronx.
	Uh how do you explain away the Amazon deal?
	Let's put aside for a minute that I don't think one company, that company, should get breaks over any other company.
	Because in that district, your district includes Long Island City, where Amazon was going to create 25,000 jobs for the people there.
	Correct.
	Average salary, 150,000 each.
	At that once it gets to that level that the states already made their decision, the mayor's made their decision, you got a chance to bring 25,000 high-paying jobs to your district.
	Yes.
	Paying on average 150 grand, and you think of all the the other benefits to other businesses, you think of what it will do to the real estate market.
	You think of, I mean, it would have been a boom, unlike anything New York has seen in a long, long time, and she kills the deal.
	Sean, the Democrats are driving business out of New York.
	That's why the residents are leaving, right?
	Um, let's peel back the layers on the Amazon deal.
	So, with regards to the president's tax cuts and jobs uh act, in there, there's a portion, the Invest in Opportunity Act, uh legislation by Senator Tim Scotts, which talks about opportunity zones.
	Now, Amazon was taking advantage of the opportunity zone language, which calls for any large company to make a 10-year investment and they get a kickback, a tax kickback.
	And that's what Amazon was going to get from the state of New York, a three billion dollar kickback for a 10-year investment into the state by providing all of the amenities that we described uh just moments ago.
	Now, instead of articulating it as such and giving the president the credit for this portion of the bill, his tax bill, they decided to drive jobs out of the state.
	Now, even going further, Sean, back when I was running uh a borough president candidate, and one of his issues was ecodom economic development, the uh the dairy, the milk dairy factory closed in Southeast Queens, and we had a rally um saying that we wanted to bring Amazon to Southeast Queens.
	That area in Queens has not seen economic development in some 60 plus years.
	So whether it was Long Island City or Southeast Queens, we welcome Amazon to the borough of Queens.
	But unfortunately, AOC was instrumental in driving the jobs, driving the company outside of the state.
	We don't need someone like that in office.
	Let me ask you this, because uh New York just historically traditionally it's become a very, very blue state.
	Um, we see this mass exodus as you referred to, and I agree with you, and I think what's driving people away are high tax high taxes, burdensome regulation.
	Um, I have no idea why Governor Cuomo doesn't want to use the vast resources, especially in upstate New York as it relates to fracking and natural gas.
	That's a separate issue.
	Yeah.
	But people are leaving, and there hasn't been a an opportunity like this.
	Uh, you're right in so many different years, but you know, what about the constituents?
	Are people just so programmed in the sense that are they only vote Democrat?
	They don't even think about the election.
	Now, Ocasio Cortez is getting a lot of press.
	How do people in the district seem to be reacting to her?
	They don't know her, quite frankly.
	And if you look at a recent survey that was done, the constituents of the district do not know who their representative is.
	And this bid for Congress, my bid for Congress to unite the fight across the party aisles to build bridges is something that I do believe will connect with the constituents of Queens and the Bronx in the 14th Congressional District.
	I don't know what her objective is outside of running for the limelight.
	You know, we see her at um the concentration camps.
	We see her, excuse me, describe our facilities as concentration camps.
	We see her use that as a um a way to garner attention and to denounce the administration, but we don't see her in the community making those same um uh uh pushes or advocating for the issues that are important to the people in Queens and the Bronx.
	So she's taken her advocacy to the wrong stage, the main stage.
	She needs to take it back to Queens and the Bronx.
	So many people are just texting, writing me now, and I guess you've gotten a lot of attention.
	Um, how can people get in touch with you if they want to?
	Thank you, Sean.
	Uh, please go to my website, Sheree Murray.com.
	My name is S-C-H-E-R-I-E-M-U-R-R-A-Y dot com.
	We are looking forward to any small donations as we know that it's a hup uphill battle.
	I do have a path to victory.
	I have a record um of accomplishments and working across the aisle.
	And you'll see a little bit more about me on the website as well.
	You can also sign up to join the campaign.
	We need all the boots on the ground to really get our message out there.
	Um, you know, the primary back when she won, she won um, I think it was some 8,000 votes, or it was a low voter turnout.
	So we hope to really connect, not just via this platform, Sean, and thank you, but to go into the community, knock on doors and talk to the constituents about what's important to them so that we can take that to Washington.
	All right, Cherie, thank you so much for being with us.
	Sheree Murray running against uh Congresswoman Ocasio Cortez.
	We um sure will talk to you often.
	Thank you for your time.
	Uh, we wish all the best of luck in that campaign, and uh, we appreciate you being with us.
	All right, Hannity tonight, nine Eastern on the Fox News channel.
	Hope you'll join us.
	We continue more breaking news, John Solomon, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, also Carl Rove, Lawrence Jones, Jeff Lord, Pam Bondy, and much much more.
	Nine Eastern Hannity Fox News.
	By the way, news you won't get anywhere else.
	See you tonight at 9 Eastern.
	Set your DVR, Hannity Fox News.
	We'll see you tonight.
	Big show.
	And as always, thank you for being with us back here tomorrow.

▲