All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 29, 2019 - Sean Hannity Show
02:16:01
Best of Sean Hannity Show: The Impeachment Farce

The Best of Sean Hannity Show has Gregg Jarrett, John Solomon, Bill O'Reilly, Lindsey Graham and Sean Davis to talk about the impeachment hearings and just how little evidence there is! History will look at this as the farce it is.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.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
And I'm Carol Markovich.
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 podcast.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdic with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
The best of Sean Hannity is on now.
Well, we're coming to your city.
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
Will I be buying?
How little jail on.
And if you want a little bang in your yin yang, come along.
The problem is in an impeachment inquiry that the speaker of the House says is all about bribery.
No witness has used the word bribery to describe President Trump's conduct.
Did either of you ever have any evidence of quid pro quo?
Mr. Morrison.
No ma'am.
And Master Vulker.
I did not.
Any evidence of bribery?
No, ma'am.
No ma'am.
Any evidence of treason.
No, ma'am.
No evidence of treason.
Only 340 days left till the presidential election.
Yeah, we have come in to your centi.
Don't play our guitar saying you got yourself.
Sean Hannity.
More behind the scenes information on freaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings.
The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the Barisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meetings.
The aid was my own personal uh you know guess based again on your analogy, two plus two equals four.
So you didn't talk to President Trump when Ambassador Taylor says that that's what you told him?
Is that your testimony here?
My testimony is I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections.
So you never heard those specific words.
Correct.
Right, but never heard those words.
Never heard those words.
And it goes on from there.
Which raises the question, okay, if you never heard this or that, but you made an assumption, uh, well, you write the word out assume, and you can assume all you want.
One of the things that is becoming very, very clear to me is you've you've got this sort of bubble among the ambassadorships, and it's kind of like they think they ought to be setting foreign policy, and that they think they that they know what's best, but nothing contradicts what's in the actual transcript.
And now that the president released the letter to President Zelensky on top of the two transcripts where aid was never mentioned, and there was never any mention of any one individual about a quid pro quo, and everybody admits that, then you gotta say, well, why are we even here?
And then if you get to the substance of what it is that the president is asking in the transcript of President Zelensky, well, we have the New York Times acknowledging, we have politico acknowledging, and we have a Ukrainian court acknowledging that in fact 2016 election interference with Ukraine actually happened.
Well, I thought Democrats cared about that.
Because a big part of that would then be Alexander uh Chalupa, a DNC contractor being paid by the DNC, going to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and colluding with Ukrainians to dig up dirt on Manafort and President Trump for the purpose of helping Hillary Clinton win the 2016 presidential race.
And I thought that those were all things that we were supposed to care about.
Apparently not.
And then again, we get back to okay.
Well, if everyone's concerned about the quid and the quo and the pro, then you gotta think of Joe.
And Joe's on tape bragging that you're not getting the billion dollars.
Now, why would a vice president ever demand the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor and that you're not getting the billion and you've got six hours?
Why would that ever happen?
Well, we now know why, because the dopey 49-year-old sonter was being paid millions, putting aside the millions that he got from China ten days after flying with his vice president's son to China, and then Romania and apparently other countries may be involved too.
But he gets millions of dollars, and he's yeah, he's asked, Do you have any experience with Ukraine?
No.
Energy, no.
Oil gas, no.
Do you have any idea why then they would pay you millions of dollars?
I don't know.
Do you think maybe it's because your father is the second highest elected official in the United States?
Yeah, uh, you know what?
Probably.
I I think that's it.
John Solomon, who's come under fire?
I mean, this is a pretty amazing moment because you know, this woman Maria Yanovich, whatever her name is, the former ambassador, well, John Solomon actually was one of the few people.
He, along with the Washington Post and ABC News, he was one of three people that had interviewed the fired prosecutor, this guy named Shokin.
And Shokin had said in all three interviews he was fired because Joe Biden demanded it, and or else they weren't going to get a billion dollars.
So how do you bifurcate your brain as a Democrat not care about that?
And then John Solomon also interviewed the prosecutor general, and that prosecutor general is on video saying to John Solomon, uh, yeah, that woman gave me a list of names not to prosecute.
Now I'm beginning to think, well, if we cared about election interference, we cared about corruption, and we cared about quid and pros and quos.
How do the Democrats ignore all of that?
Anyway, John Solomon is here with us now.
He also has new information to discuss as it relates to the IG report that we now know is coming out around the first week of December because Michael Horowitz is scheduled to appear before Lindsey Graham's committee on December the 11th.
That's right.
Uh investigative reporter, Fox News, John Solomon.
How are you?
I'm doing well.
I think, you know, uh I we said this several weeks ago, right?
Uh Sean, that these impeachment hearings might very well be the weapon of mass distraction that keep that was designed to keep people's eye off of the Russia developments.
And here's a great example.
Today we have these hearings where no one has established a quid pro quo yet for the aid, and yet everybody's ignoring an extraordinary Inspector General's report released late last night that conclude that the FBI has systematically failed to manage and vet the confidential human sources like Christopher Steele that are used to can conduct counterintelligence and uh regular criminal investigations.
And we're talking about serious misconduct, serious oversight.
We have FBI officials quoted in this IG report saying that when sometimes when they came across an alley.
Oh, whoa, slow down.
When John speaks quickly and says, we have FBI officials quoted in the IG report, that means you know, let's set off alarms here.
You're about to give us information that nobody knows before has heard before.
So we're getting the IG report in early December, and Horowitz is scheduled to appear before Graham's committee in the Senate on September the 11th.
You're saying you have information, what's in the report?
Now, this is not the FISA report.
It's a preliminary one.
It's the one I told you about two weeks ago would be coming out.
I don't know if you remember this, but the informant report, confidential informant report.
It came out last night.
And see, the Democrats did such a Good job of distracting us with impeachment.
We didn't even know this report came out, which is exactly why these hearings were started, to keep our eye off the ball on the unraveling of the Russian investigation.
But let me tell you what it says.
We were all wondered.
Remember, we've all sat aloud, we've talked on your show endlessly, Sean.
How could it be that the FBI would allow a guy like Christopher Steele being paid by Hillary Clinton, professing hatred for Donald Trump, having an election day deadline, uh, and and uh leaking to the media.
How could we let that guy be the primary source we use to get a FISA warrant to look at the Trump campaign in the final weeks of the election?
How could that have happened?
Well, Inspector General Horowitz released a remarkable and damning report last night uh on his on the website.
It's public, but now the no one in the media is picking up on it.
It says the FBI under James Comey, under Andrew McCabe, under Peter Stroke, that they failed to manage and vet um uh human sources, informants, just like Christopher Steele, regularly, routinely.
And one of the most serious things it highlights is that FBI officials are quoted in this report released last night, saying when we sometimes found derogatory information about informants, a la Christopher Steele, we were told don't put that in the documents because it would help the defense lawyers or or it would prevent our informants from becoming witnesses at trial.
So basically keep bad information about sources off the books.
That is a damning acknowledgement and helps us explain how the heck did we end up with Christopher Steele.
They kept the derogatory information they had about him off the books.
All right.
So what we have is the FBI substantiating that Peter Struck uh had engaged in a dereliction of duty, had committed misconduct through these text messages with Lisa Page as anti-Trump bias.
Um on his official FBI phone, committed security violations by performing official government work on his personal email.
And we got one official recommending termination, another recommending suspension.
And yet the leadership in the Bureau at the time, they chose the more severe of the two penalties terminating struck last year.
But so w what is this tell us about in terms of a preview of coming attractions?
Well, remember after the first IG report that focused on the Hillary Clinton email, one of the conclusions that was there is that we that the uh Horowitz said about the Clinton email case.
He couldn't say for sure whether political bias affected Peter Stroke's judgment or decisions on on uh the Hillary Clinton email case.
What you can clearly see from the disciplinary file that was released on Monday uh by the FBI and the Justice Department in the Stroke lawsuit.
Stroke claims he's a victim, should never have been fired.
The Justice Department thinks very differently.
His disciplinary file, his uh misconduct file, states clearly that his expression of bias cast a pall over both the Clinton email investigation and the Rush investigation, one that may not leave the FBI for a long time.
The FBI blames Peter Stroke for causing all of the credibility issues that we now have about the Russia and the Clinton email cases, a very strong indictment of Peter Stroke's misconduct.
When he said all those things about smelly people at Walmart and we're going to stop the president, all those things and Hillary should win a hundred million zero the FBI saying in its own words.
So, but we really not getting to the heart of what what I think, well, where I think that the Horowitz report should go, which is premeditated fraud perpetrated on the Pfizer court.
You think we're getting there.
Absolutely.
I think these reports, I I think listen, I think there's a story being told in pieces, right?
Peter Stroke really was a bad guy, despite the fact that he tried to sue us recently, claiming he wasn't uh he was wrongfully terminated.
That's not true.
That's the first piece to get in place.
Then a couple days later, the IG goes and says, you know, before I tell you anything about Christopher Steele, just know the FBI's been cheating on informants or doing bad things with informants for a long time.
I think Michael Horritz, Bill Barr, John Durham are laying the predicate for what's going to be an explosive 500-page report, 550 page report, is what I'm told, on uh on all of the misconduct that occurred in the FBI investigation.
But I think some of these earlier reports, the ones I'm mentioning, are designed to lay the foundation for you to understand that there was a culture in the FBI of leaking, leaking evidence so that you could then cite the evidence in your court filing.
That's what we're going to find in Russia.
There was a culture of not vetting your informants and looking the other way at their flaws.
And there was a really bad guy at the helm, Peter Stroke that had the two most important cases of the last half century, and this guy had political bias and misconduct and security violations.
All of those were released to set the stage for the FISA report.
But what's interesting, you really can't blame this though on Peter Struck, can you?
Oh, it's much higher.
It goes much higher.
Yeah, it has to be a good thing.
I mean, that's the point.
Yeah.
Because look, it's it wasn't only it wasn't only Comey.
Remember, not only did he work for Muller, Muller took his phones and Page's phones, and oh, he sent them back to the factory to get cleaned.
Wonder why.
Yeah.
You're exactly right.
Listen, uh, Peter Stroke is the symptom of a much more serious and sick FBI, which I think at the end of the day, James Comey's FBI, Andrew McCaid's FBI is the reason we have this mess.
And then the only question we need to find out is who at the CIA, who at the White House were they communicating these tactics to.
But when the I think one other thing, though, that you pointed out in your interpretation of this early release is that the vetting of informants like Christopher Steele.
And remember, Steele's dossier, when they finally did review it, they disproved over 90% of it.
Um I guess they couldn't disprove all 100% of it, but then we've got then we've got to get into the Well, then we got Kathleen Kavlack and Bruce Orr, and I think there are as many as five warnings that the DOJ.
That would be the FBI, that would be James Comey who signed three of the four FISA applications.
The bulk of information we're told was the steel dossier that was we now know unverifiable because he didn't stand by his own own dossier when when push came to shove in an interrogatory.
So the vetting of these informants was slammed by the inspector general Horowitz too.
Yeah, and what it basically says is there was a culture of hiding derogatory information about informants.
And now let's go back to why that's relevant to Russia.
In the footnote, standing by Christopher Steele for all four of the FISA warrants that were used to spy on Carter Page in the Trump campaign, they kept saying the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information about a confidential human source ones, Christopher Steele.
Why is that important?
That is where you have the willful misleading of a court.
You ask, well, we get there, that's how they get there.
The FBI was in possession of significant derogatory information about Christopher Steele, political bias, hatred for Trump.
Oh, remember it was Comey himself that went to Trump Tower and tried to say, well, this is not verified but salacious.
But meanwhile, in October, the previous year, he went and signed the Pfizer warrant.
So he was lying to then President elect Trump.
Stay right there.
John Solomon will also be joined by our legal team.
We'll get into his interpretation of the Ukrainian events as well.
Um, all of this on Hannity tonight, news the mob will never tell you about.
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.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
We break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity today as the day off just before Turkey Day.
And what is going to happen next in this uh impeachment insanity by the circus master himself?
Um I think uh Buzz of the Clown, not Pennywise, Adam Schiff.
Um, because now he's handed it off, his forthcoming report to Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who has decided he's going to hold his first impeachment hearing next week.
We're not exactly sure who is going to testify, but I would predict uh a handful of pinheaded uh constitutional scholars who will talk about the Federalist papers and what the framers intended in the impeachment clause in the Constitution and so forth, it will be a tepid bore.
Um and what they have to say is largely irrelevant and immaterial anyway, because it is abundantly clear that Democrats and the complicit media want to remove Trump from office through the impeachment process because he dared in a conversation with the Ukrainian president to ask uh Ukraine to please look into uh Joe Biden's quid pro quo.
Withholding a billion dollars unless a Ukrainian prosecutor is fired, that prosecutor happened to be investigating the company, Barisma, that Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors.
Um you should also read, by the way, a column penned by Jeff Landry, who's the attorney general of Louisiana, and he makes a very important point.
And he said, uh, the president's subjective motivation in making that request of the Ukrainians is irrelevant.
What matters is was there a legitimate objective reason to believe that criminal conduct might have occurred at the hands of the former vice president Joe Biden.
Back with us now to react to that is Peter Schweitzer, an investigative journalist and a terrific author of a couple of books that are my favorites, Clinton Cash and more recently, Secret Empires.
Um the media seems to think, and so do Democrats, Peter, that because you're running for president of the United States, Joe Biden, um you ought to get immunity and amnesty from any corrupt acts.
But that, you know, I've searched the criminal codes, and I can't find that immunity anywhere in any law.
How about you?
Well, you're exactly right.
No, I mean, the only case where you find instances where people get immunity for either being in office or running for office is in corrupt third world countries, which is the reason that a lot of you know rich oligarchs will run for political office to get immunity.
And you're quite right.
I mean, the bottom line is, you know, what Donald Trump asked for in that phone call.
He didn't say give me dirt on Joe Biden.
He didn't say make stuff up about Joe Biden.
He didn't say, you know, go out there and and make a lot of noise about this.
He said, investigate it and share your results or cooperate with my attorney general.
And I think that's entirely appropriate.
And you know, look, here's here's the bottom line, Greg, is you know, when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, after that, people said she's no longer running for office anymore.
There's no reason she should be subject to a criminal investigation.
Now people are saying Joe Biden is running for office.
He should not be the subject of any kind of criminal investigation.
So the question is when are you supposed to investigate the political elites?
In this particular case, we're talking about actions that Joe Biden took, not while a private citizen, not after he left the vice presidency, while he was the second most powerful person in the United States, while he was vice president and while his son Had these commercial ties in Ukraine.
So, you know, the bottom line is it's entirely appropriate to ask that to be investigated.
And I think that, you know, we need to get to the bottom of what happened.
And the only way it's going to happen is if you have a high level request from the United States government official.
Ukraine is one of the most corrupt places in the world.
They're not going to investigate it themselves.
Certainly not when it involves a powerful official like Joe Biden, who theoretically in their mind could be president of the United States again one time.
It's only going to happen when the full force of the federal government says you need to get to the bottom of this, and we're going to help you do it through our Department of Justice.
You know, if the standard were otherwise, I mean, I'm going to go out and rob a nine uh 7 Eleven tomorrow, and then I immediately announce my candidacy for president of the United States because, you know, gee, under the Joe Biden standard, you know, I get immunity automatically.
Nobody can investigate me because I'm running for president of the United States.
It's absurd.
Peter Schweitzer, I want to thank you not only for joining us today, but your terrific work and people who haven't picked it up, pick up secret empires, and you will know what you need to know about Joe Biden, uh, Hunter Biden, and a whole lot more.
And not just Democrats, but uh Republicans as well who engage in potentially corrupt acts.
So Peter Schweitzer, thanks very much.
Thanks, Greg, and uh happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Absolutely, you too.
All right, I want to switch gears now and talk a little bit about uh the Clinton Obama regimes uh and the backroom deals that have occurred.
And joining us now to talk about is Tom Fitton, who is president and CEO of Judicial Watch, and more than any other organization that I can point to, Judicial Watch has had the legal wherewithal to obtain what we're entitled to obtain under the Freedom of Information Act, documents, government records.
Those are our records.
They're, you know, they're not the FBI secret records of the Department of Justice secret or the State Department's secret records.
Those are our records.
We are entitled to have them.
But when we ask for those records under the Freedom of Information Act, automatically it's denied.
And it takes a group like Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch to force them by filing lawsuits to produce those documents.
Tom, thanks for being with us today.
I noticed one of your tweets, and I'll just read it really quickly here.
The coup attack on Donald Trump is about protecting the Obama Clinton operation from pr criminal prosecution for the real scandal, the spy gate abuses targeting President Trump.
Talk to us more about that.
Well, I think they uh, by uh alleging all this misconduct by uh President Trump, uh, are seeking to freeze law enforcement at the federal level from doing what it ought to be doing, which is investigating the illicit spying on Trump, uh reopening the Clinton email investigation.
Uh we know during the Mueller operation, uh the Justice Department was virtually frozen in investigating anything related to the issues that we've been talking about.
Biden, spygate.
In fact, they were actually part of the problem because they were employing people like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to target the president and hiding the fact they had to fire them well for misconduct for four months.
So uh now that that was over, they needed something else to try to freeze Washington from looking at uh these uh corruption issues that we've been talking about, and Ukraine was the latest iteration of uh and and the kissing cousin to the Russia collusion hoax that they have been pushing uh through the Mueller and prior to that through the spy gate operation.
You've pointed out that the Hillary Clinton team had advocates of the top of Obama's FBI, and I write about it in my in my new book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history, that the fix was in.
You know, when Comey stood before television cameras and announced that there would be uh no prosecution of Hillary Clinton, Um he he said, and the Department of Justice doesn't know what I'm about to say, that it was all his decision.
As I point out in the book, um, testimony from others at the FBI revealed that no, they received their marching orders from Obama's Department of Justice that literally told them you will not prosecute Hillary Clinton under the espionage act.
So the fix was in, wasn't it?
Oh, it's even worse than that.
They were actively colluding with the Clinton campaign to target Trump.
We just had documents come out, Greg, that uh show that the general counsel for the FBI was meeting with one of the Clinton team lawyers and basically eating out of the palm of her hand on how to make sure her witnesses, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the leaders for Hillary Clinton, the ones who deleted the emails for her, uh, wouldn't be questioned in a way that the public would get wind of it.
I you know, I uh you you know you've been involved in law enforcement.
How easy do you think it is to get a get a phone call back from the FBI general counsel as to how to get your witness, how to get your uh favorite favors for your for your clients in a federal criminal investigation like this.
It's extraordinary.
Yeah, it just doesn't happen.
And not only that, but five individuals in Hillary Clinton's orbit who were involved in in all of this that was being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act, her uh secret uh secured uh unsecured server in the basement of her home.
They are five of them got immunity in exchange for nothing, Tom.
You know, and that you highlight the other issues to why Clinton is thus far skated.
It the scandal isn't just about her, it's about these other people as well.
The State Department, the FBI, the Justice Department.
We had a State Department report just confirmed a few weeks ago 600 national security violations, some of which were purposeful related to her email server.
And they weren't all weren't her, obviously.
There were people in the State Department who were knowingly putting classified information to an unclassified setting in violation of federal law that would get anyone else in put in jail for.
So uh Attorney General Barr has got to at least make a statement as to why the Justice Department continues to allow the this corruption from Clinton, uh, the Clinton era and the FBI's uh cover-up of that, Justice Department cover-up that, to continue to fester.
Uh why why haven't they done anything on it?
Are they endorsing what Comey did?
You know, uh one of the great lies that was perpetrated by uh Comey and others is that, well, uh, under the Espionage Act, um the uh behavior uh uh dealing with classified information has to be intentional.
No, that is not true.
Originally under the Espionage Act passed around 1917, that was true.
But after World War II, when it was discovered um that that there was so much sloppiness and recklessness associated uh with the handling of classified documents, Congress amended the Espionage Act and created a new category of criminality involving grossly negligent handling of classified documents.
And Comey just glosses over that.
And when confronted by that uh about that by the inspector general, he said, well, I think there's still some measure of intent required.
He just made that up.
It doesn't exist.
The whole purpose was to eliminate intent as a requisite and to create this new class of gross negligence.
And so Comey is is simply misstating and contorting the law when he cleared Hillary Clinton.
And that's why I think Attorney General Barr's got to clarify what the law is here.
And he may decide that look, it's uh water under the bridge.
I sound like that would be an acceptable answer.
Uh but he can't be in, he can't let it slide because otherwise you have four and a half million people with security clearances who don't have proper guidance to the law, and it puts all of the material that they have access to at risk.
And and you know, and even if that were the standard, there was plenty to proceed to trial or prosecution with.
We have testimony coming out from our own independent discovery we've been granted by a federal court uh that show that Hillary Clinton was warned a half a dozen times, either through her staff directly or indirectly about the use of her email system.
And then someone else said they warned her twice directly about the use of her email system.
So there was plenty of early warning uh to Hillary Clinton about what she was doing.
So she has no excuses.
The intent, even if it is an intent standard, uh they more than met the threshold to get an indictment.
They absolutely did.
There should have been a hundred and ten felony counts against Hillary Clinton representing the hundred and ten classified documents that she placed in an unsecured location.
That's a clear violation of the law.
I want to say thanks uh to Tom Fitton for being with us, president and CEO of Judicial Watch.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
You're listening to the Sean Hannity show.
And by the way, if you want to learn more about Hillary Clinton's corrupt felonious acts, read my book Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
Buy it for the holidays, put it under the Christmas tree.
I'll be right back with a Sean Hannity show.
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.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So Down, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Back with the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
Let's go right to our phone lines.
Don is standing by from Lake Ronconcama.
Hey, Don, how are you?
Hey, Greg, it's great to talk to you.
And uh happy Thanksgiving to you.
I always enjoy I always welcome your visits to uh Hannity's radio and television show and Fox News in general.
I think I always I have a question for you, uh Greg.
As you researched your first book, The Russian Hoax and Witch Hunt, were you overwhelmed by the amount of felony violations at the highest levels against elect?
I I was, Don.
It's a great question.
And we which is why my latest book, Witch Hunt, which everybody should pick up, is about 500 pages, but each of the chapters are self-sustaining.
So you can pick it up and just read what you want.
We're gonna pause and take a quick break.
My thanks to Ron.
We'll be or Don, excuse me, we'll be right back with more of the Sean Hannity show on Greg Jarrett.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show on Greg Jarrett.
You know, Americans have suffered through two agonizing weeks of the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's misbegotten impeachment obsession.
And the hearings, in truth, have revealed a common consistent thread.
None of the witnesses provided any direct evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable act.
Instead, they offered an endless stream of hearsay and opinion and speculation.
I mean, the accusation that Trump pressured the Ukrainian President Zelensky into a quid pro quo in which the U.S. military aid was contingent on an investigation of the former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hutter Biden is utterly unsupported by the evidence presented.
It is found nowhere in the transcript of the July 25th telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky, nor was it presented by any of the witnesses called by the chief clown himself, Adam Schiff.
But the circus, the carnival continues.
And it's all about quid pro quo, which leads me to my next guest, David Sholen, who's a civil rights attorney and one of the best lawyers I know who has penned a column which will be out shortly on Hennedy.com entitled The Fallacy of Quid ProQuo.
And David, it's great to have you with us.
Thanks very much for being with us.
And one of the things that you point out is that American foreign aid is and always has be, has been based on quid pro quo.
I mean, that is true.
Yeah.
And that's right.
And most commentators would argue that it should be.
That is, you know, we're giving a tremendous amount of money.
We should be giving that money, and we do give that money to serve American interests.
But specifically, you know, as we say in the piece, um, American aid must be conditioned on corruption reform.
And so sort of the theme of this discussion is even if they had proven a quid pro quo, and as you said, they didn't, um, that's completely beside the point.
There should be a quid pro quo.
And I go so far as to say this, Greg, quite frankly, and I mean it.
I believe that given the evidence that the president knew from media reports that have been going on for years about the relationship between the Bidens and this barisma company and influence peddling and that sort of thing, it was the president was obligated to demand an a corruption investigation, an effort to fight corruption, and specifically an investigation into this thing to clear the air one way or another.
In fact, as I say in the piece, I believe that Vice President Biden should have demanded an investigation, because he's got a cloud over him.
If you look back, as I did in writing this piece, the Wall Street Journal reported five years ago how terrible this relationship appeared to be by Hunter Biden, and it wasn't just Hunter Biden, by the way.
Hunter Biden was joined by a fellow named Devin Archer on the board.
Devin Archer was the founding business partner of Chris Hines, John Kerry's stepson.
Now, John Kerry's stepson, Chris Hines, according to the media reports, thought that this um setup with Biden and Archer joining the Board of Barisma, for which they were not qualified in any way, stunk.
And so he distanced himself from him.
And there's one report at least that Heinz then wrote a couple of emails to the State Department about the situation.
But the point here is the what the president knew about an example of corruption in the Ukraine was this Biden relationship.
All he demanded, if he demanded anything, and what he should have demanded in my view, was an investigation, not a prejudgment, not an accusation against Vice President Biden, a full and fair investigation, not even a Muller-like uh partisan uh agenda-driven investigation, a full and fair investigation.
That's what every American voter should want.
You want to find out the facts, clear the cloud from Mr. Biden before the election, not find out some bad facts after the election.
You know, um immediately when the story broke, I wrote a couple of columns.
The first was that the whistleblower is not a whistleblower under the law.
And the second column I wrote was that uh the president had every right and indeed I would argue a duty to request Ukraine to investigate and hand over information if the president has a reasonable belief that a former vice president uh might have committed a corrupt act.
Isn't that what Americans want their government to do?
Absolutely great.
I would say to you, I think it's uh Congress members who call this an impeachable offense, have an obligation to explain to the American people why, given the evidence that we have, one way or the other, the evidence that has an appearance that stinks.
Why is it that there shouldn't be an investigation of Mr. Biden?
Simply an investigation.
Why shouldn't there be an investigation about this to clear up this Cloud that's been hanging for years.
Because as reports show, foreign countries' interests are harmed.
Our American interests are harmed in the Ukraine and every other country to which we give aid if they think that we abide corruption.
There's not very little question that Hunter Biden was put on the board of barisma, of which he had no qualifications, to try to influence and get access to the Obama administration.
That happens all the time with companies.
But, you know, have an investigation here.
Again, Congress should explain why not.
And the why not they've offered so far is well, Joe Biden could be a uh presidential candidate, and so the president was trying to, you know, eliminate him as a candidate by this.
Again, he asked for an investigation.
The president could have said, hey, listen, guys, I want you to bring charges against Joe Biden.
If he had some corrupt purpose, and he wouldn't have had other people listening in on the telephone if he had a corrupt purpose.
But the only answer here is, well, he's a presidential candidate.
We don't give license to people because they run for office to now escape all scrutiny.
He's gonna, you know, all of a sudden the there can be no investigation because Joe Biden's running for president.
Joe Biden wouldn't uh wouldn't suggest that that's appropriate.
And by the way, ironically, Joe Biden boasts, you know, on a video widely circulated now, available on YouTube, that he withheld one billion dollars in loan guarantees aid to the Ukraine to try to force them to fight corruption, in his view, which included firing a prosecutor.
There's a lot of controversy surrounding that, as you well know, Greg, and have reported on on this show and elsewhere.
Um, there's a question about that prosecutor because among the things being prosecuted had been barisma.
There's a question the the company Hunter Biden joined.
There's a question whether that investigation had concluded with a settlement by barisma or not.
But again, this is why we have an investigation.
Yeah.
No, you're totally right.
And to play devil's advocate, um the the reason that the media and Democrats would cite for not investigating Joe Biden and Hunter Biden is oh, and and we hear this constant reframe.
It is a pervasive canard.
Well, there's no evidence of any wrongdoing.
That would ignore the public statements of Victor Shokka, the fired Ukrainian prosecutor, is on record saying repeatedly, including to the Washington Post.
I was fired because my investigators were closing in on Hunter Biden and his role at Barisma.
That alone should be reason to investigate.
Yeah, you're right.
I would say what alone should he also should be reason to investigate is simply the appearance of impropriety.
Why was the vice president who was made the point man for the Ukraine by President Obama, why was his son and his crony placed on the board of a company for which he had no qualifications whatsoever and paid a salary, apparently.
So why did that happen?
That's all is simple investigation.
It's certainly uh I hate to say it, but it's certainly there's certainly as much evidence there demanding a corruption investigation as there was for the appointment of Mr. Muller as special counsel.
And in it's the exorbitant amount of money that also uh merits an investigation.
There was a study by the watchdog research group that revealed that Hunter Biden was paid twelve times the amount expected at a similarly sized company.
Board members there are paid roughly fifty-five thousand to eighty-three thousand for an entire year.
Hunter Biden was getting eighty-three thousand a month.
So that is a huge red flag that would merit an investigation.
Right.
And you know, I think the central point here, Greg, also is this is all information the president was given.
He got it from media reports, he was briefed on these things.
That's the example he knew about in the Ukraine.
And again, what he asked for was an investigation.
Period.
He could have asked for a lot more than that if he had a corrupt purpose.
He wanted this thing investigated, and pres uh vice president Biden should have joined him in that call, as should every Democratic member of Congress.
If this is a viable candidate for president for president in this coming election, then they should want every cloud cleared.
Right now, he's you know, damaged goods, and it's gonna get worse because if they impeached, there will be a full Senate trial.
They will have to call the Bidens.
Their conduct is directly at issue because there's an allegation the president acted against national interests.
Let's show what the evidence was that that required an investigation in the American interests in this case.
I think you're gonna see John Kerry as a witness.
I think you're gonna see Chris Hines, his stepson.
A lot of people, if a lawyer handles this thing properly.
You know, and which brings me to the next point that we can explore here.
And that is that I I don't think Democrats have put into their calculations over impeachment that the roles will be completely reversed in a Senate trial.
The authority will be completely reversed.
No longer will it be, you know, Adam Schiff who is uh shutting down cross-examination or preventing Republicans from calling witnesses.
No, it'll be Republicans who will uh be in the catbird seat here calling uh the witnesses and dictating the rules of evidence.
And I this will not be so much uh a trial of Donald Trump as it will be a trial of Joe and Hunter Biden of the fake whistleblower who is not entitled to anonymity, and put on the top of your uh witness list Adam Schiff, who lied about his conduct.
Right.
You make a vitally important point.
I agree with you.
It was a miscalculation.
I think part of it is uh Pelosi and others were really pushed into this by what we call what I call at least the hate squad, um others call the squad, uh, who kind of got the momentum going.
And then, you know, Schiff and Nadler lost all semblance of objectivity a long time ago.
They're just filled with hatred and ego, et cetera.
So I think they badly miscalculated.
Why on earth would they look?
I I used to represent the Democratic Party.
I represented them at trial when they were sued before.
Um why on earth would any reasonable Democrat want to see the presidential candidate, um, possibly president the leading presidential candidate pulled through this now.
You know how much baggage there is out there?
Um I mean, it's all got to come out because if I were representing the president, I would demand the full panoply of due process, including the right to call witnesses fully, the right to confrontation.
Um you would should hand a lawyer should handle this as a real trial.
Right.
Um, you know.
Yeah.
You know, um, you're talking like a thoughtful, reasonable, intelligent person, which you are.
That is not what Democrats are now.
They are blinded by their hatred of Donald Trump, and it has obliterated their judgment.
David Sean, thanks for being with us.
We're gonna pause, take a quick break.
I'm Greg Jarrett sitting in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hennedy Show.
A couple of your calls on the other side.
Hey there.
I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
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.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So Dow, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
Well, we are just hours away from Thanksgiving.
And it's really an important moment in America for all of us to gather together and to express in our own ways the many thanks that we have for our blessings, our good fortunes.
And we gather with our friends and our families to celebrate uh those blessings.
And I want to give a shout out to my wife, uh Kate Jarrett, who has sacrificed a great deal over the last two years as I've written uh two books.
Uh, and my two daughters who have also been so encouraging and supportive.
You know, they've they've given up a lot over two years so that I could write these two books.
Uh, no vacations with dad, no weekends with dad.
They held down the homestead as I labored over these uh two books.
And I just want to say thanks um for all of what they have done for me.
And I know that you feel that way out there uh toward your family members as well.
Let's pause on Thanksgiving and think of how fortunate we are to be in this great country of ours in America.
And yes, we have disagreements.
We we certainly have seen that over the course of this last year, but but on this moment of Thanksgiving.
Um, you know, let's let's pause and take a moment and say thank you to those around us, to our families and our friends.
And if you have the crazy Uncle Fester sitting at the dinner table over Thanksgiving, and he is telling you uh all kinds of things that you know just are not true about the Russia hoax and the witch hunt.
Uh, you know, maybe you can uh think about giving Uncle Fester the book, my book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
Maybe you could uh buy it, wrap it up, put it under the Christmas tree with a bow on top, and and be sure to have your camera out.
Here's what I want you to do when when Uncle Fest or Crazy Liberal Uncle Fauster opens the book, snap a picture of it and and send it to me.
Uh tweet it to me.
My Twitter handle is at Greg Jarrett.
Uh also while you're at it, jot down my website, thegarrett.com.
So thanks everybody.
I appreciate you letting me fill in for Sean Hannity today on the Sean Hannity show.
I hope you have a safe and wonderful Thanksgiving.
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.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
We break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Now, back to the best of Sean Hannity.
Now that we made some money for our sponsors, let's go back to making the liberals crazy.
The handman is back on the radio right now.
After you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony.
And if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says Sonlin ties Trump to withholding aid.
Is that your testimony today, Mr. Master Solomon, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid?
Because I don't think you're saying that.
I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming.
I also said that President Trump.
So no one, not just the President Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you, nobody, the Pompeo didn't tell you.
Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations.
Is that correct?
I think I already testified.
No, answer the question.
Is it correct?
No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations.
Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong.
No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations.
Yes or no?
Yes.
So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Other than my own presumption.
Which is nothing.
I mean, that's what I've understand.
So you know what hearsay evidence is, Ambassador.
Hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me.
Do you know what made-up testimony is?
Made up testimony is when I just presume it.
I mean, you're just assuming all of these things, and then you're giving them the evidence that they're running out and doing press conferences, and CNN's headline is saying that you're saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations, and you don't know that, correct?
I never said the president of the United States should be impeached.
Nope, but you did.
You have left people with the confusing impression that you were giving testimony that you did not.
You do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations.
I yield back.
An amazing moment that was Congressman Michael Turner today.
Wow.
That just blew that out of the water.
And it shows you how corrupt the well compromised congenital liar is.
how corrupt fake news CNN is, NBC and every other news organization is.
You can't be any more clear than that, can you?
It doesn't get any more clear than what the witness that they're using as blockbuster has said today.
This is madness.
This is insanity.
They will ignore anything that is exculpatory towards this president.
And they'll run with conjecture and they'll run with hearsay and they'll run with, I don't know.
You got a bunch of bureaucrat ambassadors.
No offense to them.
I guess they're serving their country.
But boy, they think an awful lot of themselves when they're not the commander in chief either.
And on the substance of everything, this president was right to say, hey, are you surrounding yourself with the same bad people that the prior president of Ukraine was surrounding himself with?
Because if you are, that's not good.
And can you help us?
Do me a favor.
Get to the bottom of your country's role in election interference and any other corruption that was going on there.
And by the way, simultaneously ignoring the real evidence, the real quid, the real quo, the real pro with Joe and Hunter.
Zero experience, Hunter.
Millions of dollars.
You're not getting the billion.
Fire the prosecutor.
You get the billion.
You got six hours.
It doesn't get any more clear cut than this.
But they try to, you know, muddy those waters and cherry pick that which they think, oh, I can use this to bludgeon Trump again after two and a half years of this with Russia that ends in nothing.
Anyway, joining us on top of John Solomon, who remains with us, Greg Jarrett.
Of course, he has his best seller out, as long with Jordan Secular.
We put it up on Hannity.com, both of them.
Uh Greg, that was to me one of the defining moments today.
Oh, it truly was.
You know, at first I thought Sonlin would say, well, my presumption was based on what other people told me.
It's worse than that, as Turner pointed out.
It's a presumption that he conjured up out of thin air.
He didn't even get it from anybody else.
Uh, you know, there are two main points today, uh, and you certainly heard uh one of them.
Uh, but the other is that uh, you know, Sondland underscored that the president said to him repeatedly, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo.
Uh but he also then made a rather stunning admission when he said, I never heard the president say that aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations.
Why then is it continue here?
Why is this even an issue, even at this point?
It shouldn't be.
But uh, you know, as my my friend and colleague uh uh, you know, John Solomon pointed out this is the you know weapon of mass distraction.
They they know what's coming Down the pike, the IG report, and this serves as their subterfuge.
Jordan Secular, your thoughts.
Yeah, well, our takeaway is this.
I mean, to just build on what Greg was saying, and then Sodlin gets asked again, did you hear from anyone in the world, anyone on the planet that this was, and he says no.
And to us, I mean, this was this was the most key moment because it contradicted the entire narrative from the beginning of his whole testimony.
I mean, I saw Kin Starr talking about, you know, Ken Starr was like, you know, he's warning those warning labels, and then he heard that statement.
He said, I can't even believe an ambassador of the United States would leave that clear cut of a statement out of his opening statement, because it is literally what everyone has been talking about.
Now, I think it gets to the point also that uh the attorney for the minority made uh that this is this is again uh someone who takes no notes, he doesn't remember anything, and he can't you know when he says he can't get other people's documents, I want everybody to understand this.
It's other people's documents.
It's not he can't get access to his emails and text messages and his staff.
It's he can't get access to whatever he wants at the State Department.
And you know, he decided to not use executive privilege to put himself through this.
I think as the president said, uh, from what he knows from from his dealings with him, he's been a pretty good guy.
But you know, uh he kind of this is the only witness who's had the direct interplay with the president of the United States.
He's admittedly said he kind of, I mean, they really overplayed that interplay, and that he kind of acknowledged that they wasn't as much as it sounded like, or he ever they tried to imply it was, and then when it was, but also when he spoke to anyone else, no one ever said this.
He's just presuming it.
Now, I can understand why maybe at this point lots of people would try would presume that because if you read news crawlers and things like that, you can start presuming it.
So I think it's very clear that we make that that point for everybody to understand that this is people are making this up.
This is made up.
This is this is just taking it out of thin air, not even basing it as great.
It's not even basing it off what someone else told him.
He didn't even get away.
It was one of the most stunning moments, I think, in this whole charade.
I really do.
I mean, I'm I'm sitting there and and he's right.
I mean, that's what the fake news media was doing.
And I read the opening statement, and I said, okay.
Uh this doesn't seem right.
This doesn't gel with what he said in his prior testimony.
Uh and then we get to the rationale and the reasoning behind it.
Well, I just was listening to other people, so I put two and two together.
But yeah, the president did say I don't want a quid pro quo.
The president at no time ever said there's any linkage.
He actually said the opposite, John Solomon.
And, you know, the White House very cleverly, I thought, releasing the actual letter invitation to Zelensky with zero, no ties to anything to meet with the president in the Oval Office.
Yeah, listen, that's the most important part.
When you get to cases like this, and we're going to get to a trial perhaps someday in the Senate, facts matter, statements matter, witness testimony matters, contemporaneous events and evidence matter, the contemporaneous evidence and the primary testimony uh clearly indicate the president wanted no quid pro quo tie between the aid and the uh investigations.
He wanted investigations for the reasons he cited, but at the end of the day, there was no quid pro quo, which is what he's being charged with in this allegation of bribery or extortion or whichever term the Democrats have poll tested today.
But at the end of the day, those facts are going to be very relevant to a uh any trial attorney or any jury looking at it.
Because prior to this point, Greg Jarrett, all we had were people's interpretations of what they thought of the of the transcript, which frankly is meaningless.
It's all hearsay.
None of it would be admissible in the Senate.
Um, and I can't imagine that the chief justice presiding over this circus if it gets over there, and I'm assuming it probably will, because that's how unhinged the Democrats are.
Um would ever deny the president and his attorneys uh his sixth amendment rights, which is the right to confront his accuser.
You know, if uh the federal rules of evidence are invoked by the Senate, uh if that's what the majority wants to do, and they should.
Um you know, none of these witnesses are going to be able to testify.
Uh the Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is bereft of facts, so he's determined to remove the president from office Based purely upon the opinions of others who surmised or imagined uh this quid pro quo that doesn't exist anywhere in the transcript of the telephone call.
And now we learn from Ambassador Sondlin that the president told him directly, not once, but twice.
There's no quid pro quo, uh, and that aid is not tied to anything.
And so none of these people could ever testify.
Um they might, you know, Sondland might be able to say this is what the president told me in that telephone conversation.
But beyond that, all of these witnesses are nothing but rank speculation, conjecture, and hearsay.
You know, this is impeachment by rumor and innuendo.
It's unbelievable.
Now there was an interesting story that came out today, Jordan Seculo, uh, from Zero Hedge, and it's I did the headline says a lot.
The Ukrainian Ukrainian indictment claims 7.4 billion Obama-linked laundering puts Biden group take at 16.5 million dollars for quote their services.
You know, the one of the things I'm really having a hard time here that, you know, and I say it often, probably repeated too much, is that uh fire the prosecutor, you get the billion.
Don't fire him, you don't get the billion.
He knew his sum was being investigated, and his son paid millions for zero experience.
That that gets under my skin.
Well, it doesn't this is why trying to base the impeachment off of Ukrainian foreign policy, which you know, that's what we've ultimately gotten to is disputing over policy.
And when you get to Stanley's point, it's not even that.
It's like just presumptions over what you think, which almost sounds like he was setting up the president.
I mean, I haven't just based off kind of how he said it, why was he calling all these times and kind of asking it this way?
It's like he was asking it this way.
The president's screaming back, I don't want him doing anything.
Like what are you like uh maybe even picking up on this, but but at the same time, the recklessness here, because they've also uh as we get every time that these hearings and every day, and anybody that's watching it, uh, and the media can't they can try to cut around it when they do their their clips later in the day, but they can't do it while people watch it.
Every day it's coming up that this Biden and these questions about why are they even getting involved when you're when your dad's vice president, why get involved with any of these companies and in Ukraine with the mess that Ukraine was?
Um and and that if you're gonna base things off you uh Ukrainians on either side, I mean, it's like uh listen, they've going after uh reported, and John knows this very well now.
Going after reporter, because he talked to one Ukrainian, another Ukrainian says this Ukrainian is wrong, and that Ukraine is wrong.
It's it's we're also dealing with their you know, you can talk to whoever you want to, it's politics too, but also a level which is very different from you know being a reporter to decide I'm gonna actually be on their board, but oh, we're not gonna talk about this.
Now, I think that that's the recklessness of Democrats.
That's how bad they want to go after President Trump and a lot of these government officials from both sides of the aisle who work in the in the bureaucracy who may have you know initially worked for a Republican, then they work for a Democrat of them just reading their talking points for him.
And if you don't read their talking points, they try to take you down, and they don't like this.
They don't, I mean, you could see they're just they are so upset that they prepare talking points, and this president decides to govern independently.
All right, we'll wrap things up.
Amazing developments today.
Uh you know, I gotta tell you, your mob in the media, they are so corrupt.
They're such liars.
They won't even they won't even tell you about Sonlin's beatdown today.
They're not even gonna tell you that.
They're not gonna tell you about the IG preliminary report about Peter Strzok and his misconduct and his poor judgment.
And uh, or will they tell you about how the FBI vetting of informants slammed by Michael Horowitz, or what uh attorney General Barr had to say.
I'm not gonna tell you any of this.
So sick, corrupt, it's unbelievable.
All right, wrapping things up.
Uh we only have about 20 seconds each.
Final thoughts, uh, John Solomon, 20 seconds.
Ukraine is Russia redo.
It's a hearsay case that's gonna turn out not to be true.
Wow.
Unbelievable.
Greg Jarrett.
Well, this is an example of how desperate Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are, and Democrats at large in the House of Representatives.
Um, to call nothing but hearsay witnesses and witnesses who presume things, you know, that that's not evidence.
That's garbage.
And that's essentially the only argument that uh Democrats have against the president.
It's based on junk.
Last word, Jordan Seculo.
Last word, Jordan Seculo.
All right, we lost Jordan Seculo.
Uh, we're gonna have to end it there.
John, thank you.
Greg, thank you.
We have a massive Hannity tonight on the Fox News channel.
This just blew up.
This is worse than a this is like an atom bomb uh to the star witness.
They thought they had it all.
Got blown out of the water.
When we come back, I know a lot of you want to uh weigh in 800 941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
Quick break, right back.
Hannity at nine tonight.
This is an amazing day.
In more ways than I can even tell you.
Straight ahead.
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.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
This morning, two dedicated public servants speaking truth to power in the face of withering public criticism from President Trump and his allies.
It's absolutely an impressive morning for these witnesses who, as everyone has pointed out, are so clearly fact witnesses.
These are career professionals.
And Zinman struck me as the most devastating we've seen in a public hearing to date.
This is someone who obviously looks the part, is the part.
Look at him.
He's in the uniform of the United States Army.
And he, you know, almost was emotional at the end of his opening statement.
Clearly, these ludicrous accusations don't reflect committee members who are honestly searching for the truth.
They're the actions of partisan extremists who hijacked the Intelligence Committee, transformed it into the impeachment committee, abandoned its core oversight functions, and turned it into a beachhead for ousting an elected president from office.
You have to keep that history in mind as you consider the Democrats'latest catalog of supposed Trump outrageous.
Granted, a friendly call with the Ukrainian president wouldn't seem to rise to the same level as being a Russian agent, but the Democrats were running out of time.
If they waited any longer, their impeachment circus would intervene with their own candidates'2020 campaigns.
So you have to give them points for creativity in selling this absurdity as an impeachable offense All this explains why the Democrats have gathered zero Republican support in the House of Representatives for their impeachment crusade.
In fact, the vote we held was a bipartisan vote against this impeachment inquiry.
Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, and Chairman Nataler, the key figures behind this impeachment crusade, all proclaimed that impeachment is so damaging to the country that it can only proceed with bipartisan support.
Are those declarations suddenly no longer true?
Did impeachment become less divisive?
They know exactly what kind of damage they're inflicting on this nation, but they've passed the point of no return.
The Democrats have zeroed in on an anonymous whistleblower complaint that was cooked up in cooperation with the Democrats on this very committee.
They lied to the American people about that cooperation and refused to let us question the whistleblower to discover the truth.
Meanwhile, the Democrats lash out against anyone who questions or casts doubt on this spectacle.
When Ukrainian President Zelensky denies anything improper happened on the phone call, the Democrats say that he's a liar.
When journalists report on Ukraine election meddling and Hunter Biden's position on the board of corrupt Ukrainian companies, the Democrats label them conspiracy theorists.
When the Democrats can't get any traction for their allegations of quid pro quo, they move the goalposts and accuse the president of extortion, then bribery, and at last resort, obstruction of justice.
The American people sent us to Washington to solve problems, not to wage scorched earth political warfare against the other party.
This impeachment is not helping the American people.
It's not a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars.
And it's definitely not improving our national security.
All right, that was Devin Nunez the hearings earlier today.
No matter what the mob in the media says, this is what we know Sanlin said.
He outlined the epidemic of corruption that is the country of Ukraine in great detail.
He repeated again and again.
Nobody ever told me that aid was tied to anything.
His opening statement even made clear that President Trump never once discussed a quid pro quo.
And he couldn't be more clear when asked about this very issue.
Yeah, no, I just presume this.
No, I did not hear from the president.
You know, when he was asked, he said in his opening remarks, uh, I was acting good for good faith as a president appointee.
And he said, I want nothing.
The president, when he talked to the president, I want no quid, no pro and no quo.
He had no knowledge, direct knowledge of why aid was withheld, and yet we're still back at the same point.
You know, uh, he comments, well, about why aid was withheld.
I'm just guessing.
Well, guessing isn't real evidence, as we've been pointing out here.
Um, it is amazing that this is where they have now taken us, nor do they care about the security and safety of the American people.
No evidence of a link between security aid and the public statement.
None whatsoever.
Now, there's three separate times that President Trump offered an unconditional White House visit to President Zelensky three times.
Sondland couldn't be any more clear.
The president was not involved in any of this.
He discussed it over and over again today.
Voker the same thing.
Uh, all these other people testify the same thing.
They didn't know why there was any hold, but the president was clear in his discussion with Zelensky that the reason is because he you better not be involved with the same people the last president, because that's going to be really bad for you.
Anyway, Bill O'Reilly is with us.
Uh, get his thoughts on this.
Bill O'Reilly.com, his best uh selling book, The United States of Trump, How the President Really Sees America, top best seller.
How are you, sir?
Um confused.
Very confused today.
Do I need to help you?
Do we do we need to get you a shrink, O'Reilly?
You need to give me more than that.
Uh, you know, I'm a simple man.
I've always been a simple man.
I'm not sure what I'm saying.
But no, no, no.
You're you're anything but a simple man.
You're a company.
Simple man club.
So you're a complicated guy.
I I don't know why I have to watch 36 hours of this.
I I I don't, I'm much rather watch Dr. Phil or Judge Judy.
I did knocking off all my favorite shows.
So uh I wrote in the United States of Trump, and this is essential for everybody to understand.
That Donald Trump feels that he is a victim of people who wanted to destroy him and his campaign.
And those people were harbored by the Obama administration.
By the way, is he right?
We'll see, because his Justice Department is investigating that as we speak.
So he feels he's a victim and he's obsessed with writing the wrong he believes was delivered to him.
That's what this is all about.
Nothing more.
So, in the pursuit of exposing the wrong he believes happened to him, he makes a call to the president of Ukraine, Zelensky, And he says, Do me a favor.
All right, you're the new guy, the new sheriff.
Investigate all of this stuff that I'm hearing is really bad about how Ukraine tried to interfere in the election and how Joe Biden and his son conducted themselves in your country.
Let me know what happened.
He did it.
There's no question, it's in the transcript.
He did it.
But if you look at the context that his thought process is, I have to expose all of this corruption that happened in the 2016 election.
It makes perfect sense, and he's entitled to do it because he's the chief law enforcement officer of America.
He's in charge of the Justice Department.
He's entitled and under the law, and I've just looked it up.
He can't allow foreign aid to flow to a country that he believes or his administration believes is corrupt.
He can't by law do that.
So here's what I don't understand, and maybe you can explain this to me, because you're much smarter than I am.
Why does it be a good idea?
But by the way, Bill O'Reilly is being such a wise ass right now.
Come on.
I'm a simple man.
You're not simple.
Hannity, you're much smarter than I am.
You're so full of crap.
I only have 200.
I got 625.
All right.
Well, look, that means you're three times smarter than me.
Okay.
All right.
So why doesn't he?
And we talked about this last week.
And you tell me why he doesn't do it.
Just go out and say what I just said.
Just listen to the Hannity O'Reilly discourse and say just what I just said because it's absolutely true.
He told me this for the book to the United States of Trump.
It's in the book.
That was way before any of this dog and pony show.
Let me read something to you.
What?
So if we go back to the transcript, and by the way, there are two transcripts, and now we have three separate invitations with no conditions of the president inviting Zelensky to the White House.
But if you go back to the original transcript, which you know, all these people are commenting on.
President Trump, in the very paragraph where he said, You know, I'd like you to do us a favor, you know, because our country has been through a lot.
Ukraine knows a lot about it, and they we now know they were involved up to their eyeballs, but and then he says, I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people.
I would right.
And that is that is the reason enough to hold up aid to see what's going to happen.
So why not explain all this?
Why do I have to look at the lieutenant colonel up there and and I have to look at some woman who knew somebody and heard an overcall?
Why do I have to listen to this?
Just go out, you're the president, look into the camera, and explain what happened, and that's it.
You know, if he did that, that would undercut all of this bull.
It would make it it wouldn't make it go away because Schiff and Pelosi are never going to stop until the Senate uh says, no, we're not going to remove a president uh because it's your opinion.
He tried to do this for self-gain, but there's enough evidence that says this was perfectly legitimate line.
And by the way, I'm not little boep thinking that Donald Trump didn't want to get dirt on Joe Biden.
He did.
But did he use the power of his office to do some corrupt thing to get that?
No.
He asked for a favor, a favor.
And the favor was in context of an investigation that is going on now in the Justice Department.
If he would just do this, I'm telling you, this whole thing would evaporate.
Let me point out two things that I've been telling the audience all day.
There was a court decision bill in Ukraine.
Actually, even the New York Times wrote about it.
That their headline was Ukraine court rules manifort disclosure cause quote meddling in U.S. election.
The court in Ukraine, in a statement that they issued at the time, they had the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and they released the information.
Um, and they said that the violation resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damage the national interests of Ukraine.
Stay with me one second.
Politico, January 11th, 2017.
Headline, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Kiev officials scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump was not the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Donald Trump by publicly quite questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election.
Then it goes on to talk about Alexander Chalupa, Ukrainian American, who met with top officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in quote, an effort to expose ties between Trump and a top campaign aid Paul Manafort and Russia.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact on the 2016 race having forced Manafort's resignation.
So the president is saying, because I thought Democrats cared, Bill, about foreign election interference.
A Ukrainian court and politico admitted it all happened, and we know it happened.
Yeah, it happened.
Look, this is so complicated that no American outside of the people like you and me who are paid to do this can follow it.
Nobody can follow it.
I just want to break it down.
There's no doubt Ukraine tried to help Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump angry about that.
Donald Trump wants that exposed.
And if Joe Biden was a part of that, which he could have been, he wants that exposed.
He has a right to withhold any foreign aid if he believes the country is corrupt.
He asked Zelinski to please investigate what happened, all right, and then tell the world by the way.
That's the right thing.
That's the right thing to do, but stay there.
Trump's a deal maker.
This is what he does.
All right.
Hang on one second, Bill.
We'll take a break.
When we come back, where does Bill O'Reilly think this is all gonna end up?
And uh we have a little announcement.
Bill has his big speech, and I'm gonna be uh there, and I get to introduce him.
It's gonna be fun.
Uh 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, BillO'Reilly.com, his best seller, the United States of Trump, how Trump really sees America.
All right, our final moment with uh Bill O'Reilly, BillO'Reilly.com is uh book is everywhere, the United States of Trump, Amazon.com, bookstores everywhere.
All right, one we're gonna appear together.
I've agreed to introduce you in Huntington, Long Island.
Um, it's in December.
Number one.
And number two, where do you think this is gonna go?
All right, I'll get to the speech at the end.
Shev is gonna uh file articles of impeachment, given to Nadler.
Uh, it's gonna be a bribery charge, abuse of power.
Then it goes to the Senate.
The Senate will acquit.
Uh, I don't know how long it'll take.
The turtle, as you call him, Senator McConnell has is already knows what he's gonna do, but he's not gonna tip his hand.
He'll go, oh, yeah, yeah, we'll give it a f an airing, but it's not gonna lead to the removal of the president.
As for you introducing me, I am uh setting myself up for the biggest fall of my career.
Seriously.
Hannity unchained can say whatever he wants about me.
No, I'm staying out there I'm gonna probably I'm gonna end up talking for an hour.
You know me.
I'm not gonna shut up.
But what do you think?
Do you think I'm actually gonna say something bad about you?
You invited me to your event.
Yeah, and I'm coming.
The place is sold out.
All right, Bill O'Reilly, uh, Bill O'Reilly.com.
Uh, it's December 15th.
I'd offer you tickets, but it's sold out.
Uh, I'm gonna introduce Bill, but I'm also gonna do a little song and dance before I introduce him.
Uh, and uh Bill, great to have you.
Thanks for being with us.
Thank you, Sean.
All right, 800-941 Sean.
You want to be a part of the program.
I know many of you want to weigh in on all of this madness.
That is next as we continue.
You are listening to the best of the Sean Hannity Show.
You can't always believe what the other side claims.
That's why there's the Sean Hannity show.
All right, as we continue with Senator uh Lindsay Graham of South Carolina.
Senator, let's go to what you broke last night on the show.
And I've got to be honest, I think I speak for a lot of people being frustrated in terms of okay, when is the IG report on Pfizer abuse coming?
You said definitively December 9th, and that Michael Horowitz will be testifying before your committee December the 11th.
Right.
That's what's going to happen.
Is that locked in now?
This is not another Yeah.
So I've been talking to Horowitz about where he's at with his report.
There was uh uh trying to get as much of it declassified.
You have to go to the CIA to Department of Justice.
Anybody mentioned in the report, they get a chance to comment to make sure that you know they're they're being mentioned they get to tell their side of the story.
It's been a pretty long process.
The problem is that he found so many new things.
Every time they'd pick up a rock, they'd find something under it.
So I told Horowitz uh, you know, this is important for the country for you to get it right, timely is better.
And he told me that he felt like he could have it done December the 11th in a professional way and that it would be ready for uh distribution to the public December the ninth.
He also indicated that uh almost everything he wanted declassified has been declassified because he wants you to read it for yourself and not have a lot of black spots on a page.
So that's what's happening.
And we'll know December the ninth what he found, and we'll hear from him directly December the 11th.
All right, 25 now before the top of the hour, we continue.
Senator Lindsey Graham uh announcing December 9th is the date the Pfizer report of Inspector General Horowitz is released.
Senator Graham announcing December 11th, uh the Inspector General Horowitz will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator, there's something called the Grassley Graham memo.
And in that memo, it said that the bulk of information in the FISA applications.
This is about FISA abuse, that that came from an unverifiable, we know now dirty Russian dossier on Donald J. Trump, then candidate that Hillary Clinton paid for with funneled money through a law firm hiring an op research firm, hiring uh a foreign agent uh by the name of Christopher Steele.
Here's my question.
We know that the DOJ and the FBI were warned by Kathleen Kavlek, Bruce Orr, as many as five separate warnings that it's unverified, that Steele had a political agenda and Hillary paid for it.
Steele, in an interrogatory, said he has no idea if any of this is true in Great Britain.
That means it's an unverifiable document.
When the FBI finally got around to doing a deep dive investigation, they disproved over 90% of that document.
My question to you is is there any other possible conclusion than premeditated fraud against the FISA court, which denied one American citizen Carter Page his constitutional rights, but also provided a backdoor into all things candidate Trump world, transition Trump world, and then President Trump world, because there were three subsequent renewal applications all approved.
Well, the Grassley Graham memo was myself and Chuck going through the available documents we had with our staff to paint a picture that the dossier was paid for by a political uh party, that the person who wrote the dossier had a well-known bias against the president, and the substance of it is a bunch of garbage unverified to this day.
Why do we have Horowitz coming forward?
Does he agree with what we found?
Does he if he agrees with what we found, that would be stunning?
What would it mean?
It would mean that the Pfizer court was defrauded.
Rather than me speaking for him, you're gonna hear from him December the 11th.
And I would be curious as to whether or not he agrees with our research and our analysis.
And if he doesn't, I'd like to know why.
And that's why he's coming forward.
I've heard it's over 550 pages.
Now, if if to this day anything in the Pfizer report, I've I've learned a lot about Pfizer applications on the top of a Pfizer application, Senator is something the word verified.
Right.
So if the information in the application is unverifiable, and they were warned it was unverifiable, to me that would be a pretty slam-dunk Case and we do have the infamous words of the deputy FBI director, that would be Andrew McCabe when he said, Yeah, no dossier, no FISA warrant.
So let's just unpack that.
All right.
Without the dossier, McCabe says there would be no warrant issued against Carter Page.
If in fact that's true, and the dossier is un dossier is unverified to this day, then the FISA court should feel betrayed.
Now here's the question.
When did they try to verify the dossier?
It's my belief that they made no serious effort to verify it until after they'd gotten a warrant multiple times.
Well, Senator, let me ask you, if I presented information to any court, even if it was for a traffic ticket, and I was the information I was presenting to the court, I swore and verified was true, and I had no idea if it was true or if I was warned that it's not true and it wasn't verifiable and it's not true in the end, why do I think that somebody like Sean Hannity would probably, and everybody listening to this show would probably find themselves arrested and likely facing a prison term?
Well, if you're a cop and you go get a warrant before a judge and you give him a bunch of garbage, you're in trouble.
So there's two outcomes here.
If if it's clear that these people knew that the information they were providing to the Pfizer court or should have known was unreliable and false, and they could be charged with basically violating the oath to the court.
The other outcome is they made no effort at all.
They were sloppy, they were negligent, they were indifferent, they were careless.
That should at least invoke a reprimand.
So what we'll hear from Horowitz is that the information provided to the court, was it such that you can prove that they intentionally misled the court, which would be a crime?
At a minimum, I think you're going to find that they did a terrible job, a lousy job, and I hope this never happens again, and I hope the Pfizer court will discipline the people who basically uh misled it.
Did you, Senator, have an opportunity to hear the Attorney General of the United States, Bill Barr, in a speech that he gave over the weekend.
Would you like me to play a portion of it?
Because I thought I thought this was a powerful speech that would never be given unless the attorney general had good reason to give it.
I'll play some for you.
Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen this con these conflicts take on an entirely new character.
Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called the resistance.
And they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration.
Now resistance is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power.
This is a very dangerous and indeed incendiary notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic.
The fact of the matter is that in waging a scorched earth, no holds barred war of resistance against this administration.
It is the left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law.
Senator, that to means that the Attorney General, I believe everything he said is true and accurate, and we have proven it.
Look at the Russia witch hunt.
Now look at the Ukraine impeachment coup attempt, witch hunt.
I believe all of that is accurate, and I believe for an attorney general to say that means he knows a lot more than little old talk show host Sean Hannity.
Well, it was a bold statement, and I think the fact patterns justify that statement.
Real quickly, Mueller was allowed to do his job without political interference, $25 million, 60 FBI agents.
He issued hundreds of pages, and he decided not to recommend any action against the president.
I thought it would be over.
Now you've got an impeachment inquiry led by Adam Schiff, the most partisan guy in the House who's been wanting to get Trump since day one, making up an allegation that doesn't hold water.
This is the first time a president's ever been peached by a partisan rather than outside counsel.
So it just explains to me that they will never accept Trump being a legitimate president.
Did the institutions of the Department of Justice and FBI at the top engage in similar conduct by trying to get a warrant uh improperly, maybe illegally against the Trump campaign.
Did they open up a counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign, violating every norm of the intelligence community all this together is resistance?
You can't have a counterintelligence investigation, Senator, without the signing off of the Oval Office.
That would be President Barack Obama.
I don't believe it's possible for the our government to investigate the nominee of the Republican Party without it going all the way to the top.
And you should have some rules about how our government can investigate the nominee of any major party.
There are no rules.
And look what happened after he won.
They surveilled his transition team.
They surveilled Michael Flynn.
You know, this is the president to be.
What are they doing surveilling his team?
You had an uh uh an alleged effort to wire somebody uh to invoke the 25th amendment.
If this doesn't scare you, then you have lost all sense of what it's like to be an American because you hate Trump so much.
I listen, I know I'm keeping you much longer than I than you plan.
If you have to go, I understand.
I just have a lot of questions for you.
You know, Senator, I've I don't think we've lived in a time like this that we're supposed to care about foreign Russian foreign interference on our elections, but you have a media mob and uh and one party that will ignore a dirty bought and paid for Russian dossier.
Um if you're a Democrat, you have to be an I believer, but you won't nobody I believed when the significant serious charges of rape and violent sexual assault were made against the lieutenant governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, no but no not a peep out of the I believers to be, you know, you have to ignore a Ukrainian court that said they did interfere in the 2016 elections.
You have to ignore that a DNC operative by the name Shalupa, as chronicled in Politico on January 11, 2017, uh literally coordinated with Ukrainians to get dirt on Trump and Manafort and other Trump campaign associates to help Hillary Clinton win in 2016.
Um you have to be against the quid pro quo, but ignore Joe, who says fire the prosecutor who's paying my son's millions with zero experience, uh, and you get a billion, but if you don't fire him, you don't get the billion, and you've got six hours to decide.
You have to that's that's how you have to bifurcate your brain, Senator.
Well, what you're doing is trying to get an outcome.
You want uh President Trump to be removed from office or be damaged to the point that he can't get re-elected.
You want to keep the seat open so that a Democrat can fill Kavanaugh's seat, not Kavanaugh.
No rules are gonna get in your way in terms of an outcome.
The presumption of Vincent doesn't apply to Kavanaugh because it gets in the way.
So the bottom line here is they're seeking an outcome and the rules be damned.
Here's what would be interesting for me.
I supported Mueller being able to do his job without interference because I'm not sure.
We did, you were very outspoken.
Well, you know, I thought somebody needed to look at all these allegations.
It could not be done through the political process because everybody's so in their camps, and I trusted Mueller to be fair.
Now, whether you believe he was fair or not, it's now history.
He found nothing uh to charge the president with, and his report found no collusion and no actual obstruction of justice.
Here's what I wonder about Democrats.
If Horowitz comes out and says the FISA court was defrauded, the Pfizer court was uh misled, the counterintelligence investigation was a sham, uh will they care?
Or if they used if they outsource spying to allied countries.
Will they care?
And I just asked them to do what I was willing to do.
Senator, we already know the answer.
They won't care.
It's never been this bad, has it?
Well, if they won't care about this, that means getting Trump is the goal, and it's okay as long as you're out to get Trump.
There's no rules when it comes to getting Trump.
The ends justify the means.
And if that becomes the the way we look at everything done to President Trump is okay as long as they wanted to get him, then this is really scary.
I mean, I I'm trying to tell my Democratic colleagues.
Look what they're doing to the president in the House.
They're having behind closed doors uh uh depositions or selective leaking information.
The president's counsel is excluded from cross-examining witnesses.
The president uh the Republicans couldn't call a witness until the third day of the hearings.
How would you like this to be done to a Democratic president?
You're putting the entire presidency at risk.
I know you don't like Trump, but let's not destroy everything that makes America a rule of law nation just because you don't like Trump.
Senator, you have uh been and have emerged as a real leader uh in the Senate.
You and I have had our disagreements over the years, they're long forgotten.
Um thank you for the important work you're doing for the country, your voice, your strength, your your You know what you're doing is important here.
Um, yeah, what you're doing, you're not talking about you know, my ideological difference with Democrats.
You're actually exploring the fact patterns.
And of all the researchers on cable television, I watch your show because usually I learned something I wouldn't have known otherwise.
And John Solomon should be getting prizes for his reporting.
He's being condemned.
Yeah.
Senator, thank you.
I you've been very generous with your time today.
We'll look forward to December 9th and December 11th.
All right, happy Thanksgiving.
Thanks.
Happy Thanksgiving as well.
800 941 Sean Toll Free telephone number.
You want to be a part of this extravaganza.
All the breaking news or the analysis to help you make sense of it all.
This is the Sean Hannity show, the best of Sean Hannity is on now.
Well, we're coming to your city.
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country sound.
We'll all be tired.
Highland of jail honor.
And if you want a little bang in your yin yang, come along.
In the history of our country, there has never been a disgrace like what's going on right now.
Republicans, they weren't allowed to ask questions.
It's a very sad thing.
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order on the other.
So we know clearly you're going to interrupt us throughout this hearing.
No chairman of unanimous.
Not recognized.
The clock is ticking.
Only three hundred and forty days left till the presidential election.
Yeah, we are coming to your city.
Don't play our gentleman saying you'll come to song.
Sean Hannity.
The new Sean Hannity show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
I finally called the president.
I believe it was on the 9th of September.
I can't find the records, and they won't provide them to me.
But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman.
What do you want from Ukraine?
I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that.
What do you want?
And he just said, I want nothing.
I want nothing.
I want no quid pro quo.
Tell them Zelensky to do the right thing.
Something to that effect.
If I could interject here, we don't want to use these proceedings.
It's our time.
I know.
But we need to protect the whistleblower.
Um please stop.
I want to make sure that uh there's no effort to out the whistleblower through the use of these proceedings.
Um if the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower.
Uh that is not the purpose that we are here for, and I want to advise uh the witness accordingly.
I mean, you can really you can plead the fifth, but you're here to answer questions, and you're here under subpoena.
Uh so you can either answer the question or you can plead the fifth.
Uh excuse me.
Uh on behalf of my client, we are uh following The rule of the committee, the rule of the chair with regard to this issue.
And this does not call for an answer that is invoking the fifth or any theoretical issue like that.
Following the ruling of the chair.
What counselor, what ruling is that?
I could interject.
Counsel is correct.
Whistleblower has the right, statutory right to anonymity.
These proceedings will not be used out the whistleblower.
And I've advised my client accordingly, and he's going to follow the ruling of the chair.
If there's a alternative or you want to work something out with the chair, that's up to you, Mr. News.
Thanks, gentlemen.
I'd like to address a few brief words to the American people watching at home.
If you watched the impeachment hearings last week, you may have noticed a disconnect between what you actually saw and the mainstream media accounts describing it.
When you saw three diplomats who dislike President Trump's Ukraine policy, discussing secondhand and third-hand conversations about their objections with the Trump policy.
Meanwhile, they admitted they had not talked to the president about these matters.
And they were unable to identify any crime or impeachable offense the president committed.
But what you read in the press were accounts of shocking, damning, and explosive testimony that fully supports the Democrats' accusations.
If these accounts have a familiar ring, it's because this is the same preposterous reporting the media offered for three years on the Russian hoax.
On a nearly daily basis, the top news outlets in America reported breathlessly on the newest bombshell revelations showing that President Trump and everyone surrounding him were Russian agents.
It really wasn't long ago that we were reading these headlines.
From CNN, Congress investigating Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials.
This was false.
New York Times, Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence.
Also false.
This was false.
New York Magazine, will Trump be meeting with his counterpart or his handler?
This was false.
The Guardian, Manafort held secret talks with Asajj and Ecuadorian embassy.
Also false.
BuzzFeed.
President Trump directed his attorney to lie to Congress about the Moscow Tower project.
All of these were false.
That was the most powerful opening statement.
That was Devin Nunes, uh, the ranking member on the committee earlier today.
Uh, and it pretty much sums up where, you know, where this whole thing has been, where it goes.
You know, you know what the top takeaway of today is?
Another dud.
I mean, both witnesses made very clear aid was withheld to ensure consistency with the administration policy.
I mean, you can't get any more clearer than that yourself, or Vinman confirming that the call is accurate, because if the call's accurate, then guess what?
Nothing bad happened on that phone call.
Nothing.
You know, also the media won't cover this part.
You got quid pro quo Joe.
You know, well, you fire that prosecutor.
Or he'll shoot our getting a billion dollars.
Fire him, you get a billion.
Don't fire him, you don't get the billion.
You got six hours.
And he knew was warned repeatedly that his son was being investigated by the prosecutor.
He's now using taxpayer money to get fired.
Unbelievable.
A real quid pro quo.
Uh Vinman acknowledging that the need to root out corruption in Ukraine.
Yeah, in other words, the president's demand is smart.
It is you you we're not gonna throw good money after bad.
Then you got this woman Morrison disputing Vin the Vinman's recollection of the call.
I mean, they can't even agree with each other, which is how corrupt this whole thing gets as you move.
The the the president of Ukraine stated clearly no quid, no pro, no quo of any type.
There's never any mention of any aid on that phone call.
None whatsoever.
When the aid, remember, they didn't know that the aid was held up.
Then when they got the aid, guess what?
They got nothing in exchange for the aid.
No wonder why the president, the foreign minister said, we thought it was a great call.
No, we didn't even know the aid was held up, and no, they asked for nothing.
And then, of course, the open-ended question, Sonderman will be on, I guess, or whatever Soderman is This week, him saying, yeah, the president said there's no quid pro quo.
Withholding aid, by the way, happens to be very commonplace.
Obama did it.
Bush did it.
Carter did it.
They all did it.
You know, so uh the witch hunt just continues.
And you're not going to get the mob in the media.
They're not going to ask the questions that matter.
Uh, like, oh, who are these two people that, you know, Kerry Pickett's story today, and she'll join us later in the program, are telling us about that actually now work for Adam Schiff that they knew the non-whistleblower hearsay whistleblower and were friends with them.
Oh, how convenient.
You know, and then you got the mob in the media, they'll just regurgitate every opinion.
That's all this is is opinions of people.
When you have the actual transcript, you don't need their opinions.
Because opinions, okay, everybody clearly now has a different opinion about it.
So the only real evidence that would actually be admissible in a real courtroom, uh, would not be hearsay evidence about what people think about what they thought about somebody's grandmother's father's nephew's, third cousin's wife thought thinks of the call.
And they just do this because what?
They have a policy disagreement, but more importantly, they hate the president.
They hate the fact that we, the people, voted for him.
That was not their chosen candidate.
And uh so that they know they can't beat him.
Well, let's just impeach him.
You know, we have policy disagreements.
Uh oh, when they ask the question, Radcliffe today.
Anyone any of you ever mentioned bribery?
No, because we now have the corrupt media almost well, we'll stop saying quid pro quo.
Let's change the name after we focus group into bribery.
And of course, again, ignor, you know, not going into the whole real scandal, which is Joe Biden.
Anyway, Sean Davis, co-founder of the Federalist, Greg Jarrett with us, Fox News legal analyst, author of the New York Times bestseller Witch Hunt.
Uh I I I honestly find this to be the biggest most colossal waste of time.
And I watched the media breathlessly acting like it's something when I see nothing, Greg.
There's nothing here.
Read the transcript.
None of this testimony matters in the least.
Vinman testified he was concerned about the president's conversation with Zelensky.
That's nothing more than opinion, an impression or a feeling.
We all have them.
They are a poor substitute for facts.
The unvarnished truth is that Vinman just didn't like what Trump said on the phone call because the president did not strictly follow Vinman's notes that he'd prepared for the discussion.
And in fact, in describing the call, Vinman said, Well, this was not in the preparation material I had offered, you know, as if to say, how dare Trump deviate from my planned script.
So Vinman then complains.
Instead of going to his direct supervisor, he conveys his feelings to an individual in the Intel community that he won't identify, who's likely the source for the faux whistleblower, who then filed a complaint that doesn't qualify under the whistleblower statute as a valid complaint.
So Vinman, it appears, was instrumental in initiating the impeachment insanity.
It really is Sean Davis.
There is an insanity here.
Because if you want a quid and you want a pro and you want a quo, you gotta look at Joe.
Uh fire the prosecutor, you get a billion.
If not, I'm you're not getting the billion.
Call Obama, you're not gonna get it.
I'm leaving in six hours.
There's your quid pro quo.
Right.
And it was uh, I'll take issue just very briefly with one thing you said earlier.
You said this hearing was a dut for the for uh impeachment.
I think uh I would disagree with that.
I think it was a bombshell, but one that blew up in the hands of Democrats.
They had planned today to be a display of a uniform military officer lowering the hammer, lowering the boom on Trump.
And instead, what we learned was that Alex Binman was actually patient zero and the anti-Trump bureaucracy coup epidemic uh throughout the government.
This was a guy who was clearly starting the entire whistleblower effort against Trump.
He said that before he went to his superior, before he even went to the NFC lawyer, that he spread around his so-called concerns about this call to more than half a dozen uh officials who he called his coordination partners, and also an individual who worked in the intelligence community whom he uh re uh refused to name.
Now remember, this guy, he said he didn't know who the whistleblower was, and yet when he was asked that question, who'd you talk to in the intel community?
His lawyer said, Well, he can't answer that because it might identify the whistleblower.
This entire sham blew up in the Democrat states today, and it did so because their their number one plotter here, Vinman, was revealed to have been instrumental in starting this entire thing.
And his testimony showed him to be completely untrustworthy.
Here's the other thing, and you tweeted this out today, Sean, and I didn't hadn't thought about this, but it's profound, is that Vinman uh admitted to going behind the president's back before the president spoke with Zelensky, giving Zelensky instructions on what policies he should pursue and what his posture should be towards the U.S. And having already admitted in previous testimony that he was told uh that he told Ukraine to ignore Trump?
There's your bombshell.
He had really contradictory testimony, you know, both today and and compared to his previous deposition, where he claimed, you know, I never went outside the chain of command.
Uh the president's always in charge, and yet we have him admitting, yeah, I went around his back.
I told the Ukrainians not to get involved in this or that.
I told him that, you know, they need to do this policy, not this other policy that the president wanted.
It this is unconscionable behavior.
This is the kind of thing that if you did uh in the military in combat and you went around a uh commander's back, you would have serious uh legal implications for you.
And yet you have this guy just out there openly admitting, uh, yeah, yeah, I went behind his back, I did this stuff, and it was clear in questions today when he was asked, do you work does the Secretary of State work for you?
Do these ambassadors work for you?
Does the president work for you?
This man bristled whenever he was reminded of his actual place in the hierarchy in our government.
And the reality is he's a mid-level bureaucrat.
He's not a principal, he's not a decision maker, and he he was clearly riles of being reminded of that, that it's the president, not a mid-level bureaucrat who makes American policy when it comes to foreign nations.
By the way, what guy would ever think uh Greg Jarrett that he has the ability to go behind the president's back the way he did, and and you're right, he was obviously insulted that his prepared talking points weren't used by the president.
Uh I don't think President Trump is a talking point kind of guy.
Uh and and this was not the conversation for anything deep anyway, it was more of a congratulatory call.
And by the way, don't surround yourself with the corrupt people that your your predecessor surrounded himself with.
I'm worried about that.
Uh, and then said, hey, uh, your country was involved in our election interference with uh what the Ukrainian court had determined and political wrote about in January of 2017.
So I think that the president was faithfully executing the laws, but apparently Mr. Vinman uh thought his policies and advice to Zelensky was more important than in anything else.
It sounds like he was trying to set up a meeting like a Ukraine first policy.
Right.
You know, you Vinman thought that he's above the Secretary of State, above the president.
He's some super special expert to which all, including Trump, should prefer.
Uh and and the interesting moment occurred when the witness was reminded about how he touted or more likely exaggerated his unparalleled credentials and authorities uh during his deposition, and I'll quote him.
I'm the director for Ukraine.
I'm responsible for Ukraine.
I'm the most knowledgeable.
I'm the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House.
My word.
I mean, the self-puffery was unbecoming, but it really spoke volumes about what motivated Vinden when you know the president had the audacity to conduct foreign policy in a way that this mid-level bureaucrat NSE staffer did not pre-approve.
How important was Vinman in the White House?
He never so much has met the president.
So that uh explains his testimony.
It's all hearsay.
It none of it would be admissible.
Anyway, stay right there.
800-941-SHAWN if you want to be a part of the program.
Putting America and Americans first.
Now there's a novel idea.
You're on the Sean Hannity show.
Show wrapping things up.
Right.
Summary, Sean uh I'll ask you first, uh Davis from the Federalist, 30 seconds.
How does this now end?
I think this ends with a vote in the House that is completely partisan with all Democrats and uh no Republicans voting to impeach.
I think that gets to the Senate and it goes nowhere in the Senate.
Uh they may have a trial, but there's no way on earth uh Trump's getting convicted.
The whole thing is a uh a show meant to damage him ahead of the 2020 election.
Greg Jarrett, how does it end?
Same way Sean said it would.
Uh this is a carnival.
Uh and frankly, I wrote a column that said Trump uh should hope that Schiff's carnival never stops because it only extends to his benefit.
It ensures his continued residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The backlash against Democrats here will be severe.
All right, when we come back, thank you, Bois.
Uh, Greg Jarrett, 800-941 Sean.
We'll get to some of your calls.
You're actually gonna talk to a real whistleblower.
Uh and what are the real protections?
Kerry Pickett is gonna break some news at the top of the five o'clock hour about now.
We know that the Hearsay Whistleblower now was friends with two people in Schiff's office and served with two people at the same time in the early days of the Trump White House.
That's coming up.
A lot of your calls.
We have an amazing Hannity.
Tonight, nine Eastern Fox News will continue.
This is the best of the best.
This is The Sean Hannity Show.
The Sean Hannity Show.
More of the best of the Sean Hannity show coming up.
The radio show, the mainstream media loves state.
This is the Sean Hannity show.
This week is Thanksgiving.
If the president is watching, what do you want to say to him?
I love you, sir.
You're awesome.
Uh you and your uh, you know, I I'll say this, Mr. President.
I wish you had a better team around you.
Uh you knew you need more people watching your back.
Um I think you don't have a lot of that.
And and that is absolutely unfortunate.
And that uh that infuriates me to no end.
Uh, gotta get your comment on this.
If someone who wants to be the next commander in chief tweeted about your case and Matt's case and Eddie's case, it was Joe Biden.
He tweeted this.
He said Trump's intervention in the American military justice system to pardon service members accused or convicted of war crimes, betrays the rule of law, the values that make our country exceptional, and in the men and women who wear the uniform honorably, he is not fit to command our troops.
What would you say to that?
Well, I would say with all due respect to the former vice president, um, you know, uh that seems to be a um a partisan um answer.
That seems to be uh something that he's just towing the party line on.
Um I highly doubt the vice president uh being the patriotic man with a with a son in the military like he had.
Um I highly doubt that he really believes that.
And I think that what he's doing is he's towing the party line.
And he's he's uh doing what he thinks his donors and his uh the people that are signing his paycheck uh are expecting him to do.
And um I think if you were to sit down with him face to face, I think he'd have an issue saying that, right, face to face.
All right, that was Clint Lowrance on with our buddy Pete Heggseth.
We have followed Clint Lorance's case now for six years.
We have now followed this case of this grave injustice.
And thanks to the president, uh, we now have he is granted pardons uh and restored the the rank to Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, but he signed full pardons for Army First Lieutenant Clint Lowrence and Army Major Matthew Goldstein and directed promotion of special warfare operator, first class Eddie Gallagher, which we've interviewed Eddie before.
And I gotta tell you, this is a case I cannot believe it we have gotten to this point where we have people in air conditioned off offices now.
Second guessing what are brave men and women when they have to make a life and death decision for themselves and their platoon members, uh, and if they make the wrong decision, well, they're in trouble.
And we end up putting them in jail.
And that's basically what happened to Clint Lowrence.
This goes back to July of 2012.
He's leading men on combat through a heavily planted Afghan minefields, risking his life for his country.
Anyway, the moving single file To avoid the IEDs, which are planted all over the place.
And then three Afghan men start charging Lawrence's men on a motorcycle on a road that's controlled by the Taliban, ignoring signs that they were supposed to stay off the road.
And he asked to his platoon leader, maybe he has five seconds to make the decision.
What do I do here?
Do I save my guys?
Now here's an interesting side note to all of this is that that very platoon had been ambushed by these motorcycle IED guys.
What was it two weeks prior?
Yep.
And they lost the platoon leader, didn't they not?
And look and others were injured.
Right.
Correct?
Right.
So the these guys are coming right at them.
Anyway, so he goes on trial.
And how many, and by the way, Clinton Lawrence is is with us, Army Lieutenant Clint Lorenz.
And also as his attorney, Don Brown, how many years have you been working on this now, Don?
Going on a couple of years now, and the legal team's been involved with this for five years, John Marister, the team.
We're so grateful for today, Sean.
We really are.
A big day today.
It's great to finally meet you.
You too.
You too, Sean.
Have you heard we've been talking about you a little bit?
Were you ears burning?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And first, you know, if I can, you know, I I tried to, when anybody asks me anything about the last couple of days, the first thing I say is thank you to President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
And I think that's something that I'll probably do for the rest of my life.
Um they they just saved my life, and I owe them my life.
And uh the men and women of the United States military, uh, they have a real good man in the White House.
Well, certainly he's supporting his military.
What was very interesting, and and you could maybe why don't you walk us through that day?
Because I want people to hear what happened from you.
Okay.
So uh I'll walk you through it, uh, but uh, I'd like you to uh consider that it's been uh about seven years now.
Um so my my memory is kind of fading.
I've I've uh I've sort of, you know, I think some things have kind of melded together over the years.
But essentially uh we were on a dismounted foot patrol.
Uh and the reason we were using dismounts, uh, which is you know, for your non-military listeners, uh, you're walking.
Um so we're we're a foot patrolling.
And you're the new platoon leader.
I'm the new, yep, I'm the new guy.
I've been there.
Single file.
Right, single file.
I'm the new guy.
I've been there uh about 72 hours by now.
So I don't know any of these guys, none of them know me.
And you know, I still to be honest with you, I can't even remember most of their names.
And you know, there's there's still some people like in the in the stars documentary that came out that uh I'm like, who is that?
Like I don't know who that is.
How long prior to you getting there was the platoon leader killed in a very similar situation you're about to describe?
Well, the platoon, the previous platoon leader was not killed, but there we there were soldiers that that were unfortunately killed uh by those uh animals that were fighting over there.
Um cowards, really.
Uh, but um the previous platoon leader that I replaced, he was he was wounded in action, uh, unfortunately.
He's he's he's doing well these days.
Um, but uh I I can't remember exactly how long it was.
It was a few weeks um that the platoon was out, so was out there without a platoon leader, and then I got it.
So motorcycles are coming at your platoon.
Yep.
So what so what happened was uh in an overall you know, helicopter view, um, so essentially we had um a group of Taliban who were amassing on our position.
And so they had collected in a large area up to the north of our position, and uh they split up from that area, and then I ordered uh and and mind you, uh I'm giving these orders to my soldiers who are telling me what they're seeing.
I can't see everything, right?
Because it's just the nature of where we're at.
And so I can't see anything.
I'm hearing all these reports coming out.
I'm I'm hearing reports coming in from the the army attack helicopters that are up up above the uh the area.
Um, and uh so I've got all these reports coming in, and um I know that you know the commander's instinct is very important.
The commander on the ground is very important, and there's a reason why one guy wears lieutenant bars.
There's a reason why one guy is our gal is in charge because they have to make that very difficult decision that nobody else has to make.
You legally have to make that decision.
The problem is with, you know, when when when we have when we don't have President Donald Trump in the White House, we have people who will not stand up for our soldiers and will not let our leaders Those rules of engagement.
I want to make sure we get this in, though.
So these motorcycle guys are coming at you.
Right.
This is a known tactic that they blow themselves up and they they literally are coming to kill you.
Right.
All right.
You're getting all the reports coming in.
You got to make a how long did you have to make a decision and what did you say to your troops?
Oh, wow.
It was a few seconds.
Everything was happening, just I mean, rapid lightning fast.
And you know, I'm thinking to myself, I'm thinking, my God, I just took over.
These guys are all young.
I'm gonna have to write letters and and talk to their mom and dad.
You know, I'm sorry I got your son killed because I made a bad decision.
There's just so many things going through your head, and you're sitting there thinking, my God, we're the United States Army, you know, we can't lose, we won't lose, but I don't want to lose my men.
I love them.
They're they're Americans, they're 18 years old.
And and so you're thinking, uh You're thinking all of those things are going through your head, and that's a lot to go through your head at the same time as what tactical decision do I make in terms of how do I respond to the Taliban that's attacking my position.
And so I made the best decision that I can make given the the the uh conditions on the ground.
And I'll tell you this, Sean, I would make the same exact decision again today if I was faced with that decision because if I had come home with my soldiers, any of my soldiers having been killed on my watch, then you know that that would have been far worse than living in Fort Leavenworth for six years.
So you make the decision, you take these two guys out.
When did you know you might be in trouble over this?
Well, to be honest with you, I uh I had never given any thought to the military justice system.
We you know, it's known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or as we soldiers call it, Kangaroo Court.
Uh and so essentially, uh I never thought about it.
I never thought, you know, that my chain of command would second guess what the decision I made.
When when did you first find out that they were second guessing?
Um they had uh uh my brigade commander uh essentially uh made a it was almost like a predetermined decision, made a decision uh he basically decided I was guilty before even talking to me.
Well uh and and and you and the military and the army, especially in in the combat arms part of the army, when a brigade commander, when a senior officer makes a decision about something, he doesn't even have to say anything.
He can have a frown on his face when he's talking about it.
And all the rest of the butt-kissing officers that are uh underneath him are gonna follow his lead.
That's just the way it is.
How many days after this did you realize holy that that I'm now being I'm being put on trial for making a split second decision?
Well, uh I'd say maybe uh a couple of months uh started to build up.
Yeah.
And then what was interesting about your case, because then you got sentenced how many years in jail?
Twenty initially it was twenty, then the uh it was and sort of a joke, uh the the convening authority reduced it uh by one year to 19 years.
And so how many years in Leavenworth did you spend?
Six years and about a couple of months.
And we then found out later, because they were trying to say, Carzai, I guess under the Obama administration, they were they were trying to say that you had killed innocent farmers.
That was what they had said at the time.
Yeah.
But then when new information came back, uh that they had biometric evidence that they apparently withheld this evidence, which is exculpatory for you, that in fact tied the guys that you did kill to planting IEDs.
Didn't they find their DNA on IEDs and they were able to definitively say that's the DNA of these guys on these IEDs?
Right.
Well, that should have freed you immediately.
Why didn't that happen?
Let me ask you a lawyer on this.
Uh Sean, thanks for the question.
The uh Army dug in deeper.
They dug in deeper to protect the system.
They dug in deeper at multiple levels.
United States government has never denied that these were Taliban bomb makers.
They their position was, well, Clint had no way of knowing it.
Well, nobody has any way of knowing what a farmer is with a weapon over there.
They dug themselves in to protect a corrupted system.
And to this day have not apologized for it.
As soon as this evidence came forward, they should have let Clint out of prison.
They hid it initially from the initial defense team, which is why we got a corruption.
That's withholding exculpatory evidence.
Six years of this guy's life now that have been wasted in jail.
Not you've not wasted, but you know what I mean.
That he had to live in prison.
U.S. Supreme Court Brady versus Maryland, they got to turn that over initially.
That's the Brady law that our friend Sidney Powell often speaks of on the shows representing General Flynn.
So does he have any legal recourse here?
You have at this point, we still haven't gotten uh uh an official notification.
The defense team is not from the Department of the Army as to the status of discharge.
He's been legally pardoned.
There's no crime at all.
We're still looking into the issues.
No, I'm looking about who you can sue.
I want to know what legal recourse he has to get recovery for the six years of his life that were stolen from him when they withheld the exculpatory evidence.
I hear if I can I interject something there, uh Don.
Yeah, yeah.
Just don't yeah, go ahead.
I'll I I know I you know I I get uh these these looks from my lawyers all the time.
Uh first of all, I have an amazing legal team.
There's there's there's just there's so many of them.
Mr. Brown here is uh is the lead with with Colonel Maher.
They're they're amazing.
But I'll say this.
If if given that you ask, you know, who you could sue, um, I don't want to sue anybody and I'm not gonna do it.
No, no, no, no, no.
Don't ever say those words.
No.
Well, let me just say this, Sean.
Let me explain myself.
I'm not gonna sue the United States government as long as President Donald Trump is in charge of it.
But I'll say this.
You're not sure what I'm gonna do.
You're not suing Donald Trump.
Let me tell you something.
You're suing the people that stole six years of your life by withholding exculpatory evidence.
That's who deserve, they need to be held accountable.
Right.
I absolutely agree, and we're gonna hold the and hold them accountable by reforming the military justice system so it doesn't ever happen to anybody else.
We cannot let this happen to anybody else.
What is his legal recourse, counsel?
Don't let him say the words I'm not gonna sue.
Uh was legal recourse is a legal team's gonna have to discuss that, but uh, you know, you're correct.
Somebody made decisions of the chain of command to deny Clint not only his constitutional rights, but take away six years of his life.
Uh, this prosecution should have never taken place to begin with.
There's some things that active duty can and cannot do because of the fairest doctrines of America.
How did they get to this conclusion, though?
You know, he's got five sec three seconds to decide.
He knows the situation that he just immersed himself in in 72 hours.
How did they get to second guess that anyway?
They were hacked off because they wanted to get him for violating Obama's rules of engagement under what I call the battlefield lawyer rule.
In other words, he has to wait until his men get blown up or shot before he can fight back.
You know, you have to they they're the hostile.
That's insanity.
Right.
So they want to make an example of him.
And by the way, they lost on the That's how Americans die in war.
If we're not prepared to send our brave men, we're gonna ask him to go fight, don't put handcuffs on them, and let them fight and win.
Three times.
Three times as many Americans died under President Obama than President Trump in Afghanistan.
And the reason is because of suicidal rules of engagement that put the lives of the Taliban over the lives of Americans.
Well, they if if we have to wait to get shot at first in that environment, then we don't we don't belong sending our sons and daughters there, period.
Uh welcome home, sir.
It's great to have you back.
Thank you, sir.
Uh, you got a great team of lawyers here.
I I know you got to meet Linda and Lauren and the whole team down there at Leavenworth.
Uh thank God you're home, and I wish only the best for your life.
Thank you, Sean.
We have to do that.
And I would sue, I would sue the living crap out of all of them.
We thank you for what you've done, Sean.
We appreciate it.
We've talked about this case for six years.
Yeah, but you're yeah, we couldn't do it without you.
God bless you.
Should never have happened.
And there are other people too.
We're gonna fix it, Sean.
We're gonna fix it.
All right.
God bless you.
Thank you for joining us.
And uh we're so glad you're free.
Yes, sir.
Quick break.
Right back.
Quick break.
Henry watch.
Keeping an eye on breaking news and bringing it to you first.
Sean Hannity, all right.
That's gonna wrap things up for today.
All right, more on the media, the Democratic extremists, radicals in Congress, and where this all goes.
Hannity 9 Eastern Fox News.
We'll see you tonight back here tomorrow.
Thanks for being with us.
Hey, there's still a lot more ahead on the best of the Sean Hannity show.
Stay tuned for more right after news on this station.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
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 iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection