As Sean takes a rest before the big push this Fall, Another "Best of Hannity" hits with interviews by Andy McCarthy, Charles Adams and Darrell Scott and Rich Higgins. Was there collusion on the part of the Justice Department under the Obama Administration? Just what do the Clintons know about Jeffrey Epstein? All this and 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.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
Normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
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 gave indication she was willing to share that information.
Well, we're now going into months, 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 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.
Really, 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 Strzzok'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 these Russia connections that was coming directly to Bruce Orr from her.
Judicial Watch gives 330 pages of documents showing or, 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 Nelly 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 Ball 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 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 ball 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.
But 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.
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, you know, 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 or 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 in an opposition party candidate, then a transition team, than 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 a great 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.
So if they were to be aware of it.
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.
Andy McCarthy stays with us, but.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
All right, short 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.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Few things in life can change your entire outlook on a day.
What happens if you're on the road and like your engine light comes on and it seizes up?
That's really a disaster because now you're looking at maybe thousands and thousands of dollars of repairs and uh-oh, you're on the road.
Are you going to be safe?
And who do you call and how are you going to pay for it?
Well, that's where CarShield, which is the ultimate and extended vehicle protection comes in.
Now, they make it simple and easy to get your car fixed for any expensive repair.
You pick your mechanic.
You pick the dealership.
It's your choice.
With CarShield.com, you also get free 24-7 roadside assistance.
That means, well, help is on the way whenever you need it.
Also, a rental car is yours for free while your car is being fixed.
And if your car even has 150,000 miles on it, you can still get Car Shields protection.
That's why Car Shield administrators, they have the real deal.
They paid out close to $2 billion now in claims, and they're ready to help you.
The ultimate and extended vehicle protection, do what I did.
Call Car Shield now 800 Car6000.
Mention my name, Hannity, or on the web, carshield.com.
Again, you save 10% with the promo code Hannity, 800CAR6000, CarShield.com.
Quick break, right back.
We'll continue.
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.
We stop 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 pit 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.
It 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, that 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.
I think that you can't go to a court without corroborating the information.
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, 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 Steel 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 there was like eight ways to sunday that anybody should have understood that 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 should have done exactly were inaccurate, you know, I 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 percent of it had been debunked and that Steele himself denied his own dossier.
Uh, and any truth in it.
Let me take it a step further here um, because we also have a lot going on with John Durham.
A lot of time, i'm told by my sources, had been spent in Europe then.
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 it uh, Italy and and Australia.
That would be professor Misfid.
That means that the Mueller report was wrong.
He wasn't Russian intelligence but Western intelligence.
Uh, his role in all of this, the way they went after Clovis, Papadopoulos and Page abroad uh, 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.
Uh, 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, 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, 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 that was something that UH, that he had to wrestle with.
But I think the other thing that the, 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 or foreign intelligence services that we are allied with and that we rely on.
We actually do rely on UH, for information.
That is, that is, 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 the foreign intelligence services and we can't violate them.
If 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 do.
That's why I've argued 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.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
Donald Trump, once again, is a racist who makes ever more outrageous racist remarks.
It is insulting to the congressman and to the people he represents.
This is just who Donald Trump is.
He's just an old racist.
And this is how he talks about people.
This is what he thinks about people.
This is not a grand strategy.
He is not playing four or five, six-dimensional chess.
He's just an old racist who uses social media.
But those Republican strategists are endorsing this strategy that's based on the racial divide.
Well, there are a bunch of racists in the world.
And they might be.
Listen.
He is not a president for black people.
He's not a president for women.
He's not a president for brown people.
He's not a president for the LGBTQ community.
He chooses to just double down and triple down on bigotry and racism.
I don't know where Donald Trump wants to take this, but wherever it is, it's going to be dangerous.
It could lead to some sort of horrible civil war.
These are very personal issues.
And this president speaks with the casual racism of Bull Conner.
Our president has a hate agenda.
This is a crooked CEO in the White House that is making decisions based on profits, based on where his friends and based on what his Trump organization, his for-profit industry, would benefit from.
He's a sick person who even when we denounce him, he's happy because at least we notice him and he thinks he's controlling things.
Brian, we're not going to correct him.
He's not going to change.
He's so far down this road of evil.
He's not going to change.
And I thought those tweets about Baltimore were pretty reminiscent of Trump's comments about ass-hole countries.
The president in his heart has this image of what real America is and what the better America is.
And it's clear that for him, that better America is white-skinned America.
Yeah, I mean, you would call it a dog whistle to, you know, except that we can all hear it.
I mean, it's, you know, dog whistles you can't hear.
This guy is the biggest identity politician that we have seen in the last 50 years.
And he engages in what's known as racial priming.
Basically, using this language and taking actions to try and get people to move into their camps by racial and ethnic identity.
Our job is to bring people together to improve life for all people, not to have a racist president who attacks people because they are African Americans.
That is a disgrace, and that is why we're going to defeat this president.
The president says about Congressman Cummings District that no human would want to live there.
You know who did, Mr. President?
I did.
From the day I was brought home from the hospital to the day I left for college.
And a lot of people I care about still do.
There are challenges, no doubt.
But people are proud of their community.
I don't want to sound self-righteous, but people get up and go to work there.
They care for their families there.
They love their children who pledge allegiance to the flag, just like people who live in districts of congressmen who support you, sir.
They are Americans too.
All right, glad you're with us.
News Roundup Information Overload Hour, 800941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right.
So you got the media mob, the Democrats, yeah, attacking Donald Trump.
Now, I know we've been over, I know that there's this never-ending, unceasing attacks against the detention centers.
And when we sent our Fox News cameras down there with Griff Jenkins, what did we see?
We saw people that slept in beds.
We saw a facility that was safe of any type of crime or activity of any sort like that, and blankets and pillows and food and water and medicine and baby formula and diapers and doctors and a soccer field and other wreck facilities and TVs and telephones.
And everybody was safe.
Now, do I think that's ideal?
No, but for people that didn't respect our borders, our sovereignty, our laws, et cetera, we're doing the right thing.
And eventually they go through whatever the process is.
I think people should be deported immediately, but that's apparently not doable under the current laws.
Well, under the current court decisions.
And you have all these people, you know, attacking.
Now, the president did bring up that we have, for example, all the media coverage on the shooting in El Paso.
And it's blamed Donald Trump for El Paso.
But within hours, we had a shooting in Dayton.
Well, the person in Dayton was a radical socialist Elizabeth Warren supporter.
But nobody in the media blamed Elizabeth Warren, nor should they have.
Nor should they have blamed Donald Trump for El Paso.
Nor would you blame Bernie Sanders for what happened in the shooting in the ball field a couple of years ago by this logic.
But let's take Chicago alone.
We had 100 people shot in the last two weekends.
On Monday, I will report to you how many people were shot over this weekend.
I hope, I hope that I could report nobody.
I don't think that'll be the case based on what we see every weekend.
But you don't see the outrage from the politicians that are only worked up over El Paso.
I don't know why they're not worked up over the conditions in cities like Baltimore and Chicago and Detroit.
I mean, cities that have violence on the same par as these shootings that we hear about every weekend.
I think we can do better as a country.
I think the president's right.
I mean, if you have 17,000 buildings that have been evacuated, why aren't we sending people in to either bulldoze them or if they're structurally sound, maybe rebuilding them and maybe finding a way to create a partnership with Bernie Marcus and Home Depot and get the materials for cost?
I bet Bernie would do that as part of a rebuilding of a great American city where our family lives.
I mean, we can do better than this.
These cities where you see the most violence have the strictest gun laws.
This guy in Philadelphia has been arrested for gun violence in the past.
Background checks would not have impacted the shooter in Dayton or the shooter in El Paso.
You know, you can't stop evil that way is by taking away the law-abiding citizens' right to defend themselves.
Anyway, here to talk about this.
Baltimore is a mess.
There's an article that came out about, you know, huge issues there.
All these cities for decades run by liberal Democrats have not helped the people in these cities.
I don't believe liberalism, socialism, redistributionism works.
Anyway, Reverend Charles C. Adams is with us.
He's the presiding pastor of Harvard Memorial Baptist Church.
He's in Detroit.
Pastor Darrell Scott, founder and senior pastor of the New Spirit Revival Center, part of the president's urban diversity coalition.
Welcome both of you.
We have 100 shootings that took place, Pastor Scott, in the last two weekends in Chicago alone, but we don't hear about it except for my show.
Well, you don't hear about it because the left knows that these are undemocratic-run cities.
And, you know, with Chicago, especially being Obama's home base.
But, you know, here's one thing they don't bring out, Sean.
Most of the gun violence in the inner cities, they're not crimes of passion.
Most of the gun violence is drug-related, and they don't want to bring out that one unpleasant reality.
Why do you think that is?
Well, it's all it's based on, there are a lot of different dynamics to it.
You know, the schools are bad, the neighborhoods are bad.
And to be quite honest, and people might take me to task for this, but hip-hop, the hip-hop culture incentivizes blacks to desire a lifestyle that only seems to be available to ball players or rappers or drug dealers.
Okay, I can't play basketball on a professional level.
I can't rap, but I want this bling.
I want this lifestyle.
It's the same thing that influenced me when I was growing up.
I was a victim of the black exploitation movies in the 60s.
My role models, the role models that I had were Superfly and the Mac and all of these guys, and they were all drug dealers and they had the big car lifestyle.
And we would look at that and say, oh, that's what I want.
So when the role models that are placed before the black community are those of those elements, and you see, this is my way to get quick money and I can live this lifestyle and have these same things that they have.
The easiest way to do it, the shortcut to this is this is our family.
Everyone that's shot is part of our American family, and they're dying.
And the 90% of heroin that is crossing that southern border, that alone ought to incentivize this country to have a border wall and a door.
90%.
We're losing 300 kids a week to heroin and opioid overdoses.
We bring in Pastor Charles C. Adams.
I don't want this to happen to our family, our kids.
I don't want to report Monday that there was one shooting in Chicago.
I want the people in Chicago and the people of Philadelphia to be safe.
We saw 2% of the people taunting and throwing crap at the cops the other day, pelting them with stuff.
And the cops are in the middle of a shootout where six of them got shot.
Why is that happening?
Well, immediately, we need an assault weapons ban in this country.
There's no reason why somebody should be running around with an AR-15.
He did not create it.
He did not build it.
We need stricter gun laws, not just in Pennsylvania.
Reverend, you do understand that you can't put on the gun?
Yeah, I mean, it's Pastor, you do understand that anybody that wants to build any device that's going to kill large numbers of people, you can do that in 10 seconds.
If that's where your heart is, all you're going to be doing is taking away the rights of other people to defend themselves from evil if it enters their home and threatens their family.
We have more gun violence in the United States because of our stubbornness.
Chicago has the highest toughest gun laws in the country.
They have the laws.
Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but Indiana does not.
And a lot of these guns are coming across state lines.
There's the gun holding.
Pastor, you got to understand something.
The guy in Philly had already been arrested on gun charges, and he still went out.
Why wasn't he in jail?
You're not making any sense.
That's all they got to do.
You're blaming an inanimate object.
The guy in Philly was a villain.
Villains are not supposed to own guns.
He bought the gun illegally.
When I was in the streets, we handled guns a lot.
All of the guns were purchased illegally.
Okay.
Reverend Moore, where did he get the gun?
Take away the assault rifle.
It was our gun illegally.
Where did the Sarnov brothers?
Hang on.
Where did the Sarnov brothers get the slow cooker?
What do you call that thing?
The pressure cooker.
Where did they get that?
They bought it in a local.
Are we going to ban pressure cookers next?
I mean, are we going to ban knives next?
Are we going to ban tirears next?
You might as well throw knives in there because we had a couple of knivings recently.
We are talking about an AR-15.
You cannot compare that to a pressure cooker or a knife.
Tell that to the people in Boston that had their legs blown off, sir.
What are you talking about?
Let me tell you something about, let me tell you something, Pastor Adams, about guns.
Guns take on the character and the nature of the individual that possesses them.
In a good man's hands, the gun is good.
In a bad man's hand, the gun is bad.
It's not the gun that determines the crime.
It's the criminal that determines the crime.
But you cannot determine who is good or who is bad before they get the gun.
And it only takes one person to shoot six police officers who are armed and shooting back.
It takes one person to kill.
Okay, so let me ask you a question, Pastor.
You're hung up on the AR-15.
One quick question.
If the next shooting incident is with a pistol, you want to ban pistols?
Do you want to ban all guns?
Hold on.
Hang on.
No, no, no.
Listen.
You ban your AR-15.
You ban, then the next shooter has a bunch of pistols.
Do you want to then ban Pistols too?
That's when you, you know what?
If you're stronger background checks, stronger background.
I didn't ask you that.
I'm asking you.
Well, the people in Dayton and El Paso had a background check.
They passed it.
So do you want to ban, would you want to ban pistols if the next shooting happens to be used to use a pistol?
Would you want to ban them?
Semi-automatic pistols?
Yes.
So you basically want to take away you want to leave us defenseless.
Let's be honest here.
How long did the El Paso shooter go on?
I'll get back to you.
All right.
We're going to take this into the next half hour.
We have Reverend Charles C. Adams, Pastor Daryl Scott.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
All right, as we roll along, we're going to hold our friends, Pastor Charles C. Adams and Pastor Daryl Scott, past the half-hour news break because this is just too important.
You look at the numbers of people.
Chicago, one city, 100 people shot.
And then the answer is it's the same predictable answer.
Well, we're going to get rid of this gun or that gun.
Okay, well, then the next shooting incident is going to be another gun.
Or it's going to be the insane anarchist cookbook, a book that is written that teaches people how to build bombs.
And what about the Sarnov brothers?
Do we get rid of those slow cookers?
What do you call those slow cookers?
Crock pots, pressure cookers.
I don't know.
I never cook with a pressure cooker.
I'd rather use a George Foreman grill.
But they use it.
Look at the people in Boston.
And then if the next one after that is going to be a revolver, we'll have to ban revolvers.
The only problem is at the end of this process, when law-abiding Americans have given up their arms, they now have no defense in their homes.
I know Hollywood liberals can afford armed guards, and I know our politicians have armed guards and police.
Well, what does the average American get to do?
There's a lot of evil in this world.
The evil is in one's heart.
The guy in Philly should have been in jail for his prior weapons laws that he broke.
Quick break, right back.
More on the other side.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
All right, glad you're with us.
25 now till the top of the hour.
We're going to get back to Pastor Reverend Charles C. Adams and Pastor Daryl Scott.
I want to give you some numbers that just recently came out because it's very interesting.
After El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, along with the shootings that we see sadly every weekend in cities like Chicago.
I don't know why, you know, generations now of only liberal so-called leadership hasn't fixed any of these problems.
Anyway, the call now is the predictable.
Oh, let's ban this.
Let's ban that.
Well, okay, well, then we will disarm law-abiding citizens.
What do they do when evil people, like the guy in Philly, he had already been arrested?
He never violated for violating the gun laws.
We had background checks in El Paso and Dayton.
Anyway, if you look at it in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and other sources, and you look at public opinion findings, you know, how many people die from gun-related injuries in the U.S. every year?
Well, suicides accounted for six in 10 U.S. gun deaths in 2017.
That's the most recent year we have.
39,773 people from gun-related injuries, according to the CDC.
What share of U.S. gun deaths are murders and what share of suicides?
Well, in 2017, it was six in 10 that were suicides, 37% murder.
What share of all murders and suicides involve a gun?
Well, three quarters of all U.S. murders involved a firearm.
How has the number of gun deaths changed over time?
That's another good question.
But the bottom line is after declining in the late 1990s, U.S. gun suicide, gun murder rates have edged higher.
And I think what Rudy Giuliani did in the city of New York was he focused on the specific streets, areas, neighborhoods where the crimes were happening.
And they had stop and frisk.
And it was controversial and it was called a race, but it worked.
And it worked dramatically.
We went from about 2,500 murders a year to below 500.
That's 2,000 lives saved a year.
We continue with Pastor Daryl Scott and the Reverend Charles C. Adams.
So if you ban assault weapons and then we have incidents with pistols, then you're going to ban semi-automatic pistols.
Okay.
Then the shooting after that will be a guy that has 400 pistols and he just lines them up and he shoots one after another in rapid fire.
Then I guess the next logical thing you'd want to ban is all guns.
Is that true, Pastor?
Absolutely not.
Although we do have to take seriously certain provisions in our gun laws, like four gun shows that provide a loophole for criminals to get guns and for guns to proliferate in the inner city.
And then also different laws for different states.
So if I live in a state that has strict gun laws and another state near me does not, then that negates the value of those strict gun laws.
So you want the federal government to be able to step in and have basically full gun control or gun buy.
Do you support a gun buyback program?
Do you support national laws?
Cities are creatures of the state.
States are subordinate to the federal government.
We're all one country.
So whatever one state does affects another state.
So you could talk about the liberal Democrats that have run the cities, but who's running the state?
And whoever runs the state, they still must bow to the federal government.
But then what's going to happen if instead of firearms, what if people start using other improvised weapons?
I mentioned the anarchist cookbook.
I mentioned the anarchist cookbook.
You can sadly today go online and find out how to make bombs.
What are you going to do?
And a lot of those materials you can buy at like Home Depot.
What are you going to do then, Pastor?
Ban everything that can build a bomb?
The pastor there is simply echoing talking points.
He doesn't really even believe this is not coming out of his heart.
It's coming out of his head.
I think stopping frisk would be a good idea.
I think curfew enforcement, I think increased police presence.
And I'm talking about, I'm talking about it from a perspective of a guy that was out there in those streets that was handling guns, that was around a lot of drug and whatever trafficking.
I know the mentality of those guys out there.
Drug, I mean, gun buyback programs, criminals aren't selling their guns back.
They're keeping those guns.
And he's speaking once again on talking points that he has, that he probably prepared before he went on the show.
But I tell you what, if someone in his family, someone close to him that he loves, gets shot, he won't be blaming the gun for it.
He'll be blaming it on the person that did the shooting.
That's a great question.
Reverend Adams, answer that.
I grew up in the city of the United States.
Whoa, hang on, Reverend Reverend.
I was talking with Father Flager the other week, who had an adopted son that died in his arms, who was killed at 17 years old by a gang, by a gun.
So people who are for stricter gun laws are not necessarily removed from the reality.
It's all the more pressing for us.
This is something that we have been advocating for years.
To simply say it's a matter of the heart is an oversimplification.
And you can look at the numbers of gun deaths in the United States on the United States, the continuous United States.
Look at the number of gun deaths in Hawaii, where the states are not connected, where you can't just run across the border with a gun that you purchased at a gun show and sell it in Hawaii, where you have to jump on a plane.
There's a vast difference between the two because you cannot disconnect one state from another.
Stop filibustering, man.
Wait a minute.
Just let somebody else in here.
This isn't the Charles Adams show.
That's the John Hennedy show.
No, go ahead, Pastor.
Not one.
So stop for a minute.
What I'm saying is this.
I did stop for a minute.
Any animosity, any sadness you had over that shooting was not directed at the gun.
That 17-year-old boy that died, any angst or sadness, it was not directed at the gun.
It was directed at the shooter.
And so the banning of a gun is not the answer.
It doesn't make anybody's heart feel better.
Oh, Jr. died, but they banned the guns.
That doesn't make you feel better.
You cannot.
That is not the answer.
After dealing with the heart or dealing with the perpetrators, we have to stop those that are perpetrating these crimes.
The gun is just an incidental tool that is used in the commission of the crime.
You cannot do as much damage with the knife.
And you know that better than anybody else, Pastor Scott.
You know that you cannot do as much damage with a knife than you can a gun.
You never bring a knife to a gunfight, brother.
Now, isn't that, since you come from the streets, don't you know that?
Knife or gun.
It doesn't matter.
Understand this.
Commodity rapping or something in America in Chicago is three times the rate as white citizens.
And to say we're going to take measures like stopping frisk, Sean, I was in New York studying when Stop and Frisk was at its height.
The reason why you saw less crime is because the economy recovered.
But stop and frisk disproportionately affected African Americans, Latinos, and over 80% of the time, the people who were innocent who were detained.
Okay, let me say this.
The results are.
Okay, here's the thing.
We went from 2,500 murders a year in New York City.
Now we're down around 400 or 300.
We're saving lives.
Now, I'm very sensitive to civil liberties and civil rights, but I'm going to say this.
At what point, you're both pastors.
You guys are preaching from the pulpit.
I'm not preaching from anywhere.
You guys tell me, you know, how is it that these cities with the most violence and the strictest gun laws and the most poverty have been run by liberals for decades and decades?
Why hasn't anybody fixed it?
What's going on inside the cities?
Why do they keep just electing the same people that never solve the problems?
And what about the family aspect of this?
You know, what has happened here?
What has happened in, you know, some of these cities that it's just a total, complete, like a seemingly a breakdown of our American family in some places.
Pastor Scott.
All right.
First of all, let me say this.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
And that's what the Democrats did on the watch in these inner cities.
The Democrats were getting rich.
You had guys going in on a civil service salary that are coming out millionaires.
They're getting rich as a taxpayers and at the community's expense.
But in revisiting what you said about Stop and Frisk, Sean, let me tell you this.
I've been pulled over at times, even when they've had sobriety checkpoints or whatever.
And I've been pulled over.
I don't take offense to it.
If I know that the purpose of this pulling over is to make my city safer, I'm not going to play the race car.
Oh, I'm a black man and you're pulling me over.
If it takes me getting pulled over and inconvenienced for a few minutes to ensure that another person lives in my community is safer, then I'm all for it.
And so a lot of people with this, oh, they were pulled over for stop and frisk and they were innocent.
Well, good.
We're glad they were innocent.
We want them to be innocent, but we want to catch the guilty as well.
And so these are things that are realities.
And the Democratic Party, once again, as I said, Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
They were too busy playing party politics and getting fat off of their communities and pimping out their communities.
And as a result, this is what we have.
And now they're seeking to put the blame because President Trump is the president.
They want to try to highlight these same conditions that existed under Obama that they overlooked.
Pastor Adams?
Just because Pastor Scott is okay with being racially profiled, that doesn't mean that the vast majority of Americans and African Americans are okay with racial profiling.
Because most of the people who are stopped and frisked are African-American and Latino white folks.
Let me get a reaction from Pastor Scott.
That's the community that let me ask you this.
If Stop and Frisk had saved that 17-year-old boy's life, would you have been glad about that?
Of course, I would have been glad if the 17-year-old boy got it.
It was worth it.
If that one boy lived, Carco, Stop and Frisk, then if 100 black people were pulled over, but that one boy lived, it would have been worth it.
If 1,000 black people were pulled over and 999 of them were innocent and the one guilty person saved that boy's life, it would have been worth it.
It's just because the reality of the society that we live in and the reality of the communities that we live in as well.
I would say if a nationwide ban on assault rifles would have stopped the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, then you would have been pleased with that as well.
But the fact of the matter is we're speaking in hypotheticals.
But let me just say this.
When we talk about Democrats running American cities, let's look at the Republican record running the national government.
The economy failed under race.
Let's look at the father.
The economy failed under George Bush, the son.
Excuse me, we're going to get into the, if you want to talk about politics, I'll give you the numbers you need to know.
Under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, we put in eight years, 13 million more Americans went on food stamps, 8 million more in poverty.
We had the lowest labor participation rate since the 70s, lowest home ownership rate in 51 years, worst recovery since the 40s.
He took on more debt than all 43 presidents before him combined.
Under Donald Trump, he's less than three years in office.
We now have two and a half years, the best employment situation since 1969, 7 million new jobs created, 7 million fewer people on food stamps.
We have millions of others out of poverty, and we have the lowest record-setting unemployment demographically for African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, women in the workforce, and youth unemployment.
Now, Pastor Scott, you and I support the president.
I know Pastor Adams doesn't, but I would say that under Democratic Party rule, just like big cities and small towns, their policies don't work.
Trump's policies are working.
And that's the truth.
The proof is in the pudding.
Trump's policies are working.
And they're working in spite of resistance, in spite of opposition, in spite of distractions, in spite of Congress, in spite of all of the forces that are aligned against him.
His policies are still working.
And what we need to do is rather behind him and just give this man a chance to make things better.
Final 30 seconds, Pastor Adams.
You get the last 30 seconds.
I am a supporter of those policies that are helpful for all Americans.
So whoever that is, Donald Trump or Barack Obama or anybody else, Elizabeth Warren, for that matter.
I am for any American policies that are helping others.
And the fact of the matter is, when you put money in education, in the inner city, in the infrastructure, like when we reinvested in America under Barack Obama, you're going to see the worst results of any president in modern days.
I've got to tell you something.
We spend more money.
We're number one in spending in terms of per capita per student in the industrialized world, but we're 37 in results.
It's not the money, Pastor.
It's this unholy alliance with teachers, unions, and the Democratic Party that have allowed this institutionalized failure.
We're failing our children.
We're failing them.
You know, Baltimore, 13 schools, 13 of them, not a single kid, not one, high schools, proficient in math.
That's inexcusable to me.
Decades, liberal, you know, liberal rule in these cities, liberal politicians.
They haven't cared enough to fix it.
Got to run a lot to get to here.
Thank you both.
800-941-Sean is on number.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
Who authorized granting Cheryl Mills immunity?
I'm sorry.
Who authorized granting Cheryl Mills immunity?
It's a decision made by the Department of Justice.
I don't know at what level inside.
In our investigations, anything, any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors, not the investigators.
Okay.
Did she request immunity?
I don't know for sure what the negotiations involved.
I believe her lawyer asked for act of production immunity with respect to the production of her laptop.
That's my understanding.
But again, the FBI wasn't part of those conversations.
Last week, the American people learned that Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton's longtime confidant and former State Department chief of staff, and Heather Samuelson, counsel to Secretary Clinton in the State Department, were granted immunity for production of their laptops.
Why were they not targets of the FBI's criminal investigation?
A target is someone on whom you have sufficient evidence to indict.
A subject is someone whose conduct at some point during the investigation falls within the scope of the investigation.
Certainly, with respect to Ms. Mills, at least initially, because she was an email correspondent, she was a subject of the investigation.
Did the FBI find classified information on either of their computers?
I think there were some emails still on the computer that were recovered that were classified, is my recollection.
Isn't that a crime?
Is what a crime, sir?
Having classified information on computers that are outside of the server system of the Department of State.
Unsecured.
No, it's certainly something without knowing more, you couldn't conclude whether it was a crime.
You'd have to know what were the circumstances, what was the intention around that, but it's certainly something.
It's the reason we conducted a year-long investigation to understand where emails had gone on an unclassified system that contained classified information.
And what did you determine with regard to the emails found on her computer?
I hope I'm getting this right, and my troops will correct me if I'm wrong, but they were duplicates of emails that had been produced because the emails had been used to sort before production.
Do you think that Cheryl Mills would have destroyed her laptop?
And if so, why this negotiation as opposed to just asking for it by grand jury subpoena?
Well, it's a lawyer's laptop.
So having done this for many, many years, a grand jury subpoena for a lawyer's laptop would likely entangle us in litigation over privilege for a very long time.
And so by June of this year, I wanted that laptop.
Our investigators wanted that laptop.
And the best way to get it was through negotiation.
Do you think any laws were broken by Cheryl Mills?
We have no evidence to establish that she committed a crime.
Do you think that Secretary Clinton broke any laws related to classified data?
We have no evidence sufficient to justify a conclusion that she violated any of the statutes with respect to classified information.
Is there any distinction between that statement and saying that no prosecutor would bring charges, which is, I think, what you said in your public statements the day that you made your announcement?
Well, I think it's another way of looking at it.
I think given the evidence in this case, I still think that no reasonable prosecutor would try to bring this case or bring this case.
So why did you allow Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton's chief of staff, to sit in on that interview?
She was potentially a subject or target in the investigation.
She was a government employee.
She wasn't Clinton's attorney.
But yes, she sits in there and talks with her throughout the interview.
Yeah, my understanding was at that time she was one of Clinton's attorneys.
She was no longer a subject in our investigation.
The agents had scrubbed her conduct very carefully by that point, and she was no longer a subject.
But that, again, that's a reasonable question, but the facts are not a subject.
One of Clinton's lawyers, she's entitled to be in an interview.
All right.
Now, that is an incredible exchange.
All right, James Comey, by the way, News Roundup Information Overload Hour, Sean Hannity show.
Why did the Justice Department give Cheryl Mills immunity and not the FBI?
Now, that's an important question.
Why was Cheryl Mills and one other person involved in the Hillary Clinton email case when Hillary was finally interviewed, supposed to be interrogated?
I've never heard of a single case where you get to bring people involved in the case that have immunity in the case in the room while you're being interrogated on questions of whether or not you broke the law.
And then Comey testifying to Bob Goodlatt that there was classified information on Cheryl Mills' computer, but says she didn't commit a crime.
That is a crime.
The U.S. look, 18 U.S.C. 793, Espionage Act.
We put it up on the screen on TV many times.
We've read it here many, many times.
And then Comey testifying that there is not sufficient evidence that Mills or Hillary Clinton broke laws.
No, that's not true.
Mills allowed to sit in with Hillary during an FBI interview because she's one of Hillary's attorneys.
She's involved in the case.
That is a must-recusal situation.
Anyway, Rich Higgins is with us to shed light on it.
And it also raises other questions about, you know, he has information.
You know, why are we getting conflicting reports about how many times Bill Clinton was on the Lolita Express of Jeffrey Epstein and conflicting reports?
Was he or wasn't he ever at, you know, uh, this Orgy Island place of his?
Uh, he's formerly with the NSC and Department of Defense, senior fellow at Unconstrained Analytics.
Uh, welcome back to the program.
Did you ever hear of circumstances like this where somebody can have classified emails on their computer?
Somebody gets immunity from the Department of Justice, not the FBI.
How does that happen?
I'm still shocked, Sean.
I was up there with you on July 5th, 2016, when this decision first came down and Comey's infamous press conference.
It's still just, you know, every single veteran, everybody who's ever had a security clearance is just befuddled by the whole thing.
It's unbelievable.
Well, I mean, but when you add that to what we just reported with John Solomon, and that, in fact, there was this whole treasure trove of information that the FBI knew about as it relates to Hillary's email server that they never bothered to give investigators.
I mean, I don't know how you rig an investigation more than they rigged hers.
I just, you know, and for me, this honey, why are you harping on Clinton?
She lost.
Well, I'm harping on it because the media only seems to care if Donald Trump is involved with anything, Russia, but they ignore the Russian dirty dossier that was used to spy on a candidate.
And they knew it was, they never corroborated it.
It's an unverifiable document of Russian lies, or as the New York Times says, it was knowingly, it was likely from the beginning, Russian disinformation from the get-go.
And then it's used to spy on a president, a transition team, and then to undo a presidential election after they couldn't beat him with cheating like this.
So it matters.
Sean, what people are going to hear soon, and it's coming up, and Congressman Gomert's been working it: is the intelligence community IG identified several years ago that Hillary's emails were being dropped basically BCC'd.
Everything was going to a company.
The name people will begin to hear soon is called Carter Heavy Industries.
And then the back end of Carter Heavy Industries and where all that leads to is going to be the next big saga in this entire email drama.
Now, backing it up to the Cheryl Mills thing that we started the conversation with, is really important everybody remember: Cheryl Mills, you know, from back in 2015, she appears in Epstein's little back book.
Her personal phone number's in there, her personal email is in there.
Say this again: in Hillary's little black book or Cheryl Mills' little black book, Cheryl Mills appears in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book.
Going back to when?
Going back to 2005, it was leaked in 2015.
It was originally discussed back in 2015 and then kind of shuffled off.
When you two remember, Cheryl Mills is not a bit player here.
She was the deputy general counsel of the White House until 1999 under Bill Clinton.
She was later staffed to Hillary at the State Department, later a lawyer to Hillary, and then became on the board of directors for the Clinton Foundation.
So when she was granted immunity during those mid-year exam interviews, exactly what was she given immunity for?
Right?
All right, let's go back to the Daily Caller because they do really good work.
Let's stick with them.
Now, if Mills is the trusted aide who reviewed the email to decide which emails to erase, right?
Didn't Hillary claim her lawyers went over them one by one, but then later we found out they didn't go over them one by one?
So that's a lie, too, right?
Right.
All right.
And then she is with Hillary at the interrogation of Hillary.
And meanwhile, she's involved in the case.
Do you see an ethics problem there?
There's a giant, look, I'm not a lawyer.
There's a giant ethics problem.
There's an optics problem there.
And the question, again, it goes back to immunity from what?
And now the question I find myself asking is, how, you know, did the FBI, did the FBI and the Justice Department get itself in too heavy with the Clinton?
You know, let's make an assumption.
Let's say there was some corruption going on.
You know, at the point the Justice Department or the FBI itself become corrupted, and, you know, and I think the general public right now, and the people I talked to, I'm sure the people you talked, we've kind of lost faith.
We've lost confidence in our FBI.
I don't see anybody right now moving to address that.
And a lot of it goes back to these core issues that still, to this day, surround the Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Clinton Foundation.
And now we've got this Epstein thing that's been brought in on the side.
It's truly just surreal.
It is a RICO-like environment.
So do we ever able to determine, because we had the Clintons put out a report that Bill Clinton only flew with him a few times, but then it turns out to be a lot more times and then denies being on Norgee Island.
Have we been able to corroborate yes or no if that happened?
I don't know, Sean.
I mean, I thought it was very strange that it wasn't until we found out Epstein had committed suicide or was dead that we finally saw FBI investigators at the island.
That was strange.
Just the entire sequencing of events there was off to me.
You look at the FBI, I mean, they have no credibility right now with at least half of the American public.
We see they're using Epstein as a confidential informer.
I mean, one of the most interesting things out of Epstein's 2008 plea agreement, where he admits that the pedophilia, he does his light prison sentence.
One of the contingencies in that was he has to continue to inform to the FBI, right?
And so, you know, we see that.
We see the FBI using foreign intelligence services to target Americans and American political candidates.
And then yesterday we have Patrick Byrne pop up.
And I don't believe Patrick Byrne is lying simply because Byrne's story explains why the Justice Department and Mueller wanted Maria Bettina in solitary confinement.
They didn't want her affiliation back to Byrne and how she was being manipulated by the FBI.
They didn't want that getting out.
You know, I find this whole thing, because we're now going back to the point where Palm Beach police did this.
This is when he got his sweetheart deal.
Do we ever know what actually happened to that little black book of his or when they seized the address book of him?
Do we know if that's still in existence?
It's still in existence.
If your audience wants to, they can Google it.
And there are a couple of places that have a redacted version of it.
I have never seen, nor do I know if anybody's doing a complete link analysis with all the various names and people that are identified inside of there.
It really is, I think it's a vital piece of information and how that link analysis and those social networks interplay with what we saw with Crossfire Hurricane and Mid-Year Exam and the events surrounding the 2016 election, all the way up to the present day.
I think it's a key, you know, it's a key piece of information in understanding all of these events.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back.
Rich Higgins, formerly of the NSC DOD, as we continue on the other side.
Also, your calls coming up, 800-941-Sean, toll free telephone number.
All right, as we continue with Rich Higgins, former NSC, DOD, we have a lot of stuff to talk about today.
You know, I'm looking at all these people and I'm wondering, well, why would Bill Gates ever get on Epstein's plane?
And I'm thinking, doesn't he have enough money for his own plane?
Why would the New York Times seek a $30,000 donation from Jeffrey Epstein knowing who Jeffrey Epstein is or one of their employees' causes?
Why would they, you know, why is he so connected to the Hollywood crowd?
Who are the people?
How do we ever determine who was really ever there, either on the plane or on the island?
I think we have to, I think we have to trust Alex Acosta, right?
The recently resigned secretary.
I mean, he said Epstein belongs to intelligence.
And, you know, that is your investigative lead.
And you go from there.
And, you know, and hopefully, you know, U.S. Attorney Durham and Attorney General Barr are going to run down these rabbit trails and get it, you know, get us past the run out the clock approach that the establishment has been taking on the entire investigation thus far.
You know, while Mueller acted as a rear guard action on a lot of the corruption that was happening, you know, now we see they're in kind of run out the clock mode, hoping that they can, you know, take down the president in 2020 and bury all this stuff.
So I hope that, you know, we need to press and to get, you know, to get some indictments rolling out here, hopefully soon.
Yeah.
All right.
It's been a long time.
You know, one of the things you had said way, way back in the past, and I just want to remind people, moving on just to a little different subject, is your work with the NSA DOD.
And, you know, everybody's kind of concerned now about privacy, security.
You don't think Americans have very much privacy at all in terms of emails, telephone calls, text messages, do you?
I think, you know, and it's, I'm not revealing anything that's classified.
I think we need to understand that the global information environment is a living, breathing thing.
And, you know, our old understanding of communication needs to just be jettisoned.
And we need to understand how the ones and the zeros move around in this space.
And, you know, I don't think our, you know, we've had such an advancement in the past 20 years in terms of our technology, whether you're talking about travel or social media or email or cellular communications and so on and so forth.
I don't think our laws, our, you know, our privacy laws, our understanding of free speech, et cetera, I don't think our laws have kept pace with this emergent technical, you know, this technical evolution.
And so we need to be mindful of that and very, very cautious of it.
The thing that really makes me concerned is we seem to have lost our moral bearing.
And, you know, you see it with some of the stuff that's coming out of Silicon Valley right now, where they're in league with China, right?
I mean, well, I mean, look at Hillary.
I mean, Peter Strzok was told that the Chinese were hacking.
He didn't care.
Then you've got the issue of was there outsourcing of spying on Americans to circumvent laws to spy on a presidential candidate and a president.
It appears like the answer is yes.
Anyway, thanks a lot.
I appreciate it.
Rich, good to have you back again.
It's been a long time.
Thank you for being with us.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
800-941-Sean, our number.
Anna's in Utah.
Ann, hi.
How are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, Sean.
Thanks for having me on the air.
I wanted to call after the comments that the president made and was also brought up in your show about, you know, any, how can a Jew vote for a Democrat?
And the reason I want to call is my entire life until the last election, I voted Democratic.
In fact, I voted twice for Barack Obama.
I donated money to him.
I talked people into voting for him.
I was given a ticket to his inauguration by Nancy Pelosi and was very excited for the first time in my life to go to Washington for an inauguration and be part of that.
Wow.
What changed?
Yeah.
A bunch of stuff changed.
First of all, I will say that I think I never was a big thinker about politics and I was a religious Jew, but close to my mother and wanted to honor my mother.
And my mother and father were children of immigrants, lower middle class, and they always voted Democratic.
And because I didn't want to think about politics, I voted the way my mother did and never really thought about it.
And I think back in 2009, I was doing a lot of international business.
I was in, you know, working closely with very bright people.
Somebody got me to read more about the news and know what was going on in the world.
So in 2009, I started reading and reading and I wasn't watching any news.
And I was in Europe a lot.
So I was in Europe literally on May 22nd for the Procurement Leaders Award, getting my nails manicured when that soldier was hacked in London, Lee Rigby, literally blocks away from me.
And I was like shocked that that would happen in London.
And then I was in Germany in July 2014 when this stuff was going on in Gaza.
And I was giving a talk in Rostock, Germany.
And I could see how all the Europeans were becoming anti-Israel from what we're doing.
Getting scary.
I don't have a lot of time, but I'm going to tell you something.
The rise of anti-Semitism is real.
There's never been a president that has done more for the state of Israel and advancing an alliance that could eventually, I hope, lead to a real peace in the Middle East than this president.
And recognizing the sovereignty of Golan, that was Donald Trump.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem, that was Donald Trump.
So many promised, then in the end, never had the courage to do that which he finds easy to do, keep his promises.
And to me, it is crucial.
And, you know, when everyone talks about, well, foreign interference and elections, well, there was one administration, the Obama administration, that tried to unseat a ally of ours and a sitting prime minister, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Thank goodness.
Thank God they weren't successful because he has been a, you know, a Churchillian figure and at times the lone voice of moral clarity against radical Islamists and those that believe in a caliphate of convert or die.
And, you know, we've got to get people that understand the nature of evil in our time.
And Iran embodies all of that.
Thank you, though.
We appreciate the call, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
Wow, these weeks go by.
Linda, they not fly by, go so fast, and we're so wrapped up in the middle of it that you just don't even realize, oh, it's Friday again.
And then you know, oh, it's Monday morning again.
But that's what we do.
And we had a lot of news this week and it's only going to get better.
All right.
Have a great weekend.
And as always, you make this microphone happen.
The fall is going to be interesting.
Have a great weekend.
We'll see you back here on Monday.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday.
Normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
