Andy McCarthy and The Plot to Destroy A Presidency
Andy McCarthy, Fox News Contributor, a columnist for National Review and former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is here to talk about the real ties between Bruce and Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS. With the release of the memos, Nellie sent to her husband Bruce, who was working at the Department of Justice as Deputy Attorney General. McCarthy’s new book, Ball of Collusion - THE PLOT TO RIG AN ELECTION AND DESTROY A PRESIDENCY, was released just a few days ago, and tackles this and much more.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.
We have a lot of breaking news on the deep state we will be getting to.
An incredible new book.
I can't put it down.
So well written and a great, great accompanying book to, say, Janine Pirro's book and Greg Jarrett's book.
It's written by our friend Andy McCarthy.
It's called Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election, Destroy a Presidency.
We have that on top of the new Judicial Watch release from yesterday, providing Bruce Orr, providing the FBI with research that we now know, according to FBI's own spreadsheet later in the process, debunking almost 100%, well into the 90% plus range, the steel dossier.
But anyway, we now know that Bruce Orr was providing the FBI with the research that his wife Nellie was doing on behalf of Fusion GPS that was being paid ultimately by the Clintons and the DNC.
Wow.
The Justice Department recently providing some of these documents to Judicial Watch.
We'll update you on all of this.
One of the documents is that spreadsheets.
You know, you think the story of the Russian hookers urinating in the bed was a fabricated, bad enough story, but they basically identified every horrible Russian citizen that was alive, individuals, and they made up links to Donald Trump, just totally out of whole cloth with no evidence whatsoever.
Nellie Ork keeping tabs on dozens and dozens of Trump associates.
But we're now moving into the area that we described with John Solomon yesterday, and we'll discuss later with Andy McCarthy.
And this is moving a lot faster, a lot deeper.
There's going to be at least three major releases, I believe probably a fourth.
And well, that's accepting that John knows something that I don't know, which is there will be a separate investigation and report on the issue of leaking.
I don't doubt that's going to happen, but we'll get the Comey report, which we already know about with more detail, where they believe that he was lying or being less than candid or lack of candor.
And of course, the classified documents that were removed by other FBI agents from Comey's home one month after he was fired.
For other people, you would think they would get indicted, but I'm told we'll wait and see that there's a lot of other issues that will impact James Comey's life.
He should have taken my advice a long time ago, and that was he has the right to remain silent, didn't appear to want to do so.
But, you know, him thinking he's a superpatriot.
But we're getting deeper and deeper now into the weeds of a story that is really profound and very threatening to what this great Democratic Republic is about.
And it all starts with the investigation, or frankly, the exoneration of a guilty party, where evidence is so overwhelming and so incontrovertible that nobody in law enforcement can look at this evidence and not say that the person involved in this behavior should have been indicted.
That's why we discussed at length exonerating or beginning the writing of the exoneration of Hillary Clinton in May of 2016 when, in fact, they hadn't interviewed her or any of the other witnesses, even using the term gross negligence, which is the legal standard in the exact statute, which would have applied to Hillary Clinton.
But, well, we'll change that to extreme carelessness as a means of protecting her.
That's a huge problem, a huge problem for Hillary Clinton.
And then, of course, we've never, I've never heard in my life, it's unprecedented to hear a case of somebody like Hillary Clinton when she's finally interviewed way late in the process after they've been working for months on writing her exoneration.
They sit her down, but it's supposed to be an interrogation of the FBI.
And the person doing the interrogating is Peter Strzzok, who's out there saying privately that Hillary should win $100 million to zero.
And I have an insurance policy.
If Donald Trump does win, God help us.
Calling Donald Trump every name in the book.
The same Peter Strzok referring to Trump voters that he can smell that shop at Walmart because they're smart and want to save money.
And Walmart has the same products at lower prices, which just makes sense to save money.
But we're smelly Walmart people.
So the smelly Walmart guy is interrogating the irredeemable, deplorable person who is allowed, which is unprecedented and unheard of, and may in and of itself be some type of federal violation, I am told by lawyers and a crime.
Hillary Clinton with Cheryl Mills and another person, people that are also involved in the issue.
And then Comey basically for 13 minutes lays out all the crimes associated with the Espionage Act, all the felonies committed.
All the evidence is there.
They've got it.
Top secret, classified information put on a private server.
And then, of course, the subpoenaed emails deleted.
Good luck if you try to pull this crap on the FBI or any law enforcement agency.
Deleted.
And then cleaning the hard drive with Bleach Pit.
Good luck.
We never heard about Bleach Pit.
Hillary Clinton has done more for Bleach Pit than anyone else that could ever imagine.
And then, of course, having AIDS bust up devices and BlackBerries and iPhones with hammers.
And the ones they did give to the FBI had no SIM cards in them.
They think they're so clever.
We found out today, by the way, that, in fact, Peter Strzok rejected intelligence that was finding that China had likely hacked into Hillary's server.
Oh, Hannity's right again because we were, our investigations have shown that as many as six foreign intelligence services agencies had hacked into her server.
Well, but that's what we now know.
And the intelligence community investigators were pressing Peter Strzzok to investigate the evidence that China, in this case, had hacked into Hillary's secret server.
But instead, following up on the finding, the investigators said Strzok was dismissive and declined to pursue whether or not the Chinese had hacked her server.
Here's what the Washington Times put out.
It's pretty funny if it wasn't so alarming.
The FBI dismissed claims by two former intelligence community inspector general employees who claim China may have hacked Hillary Clinton's private server, according to a report released Wednesday by two Republican senators.
The two intelligence community watchdogs said they discovered an anomaly, I can say it, anomaly in Mrs. Clinton's emails, stop laughing at me, in Mrs. Clinton's emails while conducting a review of her server's contents in 2015.
This anomaly, specifically, what they discovered was an email address tied to Clinton's email that was possibly forwarding her emails to yes, China, the hostile regime that they are in real time.
And they took their concerns to Mr. Hillary should win $100 million to zero.
We're smelly Walmart Trump supporters.
And I have an insurance policy, Peter Strzok, according to notes from their interviews with Senate staffers, but the Bureau wasn't interested in that hacking.
Oh, that's right.
If it's Donald Trump, then we'd care.
And then we got, so after that part of this, and they exonerate somebody who's guilty of obstruction, underlying crime, serious threats to our national security, then what happens?
Then, oh, okay, then they take the dirty dossier.
Hillary Clinton funnels money.
Perkins Cooey, a law firm, legal expense.
It's not.
That could be a campaign finance issue, separate and apart.
Fusion GPS, op research firm, hires Christopher Steele, a guy that we now know Bruce Orr warned about to everybody in the DOJ, everybody in the FBI in August of 2016.
Kathleen Kavalik, 10 days before Comey and Yates signed the first FISA application.
We now know that, in fact, they were all warned that the dossier is unverified, that Steele hates Trump.
Hillary paid for it.
Okay, why'd they use it as the bulk of information?
Now, what's fascinating about Andy McCarthy's book is the following.
And we'll get to this with him as he joins us at the top of the next hour, the ball of collusion.
He's now saying something that I think questions we've only raised with our ensemble cast on this show in Hannity on Fox News.
And that is that in his book, he's claiming the Obama administration, quote, put the law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of our government in the service of the Clinton campaign.
And, quote, when pressed, if he saw collusion between Obama and Clinton, Andy McCarthy, he's from the Southern District of New York.
This is the premier prosecuting office in the entire country.
They're the best at what they do.
On the left and the right, they've had the best lawyers, the biggest names in law today.
Rudy Giuliani came from there.
Some of the most highest profile prosecutors.
These are killers in the Southern District of New York.
They're good.
Anyway, so he was there.
He went after, he successfully prosecuted the blind Shake case.
And when pressed, if he saw it, he said the use of these counterintelligence powers and law enforcement processes in our political process, which is never supposed to happen.
And then he goes on to explain that what he saw as the difference in the quality of justice that was afforded the Clinton camp over her emails and the Trump campaigns, the led ties to Russia that led to the Mueller investigation.
He said in every investigation, investigators always think that their bad guys are the worst bad guys in the history of bad guys.
And what you always need is the adult supervision of leadership in the headquarters.
And then he goes and answers Steve Ducey's question, and that is directly implicating Obama himself and what he views as the conspiratorial counterintelligence effort designed to take down President Trump.
Now think about this.
He goes on to say and explain, as for the nature of the probe, these counterintelligence investigations, they belonged to the president at the time.
That president would be Obama.
They're only done for one reason to believe, and that is to gather intelligence so that the president can carry out his national security responsibilities under the Constitution.
And then he lays it out clear.
Any counterintelligence investigation has to, by its nature, be the president's investigation.
And then Ducey rightly asked this question.
That means it goes to the West Wing.
McCarthy's answer, it goes to the president.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
If it's not working that way, then it shouldn't be a counterintelligence investigation in the first place.
But here we don't have to speculate because there's plenty of indication Obama was informed and knew exactly what they were doing.
What did Obama and Biden know and when did they know it?
That's why this is important.
So we're going to get through.
At some point, Lindsey Graham has promised that he saved Hillary.
Then you've got the dirty dossier.
Then it was used as the bulk of information for the FISA warrants, denying Carter Page's civil liberties and constitutional rights, but also provided the backdoor to spy on the Trump campaign.
Then the Trump transition, then the Trump presidency.
And even over time, as they just kept using this false information, even after the FBI had determined through their own spreadsheet it was false, they still used it as the bulk of information to continue the spying.
For a full year, this went on.
Three renewal applications, four applications in total.
And then, so we'll get eventually after the Comey papers are released and the Inspector General on that, then we're going to get what is the FISA abuse report.
It was a premeditated because they were warned fraud committed on a court for the purpose of spying on a and impacting a presidential election.
Then the other spying that went on in Europe with Joseph Misford, and then we have Stefan Halper against Clovis, Papadopoulos, and Page.
And we also now believe after the interview with Steele and other intelligence sources that the likelihood is, is that now we're going to have to be asking Brennan and Clapper a lot of questions about whether or not they did or did not outsource intelligence gathering that would otherwise be illegal to turning the tools of intelligence on the American people.
Did they outsource it to our allies in Europe and elsewhere?
More specifically, Great Britain, more specifically Italy, more specifically Australia, to do their dirty work for the purpose of stopping the election of Donald Trump, one, and two, for then destroying a duly elected president with illegal spying against him and his supporters.
This is all going to come out.
I would say you'll get the Inspector General report on Comey, then the Pfizer report.
If John Solomon's right, we'll get another report on leaking.
And if I'm right, you're going to get a Bard Doran report on how all of this started, who knew what, when, and where.
Did it go to the top, meaning Obama-Biden?
Who knew what, when?
And did we outsource criminal activity and abuse the power of the intelligence community by outsourcing intelligence gathering and spying on American citizens?
My guess is that's all coming out too.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity show 800-941 Sean Tolfre television number.
So we're doing our coverage yesterday, and I got to be honest, and I kept turning my mic off.
I'm telling my team, and Linda can verify this, I'm telling you something's not right here.
I'm telling you that I suspect that there are people in that building.
There may be hostages.
Now, I did, when we went to our coverage, I did say some of that to Jonathan Gillum.
I asked questions.
Was I not screaming that last night, Linda, yesterday?
I kept doing this.
I'm talking on the talk back, and I'm saying they've got people in there.
I'm telling you, I can tell.
And lo and behold, and I got to give all the credit.
I thought that commissioner was amazing, Richard Ross Jr. in Philly.
It was far worse than anybody knew.
It was far more precarious than anybody knew, far more dangerous for police than anybody knows.
Frankly, it's a miracle from heaven above and God that these six guys got shot.
They're all going to be okay, according to every report.
And the fact that up until about 9.35 at night, while we're doing Hannity, that those guys were one floor above where the main shooter was, police officers, with other perpetrators and other criminals that they'd apprehended with them.
And they finally got them out at 9.40.
I mean, that's a miracle.
Thank God.
And the sad part is, I'm reading these reports, this report of KYW, people taunting the cops.
I'll tell you about that next.
All right, 25 now till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of this extravaganza?
So I just, yesterday was fairly miraculous in terms of what happened with these police officers.
And when you think of what could have happened with six of them shot, And one of the sadder things that I read in this whole thing, and we'll get into this maybe in more detail later in the program, is KYW and other people.
Well, I'll tell you what happened.
It was a Foxnews.com piece.
The headline is Philadelphia police.
Now, here we've got hundreds of shots being fired or over 100 shots.
Here we have six officers shot.
Here we have nearly the entire police force of Philadelphia descending on this one area.
We have a potential, at least in my mind, I thought turned out to be right, near hostage situation there where we had officers and people that they had apprehended in one floor above where the one shooter, active shooter remained.
It's as bad as you can get.
Then we have the ATF coming in, government officials, FBI officials, everybody coming in, offering help and assistance any way they could.
And the only sad thing is, and I guess there's always going to be the 1% in life that I'm never going to get or understand.
But when I read the report, how police were pelted with objects, taunted during the shootout, the standoff, and I think about what's been going on lately in New York and the, frankly, the felony assault on officers, which is why I got into the big battle with Comrade Mayor de Blasio of New York.
I'm like, will you use the videotape evidence and make sure and go after every single person that we can identify on these videos?
You don't have confidence in the police, Sean.
I didn't ask that.
I said, will you insist?
You're the mayor.
You're the boss.
It's your city.
That every single person we see in these videos that are assaulting police officers, will you insist that they be arrested?
I have confidence in my police that they will do their job.
I'm like, I'm not asking you that.
How about giving them a vote of confidence and support?
And it's sad when these moments come about.
It's sort of like, you know, Mayor de Blasio, you have all these armed police officers surrounding you 24-7.
And by the way, I think that's the right thing to do.
I think every politicians, our politicians need to be protected.
It's a dangerous environment out there for everybody, including politicians.
Got to protect them.
I said this all through the Obama years.
I said it down through the Trump years.
Doesn't matter if you're a Republican or Democrat.
Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree.
It's just a fact.
But you have 24-7 armed protection.
A lot of Hollywood stars can afford arm protection when they are out and about and living their lifestyle of luxury, which I'm fine.
They've earned it.
They produce movies that people want to see and they make a lot of money doing it.
Good for them.
But the point is, they're the same people, though, that would, in many cases, deny us our constitutional rights to keep into bare arms.
And I was going through this with Mayor de Blasio.
I kept saying, Mr. Mayor, you have your armed guards.
Fine.
Does every New Yorker who passes a background check, has no issues involving their mental health, do they have a right to a firearm in their house to protect themselves if somebody, you know, tries to break in and hurt them and their family?
Every New Yorker has a right to be safe.
I said, okay, but do they have a right to have a gun in their apartment in New York?
Every New Yorker has the right to be safe.
Do they have a right to a gun in New York?
And I'm like, okay, I'm living in this altar reality here.
And the answer to the question really is no, that they should be protected, but we're not going to be protected.
But that's not even the worst of it.
And I mentioned a little bit of this on TV last night, but it was an ongoing shooting situation.
My gut was telling me, and even the first question I remember asking Rick Leventhal, and it was a follow-up to what we'd been doing on the final hour of this show yesterday.
And I went to Rick Leventhal and said, Rick, is there anyone else in that building?
And they confirmed they've been able to sweep that building clean.
And we know that only the active shooter is in there.
He didn't have an answer.
Now, Rick is one of the best street reporters, I am telling you, in the country.
Rock star.
I mean, going back to 9-11, I'll never forget Rick's reporting on 9-11.
And I mean, dust and dirt and soot all over him.
And he's down there in the middle of it.
He's been in more precarious situations than a lot of reporters in one year than they would do in a whole lifetime.
He's great.
And Rick's down there.
And I'm asking him, and he goes, I can't answer that question.
And I, and that just that he knew, but he wasn't going to tell me.
In other words, he suspected what I suspected.
And he'd been there.
This is not our first rodeo.
And that was, to me, wow, I just knew it.
And thank God when the police commissioner, I think it was around 9:40 during Hannity last night when the commissioner Richard Ross Jr. came out and said, Yeah, just a few minutes ago, we were able to get out these officers and the people they had apprehended in the narcotics arrest.
I was like, Wow.
I mean, thank God that the guys shot were safe.
Thank God the guys that were holed up there for hours were safe.
I did not think this guy would get out alive.
I just thought, no way.
Because as soon as we knew that the building was swept, the options for the police department at that point, you know, go up by a factor of a thousand.
If you don't have to worry that there are other people in the building that could become potential hostages or that they are at risk based on any actions you might take, you know, you're now dealing with a situation where if you're law enforcement, you got handcuffs on.
You can't do your job because you got to think of the safety and security of people that are in a far worse position than you would be going in there.
Then you got to worry about, well, did this guy lock himself up?
Did he set a tripwire of some kind?
Does he have any explosive material with him or any other weaponry that could end up in a lot of other people dying?
You just have to always factor in that that's a possibility.
And they were able to talk this guy out of this.
And we'll see how this all ends up.
One of the more despicable things, though, and we saw a little bit of this during the El Paso shootings, or what states did Joe Biden say Michigan and whatever other state?
He didn't get El Paso right and he didn't even get Dayton right.
And it was just hours after these shootings had occurred.
And I'm thinking, wow, it's worse than not only having losing his fastball.
I mean, David Axelrod, God bless, he's not a stupid guy.
He actually ripped the idea that now Democrats are suggesting that Biden can limit his gaffes by cutting back events.
And Axelrod is not stupid.
He said he can either cut it or he can't.
And Axelrod is right.
I actually met David Axelrod.
I met him the night Sarah Palin debated.
Who did she debate?
She debated Biden, didn't she?
Yeah, okay.
It was Biden.
And so I see him at the airport right after the debate.
And I shook his hand.
I said, I know, you had a really bad night.
I'm really, really sorry.
You okay?
And he just looked at me and his like starts twitching and just like wanted to kill me.
And I just, I thought it was pretty.
I think I'm funny when I do that.
Linda, you remember we were at Geraldo's book event?
Were you there?
I don't know if you were there.
And Sweet Baby James was there.
I remember.
Do you remember the guy, some guy from CNN Fake News comes up to me, Sean?
Hey, how are you?
And I'm like, hi.
Do I know you?
Oh, yeah, yeah, it's me, Oliver.
I'm like, Oliver, okay.
Have we met before?
No, Oliver, I don't even remember his name.
Somebody from CNN.
And I go, oh, CNN Fake News.
And did you see his face?
I had no idea who the guy was.
He expected me to know him.
He's an interesting guy.
Is he on air?
Does he even go on?
I know he hates Fox.
I know he's one of them.
He's got a lot of columns.
Okay, so he's up there with Humpty Dumpty.
The Humpty Dumpty now.
I don't know if I'd even put him that high.
He's not.
Well, if you're not as high as Humpty Dumpty, you're really in a low spot on Jeff Sucker's radar.
I'm not going to go off the wall there.
I know.
And so Humpty apparently is going to write a Fox news book.
I mean, after all, his colleague, Fake News Jimmy Acosta's book, did so well in seven weeks, sold 14,000 copies.
We don't call him that anymore.
What's that?
We call him, what's his name?
Humpty Dumpty?
No, the other one.
Humpty Dumpty, we got what's his name?
Oh, fake news.
What's his name?
He writes, he's begging you to come on the show.
How many calls do you think you took from book people begging to put him on the show?
At least 30.
TV got the same amount.
They're like stalking my teams.
We got better things to do than push a fake news book.
And my answer is, no, I'm not going to sell your phony book.
And so it turns out the big selling point is, is that, and we were in Helsinki.
And when you're there and you're covering the president, they have what's called a pool.
And the pool travels in these buses.
It's a total pain in the rear end.
And you got to get in the buses.
And, you know, you have all the guys that do, and they're great people.
I love the people behind the scenes.
The people that I work with now behind the scenes when we're on the road have all been with me almost the entire time I've been at Fox.
They were all family.
And by the way, how epic are our dinners?
Because at the end of every road trip, I throw a Hannity dinner, right?
I prefer not to talk about that dinner.
Can I just tell the story?
Well, you got to admit, some of these dinners have been epic.
You know why?
I don't want to talk about it.
Why?
You didn't go?
I didn't go.
First of all, I was like the highlight of the dinner.
Okay.
I was the funniest person there.
Oh, boy.
Second of all, you people ate Bambi.
I did not know.
Well, I had one bite.
One of the staples is reindeer in Helsinki.
What's Bambi?
Rudolph.
Well, it says a reindeer is what, and they were reindeer to, you know, raw reindeer.
I'm like, oh, God, I'm kind of grossed out by it.
But everybody, people wanted to try it.
They tried it.
We ran into other CNN people there.
So anyway, we're on this bus and fake news Acosta is like, Hannity didn't have the guts to confront me face to face and tell me what he really thinks of me in the face.
Was I supposed to, if I did notice him and I didn't, he noticed me.
He had every opportunity to come up to me.
And I'm going to tell you something.
You're not going to get to me or provoke me into a fight unless you put your hands on me.
Then you'll regret it.
I'm not going to be provoked in a public fight with anybody.
And so what am I supposed to do?
Walk to the back of the bus and say, you're fake news, Acosta.
You're a liar, liar, pants on fire, and a conspiracy theorist.
I'm going to look like an idiot.
No.
Anything I have to say, I say on my TV or radio show, I'm available.
He could have asked me about it.
When he saw me, he didn't.
And if he did see me, I'd say, too bad.
What do you want me to tell you?
I don't like your phony reporting.
Anyway, we saw other people there, I guess, from CNN.
They actually turned out to be pretty nice.
I like them, right?
Am I not cordial to everybody when I'm out, whether they work at another network?
I'm always cordial to them.
Yeah, you're very nice.
You're very, very nice.
I wasn't so nice, but you were very nice.
Oh, did you say something to him and I didn't know?
Did you?
You're the one that was, you and Geraldo.
I can't take anywhere.
You guys will start a fight.
We'll start a fight.
You can start the fight.
I'll finish it.
Nah, you know who's going to finish fights if they ever get started.
Yeah.
Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren now in a statistical tie in a new national poll that has come out.
I think where we're headed is everybody's concluding that Joe doesn't have it.
That if the idea is that he has to hide because he's a gaff a second, then he doesn't have a fastball.
Axelrod's probably right.
He can either cut it or he can't cut it.
So that means now they're moving on.
You could see a slow drain and it now moves in Elizabeth Warren's direction, not Kamala Harris.
I think Kamala Harris really hurt herself both in the last debate.
She's also hurt herself going so hard, squad Alexandria Casio-Cortez left and squad left that I'm not sure she can recover.
No private insurance, Medicare for all, the Extreme Green New Deal, et cetera.
It is, I think it's now becoming inevitable that it's probably now moving towards Warren, maybe Kamala in another tier.
Bernie is still up there and watch for maybe Mayor Pete.
Oh my gosh, Mayor Pete?
Please, the guy can't even govern South Bend, Indiana.
We've sent our cameras there.
It's a disaster.
We've gone over his record.
He can't even manage that.
How is he going to manage a country if he can't manage it?
Anyway, it was sad to see the people that were cordoned off in Philly last night, too.
I'll go back to that.
You know, this KYW reporter, Alexandria Hopps, saying that, you know, she was harassed during a live shot, watching a crowd of people taunt police officers, laughing, yelling at them.
She did point out 98% of the people were respectful and concerned, but there was that 2%, which sadly is always the case.
Kamala Harris is there on TV.
Now, we're watching the breaking news.
CNN Fake News first reports that at about 5.16, she's on the Wolf Plitzer extravaganza.
And she then turns it into, well, if my policies are in place, it's not going to happen.
And I'm like, you don't even know a single thing about the incident.
And then that's followed up by, you know, other people like, let's see.
Oh, yeah, Kirsten Gillibrand and other candidates.
It's an ongoing situation.
They know nothing.
By the way, we do have an upstated, an update in the Epstein case.
Autopsy, broken bones, usually more associated with strangulation.
I'm not speculating at all.
I want to hear what Dr. Potten has to say.
He was there inside it when he can talk.
This painting inside of his house of Bill Clinton in a blue dress and red high heels.
That is so creepy.
That is so weird, strange, and bizarre.
What the heck is that all about?
It looks like that every Democrat now is praying for a recession with Bill Maher.
And you see a lot of people worried.
Look, there's an ebb and flow to the economy, but you can't deny the massive, incredible economic growth we've had and the success.
All right, 800-941 Sean, Andy McCarthy.
Wow, he has, he takes this right into Obama's Oval Office, this whole, you know, Russia gate, deep state, abuse of power, corruption, and counterintelligence investigation.
He says that has to come from a president.
We'll get to that.
You are looking for Nellie Orr's research, the wife of Bruce Orr.
Tell me what you're looking for, Congressman.
Well, remember, Nellie Orr, part of the Fusion GPS team, looking at that opposition research, a lot of which would, you know, we see were shared with the FBI, but also with the Fusion GPS, and that's the infamous dossier.
When she came before the committee last year before the Democrats took over, she had gave indications she was willing to share that information.
Well, we're now going into nine months since then, and she's not shared.
Her attorneys have been very vague about sharing this information.
What she did was not only investigate the president, she looked at his family and the Milani, the first lady.
These are just saying, you know, there's been too much secrecy among this little corrupt cabal.
They've had their time of being in the background.
It's time for their information to come out and for the American people to realize that there was a problem at the FBI.
There was a problem that we see going forward that is going to go forward not only in the Durham investigations, but also the Horowitz investigations into FISA abuse, which we expect that report later this fall as well.
You said you did not personally receive documents from Mr. Orr, but the FBI did.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And you also said the FBI got documents from a different source in mid-September.
Different source than whom?
A different source from Mr. Orr.
It was not Mr. Orr who provided the initial documents that I became aware of in mid-September.
So Mr. Orr did not hand you the dossier?
That's Mr. Orr didn't hand me anything.
Mr. Orr provided information to the FBI that included material that is what everybody's calling the dossier.
Mr. Steele say that again.
Say that sentence again.
Mr. Orr provided what?
He provided some elements of reporting that my understanding is originated from Mr. Steele.
So Bruce Orr did give the FBI information relative to the dossier.
Yes.
It's my understanding that everything that Bruce Orr did was approved and known to senior Department of Justice officials, coordinated closely with the FBI.
So I think this is something that will have to be looked at.
I don't know all the facts here, but I think some of the facts that are being purported by some members of Congress may not, in fact, be the actual facts.
Yeah, there's somebody we really can't trust.
That last voice you heard is former CIA Director Brennan.
Glad you're with us.
Hour 2-800-941 Sean Tolfrey telephone number.
You know, Brennan, everything Bruce Orr did was approved by senior DOJ officials coordinated with the FBI.
Well, we do know in August of 2016, it was Bruce Orr that was warning everybody that, yeah, the dossier was not verified.
It was Clinton bought and paid for.
And Steele had an agenda.
Those warnings went out again from Kathleen Kavalek to the FBI DOJ officials at the time.
Prior to that, we're listening to Peter Strzok's answer: how Bruce Orr provided documents to the FBI that included parts of the Steele dossier.
Doug Collins saying we're looking for documents from Nellie Orr.
And then we have, thanks to Judicial Watch, a trove of these new documents exposing how senior DOJ, FBI, private contractors targeted Donald Trump, then candidate Trump, then President-elect Trump, and then President Trump, and how Nellie Orr herself, remember, she was doing the op research even on Trump's family, but all this, these Russia connections, that was coming directly to Bruce Orr from her.
Judicial Watch gives 330 pages of documents showing Orr.
Remember, he was at one point the fourth highest guy at the Department of Justice, obviously demoted a couple of times, discussing the information, all obtained through his wife, Nellie Orr, who's being paid really by Clinton with funneled money through Fusion GPS.
And or emailing himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife, which has the title, Who's Who, 19 September 2016, purports to show all these relationships and linkages between Trump, his family, criminal figures, many of whom are Russian.
Now, later we would discover that the FBI put their own spreadsheet together, debunking over 90% of these lies.
And Bruce Orr providing the FBI research that his wife Nellie is being paid for ultimately by Clinton and the DNC.
Andy McCarthy is with us.
He has a brand new book out.
He's a columnist for National Review, a Fox News contributor.
In this new book, which, by the way, it is entitled Bowl of Collusion, the Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.
It was just released.
He actually brings this up higher than anybody else has right into the Oval Office of Barack Obama and what he views as a counterintelligence effort that Obama was involved in and aware of designed to take down President Trump and help Hillary Clinton.
Andy McCarthy, welcome back.
Sean, great to be with you.
Thanks for having me.
Why don't I just let you go into the whole premise here behind this?
Because I have asked many times, well, what did Obama know about all this and when did he know it?
Same with Biden.
Yeah, Sean, you know, in the years we've now spent talking about this, I feel sometimes that when I try to make this distinction between counterintelligence investigations and criminal investigations, I pity people who have to listen to me drone on about this because it can make your eyes glaze over.
But it really is an important difference, and it really hits the point that you're raising.
Criminal investigations are done for the purpose of building prosecutable cases for court because criminal prosecution is the vindication of the rule of law in court proceedings, and we don't want politics to enter into it.
But counterintelligence investigations are different in kind because they're done exclusively for the president.
They're not done for the purposes of building prosecutable cases.
The only reason we have a counterintelligence mission, which the FBI handles domestically and the CIA and the NSA and other agencies handle on the foreign end, the only reason we have counterintelligence is in order to supply the president with information so that he can carry out his constitutional obligations to protect the United States from potential foreign threats to our interests.
So if you're going to do something by counterintelligence, it's by nature being done for the president.
It's the kind of information that, for example, ends up in the president's daily briefing every day.
But here, in addition to the fact that it's counterintelligence and therefore it's being done for the president anyway, we have a number of indications that President Obama did indeed know what was happening in real time as it was happening.
They've said again and again that they were aware of what Russia was trying to do to interfere with the election in real time.
And I think, you know, one of the big things I try to highlight in the book is this January 5th, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office where the main topic of discussion on the day before they're going to brief President-elect Trump on Russia's interference in the election is what information should be withheld from the incoming Trump team regarding Russia.
So it's clear that Obama, you know, it's clear from the facts that he was involved in this, and it's clear from the way they structured it that he was involved in it.
You know, now the president said earlier today he agrees with this contention in your book.
How would it be possible that Obama doesn't know?
President said it's a very serious situation, tweeting about this.
Can never be allowed to happen again, drain the swamp.
But in this bowl of collusion, now, what does it mean if the whole counterintelligence Russia hoax narrative that Barack Obama was involved in the get-go, what does that mean for him?
What does it mean for Biden?
With all the talk about, okay, impeaching Trump and getting Trump to answer questions, it sounds to me like there are an awful lot of questions Barack Obama now has to answer for.
Well, I think they're, yes, I think that's right, and I think he should have been had to answer them all along.
This is the kind of thing that could not have happened unless he was aware of it and greenlighted it.
And, Sean, just to turn it around, what do you think the media and the Democrats would say if it turned out that the FBI currently was doing counterintelligence investigations and President Trump was unaware of them?
They would make that into the biggest case that Trump was incompetent that you could imagine.
And that's exactly what they would say.
And they would say it precisely because everybody knows that these intelligence operations are done so that the president can do his job.
So, of course, they're involved in them.
How much it's going to have consequences for Obama and Biden, how much they're going to be pressed on this, really depends on how much of an impression what happened here makes on the country.
I, like you, happen to think it's a big deal when the incumbent administration exploits the counterintelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the government in a political campaign against the opposition candidate.
To me, that's a pretty big scandal.
So the rest of the country doesn't seem to see it the way we see it.
Well, I don't know if the rest of the country has been aware.
The rest of the country has been fed by a mob mentality in a media.
Only one part of the story and the main story and the narrative where we actually have real evidence, real Russia collusion, a really rigged investigation, a real abuse of power, the real intelligence, the powerful tools of intelligence turned on the American people.
You know, that's all going to be proven real.
John Solomon's on for an hour yesterday, Andy, and we have a slight disagreement.
We know we're going to have the Horowitz report on Comey, which we've been talking about likely today, tonight, or soon.
And we know that there was a referral for potential prosecution in that case, and he also showed a lack of candor.
He had those documents that were classified in his house that FBI agents retrieved a month after he was fired.
That would be one investigation.
Then, of course, the FISA investigation after multiple warnings.
We know there was premeditated fraud committed on a FISA court on four separate occasions.
Those warrants were signed, and everybody had been warned that the bulk of information used in the application is unfair, unverifiable.
We now know 90-plus percent of it to be outright lies.
Comey signed three of them, but more importantly, they were warned by Bruce Orr and Kathleen Kavlik that Steele had an agenda.
Hillary paid for it.
That was not brought to the attention of these judges in any fashion that it should have been brought to their attention.
Is that a crime, premeditated fraud, to obtain a warrant to spy on an opposition party candidate, then a transition team, then a president?
Sean, I think it's a profound, we've done this before, I know, but I think it's a profound abuse of power.
To my mind, an abuse of power in many ways is a lot more important than whether it happens to violate a provision of Title 18.
I think these fraud cases are very hard to make beyond a reasonable doubt when you're dealing with people who have a lot of ability under the law to exercise discretion.
Whether they've abused their discretion is a lot easier to prove, and to me it's a lot more consequential.
But, you know, I think whether it's a crime or it's not a crime, it's still an abuse of power, and people have to be held to account for it.
Yeah.
Okay.
So do you see crimes?
Do you see what I see?
That there was a rigged investigation in the Hillary case to protect her when the evidence was overwhelming and incontrovertible on the Espionage Act and the destruction of evidence, subpoenaed emails, and the bleach pit and the hammers.
Do you see that there was a premeditated fraud on a FISA court?
And there are two separate, well, John thinks there's going to be another report that would deal with the leaking of classified information by Horowitz.
And I see something deeper emerging, and that would be maybe a Barr, Durham, or a Durham report or something thereof that will have exposure of those people that outsourced intelligence gathering to spy on American citizens using our Western allies to do it, all in an attempt to circumvent American laws, which I think would be the biggest abuse of power part of this of all.
Yeah, look, if that stuff gets proved, I agree with you.
And the reason I'm going to book about this is because I think it's pretty important.
And I do think it's a pretty spectacular abuse of power.
You'd have to parse out, Sean, the different things you said.
The one that really grabs your attention, I think, is the fraud on the FISA court, because if they made knowing misrepresentations to the FISA court, then people ought to hang over that.
And that is a crime.
Lying to a court is a crime.
If I lied to a court, if I committed a fraud on a court, would I go to jail, Andy McCarthy?
If I was prosecuting you, you would.
And if I showed a lack of candor, I would be treated like Papadopoulos, Manafort, and Cohn, but not the way Comey and Clinton are being treated.
Well, you know, I mean, lack of candor was the reason they bounced McCabe out of the FBI, right?
And I don't think that's a closed chapter, by the way.
I think, you know, they're going to wait till they finish all of these investigations, and then they're going to decide what is the proof of false statements that they have.
And at that point, I think they'll make an evaluation about whether to proceed criminally or not.
All right, stay right there.
A great book just out today.
We are featuring it on Hannity.com.
It's on Amazon.com.
It's in bookstores everywhere now.
It's called Ball of Collusion, The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.
Very well researched, a lot of details, things that I had long forgotten that are very pertinent to this abuse of power corruption scandal.
Time here, not enough to be fair to our friend Andy McCarthy.
We're going to hold him over to the other side.
This book is too important.
It's too detailed.
It's too well written.
And there is too much knowledge in that brain of Andy McCarthy's to just let him go just yet.
The new book is called Ball of Collusion, The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.
And extraordinarily well written, well researched, and I think gives us a really clear-eyed prosecutor vantage point view into what is the biggest abuse of power, corruption scandal in history.
So we'll come back on the other side, more with Andy McCarthy.
We'll have a lot more on all of this tonight at 9 Hannity on the Fox News channel.
We'll also get to your calls in the next half hour.
You can give us a ring now, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Quick break.
We'll come back.
We'll continue.
Andy stays with us on the other side of this break.
Our friend Andy McCarthy stays with us.
He just released a brand new book.
It's called Ball of Collusion.
It's extraordinarily well researched, a lot of facts.
It gives us a lot of insight into where this corruption abuse of power investigation by the Attorney General Durham Horowitz is now headed, the plot to rig an election and destroy a presidency, which is up on Hannity.com, Amazon.com, bookstores, everywhere.
All right, I want to go through this one by one.
Do you agree with me that the evidence, well, as outlined by James Comey himself on July 5th, 2016, that Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act on numerous occasions, certain subsections of that act, all felonies, and that if anybody listening to this program had subpoenaed emails and they deleted them, they used bleach bit to clean out their hard drive, they had an aide bust up devices with hammers and took out SIM cards,
that those that most Americans probably would have been charged with, the underlying crime, and then obstruction.
Do you agree with that part?
Sean, I not only agree with it, I would have looked at the case as an intentional mishandling of classified information, and my fallback position would have been gross negligence.
I wouldn't have looked at it as a gross negligence case because I think she systematically set up this communications network in a way where she had to know that classified information was going to pour through it.
Okay, so that would be basically some very powerful people, including the person that interviewed Hillary Clinton, Peter Strzok, who had said that she should beat Donald Trump $100 million to zero and referred to Trump voters as smelly Walmart people.
That would mean James Comey, who obviously we now know had a huge bias against Trump and lied on numerous occasions.
That would mean they saved the Democratic presidential candidate from what would be certain crimes, prosecution of crimes, to allow her to be the favored candidate in the upcoming presidential race.
That's a pretty profound abuse of power to me.
Well, I say, Sean, that Obama in April of 2016, in the interview with Chris Wallace, publicly made it known that he didn't want Mrs. Clinton charged.
And I think once Obama made that clear, the rest is details.
And yes, all these other people are involved in it.
They're out front.
They're easy to see.
But once Obama had to say what he had to say, there was no way the Obama Justice Department was ever going to prosecute Mrs. Clinton.
Okay.
Now, the next part of this is: in all your years as a prosecutor, now we know the exoneration for Hillary, they began writing it in May of 2016.
We know that the legal definition gross negligence was removed and extreme carelessness replaced it, I believe, by design and on purpose.
Do you ever recall a situation where people that had been granted certain immunities involving this very same case, when the FBI, as biased as Peter Strzok was against Trump and for Hillary, who should win $100 million to zero, when they finally get around July 2nd, 2016 to interviewing Hillary, she was allowed two of her aides, including Cheryl Mills, to be in the room to help her.
You ever hear of that happening during an interrogation or an investigation of the FBI, that other people, friends involved in it, witnesses involved in it, are allowed to sit there while the interrogation goes forward?
I've never heard of that.
No, in fact, Sean, it's not only against common sense and normal FBI and Justice Department practice, I've argued that that was against the law because Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, those are the names I remember off the top of my head.
That was Heather Samuelson.
Yeah, they had been government officials, and as a result, they're not supposed to participate in the advocacy for somebody else in connection with something that they represented or acted on behalf of the government.
There are statutes, conflict of interest statutes that make that forbidden.
But even if those statutes didn't exist, you would never let somebody who was a witness to the very transaction that's under investigation sit there while you interviewed the main principal.
And you certainly wouldn't do it under circumstances where you're letting them be lawyers for them.
That's ridiculous.
Now let's go to Jim Comey and the removal of those classified documents, the notes that he had taken after the meeting at Trump Tower one month after he was fired.
We know the FBI went to his home, retrieved those documents, and interviewed him, interrogated him, whatever phrase you want to use, and that they believe he showed a lack of candor.
Now, I know the Papadopoulos, Manafort, Michael Cohn, for example, all convicted of lying under oath.
Is there a double standard considering the IG is recommending some type of criminal referral in that case?
Because that seems to me like the exact same thing others were recently found guilty of.
Sean, maybe you know a piece of evidence here that I don't.
What I understand about that is that there were seven Comey memos and that two of them, he says that he didn't intend to put classified information in them.
Two of them were, as they call it, upclassified by the FBI after they obtained possession of them.
And we don't know whether, although we think it's probably not true, that the one we know he leaked to the press is one of the ones that they consider to be classified.
I hadn't heard that the agents thought that he lacked candor when he interviewed them.
I'm not questioning you because you may have heard something I didn't, but that is a fact I hadn't heard before.
Let me move on to the whole issue of FISA abuse.
Bruce Orr gave a dire warning to everybody in 2016.
You know about Kathleen Kavlak at the State Department warning.
We now know that the dossier author doesn't stand by his own dossier.
We know that the FBI had put together a spreadsheet debunking over 90% of it later in the process.
But they decided to use the bulk of that unverified dossier that they'd been warned wasn't verifiable as the bulk of information to obtain those FISA warrants, the first one being October 2016.
To me, I see nothing but premeditated fraud against the FISA court for the purpose of denying one individual's constitutional rights and civil liberties.
And on the second side of that, a backdoor into all things Trump campaign, later Trump transition, and later even the Trump presidency through Carter Page's email contacts.
Yeah, well, I think that they absolutely withheld material information from the court.
And I think if I were investigating this, I would be investigating whether some of the things that they said to the court were black and white lies in the sense that they were not only inaccurate information, but the agents had to have known that it was inaccurate when they presented it to the court.
The problem with prosecuting this as an overarching scheme is they say that their theory here was that because Steele had provided them with accurate information before in connection with the FIFA soccer investigation, that they were entitled to assume that he was giving them accurate information this time.
Doesn't it say on top of a FISA application, verified?
Doesn't that mean that there has to be some attempt at verification?
And when Steele testified in an interrogatory under oath in Great Britain and said he has no idea if any of it's true, that even simply asking him would have been due diligence?
Sean, that's what you think, and that's what I think.
Think that you can't go to a court without corroborating the information.
To me, when their procedures say that they have to bring verified information only to the FISA court, what that means is they have to go out and corroborate it.
What they're saying is their legal position is they were entitled to rely on Steele's prior record of giving.
Okay, but not long there, but that might get them past the first FISA application, but then Steele was fired for what?
Lying and leaking.
What about the three renewal applications?
Then their own argument doesn't hold water, does it?
They still did it.
I don't think it holds water, Sean, and I'd go further than that.
I would say that, you know, when they went in the first application telling the court that they didn't think that Steele was the source of the press reports that they presented to the court in this circular reporting thing they did, that was ridiculous for them to take that position.
There was like eight ways to Sunday that anybody should have understood that Steele was the source.
And, you know, at a certain point, when you start to stack up all the things that they withheld from the court and all the things that they absolutely shouldn't have done were inaccurate, you know, I think it's a very hard case.
Especially as time went on, and even, you know, they had not even signed the third application when the FBI knew 90% of it had been debunked and that Steele himself denied his own dossier and any truth in it.
Let me take it a step further here because we also have a lot going on with John Durham.
A lot of time I'm told by my sources has been spent in Europe.
And another way that they sort of a backdoor way to spy on the Trump campaign transition and presidency was through the use of foreign intelligence, friendly intelligence sources in Great Britain, Italy, and Australia.
That would be Professor Misfid.
That means that the Mueller report was wrong.
He wasn't Russian intelligence, but Western intelligence.
His role in all of this, the way they went after Clovis, Papadopoulos, and Page abroad.
And then the big question to me is whether they purposely outsourced intelligence gathering of American citizens for the very purpose designed to circumvent American law against spying against Americans without a warrant.
That case seems to be an even bigger part of the troubles that are coming and the exposure that many have.
I think you're right about that.
And I also think this is the vexing problem which may prevent us from ever getting completely to the bottom of this.
One of the things that's really bothered me from the beginning is why the president didn't disclose more of this information.
Now, I know that if he had disclosed it, they would have accused him of obstruction, and that was something that he had to wrestle with.
But I think the other thing that the intelligence agencies, I imagine, are beating him with is that even if terrible wrongs were done here, these are relationships that we have with these international or foreign intelligence services that we are allied with and that we rely on, we actually do rely on, for information that is unsuccessful.
I'm all in favor of the best, and I do think our three letter agencies, we have the premier intelligence agencies in the world.
I think we have the premier law enforcement agency and the FBI in the entire world.
I have no issue with them spying to protect us and the dangerous job they do every day.
And I have no complaints at all, but I do have a complaint if those powerful weapons we entrust to them are then turned not only on the American people, but used to basically undermine a duly elected president and influence the outcome of an election and then try and undo the election because they don't like the results.
And I think that's the crux of where we are with this.
Yeah, look, you and me both.
What I'm worried about, Sean, is that there's so much foreign intelligence service involvement in this.
My book argues that this scheme goes back to 2015.
And I think it doesn't start with the FBI.
It starts with the CIA and foreign intelligence services.
And what I'm worried about is the intelligence agencies are arguing to the president that he can't disclose all this information because even if it shouldn't have happened, we have these arrangements with foreign intelligence services and we can't violate them.
They abused their power if they assisted in spying on Americans to circumvent our laws.
Well, the American people, I think, need to know that truth.
That is something that the president would be able to.
That's why I've argued that that we need to know what happened here.
But I'm just trying to understand what the other side is arguing.
And I imagine that that's their, you know, their biggest weapon.
I don't think that's going to fly because the president has full authority to unredact anything he wants and release anything he wants.
And if it is going to clean up an abuse of power and a corruption that was used to steal an election or a soft coup, then we better see that information and we better fix it because we won't have a country if we don't.
Andy, the book is fascinating.
We wish you all the best.
Ball of collusion.
The plot to rig an election, destroy your presidency, Hannity.com, Amazon.com, bookstores everywhere.
Thank you so much for being with us.
Thanks so much, Sean.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
Very disturbing development indeed.
Your former Attorney General of California, what's your reaction to these initial reports?
And I stress the word initial reports.
Well, it's just when will it stop, right?
Part of my focus on what we need to do around smart gun safety laws is recognize that we have to have more enforcement around gun dealers.
90% of the guns that are associated with crime are sold by just 5% of the gun dealers in the United States.
And so among the many plans that I have, both in the form of executive action and also in the form of legislation, one of them is to put more resources into the ATF to take the licenses of gun dealers who violate the law.
And that includes a number of things, including when they're responsible for doing background checks, not doing them.
So, but does your plan go, from your perspective, far enough?
Well, there are a variety of things.
First of all, let's be clear.
I have hugged too many mothers of homicide victims over the years.
I have looked at more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you of people whose lives have been ended because of gun violence.
We need Congress to act.
We do not lack for good ideas.
We do not lack for tragedies.
The failure of Congress, however, the United States Congress, to act on passing smart gun safety laws is the issue.
So when elected, I'll give the United States Congress 100 days to pull their act together on this and put a bill on my desk for signature.
And if they do not, I am prepared to take executive action to one, put in place a comprehensive background check requirement.
Two, put the resources into the ATF to take the licenses from gun dealers who violate the law.
And three, to ban the importation of assault weapons.
So just to be precise, you want to...
And so where Congress fails to act, I am prepared when, God willing, elected president of the United States, I'm prepared to act through executive action.
And let us also be clear.
Doing nothing is not an option.
Doing nothing is not an option.
So I'm prepared to do that.
I'm prepared to say that we should include domestic terrorism as part of what is the focus of our counterterrorism organizations, our federal law enforcement organizations.
I'm prepared to say that law enforcement should be allowed to seize the guns of those who are suspected to be involved in domestic terrorism, similar to a TRO.
They're going to have to prove and have reason to suspect that somebody may be a terrorist, but giving federal law enforcement the authority to actually seize the guns of those who may be an imminent threat to their community or their family.
So here we are in the middle of all of this yesterday.
We're on this program.
We're watching.
We're monitoring.
We don't want to rush to judgment here.
We want to lock up facts.
We're not even an hour into it.
And there's Kamala Harris, not even an hour into what happened yesterday.
We had bullets raining down on a Philadelphia neighborhood.
We have over 100 shots fired.
We have our brave officers in Philadelphia.
By the way, I got to give a huge shout out to the commissioner there, Richard Ross Jr., who I thought was phenomenal yesterday.
This is all an ongoing situation, shooting situation.
And literally, not even a full hour into it, there's Kamala Harris on CNN, you know, basically saying, well, dot my gun policies, this won't happen, not knowing a single thing about it.
And that was literally just only 10 minutes prior.
They announced it on fake news, CNN.
We know because we were monitoring it.
We had had reports locally, but we were watching the national news channel.
They went on the air with this story at 5.16.
We came on at 5.30 with this story.
We wanted to button up our own facts because I can't trust them.
The incident's ongoing.
She's already on air within minutes, 10 minutes of them even breaking in to talk about it and politicizing it.
And, you know, think back.
We had the DNC.
We had Elizabeth Warren fundraising off the incidents in El Paso and in Dayton, Ohio.
So this is all happening.
We now know.
And if you recall yesterday's coverage here on this program, there's a lot of hesitancy in me and a lot of questions.
I was watching this very closely.
We'll get to Jonathan Gillum, who was on with us in a minute.
And I instinctively could tell the way this was unfolding that there were still people in that building.
Those people didn't get out of that building until about 9.40 Eastern time while we were doing our live coverage of Hannity on the Fox News channel.
And what we found out was, yeah, there were cops still in that building at 9.40 on the second floor with people, prisoners they've apprehended involved in this, and they didn't get out for all those hours.
And so it was far more precarious, far worse of a situation than anybody had known at the time.
And you have people trying to politicize another tragedy and raise money off of the, it's disgusting.
It's irresponsible.
Would not be a time to play politics.
And she wasn't the only one.
And we had, let's see, Kirsten Gillibrand and a bunch of other, they all start jumping in.
Unbelievable.
And despite all of this, you know, we have then people in Philly.
Remember, people used to wear those free Mumia t-shirts?
Danny Faulkner, police officer, killed by Mumia years ago.
Yeah, there were reports all over the place about how people in the neighborhood were actually some people, not everybody, just a small percentage, I'm sure, taunting the police and happy they're being shot at.
Something is so radically wrong.
800-941-Sean is our number.
Jonathan Gillum, Danielle McLaughlin are with us.
Jonathan, you were on with me.
I kept asking you, Jonathan, do you think this might be a hostage situation?
It seems to me something's not right here.
I could tell by the way they were handling it.
Yeah, and you know, in these types of situations where the shooter continues to engage law enforcement, it puts a fluid spin on the situation where tactical units have to be prepared to go in.
It's not like when they actually have contact with the guy and they're trying to de-escalate the situation.
That situation, the fact that they had cops in there yesterday was very, very critical.
And the fact that they acted, that they waited for the opportune time and they handled the way they did.
And when they acted, they acted with what we call violence of action, where they went in there, they did what they had to do was very amazing.
And I just want to say that the Camilla Harris soundbite that you played, I would challenge her to bring up that statistic where she says that she talked to too many moms about these homicides.
How many of those moms and the people that she talked to whose relatives were killed were killed with guns that were illegally obtained?
Because I can guarantee you, if not 100%, it was right at 100% of all the weapons used were illegally obtained.
Let me read Danielle and please explain this part of it.
I want to read from a Foxnews.com report, headline, Philadelphia police pelted with objects taunted during harrowing shootout standoff.
Now we know it was far more harrowing and precarious than anybody knew for many, many more hours.
But Philadelphia's KYW-TV reporter, Alexandria Hoff, described that what was happening there, how a crowd of people bordering the blocked off active shooter scene, harassing officers.
She writes, quote, I mentioned this reported, quote, I mentioned this at 10.
And since I was harassed during that live shot, I'll mention it here too.
And she said on Twitter, quote, a major moment of disappointment this evening was watching a crowd of people taunt police officers, laughing, yelling at them in the midst of the gunfire.
Quote, I should add that 98% of the people on the scene were respectful and concerned.
That moment was just as startling, just a startling thing to see in the middle of something so chaotic.
She put in a separate tweet, there was a video posted by Breaking 911 where a woman can be seen shoving an officer from behind as he passes through the crowd.
Others in the crowd yell and throw objects at police as they enter the blocked off area amid this act of standoff.
Wow.
And I know it's only a small percentage of people, but how does anyone act that way in the middle of something like this?
I have no idea.
I mean, it's totally disgusting.
The fact that we had six police officers who were shot by this guy, you know, 2% of people are still too many.
And clearly, that's not something that I'm going to defend.
But what I will say, the villain said the problem here is we had this guy had an unlimited supply of weapons and he had an unlimited supply of bullets.
And I do not believe, as somebody who has pretty, has years of experience with the U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment, I do not see that the Second Amendment protects these high-capacity magazines.
100-round magazines like the Dayton shooter used.
There is no reason to have that for personal security in the home.
We have to have these discussions.
We want these kinds of ammunition, this kind of ammunition out of the hands of the bad guys.
Why can't we come together and make some sensible decisions about some restrictions?
There is no constitutional right, not the First Amendment, not the Second Amendment, no amendment to the Constitution that is unlimited.
And the Second Amendment is no different.
Jonathan, I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
100-mound magazine, what do we need them for?
Well, you need them to defend against a tyrannical government for one.
But the other thing is it's our right to have them for defense of our home.
And here's the thing that you got to realize is that listen to this statistic, okay?
There's millions and millions and millions of legally owned guns by U.S. citizens that yesterday did nothing, tomorrow will do nothing, and for their entire life will not use those weapons in a corrupt manner.
However, one person yesterday did what he did.
And over the past year, you can go to Chicago, you can go to all these other inner cities, you can go to any mass shooting, and the majority of those people are one-offs.
They either do a mass shooting or they're gang-related.
And you want to stop and change the God-given rights that are in the Constitution because of those people.
Why wouldn't you want to reinforce the rest of the millions and millions of legal, law-abiding gun owners' ability to use their weapons in those areas?
You wouldn't have those crime areas if that was the case.
You're going the wrong way.
No, there is no right.
There is no right that is completely unlimited.
First Amendment, freedom of speech.
You know what?
You can tell a lie to an FBI agent and you can be prosecuted.
That is a restriction on your First Amendment right.
Second Amendment, Justice Scalia, 2007, this was a big case in the Supreme Court.
He said, and this is a giant of conservatism, said the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
You can't have a cannon.
You can't have an automatic machine gun in this country.
And all I'm trying to say, and I agree with you, the vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners in this country are law-abiding, God-loving citizens.
And I have nothing against somebody who wants to own a gun.
My point is this.
The guy in Las Vegas had bump socks, actually, which President Trump, to his full credit, wrote a regulation.
We don't have bump socks anymore.
He had high-capacity magazines.
He shot 500 people from a hotel room.
But, Danielle, the bad people will always be able to get those.
Just like, you know, kids choke on bread every year, but we can't outlaw bread.
We can't go around outlawing and changing the Constitution because of what bad people do.
You have to go out and develop a way to find those bad people.
Yep.
And look, I'm not looking for a way to change the Constitution.
Well, we have laws, right?
I'm a really good driver.
I'm a safe driver.
There's still a speed limit, which I have to adhere to.
I'm not going to go and drive my car 200 miles an hour because I'm a good person.
There's a speed limit for the bad guys, right?
We have rules.
We have laws to protect ourselves from these bad guys.
I don't see why we need to have 100-round magazines in free flow in this country.
I think that's one thing we could agree collectively that bad guys are using them.
So if you ban that, then the next shooting is with a shotgun or multiple shotguns, and the shooting after that is with handguns, and then the shooting after that is with some other guns.
By the very nature, criminals don't obey laws.
How does the law-abiding citizen protect themselves?
We'll get back to that, Danielle McLaughlin and Jonathan Gillum next.
And your calls at the bottom of this half hour.
All right, final moments.
Next half hour, we'll get to your calls, 800-941 Sean with Jonathan Gillum and Danielle McLaughlin.
Jonathan, I'll let you respond.
But at the end of the day, I am all for people being trained in the safety and use of a firearm.
I'm a huge safety nut.
The end of the day, I believe in the Second Amendment and responsible gun ownership.
Criminals are never going to obey the laws, and there's no law that's going to be written that's going to end the evil in the heart of somebody that wants to hurt us.
You know, I asked Mayor de Blasio in my interview, well, you're protected by armed guards.
Does every New Yorker, should every New Yorker have the right in their own home to have a gun?
Every New Yorker has a right to be safe.
Do they have a right to a gun?
They have a right to be safe.
Do they have a right to a gun?
They have a right to be safe.
And at the end of the day, this argument of, well, this gun has to be banned, they're going to ban every gun because that's the logical conclusion.
You know, banning the second or even messing with the second amendment will not infringe on a criminal's ability to have a weapon to carry out the evil that they do.
But if you touch the second amendment, you will be infringing upon every citizen's ability to protect themselves and to stand against a tyrannical government.
That is the most important thing.
Rights are not meant to be touched.
The Constitution can be amended to make sure everybody has those rights, but the rights themselves should never be infringed upon, period.
Last word, Danielle McLaughlin.
I'll give you two examples.
You have to get a permit to conceal and carry.
That's an infringement on your Second Amendment.
You have to get a background check if you buy at a gun store.
That's an infringement on your Second Amendment.
All I want is something reasonable, and I do not want to take away guns from people.
I want to be very clear about that.
All right.
We'll end it right there.
Thank you both.
Well, full coverage of the aftermath of all of this tonight on Hannity 9 Eastern.
A lot of deep state news, as we've been telling you, coming up on the program tonight.
And much, much more.
800-941-Sean to the phones we go next.
And Mark Furman, straight ahead.
Good morning, Tony.
They are expanding and very likely to include that new detail that you mentioned about the guard not being a regular correctionals officer here at the facility in downtown Manhattan.
Maxwell is said to be Epstein's ex-girlfriend, turned business associate.
Her current location is unknown.
She was more of a partner in his obsession, really.
And there are allegations that she was involved in having sex with some of these girls as well.
Court documents from 2011 reveal Epstein controlled several apartments in a building just blocks from his $77 million New York townhouse and allegedly housed young models there, underage girls from all over the world.
And yesterday, Barr issued this stern warning for anyone who may be evading justice.
Let me assure you that this case will continue on against anyone who was complicit with Epstein.
Any co-conspirators should not rest easy.
The victims deserve justice and they will get it.
Well, CBS News has learned that Epstein's estranged brother, Mark, was called after Epstein's apparent suicide.
He was the one who actually identified the body.
The New York City Medical Examiner's Office has performed an autopsy on Epstein, but Tony, those results are still pending.
The update, by the way, 23 now until the top of the hour, 800-941-Sean is our number.
We know that two Manhattan jail guards that were tasked with monitoring, they've now been put on leave as the warden has now been removed from that post.
But those tasked with monitoring Epstein before he died fell asleep on the job.
And the New York Post reporting that they fudged the log entries to show they checked on him and other inmates when they actually did not.
That is one of the big investigations.
Also, Epstein's comments are getting a lot of attention now when he bragged that I have a lot of dirt on a lot of powerful people, a lot of political names, a lot of Hollywood names have come up.
The one person that appears to have been willing to have a public fight in all places, the esteemed Palm Beach community of Florida, where I guess your social status means everything.
But Trump had no problem throwing Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago some, what, 15, 16 years ago.
We have a lot of investigations into who might have been on the Lolita Express, one of his apparently many private jets, or Orgy Island.
And there's a new lawsuit that has been filed that targets Epstein's alleged madam, this woman Maxwell that you just heard reported on there.
And on top of that, as predictable as the day is long, of course, everything is Donald Trump's fault and the amount of conspiracy theories that have emerged here.
One is sicker than the next, but they're out there and they're being pushed by, of course, Hollywood elites and everyone on the media that hates Donald Trump.
Anyway, we're looking for the truth and the facts wherever it takes us, as we usually do, and we're not rushing to judgment.
And we don't know the answers.
We're asking questions.
Mark Furman, former homicide detective.
How are you, sir?
Hi, Sean.
Sounds like quite a story.
Well, I mean, the one thing that is certain is what Barr said, and that is that there are a lot of serious irregularities in all of this, and he's going to get to the bottom of it, and I believe him when he says so.
Well, I do too.
I think he's very sincere.
He's also very new.
And I think if he would have been in that position in 2008, 2009, the federal investigation might have started then instead of waiting until 2019.
So when you listen to that, though, I think there's a lot of people that are very disappointed that they couldn't prosecute Epstein and possibly others, which would be a great career move for a lot of people, a great thing for the resume and justice.
But death is better than 45 years.
So if somebody deserved to die, it would probably have been Epstein.
If it's by his own hand, he just cheated everybody out of justice and revenge.
Well, did he?
Or is there evidence that might lead to people having to answer a lot of questions?
For example, who attended Orgy Island?
I would assume that there probably are manifests that can be gone over.
I would assume that anybody that was on his private jet, they probably had to chronicle that.
I would assume that the FBI, we had drone video, and it showed the FBI looking into every crevice and corner in that island of his, obviously looking for some type of evidence into this case.
What are the things they could look for now that he's dead?
Well, you know, you bring up great things that should have been done a decade ago, but let's just take it one at a time.
First, you have to go to the crime scene.
You have an unexplained death or somewhat of an unexplained death, but all suicides are virtually handled as a possible homicide until you find evidence or direction that leads you away from that and to suicide.
So you have an in-custody death in a locked cell of a person that's by himself with the camera on the door, whether the guards are asleep or awake, whether they're checking him every 30 minutes or they're not.
You could not have prevented the suicide.
But wait a minute.
The guy tried to commit suicide just a couple of weeks prior.
Isn't it seem very irregular that you would not have a 24-hour watch on this guy?
Well, I think you would, but you know, you're talking about logistics, manpower, and time.
He had psychiatric evaluations every day for over a week.
And so now you're going to have to look at the psychiatrist that recommended he go off suicide watch because that is who the recommendation most probably came from.
And, you know, what they're doing now is they're investigating two guards.
They have an in-custody death.
They're put on administrative leave.
That would be pretty normal for almost any agency.
The warden's been replaced.
That isn't quite as normal as any other in-custody death, but they found something there that it would probably be better served publicly if they just replaced the warden.
So, you know, I see this as we're ignoring the crime scene and we're jumping to conspiracies.
And we forget that Epstein was out for a decade walking around the world.
And if there was somebody that was rich and powerful that really wanted to eliminate him, there was probably a hundred ways that you could have gotten rid of him.
And it could have been an accident or a poisoning, could have been a car accident.
But there's all these opportunities.
So we wait until he's in custody until somebody attempts to actually create a death, whether it looks like suicide or it's a homicide.
Then you have to start including first these two guards.
Well, the only way, well, that's true, but apparently there are cameras outside of the cell, but not inside the cell.
You would think in this day and age, we would have figured out that the most cost-efficient way of monitoring prisoners at night would be cameras in every cell that couldn't be destroyed.
And if anybody was attempting to do so, you have a team go in and stop them.
But I guess we haven't figured that part of it out yet.
I think constitutionally you can't, Sean.
I think the only place you can is in a Supermax facility, somewhat like Pelican Bay in California, where somebody is isolated from all human beings.
Well, excuse me for thinking that if you commit horrible crimes and you commit felonies, that you might lose some of your constitutional rights.
You do lose your right to vote.
You might lose your right to privacy at night in a prison cell, too.
Well, I'm with you on it, but I don't think all of these federal judges are, and I don't know the legal standing on that, but it could be nothing more than the lack of being able to update a correctional facility.
This one's fairly old from what I've learned.
Oh, it's supposed to be the safest one, Mark.
I mean, this is where they held El Chapo, and we know his track record of escaping prisons.
Right.
And, you know, to keep somebody from committing suicide is somewhat of a monumental task.
You have one person that's motivated to end their life 24-7, and then you have all these other people that are trying to intercede and keep him from doing that.
He saw a window, and if he did commit suicide, he was successful.
The investigation, I would suspect, and I'm not saying I know, but I would say it's the pathologist has probably listed this as a suicide.
Although you can change a suicide classification to a homicide if you come up with evidence in the future, and quite possibly that might be what they're looking for.
I mean, the whole thing is just it stinks to high heaven.
What did you think of that sweetheart deal?
I mean, you were involved in the O.J. Simpson case.
You know, I'll never forget once you told me that there was blood evidence on the gate, and it was never used by the prosecution.
Do I recall that correctly?
No, that's correct.
It was never recovered.
Once I was sent to the Rockingham Estate, and the Bundy scene was left to Van Adder and Lang, they never collected the fingerprint that was in blood on the gate that was right above the footprints of the Bruno Molly shoes in blood with blood drops coming from the right side of the shoe.
So, I mean, it was so consistent.
But, you know, mistakes are made, and mistakes can either be overlooking it or in the middle of the moment.
When did you figure that part out at that time?
I'm sorry to digress here, but now I'm interested again.
Well, two months afterwards, I saw one of the detectives in the prosecution floor going through the book, and I went up and said, would that print come back?
The print come back and the blood.
Do we have any DNA match?
And they just got this blank stare.
So I went to Marsha Clark and I go, hey, what happened to the bloody fingerprint on the gate and the blood?
They never collected it.
So in essence, there was your whole reasonable doubt case.
It wasn't the glove because that was at the crime scene.
That was a slam dunk right there.
Unbelievable.
All right, Mark Furman, thank you.
Let's head to our busy phones here.
James in Michigan.
James, hi, how are you?
Welcome to the program.
Says on my call screener, you are a retired corrections officer.
That's what my mother did for 25 years.
Not an easy job working in a prison every day, 16-hour shifts.
Yeah, Sean, I'm honored to talk to you today.
I'd like to take a sec and let's recognize all the staff on both your radio and TV that do such an awesome job bringing the truth to America.
I appreciate everything they do.
Thank you for letting us have this microphone and camera every night, microphone every day.
Thank you.
You make it possible, not me.
Yeah, Sean, I have four children.
They're all millennials.
Their ages are 26 to 35.
And I have something they'll never have.
I got a defined benefit pension, and all my children have 401Ks.
And under Donald Trump, the wages and their 401 are rocking.
And when they go to vote here in a little over a year, it's not going to be climate change or going green or all these social handouts where everything's free.
It's going to be those two are going to be one of the major driving forces to get to the election booth.
And I don't think that's unique to my kids.
I think there's thousands of millennials out there that that's going to be a key point to how this election is going to go to them.
Listen, I don't take anything for granted, especially elections.
I've been around too long.
I've seen too many, what do you call them, October surprises, and been through enough cycles to know we don't know what issues are going to be in the forefront in the media, in people's minds in the fall of October and November of 2020.
We don't know.
You have people saying there are indicators we might have an economic slowdown or a recession.
I mean, you just don't know.
But I can say this, that the policies that the president has implemented are policies I believe my entire working career.
And that's, you know, originalists, constitutionalists on the court, securing our borders, the biggest tax cuts in history, the biggest cuts in burdensome regulation ever in history.
We see the results of these policies have yielded incredible dividends, especially for the working men and women in this country and record low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women in the workforce, youth unemployment, and the best employment situation since 1969.
And for the first time in 75 years, energy independence.
Everything between trade deals and his approach to foreign policy, not dropping bundles of cash to bribe dictators and mullahs.
I just don't agree with those appeasement policies.
So, you know, I like this president.
I like to see him re-elected.
I like to see him cement in a lot of the institutional changes that he's making.
I think he'd need a second term to do all of that, or else very quickly, any one of these extreme radical new Green Deal socialists could destroy it all.
There's a lot at stake.
A recent study was done that says 40 million Americans are on pace to outlive their 401k.
And the 401 is something in the long haul.
The wages, there's no money at the end of the week if they're not making a decent wage.
So this long haul of a 401k, I know exactly how one of my children, it's just rocking.
He's making good money.
There's enough money at the end of the week for the wife and the kids and a nice car and a nice house.
Isn't that what we all want?
Isn't that why you work in a jail?
Isn't that why my mother works 16-hour shifts almost daily in a jail so we could have a better life?
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
We have a lot of fallout.
Not an hour into the shooting yesterday.
Of course, people politicizing.
New Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act requests granted.
We'll tell you all about it.
We've got Geraldo Bongino.
We've got Fitton, Sarah, Greg, Jesse Waters, Gorka, and Bernie Kerrig all coming up tonight, 9 Eastern Hannity, Fox News.
And we hope you'll join us.
See you tonight.
As always, thank you for being with us, making the show possible.
