John Solomon, Fox News Contributor and Investigative Reporter, and Fox News Legal Analyst and author of the NY Times bestseller Witch Hunt,Gregg Jarrett, break down today’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee with the Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Not to be missed is the stunning acknowledgement by Inspector General Horowitz that he could not rule out political motivations for the FBI investigations. Amazing!The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
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 with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, glad you're with us.
It's been a phenomenal day, revealing day as the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Lindsey Graham, digging deep into the Horowitz report.
Remember earlier this week, finding 17 significant errors, and none of them, by the way, favored Donald Trump.
Amazing.
Every single error, nobody's talked about that either.
Every single error that they made, oh, it was always against Trump, not for Trump, against Trump.
Shocking, but they don't have a political agenda.
You just, you can trust us.
I'll tell you one thing that is happening.
The reason they're racing through this impeachment madness, there's only one, because it's dying on the vine.
I'm telling you, we now have one poll after another coming out that voters are sick of this.
The Quit of PIAC poll was the latest one.
And this is the first flip that we've seen vast majority in the over 50%, 51%, don't want it.
And opinion on impeachment has been declining and declining and declining.
I can even tell you this, another barometer poll that nobody else sees.
You just look at it in the ratings for this debacle.
So now, okay, now they have to, in broad daylight, it's like the thieves in the night, but in broad daylight, they're like, oh, forget about what we originally started this on.
Remember, Nancy Pelosi actually announced it before we even knew anything about the non-whistleblower, whistleblower, hearsay whistleblower, who we don't hear anything about anymore because of the compromised Adam Schiff's involvement in this.
And then it was going to be about the quid and the pro and the quo.
But then we found that Joe was the only one with a quid and a pro and a quo, the billion dollars.
You're not getting it unless you fire the prosecutor.
I know he's investigating my zero experience son who's making millions, so he could keep making millions by doing nothing, knowing nothing.
Okay, so then all of a sudden, well, we're going to call it bribery.
Focus group impeachment is what you can call this thing.
Yeah, bribery is a more ominous word.
More people understand bribery.
Many don't understand quid and a pro and a quo, but they'll understand bribery.
So that went away in a flash yesterday.
And then you get the two weakest articles of impeachment you could ever have, a generic obstruction.
Okay.
President obstruction.
Why?
Because the president actually, like every other president before him, asserted a little principle known as executive privilege.
Now, when there is a conflict between branches of government, the legislative branch, the executive branch, well, that would be where you seek remedy in the third branch of government.
That would be the judicial branch of government.
Oh, well, let's see.
A little simple 101 historical context to all of this.
So Horowitz is now laying all of this out.
Now, the spin in the mob when the Horowitz report came out Monday was, well, it vindicates everything that they did.
But then we got comments very shortly thereafter from Durham, the prosecutor, and from Barr.
And they're like, no, no, no, no, no, not so fast on that.
Yeah, because that's not exactly what happened here.
And we find out that, well, something very different happened in this particular case.
And we got that out of the hearings earlier today because Horowitz says the report does not vindicate Comey, nor does it vindicate anyone else.
So shortly after he released the report, Comey's out there claiming that he was vindicated, blasting the president and the attorney general.
So it was all lies, Comey said.
No treason, no spying on the campaign.
No, he's lying again.
Because the Attorney General in the interview with NBC yesterday, yeah, there's a lot of lying going on here.
Yeah, there was a lot of spying that went on here.
No tapping of Trump's wires.
No, you spied on him.
You were the target of a lot of those smears, but just your first thoughts about what the report concludes, that on the big question, on the big smear levied by Donald Trump about some sort of conspiracy or political bias, there was nothing.
It was all made up.
Two years of sitting silently at the FBI while you're lied about.
And finally, the truth is out.
It was lies.
There was no treason.
There was no conspiracy.
There was no tapping of Trump's wires.
There was no putting informants in the campaign.
It was all nonsense.
And the FBI finally has its day with the American people, and I hope they pay attention to it.
No, you didn't even, you didn't get that right either.
You're lying again, Mr. Super Patriot Jim Comey.
Now, it was interesting comments that were picked up by Jim Baker because on Monday, remember, he was the former FBI general counsel.
Supposedly, the reporting had been at the time that he was the most reluctant to go along with all this nonsense, but they talked him into it.
Now, he said on Monday, I think the president should apologize to us, he said.
I respectfully asked him, I would ask him to apologize to me, to my colleagues, because the things that he said are just wrong.
And I think he should step up and do that at a minimum.
The conclusions he wrote are quite clear that the president's statements over these past several years were all wrong.
No hoax, no conspiracy, which, by the way, is all a lie.
I mean, these guys can't help themselves, it appears.
Now, it appears after, now we've got some illumination on the Horowitz report from him himself today.
And we have the comments of Barr, we have the comments of Durham.
Now, I think James Baker, probably a little smarter than the rest of them.
Yeah, we better fix the bad FBI processes.
Listen, what I said today.
So they left out what they didn't like, and then the IG says it didn't affect the outcomes.
How did it not affect the outcomes if they left things out?
What do you understand about the process that sheds light on that?
Well, the process needs to have the highest degree of integrity, and the lawyers and the agents need to have the highest, they need to adhere to the highest duty of candor to the tribunal, to the court, and they need to hold themselves to high standards.
And this, you know, the stuff that we've been talking about is just completely unacceptable.
It should not happen.
And obviously, we need to fix the process.
This is a, you know, I've been involved in this battle to make sure that pleadings in front of the FISA court are accurate.
I've been working on this for 20 years or so, and it's been a problem for lots of reasons.
And you need good processes.
You need good procedures, but you need to make sure that you have the right people in place.
And, you know, I share part of this responsibility in terms of management.
I didn't know about the facts that are articulated in the IG report, but I was part of the management structure there, as was Andy, as was Jim Comey.
And I think collectively we all take responsibility for that.
And I support the efforts by Director Wright to fix this.
I agree and support that and would be happy to help in any way I possibly could.
I am not impressed with FBI Director Ray in any way, shape, matter, or form.
I really, he seems disinterested in more, he seems more interested in protecting the institution.
But if Director Ray cares about protecting the premier law enforcement agency in the world, the single best thing he could do is clean this crap up and put in place measures so this crap never happens again.
Now, to get to that point, he's first going to have to admit that what happened here is way beyond corruption.
This is so over the top.
Now, what are they claiming?
Everything that's not what we learned that the FISA applications, oh, they were warned repeatedly.
We learned that not only the bulk of information, but for three little small additional items, the entire application was that Clinton, Christopher Steele, put together dirty Russian dossier that is unverifiable.
And we learned not only did Steele not stand behind it, which we knew in his interrogatory, now the sub-source, there was only one source.
And this guy's like, this is like bar talk.
So that is the, now we have, and again, one step, two steps, now we have bar talk, hookers, Moscow, Ritz Carlton, Uring on a Bed, Bar Talk.
And it ends up in a dirty dossier.
And then that dossier becomes the information used in FISA applications that Comey and company swear to the best of their ability is true as career law enforcement.
They an affidavit.
They know it's unverifiable.
They didn't even try to verify it.
And if they did try to verify it, they would have learned very quickly it's unverifiable.
So Barr was right in saying that the report shows the justification for the FBI's probe into Trump was none.
That was based on one phone call.
I'm sorry.
That was based on one meeting, party bar, a comment by a 28-year-old, low-level, and I'm not offending George Pompadopoulos here, just a comment that he made that nobody even bothered checking.
That's why Durham was saying, you know, look, that's why it's important now that today we, you know, we had Horowitz when questioned by Lindsey Graham saying, no, his report doesn't vindicate Comey.
You know, he's because Comey was saying, oh, it's all lies.
No reason, no spying on the campaign.
No, this, no that.
Well, no, Barr said in the interview yesterday, yeah, there was spying on the Trump campaign.
And Lindsey Graham asked Horowitz this morning about Comey's claims.
And former FBI Director Comey said this week that your report vindicates him.
Is that a fair assessment of your report?
Horowitz, I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this.
Well, whoopsie-daisy, I guess Jim Comey, now we know why he's not going to come on this program, the three hours we've offered or more, the one hour on TV, because he's got too much splaining to do, too many lies that he's told.
The FBI wanted Christopher Steele.
Oh, I love that.
They wanted him to dig up dirt on General Flynn.
Alert Sidney Powell, please.
Sidney Powell, please come to the Hannity studios, please.
Sidney Powell.
Because you can look for it yourself.
And it gives very specific details about them looking for that.
Now, Horowitz on whether the vindication took place.
No, it doesn't vindicate anybody.
Horowitz blames the entire chain of command today for the FBI's bogus RussiaGate investigation.
What he called the failure by the entire chain of command involved in the FBI's initial Trump-Russia investigation, saying they made so many basic and fundamental errors on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations.
We believe this circumstances reflects a failure, not just by those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers, the supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane Chain of Command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed.
And then Lindsey Graham opening up the hearing by slamming the media, of course, the mob, they're too busy.
They covered the impeachment, charade, coup attempt, Ukraine nonsense all week, but not this one.
Lindsey Graham, now Lindsey Graham, along with Devin Nunes, is saying, we may have to pull the plug on the FISA court.
Well, that's not good for our national security.
If we're going to entrust the best intelligence community in the world, the 99% that are great people that risk their lives for us, the rank and file FBI guy, the 99%, if we lose those tools of intelligence, if we lose the ability, the FBI to do their job, guess what?
We're not safe.
But we've got to have full safe measures so you can't do this to a president again or a country again, because we never should have had any of this take place.
You got another former DOJ official predicting that, yeah, indictments are on their way.
I believe that.
Ian Pryor predicting that John Durham's investigation will unveil evidence of surveillance abuse against Trump's team.
Well, Barr said that in his interview with Pete Williams yesterday.
And Mueller's decision of fire struck and paid shows, by the way, he probably knew more than he was telling too, didn't he?
Sending the phones back, you know, to the manufacturer, getting them cleaned.
It's almost as good as bleach pit, isn't it?
Unbelievable.
Barr saying the FBI's Russia Gate probe was based on a bogus narrative.
There's going to be accountability here.
It's going to be wide.
It's going to be deep.
And by the way, it has now opened up Comey, I would argue, and this was in the Federalists.
I thought they did a good piece on this with all the details into perjury charges for a number of these guys on top of everything else.
Oh, yeah, you know, the same thing is that they were so strict on with people like Manafort, Cohn, Roger Stone.
Oh, yeah, those guys.
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 down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, as we roll along, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941, Sean.
You want to know how corrupt the mob in the media is?
You want to, I mean, it doesn't get any more corrupt than this.
I was, I just flipped around.
Do you know that what CNN fake news was airing?
They were airing, they refused to air Lindsey Graham's opening statement.
How long have they been running the shift show and the nutty Nadler extension of the shift show and all of this crap?
And remember, we have what?
How many experts, opinion witnesses?
That's the inspector.
That's their general.
We only had one fact witness.
All of them are hearsay or opinion witnesses.
The one fact witness who gave also a lot of conjecture and opinion himself, which is not admissible under the federal rules of evidence, was Ambassador Sondlin.
The only guy.
Did you talk to Trump?
Yeah.
Well, it was open-ended.
I asked him.
And he amended his testimony.
Yeah, then they get him to amend his testimony.
Exactly.
So fake news CNN, they don't air Lindsey Graham's opening statement about the Inspector General's report about FISA abuse.
They've never reported these people that Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for phony Russian dossiers.
Now, they cared a lot about Russia, only if it's Trump.
They cared about obstruction, but not the deleted and bleach bit and the hammers and the subpoenaed emails.
They care a lot about Russian election.
How do you not care about the dossier?
How do you not care about the Ukraine court saying they interfered?
By the way, not mutually exclusive.
The Russians did.
And yes, Putin is a bad actor.
Russia is a bad regime, a hostile regime.
But Ukraine has a court that said they did it too.
But I guess if it doesn't, you know, impact Donald Trump, they don't want to cover that.
Now they don't even want to cover that they used a dirty, bought, and paid for Russian dossier that was unverifiable.
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 Podcast, 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 with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
So a good friend of mine writes to me in the break and goes, you know, when you really think about this, aren't they really admitting the very substance of the IG report is accurate by admitting or trying to claim that there's no bias in it?
I mean, I didn't even think of that.
But it's so true.
They're admitting the substance of it.
If they're saying, well, there's no bias in it, then they're really on the other side of that.
They're admitting, not disputing the substance of it.
And when you get down to it, what is the substance of it is the exact opposite of that which they themselves had been denying forever.
You can't have it both ways.
You know, Horowitz, by the way, no one will pick up on this either today, which is interesting because all the observers have been reluctant to call what they did here this illegal surveillance.
Now, it is what it is.
If you have unverifiable information and we now know it's unverifiable, look, Horowitz interviewed the one subsource, which was the only source, one source, and that was this guy that said, I didn't expect anybody to do anything with this.
A lot of this was kind of like bar talk.
We were all laughing about it.
What, hookers in a Moscow Ritz Carlton urinating on Trump's bed?
By the way, anybody that knows President Trump before he became president, not exactly the type of guy that wants to be around germs.
Let's put it nicely.
Just a fact.
It was never a real story, but that got out before the election.
Look at how exposed conspiracy theorists hacks like Isakoff and David Korn are.
And Isakoff takes a shot at me.
I'm laughing.
I'm like, oh, so you basically took the propaganda fed to you so you could be second sourcing, but it was really all original sourcing because they just gave it to you.
He didn't make a phone call and source it anyway on the backside of it because there was nobody for him to call.
So he took it as gospel truth.
He did his good duty as a propagandist in the mob and he just prints it.
So again, Russian dossier, Russian lies.
Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies disseminated to the American people before the election.
Why?
To influence the outcome of the election.
What has Barr been telling us that once they, why did they want Carter Page so badly?
Why were they willing to alter a document confirming that he was working and cooperative and a source for the CIA?
Now, I'm reading into this, and this is based on my numerous interviews, and you might recall a couple of them.
I'm like, Carter, you're not answering my question.
Carter, you're not, Carter, Carter, come on, Carter.
Because I had figured out at some point a long time ago that he was working for the CIA, that he was not only a source, he's an operative for the CIA, likely paid.
He hasn't told me that part.
I'm just guessing that part.
But so now we've got Horowitz making it very clear today, the Obama FBI likely broke the law.
Now, why would that be?
Because if they used an unverifiable document, as I have been saying for two and a half years, which is the Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier, and it's unverifiable because Steele said it's unreliable.
And Inspector General Horowitz goes to the one sub-source, not even a real source, a bar talk source that never thought it'd be used this way.
And he says, oh my gosh, none of this is true either.
Nobody verified it, but James Comey took it.
And the liar that he is, he signed it.
And at the top of the PISA application, it has the words verified on it.
So that would be illegal.
And that's called spying.
Because once they got, once they denied Carter Page's civil liberties and his constitutional rights, which they don't have any problem doing, as we know, look at General Flynn, Deputy FBI Director McCabe hears from Flynn.
Do I need a lawyer for this?
Oh, no, no, no, nothing like that at all.
Not one bit.
Comey, oh, yeah.
I took advantage of the chaos, something I'd never do or get away with in the Obama or Bush years.
Wow, what a great way to treat a 33-year veteran of our country.
Way to pay him back, isn't it?
Now he's bankrupt.
Now years of his life are gone.
They threatened to put his kid in jail if he didn't sign something that even the FBI officials didn't believe to be true, that he lied to the FBI.
But anyway, but back to my point here, Horowitz is explaining today that the FBI gave the FISA court unverifiable, fraudulent evidence, and they knew it was unverified.
Comey knew.
Now, in October of 2016, Comey signs off on that warrant.
Now, he's going to say, well, I just assumed the people below me told me it was true.
That's not going to fly.
Ignorance doesn't fly as a defense.
Then here's the other part.
Knowledge of what he did is false.
Well, let's leap forward from October 96, the first FISA application full of dossier Russian bought and paid for Eliza Hillary.
All right.
Then he goes to see then President-elect Trump at Trump Tower.
And then he asks for that private moment where he says, I just want you to know this very salacious document exists, but it's unverified.
The opposite of what he said in October before the FISA court in the FISA application that he signed.
Now, here's another lie.
When after he sees Trump, he signed two more applications, renewal applications, renewal warrants, based again on the same dirty dossier.
So Horowitz in this hearing earlier today is pointing out that surveillance without a legal foundation is illegal surveillance.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
That means they all broke the law, all of them.
Let me take it another step further.
His comment comes after he accused the top officials at the FBI of mishandling this flawed effort with the FISA court to get the authority to surveil Carter Page.
Why Carter Page?
Because Carter Page is a Trump campaign associate.
So we'll even altered documents that show that he actually loved our country and worked for one of our intelligence agencies.
Because once we get to Carter Page, well, then we get into Carter Page's emails.
Once we get into his emails, we backdoor our way into all things Trump campaign, later transition, and then deep into the Trump presidency.
It sounds complicated.
It really isn't.
Anyway, he was an American foreign policy advisor, and he worked on the president's election effort.
Horowitz was asked today by Lindsey Graham about whether there was a point when surveilling Page became unlawful.
Horowitz first said that his report was sent to the courts to make a decision on whether charges should be filed against anyone at the FBI.
If you don't have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?
That's the exact wording of the question Graham asked.
Horowitz, absolutely, he replied.
And then he added these magical words.
Basically, he could have said beforehand, Hannity was right all along, but he didn't.
I don't know why.
It's not about me.
It's illegal surveillance.
It's illegal surveillance.
Those are Horowitz's words.
It's not court-authorized surveillance.
And, you know, everyone was shocked at Barr yesterday stating the obvious.
Yeah, he was spied on.
Now, Senator Ted Cruz today literally torched the FBI's handling of this investigation, saying that it was based on fraudulent evidence provided by a lawyer at the Department of Justice.
A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for the sworn statement to the court that the court relies on.
I don't think the court really expected that Jim Comey, the FBI director, would be handing them unverifiable evidence.
Anyway, and then, by the way, am I stating that accurately, Cruz says.
That is correct.
That is what occurred, Horowitz said.
Quote, if a private citizen did this, fabricated evidence, would that private citizen be prosecuted?
They'd certainly be considered for that.
Let's play it.
So the men and women at home need to know what's happening.
A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email.
That is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on.
Am I stating that accurately?
That's correct.
That is what occurred.
Now, you have worked in law enforcement a long time.
Is the pattern of a Department of Justice employee altering evidence and submitting fraudulent evidence that ultimately gets submitted to a court, is that commonplace?
Is that typical?
I have not seen an alteration of an email end up impacting a court document like this.
In any ordinary circumstance, if a private citizen did this, fabricated evidence.
And by the way, what he inserted was not just slightly wrong.
It was 180 degrees opposite what the evidence said.
So the intelligence agency said this guy is a source, and he inserted this guy is not a source.
If a private citizen did that in any law enforcement investigation, if they fabricated evidence and reversed what it said, in your experience, would that private citizen be prosecuted for fabricating evidence, be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, be prosecuted for perjury?
They certainly would be considered for that if there was an intentional effort to deceive the court.
I'd say checkmate Senator Ted Cruz, good job, sir.
Well done.
And this is what's been going on all day here today.
You know, you got a fake fraud journalism.
You know, they're actually out there in the mob trying to like spin this.
Fake news CNN actually said Hannity was wrong.
I'm like, are you high?
What are you smoking?
What are you, whatever it is, you're hallucinating because you are reporting that the dirty bought and paid for Clinton Russian dossier full of Russian lies that was unverifiable was the information used to obtain the warrant on the FISA court.
What world are these people living in?
Horowitz actually says the FBI has used a defensive briefing to set up General Flynn.
That happened today.
The FBI never briefed Trump's campaign about its fear of the Russians that they might be attempting to infiltrate his campaign, but Brennan and Obama called Russia instead.
Inspector General testified today that the Bureau used an intelligence briefing to gather evidence against Trump and General Flynn.
By the way, what's that judge's name in the Flynn case?
Oh, I think this guy's about to beat them down bad because he was the guy that was also, Sidney Powell wrote about this guy in her book, License to Lie.
This guy was the one that fixed the entire mess with that Alaska senator, Ted Stevens.
Yeah, by the way, after it was all over for him, Horowitz told lawmakers that it was a strategic counterintelligence briefing.
I mentioned that because it's precisely, it precisely wasn't a defensive briefing.
It was an intelligence briefing.
They were treating, they were treated differently in that the agent wrote it up to the file and put the information in the file.
And former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign got an identical briefing, he said, but hers was not used by the FBI to collect information on the candidate or on her team.
And Clinton's campaign was not the subject of the counterintelligence investigation.
So you had Comey's gang.
Now you got to go back and remember.
Comey, remember, we had a rigged investigation.
Oh, remember they changed the wording in May of 2016 to get away from the legal standard in the case of the email server.
Yeah.
Remember that happen?
Remember that Hillary, when she's finally interviewed by Peter Strzok July 2nd, 2016, she has two other people that were involved in the case, which is unprecedented in an interrogation.
And then three days later, Comey comes out with his 15-minute statement, 14 of which sounds like, holy crap, he's going to do it, but never mind.
But then again, then they, you know, they ignored the, you know, everything involving Clinton, the Espionage Act, every subsection of such act.
And then, of course, the obstruction of justice issue with the deleted subpoenaed emails and bleach pit and hammers and SIM cards and all the above.
You know, 17 significant errors.
This was all by design.
All by design.
This is so deep and wide.
And here's the worst part.
This is dangerous.
This is extraordinarily dangerous for this country, what these people did.
And on top of it, they hurt every rank and file, great patriot, part of the premier law enforcement agency of this country.
They deserve better than this.
The country deserves better than this.
You know, the intelligence community deserves better than what they got that we're going to be finding out.
I haven't been wrong yet, have I?
I'm not going to be wrong on this either.
There's very, very real reasons why so much time has been spent abroad by Durham and Naven Barr himself.
You know, I can't even touch the surface with all of this.
Doesn't vindicate Comey.
It's just the opposite.
Oh, I see Comey has agreed to go on with, I guess what, Chris Wallace.
Why doesn't he like me?
I don't know why I won't come on my show.
I know why, I know, I know.
What's the answer?
You're a conservative.
No, that's not the answer.
Because I got his number.
He'll hold his feet to the fire.
No, I got his number.
Nobody knows this the way me and our ensemble cast know this.
Nobody.
That's why he's not coming near me.
I don't know why.
I offer a very nice invitation.
Come on the four hours, 625 of the greatest radio stations in the country and the number one show on all of cable news.
I think that's a fair hour.
Full hour.
We could do it in that nice.
No, let me tell you, he's not coming near me.
Well, maybe.
Let me tell you, as arrogant as he is, he's not that.
He's stupid, but he's not that stupid.
Yeah, he's stupid.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
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.
However, in September 2016, immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane Team received reporting from Christopher Steele concerning Paige's alleged recent activities with Russian officials, FBI attorneys advised the department that it was ready to move forward with a request to obtain FISA authority to surveil Paige.
FBI and department officials told us the Steele reporting, quote, pushed the FISA proposal over the line, close quote, in terms of establishing probable cause.
And we concluded that the Steele reporting played a central and essential role in the decision to seek a FISA order.
FBI leadership supported relying on Steele's reporting to seek a FISA order after being advised of concerns expressed by a department attorney that Steele may have been hired by someone associated with a rival candidate or campaign.
Which they should have told everybody.
And they didn't.
And it was unverifiable.
And the sub-source was even the most unreliable.
It was like bar talk.
You know, the spin was on day one.
Whoa, no, hang on a second.
Horowitz didn't condemn anybody.
Oh, he didn't exonerate anybody either, which had been highlighted by Durham and highlighted by Bill Barr.
Now, Horowitz saying the FBI surveillance, yeah, that would be likely illegal, adding it's illegal surveillance, his words today.
Then Senator Ted Cruz, yeah, a lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that in turn is used as the basis for a sworn affidavit to the court.
What's going to happen to the average American?
Yeah, you're going to go to jail, pretty much, he says.
Yeah, that would likely end up.
A private citizen would likely be prosecuted or certainly considered for that.
Fake news CNN is doesn't even have the time to air Lindsey Graham's opening statement.
And then what do you have?
You have more lies, more exposure than ever before.
This is actually worse than what we've been reporting for almost three years on this show.
How the entire, this whole thing was built off a dirty Russian dossier.
How ironic.
Anyway, John Solomon, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor, Greg Jarrett, he's written two best-selling books about all this.
Your thoughts, both of you, on the proceedings that have been going on today.
John.
You know, I thought Horowitz had the money moment very early on.
One of the first questions from Lindsey Graham, can James Comey or anyone at the top of the FBI claim vindication for this report?
And he gave a resounding no.
He said anyone who touched this FISA application can't claim vindification.
Why?
Because the level of misconduct and egregious errors and deception was so sweeping that anyone who touched it shares in its culpability and responsibility.
What a powerful opening to the hearing after Senator Graham's statements.
And all those apologists in the last few days who tried to spin this report, their balloon was shot down in 20 seconds.
Your take, Greg Jarrett, your top line.
Well, I was happy to see Lindsey Graham focus on the most egregious of the FBI's lies.
You'll find it on page 187.88 of the IG report.
The FBI finally interviewed the guy who fed all this nonsense to Christopher Steele.
And, you know, it turns out that, for example, Steele's accusation of Trump sexual activities in a hotel in Moscow was nothing more than unconfirmed rumor and speculation, comments made in jest.
You know, the sub-source insists he never expected Steele to put the statements in reports or present them as facts.
He warned Steele there was no proof whatsoever it was, quote, just talk.
And he went further and explained that, you know, he was just passing along, as you pointed out, Sean, word of mouth and hearsay, conversations with friends over beer, multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay.
So think about this.
You know, all of that was the dossier.
So garbage has held hostage a presidency for the better part of three years.
Garbage that was peddled by a sub-source to Christopher Steele and paid for by Hillary Clinton.
I mean, it's amazing that a handful of people could do this to a president of the United States and a nation.
You know, when you look back at the mob and the media and you look at what they did and you look at where they dragged this country to, you know, for three years, and then you look at there was not a whole lot of us part of this ensemble cast, as I like to give everybody their rightful credit, and that would be both of you at the top of the list, but an ensemble cast that did all the digging, maybe this like 15 members of Congress that really understood what we were dealing with here.
I can't name everybody.
Everybody knows who they are if you've listened to this program or watched Hannity.
And now you have everybody, their big spin out of yesterday was, oh, well, he exonerated everybody.
And Comey goes out there, oh, exonerated.
When you have an unverifiable document put out by Hillary Clinton, bought and paid for Russian lies, and you use it as the basis to obtain a warrant to one step, two step through Carter Page and deny him all of his constitutional rights and civil liberties.
I thought that mattered to liberals.
But then opens a door to the Trump campaign transition and as Barr said, deep into the Trump presidency.
And all of this happens based on an unverifiable dossier that is one source, a sub-source who basically mocks and laughs at the idea that it would ever be used by anybody as part of anything worthwhile.
It really shows a depth of hatred and the magnitude of severity here that I don't think any of us fully comprehended until now.
John.
Yeah, listen, there's a subtle moment in today's questioning that people should go back and read the transcript because obviously Republicans want Michael Horowitz to say political bias drove this.
And of course, he's going to say he couldn't find any documentary or testimonial evidence of that.
But when he was asked, how could it be that the FBI could make this many mistakes, blow past a Justice Department guy's warning that we shouldn't be using it?
Ignore the fact that Carter Page was a CIA asset.
Don't tell the court that the main sub-source recanted everything.
He said he himself couldn't reconcile the motives for why some of these happened.
And he couldn't explain how they happened.
He said, I won't get in their head, but I have to tell you, the way these things happen trouble me.
He leaves open in that section of questioning the idea that maybe bias, hatred, other things besides pure incompetence drove this.
He just doesn't know.
But average Americans are going to look at this and they're going to figure it out in two minutes.
Hatred, bias, and animus drove really bad decisions.
Now let's take it even.
Well, let me let you answer that first, Greg Jarrett.
But then I want to take it beyond these guys into Durham and Barr's comments, which have been well beyond illuminating.
And really, even Horowitz today, when he got to expand out, yeah, nobody's exonerated in this, just the opposite.
This was illegal surveillance.
That's what he called it, illegal surveillance.
But go to John's point first before we get there.
Yeah.
Well, Horowitz found 17, 17, think about that.
It's breathtaking.
Significant inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
But it's more than that, as John well knows and has pointed out, turn to page 418.
It's Appendix 1.
A total of 51 false representations made to the court.
So, Sean, it's not remotely plausible to dismiss this appalling conduct as, oh, sloppy and careless work.
You cannot minimize or trivialize this as a case of performance failures, as Horowitz called it.
No, the sheer volume and magnitude of this shameful misconduct leaves no doubt it was willful.
It was deliberate.
These are lies perpetrated on the FISA court.
This is premeditated fraud.
And James Comey was at the helm of it all, signing off on three of the four warrants to spy.
And he has cemented his legacy of disgrace.
It is amazing because he came out.
Oh, he was claiming vindication.
That was debunked very quickly with the comments of both Barr and also John Durham, at least to my take.
Now, when you get deeper into the comments of the Attorney General and to Durham, one, I don't think either one of them with those positions that they have would ever be saying the things they're saying, John Solomon, about the collusion against the Trump campaign, how they were baseless, how, yes, spying happened.
He said it.
That it is inexplicable that Brennan and Obama called the Russians but never talked to the Trump campaign.
That the scope was narrow of the IG and he doesn't have the ability to go beyond the DOJ and the FBI the way Durham does.
And Durham already has information clearly and evidence clearly that would contradict whatever interpretation was given in the early hours of this being released, how the FBI withheld information from the courts, how Comey wouldn't even re-up his classification because he didn't want to be answering questions.
How after the case fell apart, how they literally withheld exculpatory evidence, how they altered evidence in this case to continue to investigate President Trump, how the president was clearly spied on, and how Durham is looking at before, during, and after all of this.
I'm listening to this, and I am thinking, wow, what's about to happen is going to rock the intelligence and the world of the DOJ like nothing has ever happened probably in history.
Yeah, I think you're right, Sean.
Listen, I said the other day, and Greg has done such a good job of just Greg's okay.
I mean, he's not that, you know, just because he's when you look at the total sum of behavior, there is no other conclusion to come to than malice and misjudgment were the primary things that went on here.
There's no chance that these are all accidents.
No chance, not even in the worst Las Vegas odds.
He said it in such an articulate way.
So if you start with that now, that we now realize there was malice and misjudgment that went on here, then you have to go back and say, what triggered this all?
And going back to March and understanding why a guy at Link University by the name of Joseph Mifsud suddenly reaches out to George Papadopoulos.
Well, by the way, add one thing here.
Papa, this all got started.
The counterintelligence investigation because of a comment of a 28-year-old kid at a bar.
That's it.
That's all that triggered this.
Yeah, and keep in mind, we now know that the initial approach to Papadopoulos by Mifsud was falsely set up.
Mifsud acknowledged in his deposition, which I published and you had on your show previously, that he used a false woman portraying a student of his to make it look like she was the niece of Putin.
It was a setup from the beginning.
Here's the question that John Durham has to answer for all of us.
From March to July, before the FBI opened up the investigation, did anyone set up these different activities to make it look like Donald Trump was in bed with Russia and Carter Page was a spy when in fact he was, for Russia, when in fact he was an asset for the United States?
That's the question that Durham and Barr need to answer because from July 31st forward, we now know malice and misjudgment drove a completely bogus investigation.
But between March and July, we need to know, did somebody set in motion the creation of this evidence?
We don't know that yet, but I think that's what John Durham is focused on.
All right, stay right there.
More with John Solomon, more with Greg Jarrett at the bottom of the hour, Jay Seculo, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
I want to remind you too, by the way, we got a great hand on a 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel tonight.
We're going to delve deep into Comey's lies tonight because Comey has lied repeatedly.
He acts like he is the super patriot of all super patriots.
We did this with the cowardly, corrupt, compromise, congenital liar last night.
We're going to do it tonight with Comey.
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 down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, as we continue, John Solomon, Greg Jarrett with us at the bottom of the hour, Jay Seculo.
Then we get Bill O'Reilly's take on everything today.
All right.
Excuse me.
You aren't given permission.
All right.
No, I'm kidding.
All right.
So where's it going, Greg?
Where do you see this now headed?
And by the way, I don't want anyone to think it's coming out soon because I did the Horowitz report soon, soon.
It's coming.
It's coming.
Made me look like an idiot for months.
Well, it's obvious by Barr's comments that this is gross abuses, inexplicable behavior, intolerable at the FBI, that he knows a whole lot more, he and Durham, than Horowitz, who's really nothing more than an auditor and a stenographer of what people tell him.
So, you know, it will take many, many months.
And, you know, but Durham has expanded his investigation, added to staff.
Before, during, and after.
Yeah, it's now a criminal probe.
And we know generally that criminal probes produce evidence of lawlessness and corruption.
Where do you see it going, John Solomon?
Yeah, I think Greg's got it right.
I think there are three steps to watch.
I think a plausible scenario is that Barr goes to the FISA court or his department goes to the FISA court and withdraws these applications.
That is a profound moment.
It's an acknowledgement by the Justice Department.
Well, when are we going to hear from the judges that were lied to?
Well, listen, that will trigger the judges, right?
They may have been waiting for all this, right?
But if Barr were to go and withdraw these applications and file an information saying we misled you, that's going to set in motion one round of accountability.
The court could weigh in with contempt, and Greg could talk this more specifically, but there's contempt options.
You could strip a person of their license or their ability to appear before the court.
That's the first round of accountability.
Then, as Greg properly said, there's the criminal prosecution, and certain people are going to be prosecuted.
Then the third round is disciplinary action.
There are still people in the FBI that have been in the sham.
Great point.
Great work, guys.
Jay Seculo, next.
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 down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
If this is a counterintelligence investigation, who are they trying to protect?
Who should they be trying to protect?
Well, if it's the threat outlined in the friendly foreign government information, you would be looking to protect the election process, which would include the candidate campaign, the candidate, and the American people.
Okay, so did they ever brief Hillary Clinton about efforts to foreign influences involving her campaign?
Do you know?
I've heard that, but I don't know for a fact.
They did.
Good for them.
And they stopped it.
Was there ever a defensive briefing given by the FBI, the Department of Justice, to Donald Trump about the concerns?
There was not.
What would you call a counterintelligence investigation that never had a protective element?
I'm not sure.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, if without eventually trying to protect the entity being influenced, is it legitimate?
It would depend on each fact and circumstance.
Here's what I'm trying to tell you.
If you're opening up a counterintelligence investigation to protect somebody, you should do it.
Did they ever try to protect Donald Trump from foreign influence?
They did not brief him in.
Is it fair to say that President Obama and his inner circle knew a lot more about the dossier and the scope of the investigation than President-elect Trump and his team?
No, I don't think that's fair at all.
You think that they were equal as far as the briefing?
As far as I know, they knew the same set of facts, as did the leaders of Congress.
There was no difference between what the FBI told the FISA court and what the Trump about the Trump-Russia investigation and what you told the new president of the United States.
What the FBI and the FISA application said in October of 2016, I don't remember clearly enough all that's in the FISA application, but we sure didn't lay that out for anybody, President Obama, President-elect Trump, or the leaders of Congress.
Oh, another Comey lie, higher loyalty.
Huh Jim, Mr. Super Patriot?
Wow, pretty devastating.
All of which we're going to highlight tonight, like we did last night.
We highlighted all of Schiff's lies.
24 now to the top of the hour joining us now.
Jay Seculo, he is a counsel to the president, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
You know, Jay, you've been a part of our coverage as well.
You have been part of this ensemble team.
You've watched us unpeal the layer of the onion.
Everything we said has now been confirmed.
Premeditated fraud perpetrated on a FISA court using as the basis of their application a dirty, of all things, Russian dossier that we now know is unverifiable, the word verified at the top of that application.
James Comey signed three of them.
What James Comey just said there is factually inaccurate, a lie.
He's been caught in a lot of lies in all of this.
Well, you know, it's interesting about James Comey because one of the things that Horowitz said, Lindsey Graham, who's done a great job on this, asked the question about, you know, individual James Comey's being vindicated by your report.
And Horowitz said, nobody who touched this should be deemed vindicated by my report.
So I think that was number one.
I knew this was going to happen.
I knew as soon as Horowitz were to testify and explain what he wrote in those 470 pages that the truth would come out.
But one of the ones that's getting overlooked was a question that Lindsey Graham asked Horowitz.
He said, was the FBI agent spying on Donald Trump when he went in there?
In other words, an FBI agent was sent in purportedly to brief the president.
Horowitz, it was a pretext meeting, the process by which they have to do these meetings.
And then he says, and this is what's so interesting about this, if you don't have a, Graham says, if you don't have a foundation for a warrant, then you can't just pick up and go.
And Horowitz says the incident, the event, the meeting was a briefing, and the FBI considered and decided to send that agent there to do the briefing.
So the agent was actually doing the briefing, but was also using it for the purpose of investigation.
That is outrageous.
That is spying on Donald J. Trump.
There's no, I mean, and there it is in black and white.
Then Christopher Steele, is it fair to say that there was a political, that Steele had a bias against Donald Trump?
And then he goes through the whole, how it was paid for, paid for by the Democratic Party.
It was unreal.
Well, I think all of it is.
I mean, and this is the point.
Let me go back to Michael Horowitz saying that the IG report did not vindicate anyone who touched this, which was the main talking point of the media mob when this thing came out.
But he's only looking at this in a very narrow, he has a narrow purview here, like he's in a bubble because his authority only extends to the FBI and to the DOJ.
The FBI direct, former FBI director James Comey said this week that your report vindicates him.
Is that a fair assessment of your report?
You know, I think the activities we found here don't invindicate anybody who touched this.
Sean, that's what I was saying.
It doesn't vindicate anybody.
And now we've got Durham who's really looking at all of this.
So I think the reality is that these guys, like you said, you know, the right to remain silent.
I would be quiet if I were these guys.
And then, of course, what's happened, the FISA abuse, the abuse, by the way, on the court itself is breathtaking.
Breathtaking.
Why have we not heard from the FISA court judges that were, well, lied to repeatedly and given false information?
Because the law also requires.
Let's go back.
I want to play for you first as I ask this question.
And I want to play for you what Rod Rosenstein has to say about the FISA warrants.
And it's an affidavit, career law enforcement, and you have to have it verified.
And you swear to the best of your knowledge it's true.
And we now know it was unverifiable from the get-go.
Through the prism of this, I want you to answer that question.
The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
We need to prepare to prove our case in court.
And we have to affix our signature to the charging document.
That's something that not everybody appreciates.
There's a lot of talk about FISA applications.
And many people that I see talking about it seem not to recognize what a FISA application.
A FISA application is actually a warrant, just like a search warrant.
In order to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information in the affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
And that's the way we operate.
And if it's wrong, sometimes it is, if you find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is going to face consequences.
Now, when you hear that, and now we know it's unverifiable, we know they never went back and corrected the record, and they just doubled down on something that was nothing but pure nonsense to secure these warrants to backdoor, as Bill Barr said, into the everything World Trump, which is the campaign, the transition team, and deep into his presidency.
Well, I think that's right.
I mean, this is the whole problem.
I mean, the entire process from start to bottom on this was outrageous.
You know, Sean, there's another aspect.
You laid it out very well, but there's another aspect of this.
This lawyer they talked about that doctored the email to the FISA court, guess whose team he worked on?
Bob Mueller.
It's a great point.
So let me ask you what you think happens here.
Now, I'll go back a little bit because Bill Barr, I think this interview that he did with both, well, Pete Williams at NBC and then later with the Wall Street Journal and the claims of collusion against Trump were baseless.
And it's inexplicable that Obama and Brennan talked to the Russians, but they wouldn't talk to Trump, a point that Lindsey Graham made.
And the IG scope is narrow.
And as we learned today, Horowitz did not decide about improper motive with the limited information he had.
And, you know, one big fact that I found interesting is Comey refused to re-up his classification to be asked about such matters.
And the FBI withheld information from the courts.
They relied on the bought and paid for sham dossier that was unverifiable.
And, you know, and it went on and the FBI case fell apart.
And then after that, Jay, they withheld exculpatory evidence.
And add to that, that they actually altered information that they presented to the court.
So here's what Bill Barr says, the Attorney General of the United States.
He said they hid information about the lack of reliability, even when they went the first time for the warrant.
But in January, he says, after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says, I never told Steele this stuff.
And this was all speculation.
And I have zero information to support this stuff.
At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what did they do?
They kept on investigating the president well into his administration.
This is the indictment of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Orr, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and then go back a step further and others we don't even know who they are.
How is it possible we went through the Mueller investigation and they didn't find this?
And then, you know, I said that on my broadcast.
$40 million, 40 FBI agents, 18 lawyers, and they didn't know any of this.
We did get a little hint.
Remember that little note in the report about a lawyer being removed from the, but they said he was a functionary.
Not really, evidently.
Look, I think Bob Mueller was absent without leave.
And I think he let the prosecutors run the shop.
And look what you got.
Look at those articles of impeachment, if you want to call them that.
You know, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for exercising your constitutional privileges.
You talk about weak.
That's not even realistic.
But you know what is realistic?
Bob Mueller's report's not in it.
You know, that's such an interesting point.
All right.
So where do you see when as I don't think the Attorney General would be saying what he said in these interviews?
I don't think that Durham would be saying what he's been saying without them having locked down evidence already that is damning about a much broader, much wider conspiracy and that has taken them across the pond to Great Britain, Italy, and other countries, which I believe in the end is going to, you know, as Jim Jordan said, we had four people spied on.
We thought only two or three.
But no, now we have more.
But more importantly, did they outsource spying on Americans to friendly intelligence agencies, allied agencies, for the purpose of circumventing American law?
So I think John Durham's statement is the best statement.
He says he has the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mike Harwitz and the staff.
However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department.
That's very important.
It's not limited to just speaking to people at DOJ who will agree to speak to him.
Our investigation, talking about Durham's investigation, has included, and this is important, our investigation included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S., based on the evidence collected to date.
And while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report's conclusion as to the predication and how the FBI case was opened.
Where's this all going?
We'll ask Jay Seculo on the other side of the break.
Final moments with Jay Seculo, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and the counsel to the president.
All right.
So I guess sometime in the spring or early summer, we're going to get the Durham report.
In the interim, is it likely?
Do you hear, as you read between the lines, all these years you spent as a lawyer?
High profile, 20 some odd cases argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.
What is Barr and Durham signaling in their statements this week?
That they're doing a comprehensive investigation that goes beyond the scope of what the Inspector General had authority to conduct and capability to conduct.
So I think what you have here is you're going to see a U.S. attorney that has really turned over every rock.
And we are going to find out what took place here, not only the irregularities, many of which have been pointed out by Horowitz, but how this originated, why it was wrong when it was originated, and who's going to be ultimately held accountable.
I think there's going to be a lot of accountability.
Well, I think there needs to be.
Jay, they nearly were successful in undoing a duly elected president as president.
They haven't given up yet, although these articles of impeachment basically are a give up.
But look, they tried, they continued to try, and the president's remained strong.
And the Mueller report went nowhere.
These articles of impeachment in the Senate will go nowhere, and that's going to be the end of this.
And then we'll be on to the next fight.
Do I think they stop fighting this president?
No, I do not.
They're talking about if he wins re-election after he's not convicted in the Senate, well, we'll impeach him again, even if the American people vote to put him back in office.
I think that the risk factor, I think that's a lot of talk and a lot of yakin and a big mistake.
Well, don't think there's nothing here either, Jay.
First, it was a quid and a pro and a quo, but that was really only Joe.
And then bribery and extortion, and then they reduce it to the, oh, well, the executive branch is protecting executive privilege and they're seeking remedy.
I'm going to tell you about abuse of power.
You want an abuse of power?
Professor Charlie said this.
He's 100% correct.
I'll tell you what an abuse of power is.
Writing up an article of impeachment about obstruction of Congress when you're exercising your constitutional rights, the Supreme Court in a long line of cases has said you cannot be penalized for exercising rights you have under the United States.
Well, Jay, when you have three branches of government and the executive and the legislative branch are in conflict, well, that would be the purpose of seeking remedy in the judicial branch.
That's called.
Listen, on Friday, we're going to find out because I've got, as you know, Sean, three cases for the president, two up there on substance, one up there on a stay, which may be converted to an order.
And those cases may well, we may know Friday.
I think we will know Friday if they're going to hear them or not.
And they will be the three biggest cases the Supreme Court has ever taken, if they take them, on the issue of presidential authority, Article II, separation of powers.
All right, Jay Seculo, Counsel for the President, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice.
When we come back, Bill O'Reilly's take on this week and your calls, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload in the final hour of the Sean Hannity Show.
We found, and as we outline here, are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate hand-picked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI,
even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign, and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions would likely be subjected to close scrutiny.
The circumstances reflect a failure, as we outline in the report, not just by those who prepared the applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane Chain of Command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed.
We believe that in the FBI's most sensitive and high-priority matters, and especially when seeking court permission to use an intrusive tool such as a FISA order, it's incumbent upon the entire chain of command at the organization,
including senior officials, to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a FISA application in order to provide effective oversight consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility.
The FBI, former FBI Director James Comey, said this week that your report vindicates him.
Is that a fair assessment of your report?
You know, I think the activities we found here are going to invindicate anybody who touched this.
All right, that was from the Inspector General going before the Senate Judiciary Committee and Lindsey Graham earlier today.
800-941-Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
I've been interested in Bill O'Reilly's take on all of this this week.
He actually tweeted out if you believe Michael Horowitz's sworn testimony, the FBI leadership committed fraud on the federal FISA court, a felony.
You know, Bill, I know people know me a lot for my conservative opinions, but we built an ensemble cast both on radio and TV.
And no other network, Bill, nobody was able to identify premeditated fraud committed on a FISA court that the dirty Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier was not only the bulk of information, it was 99% of the information used in the FISA application, and everybody was warned.
Now, Horowitz even took it a step further saying, well, not only did Steele have his own credibility problems, which they all knew about and ignored, but add to that, because it goes further, he had a sub-source when Horowitz interviewed him said, this is like bar talk.
This was never meant to go anywhere.
And then you add to the picture all the exculpatory evidence that they had and never used, what they didn't identify to the court about the connection to Clinton.
Then you add to, you know, FBI guys literally altering documents for the purpose of maintaining the charade and this witch hunt against Donald Trump.
And then you have the comments of Durham and Barr, and Barr in particular yesterday just saying how devastating this has been to the country.
That's some question, Hannity.
It's sort of a statement question.
I, you know, that is some.
You're a simple man, Bill, because I'm too.
That's why I break the record for.
It was a statement and a question.
Detailed question I have ever heard.
Let's let's break it down in your way.
Yeah, let's take it down to my level, which is way below yours in his head.
All right, O'Reilly plays this.
I'm a simple man.
You're a complicated guy.
Go ahead.
Let's take it down to, for your audience's amusement today, to who had a bad day today.
All right, this is Bill O'Reilly's bad day assessment.
Ready?
Jim Comey, go.
All right.
First Comcast, NBC.
They had a very bad day because they are no longer in the news business.
MSNBC did not take the opening statement of the Senate hearing and did not take the QA with Lindsey Graham, the chairman.
But as soon as the Democrat came on, the minority ranking member Dianne Feinstein, all of a sudden, NBC took it.
So they're out of the news business.
It's a bad day for them.
CNN didn't take any of the opening testimony and waited until Horowitz got on on the QA with Lindsey Graham.
I wouldn't say it's a bad day because every day is a bad day for CNN.
They never have a good day.
Bill, did you see the article?
This is their lowest rating month last month in three years.
I think I wrote that article.
I think that, no, I didn't, but I did see it.
All right, other bad days today.
The FBI in general, and I know FBI agents as you do, and they're just embarrassed because no one believes, no one, no fair-minded or intelligent person believes that an agency could make 17 major mistakes in an investigation as serious as this one, second only to 9-11 in the last 20 years.
No one believes that.
So there had to be, from the top down, McComey and McCabe, there had to be the implicit order.
It didn't have to be explicit, but implicit order.
We want to get Trump.
I want to get his campaign.
We don't like him.
We don't think he's good for the country.
So go get him.
And that happens all the time in agencies.
It happens all the time in law enforcement agencies.
Get this drug dealer.
Get this horrible person who's disrupting the neighborhood.
Just do it legally.
But they didn't do it legally, did they?
So Horowitz outlines at least five felonies.
So I would be shocked if James Comey and Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, those four, are not indicted next spring on felony charges.
Because the case is strong enough.
Maybe they'll get acquitted in a court of law.
You got to give them duce process.
Got to do that.
But this case is strong enough, which is why Barr and Durham, the investigator, U.S. Attorney Durham, came out and said, look, what Horowitz is doing is he's splitting the atom.
He's saying, yeah, there were 17 major problems with getting a FISA warrant, and they were border on illegality.
But I can't say there was political bias involved.
And the reason that Horowitz hides behind that, and it was a bad day for Horowitz, all right, is because nobody confessed to it.
Nobody copped to it.
Nobody said, Michael Horowitz, I was biased against Donald Trump, and that's why I did it.
So while Horowitz's report was pretty thorough on the what, he left out the why entirely.
Now, Lindsey Graham filled it in.
So there is my bad day assessment.
Well, I think it even goes further than that.
Look, but you got to.
What is so serious about this is they literally tried to take down a president and they abused their power at a high level.
It's worse than that.
Now, Horowitz, by the way, has already referred Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page.
Now, he doesn't have the power to do anything.
Where this has now changed is Durham does.
Barr has.
Yeah, yeah.
And as I just said, I don't think there's any way that indictments aren't coming down against those four people.
But it goes worse than that.
And here's the humanitarian point I want to make.
So whether you like Donald Trump or not, and I'm assuming that much of your audience does like the president, even if you don't like him, even if you have an uncle who hates him, you say to him, look, the man won the presidency fair and square, and he goes to Washington and he doesn't know, he doesn't know that there are powerful forces in the Federal Bureau of Investigation trying to undermine him, working with the media.
Remember, they leaked to the media and with the Democratic Party to destroy his presidency before he even sets foot in the White House.
Now, Trump himself didn't know that was going to happen.
How could he?
And then he gets there and he's barraged with all his stuff.
And he said it to you and he said it to me, eye to eye, man-to-man.
Hey, I didn't do anything.
I don't know anything about this.
That pressure for more than two years led Donald Trump to make mistakes, as it would have led any human being to do.
And one of the mistakes was in artfully talking to the president of Ukraine, which led to impeachment.
So this whole thing links together.
I don't even think it's an artfully, Bill.
I mean, the guy's saying, look, I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but you might have not been as passionate about the call to a foreign leader had you not been bludgeoned for two years.
Will you seed me that?
Well, I mean, there's 40 guys on these calls, number one.
And if you go, everyone forgets, he said, you need to do us a favor.
And this is on.
Look, I understand that, but you know and I know.
They're just out together.
It's sort of like when Comey, and now we learn, for example, that Obama in September 2016, Brennan in August in September of 2016, they won't go to the Trump campaign and say, hey, this is going on.
No.
But they're calling.
No heads up.
But they're calling Russia.
No, no.
They're calling our enemies and warning them.
But that was one of the good points that Horowitz made.
He didn't make a lot of good points.
I mean, his opening statement, I could hardly follow him.
He was tripping over himself all the time.
But one of the good points that Horowitz made was he said, this isn't a criminal investigation.
This was a national security investigation.
There's a difference.
And when national security is jeopardized, the FBI has the obligation to go to the people involved and tell them so they can head off trouble.
Correct.
And the FBI did not do it.
They didn't want to.
It's not a crime, but it's certainly a dereliction of duty.
All of that is true.
But one thing that Barr keeps reminding us, and Durham reminded us in his public statement, and that is that Horowitz was very limited in terms of he sort of had to work within a bubble.
Come on.
No, no, no, hang on a second.
Horowitz knows exactly what happened, Hannity.
No, no, no, I'm not disagreeing with you, but he was confined in this bubble of only being...
Yeah, yeah.
But you're not listening to my point.
My point's bigger and better if you just pay attention.
He's in the bubble.
He can only deal with the DOJ, and he can only deal with the FBI.
And there are no limitations to Barr or Durham in what it is that they're investigating.
And what they are clearly communicating, what I'm hearing, is no, no, no.
We've discovered way more outside of the bubble in which you're confined.
And now it's a criminal investigation.
They can convene grand juries and the charges would, I think, ultimately and likely follow.
But don't you believe that Horowitz knows exactly why this happened?
But he didn't have the smoking gun email that said, oh, we're taking down Trump.
That's why he said what he said.
But I'm not giving him a pass on it.
He doesn't deserve one.
I'm not disagreeing.
Because an investigator can only go as far as the facts take him.
But after he arrives at the fact end game, where Horowitz did, he can say, in my opinion, this wasn't an accident.
The FBI doesn't make 17 major mistakes on Faraz warrants, just in my opinion, as somebody who's worked in the Justice Department almost my whole career.
That's what Horowitz should have done as a patriot.
Just getting the facts on the table for him, you know, the dirty dossier was the heart of the FISA application.
They never verified it.
It was unverifiable.
It was a single source that laughed.
This was bar talk, as he referred to it, about the hookers urinating in beds in Moscow, Bill.
It was nuts.
And as we continue, Bill O'Reilly is with us getting his take on the hearings going on today with Horowitz and the Senate Judiciary Committee and his report that came out on Monday.
And the comments of Durham and Barr yesterday in particular, I thought was devastating for the Democrats.
So here's my question.
You started out by saying that NBC is a big loser in this.
Well, so's fake news CNN.
They were wrong on Mueller.
They all missed this story.
You know, here's the little opinion, talk, radio, talk, TV guy, me, leading the pack, breaking almost all of this news in the last three years with a great ensemble cast.
What is the impact to them being so wrong over and over again and missing what is the biggest corruption abuse of power scandal in modern times?
Well, the first thing, how much time we got?
You got a minute and a half.
All right.
So Hannity and O'Reilly have known each other for almost 25 years, right?
We don't agree on everything, correct?
Correct.
All right.
But I will say, with all honesty, that of all the media in America, you on radio and TV have been closest to the truth about what happened in the Russian collusion of Pfizer situation.
There hasn't been anybody else.
And it's coming from me.
Okay.
As for the others.
That's the only nice thing you've ever said about me your whole life.
But go ahead, keep going.
I don't want to interrupt.
And don't expect any more.
Not even for Christmas, okay?
No.
NBC and CNN, New York Times and Washington Post, those are the four major offenders.
Never again will they be trusted by fair-minded Americans to tell the truth about a political story.
Never again.
I'd add ABC, NBC, and CBS to it, too.
They're done.
Fake news.
They are lesser players in the sense that they hide behind the others.
But surely if you're an American and you want the truth, you're not going to get it from all of those entities.
So congratulations to you.
I think your audience understands that you have been putting yourself at risk by reporting.
But it turns out now, you were right.
Risk is an understatement, Bill.
I understand.
It's an understatement.
All right, Bill, thank you.
800-941.
Sean, when we come back, wide open telephones, we have an amazing Hannity tonight.
We'll break down all the hearings, all the other news.
The mob and the media will never tell you.
That's straight ahead.
All right.
25 to the top of the hour.
800-941-1600.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, calls, comments, questions, let's get through the phones as we say hi to Steve in California.
Steve, hi, how are you?
Welcome to the program, and we're glad you called, sir.
How are you doing, Sean?
I'll get right to my point.
I've thought this for a long time.
I think the FISA court was in on this from the get-go, and they still are.
There's no way after three years that they couldn't have sniffed that maybe the steel dossier was a pile of garbage.
They should have called these guys in on the carpet and reamed them a new one.
Well, they should have, they should, but it has to get to them.
There's apparently a process.
They can't just come out of the.
Remember, these courts are supposed to be in secret.
The danger, and Lindsey Graham stated it very clearly today, Devin Nunes yesterday.
Now they're going to talk about getting rid of FISA.
Now, why would I not want that to happen?
Because there's a lot of evil in the world.
And if used properly, these powerful tools of intelligence, we have the premier law enforcement agency in the world.
That's the FBI.
We have the premier intelligence agencies in the world.
That would be the NSA, the CIA, et cetera.
The problem is we're entrusting them with the single most powerful tools ever designed by man.
We need spying.
That's an ugly, evil world.
We need to spy on Putin.
We need to spy on Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, China.
Sorry, they do it to us.
We need to know for our national defense reasons.
But if you're going to take those weapons that we entrust to you, and if you're going to turn them on the American people, or in this case, on a presidential candidate and then a president, then we can't trust you with them.
Now, the good news is it's not the rank and file.
It's a small few.
Hopefully, we find them all and hopefully we remedy this.
Because if we don't, it's going to be bad for the country forever.
It'll hurt our national security.
And I, unfortunately, can see this happening if we're not careful.
That's scary.
Anyway, Steve, thank you.
Derek is in Massachusetts next on the Sean Hannity show.
Derek, hi, how are you?
And we're glad you called.
What's going on?
Yeah, I just need you to enlighten me a little bit.
Listen, I took the last year off of all political television.
How'd you do?
But you know, you're not helping my career when you do that.
No, I know, and I know that, but you know what?
I'm back.
These Yahoos with all this hockey puck and crap that's going on in Congress, I'm back.
And I'm frustrated.
I know you've probably masterfully covered this over the last year, but barring 65 million of us storming Congress and taking our government back over, what do we do to fix this crap, this corruption in the Democratic Party?
Well, I think, number one, it's happening.
That's the good news.
Number two, they didn't get away with it.
Listen, I have been frustrated.
I'll share everything that I ever feel with all of you because you make this show possible.
Yearly ratings have been calculated on TV.
You made the show number one.
I tweeted out.
I want to say thank you to my fellow smelly Walmart shopper Trump supporters and irredeemable deplorables and those of us that cling to our God, our creator and our Constitution and our Bibles and our faith.
Yeah, I everyone accept Derek.
Eric.
Hey, come on.
Derek didn't watch.
He doesn't get any credit.
No, listen, Derek's back.
He made it before the end of the year.
But the answer really is stay motivated.
Listen, buckle up.
We're going to go through the impeachment thing.
And then don't forget how you feel about it.
Don't forget we have spent two and a half years.
You know how frustrating this has been for two and a half years, digging and digging and having the answers and only this week, everything validated.
We have been completely validated.
All our work has now been proven to be true.
And by the way, it's only the beginning because there's more coming out.
But in 328 days, the power is with you, with we, the people.
Republicans having a backbone is actually having a huge impact for once.
Listen, I said this to Kevin McCarthy.
I think it's been at least 10 years now.
I've been all over the Republicans for being weak, feckless, spineless.
Let me go through the adjectives, visionless, you know, people that had no backbone.
You know, I couldn't believe 65 votes repealed and replaced, but not one when it mattered.
They weren't ready.
But for the first time, I see them actually recognizing that when you do the right thing and you fulfill your promises the way Trump's been doing it and you fight for what's right, the people reward you.
I mean, McCarthy may end up as speaker if he continues to show the courage and backbone.
I'll tell you, it was a big deal when he put Jim Jordan on the House Intel Committee.
But by the way, I'm not supporting him for speaker yet.
No, he's got to earn it.
We got a lot more to do.
But at least he's taking steps that others before him didn't take.
And I think he recognizes the need at this point to have a backbone.
You can't be a leader and serve people if you don't fight to keep your promises.
They're supposed to be public servants.
What does it mean to be a servant?
Well, okay, think of what is a servant, you know, somebody serves you lunch in a restaurant.
I was a waiter.
I was a public servant in that sense.
I was serving the public or a bartender.
You're serving the public.
This show, we need to serve our audience news and information that you're not going to get from the mob.
And I just think they have the wrong attitude.
They like being called senator congressmen and they're afraid to take chances and they're weak and they're limited in their vision.
Well, now all of a sudden Trump has record low unemployment for every demographic in this country.
And guess what?
People love him.
I don't know any other politician in the history of our adult lives that could get crowds like he had in Hershey, Pennsylvania in the freezing rain and colds yesterday.
As many people outside as inside wanting to get inside.
There's a reason.
He's doing it.
He's fighting for what he said.
Now, he's doing it under the most difficult of circumstances.
I'm not exactly sure how many people could take this much incoming and still keep on fighting the way he does.
You know, it was like an hour after they go forward with their two articles yesterday.
Oh, we're going to support the president now on the trade deal.
Yeah, okay.
Really?
The U.S. MCA.
Gee, thanks for following one thing.
They've done nothing but oppose Trump.
Nothing.
Do nothing losers.
So what Pelosi did, as I said, they do the impeachment.
Then right away, let's do USMCA.
Right on top of it, you'd think she'd wait like a day.
She wanted to smother the impeachment crap.
And that's probably what she did, at least to an extent.
But any Democrat that votes for this sham will be voting to sacrifice the House majority, their dignity, and their career.
Okay.
And half of them are saying, well, if he wins again, we'll impeach him again.
Anyway, Derek, what you can do about it to answer your original point, welcome back.
Your vote matters.
Everyone is a spoke in a wheel.
The wheel, for the wheel to go around and America to work the way we need it to work with the right principles in place, that means you got to vote.
And some of you have to donate and some of you have to show up.
That's it.
If you do your part and you get others to do it, you know, help.
Whatever capacity you have to help, help.
If your only capacity is to show up and vote in 328 days, I'll take it.
You get a spoke in the wheel.
Some of you will be two spokes.
All right.
Appreciate you being with us, 800-941, Sean.
You know, when we saw what we saw today, I mean, James Baker today, you know, we have to fix the bad FBI processes.
And Comey, McCabe, and I share responsibility.
He's the only one to his credit.
And by the way, he was the one that didn't want to go forward with this.
They bullied him into it, if you recall, but he's still responsible.
He's the only one that said, we got to fix it.
Share responsibility to fix it.
That was a little shocking.
So they left out what they didn't like.
And then the IG says it didn't affect the outcomes.
How did it not affect the outcomes if they left things out?
What do you understand about the process that sheds light on that?
Well, the process needs to have the highest degree of integrity.
And the lawyers and the agents need to have the highest, they need to adhere to the highest duty of candor to the tribunal, to the court, and they need to hold themselves to high standards.
And this, you know, the stuff that we've been talking about is just completely unacceptable.
It should not happen.
And obviously, we need to fix the process.
This is a, you know, I've been involved in this battle to make sure that pleadings in front of the FISA court are accurate.
I've been working on this for 20 years or so, and it's been a problem for lots of reasons.
And you need good processes, you need good procedures, but you need to make sure that you have the right people in place.
And, you know, I share part of this responsibility in terms of management.
I didn't know about the facts that are articulated in the IG report, but I was part of the management structure there, as was Andy, as was Jim Comey.
And I think collectively we all take responsibility for that.
And I support the efforts by Director Ray to fix this.
I agree and support that and would be happy to help in any way I possibly could.
All right, let's get back to our busy phones as we say hi to Jeremy is in Arizona.
Hey, Jeremy, how are you?
Hey, Sean.
It's great to speak to you.
Just want to thank you for all that you do and your concise coverage of all of this debacle since day one.
Thank you, my friend.
What's going on?
Well, you know, something occurs to me in the timeline is we're looking at a couple of things.
It seems, first of all, that impeachment is hung upon the linchpin that President Trump did something with his abuse of power by investigating a political opponent.
Now, if I go back to John Solomon, which we're very thankful for him, his article April 1, where he talks about In the Hill, he's talking about the Wid Pro quo and the corruption and soil, everything that's happening.
Well, I'm going to play that after your call, but go ahead because Linda hates it just to annoy her.
Go ahead.
So, Solomon's article comes out.
Now, April 21, Zelensky gets elected.
Okay.
Now, Trump goes on to talk about in a press release afterwards that he spoke to him about investigating corruption.
Now, whether that actually happened during the call, we don't know, but there's discrepancy about that.
But he comes down publicly and says that he spoke with Zelensky about potential corruption.
Now, Joe has been skating along with not a care in the world with his level of corruption because he's untouchable, no issue whatsoever.
Now, at this point, he has not announced his run for president.
He's been waffling.
He's going back and forth on what he's going to do.
Now, on the 21st, after this call, suddenly we turn around and Joe Biden announces on the 25th that he's now going to be an official political opponent.
Now, the Democrats obviously have wanted to impeach President Trump since the beginning and even before he was elected.
We've covered this.
I wonder, just as a side note, there was nothing to hang it on.
There was no political.
I didn't know it was the 25th.
It was the same day as the call.
Well, not long, not long.
No, the call is not in that same part.
But Joe officially becomes a political opponent when he announces a few days after Solomon's report.
No, I think you're making great points here.
You're making really good points here.
Look, do I think I don't know how broad, how wide it goes.
There's definitely a lot going on and went on behind the scenes.
That I know.
They had nothing to hang on.
Yeah, and at that point, it becomes the thinnest of anything that now it's about an abuse of power.
They have a million reasons why they personally don't like the guy, but now all of a sudden they feel as though they really got something to hang this impeachment idea on.
So just something I want to bring up in the timeline.
And since you've been speaking with John Solomon, I just thought I would bring those pieces together and see if any of that made sense to you.
No, I listen.
I don't know what happened.
I just know what I know.
And Joe and Hunter, that's clear now.
There's no ambiguity here at all.
But, you know, this is the thing.
You can't even ask the question about you're not getting the billion dollars.
What experience do you have?
None.
I can't play this enough.
So, Linda, forgive me because it gets to the heart of the duplicity and double standard.
You want real bribery extortion?
I see articles right here.
I said, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority.
You're not the president.
The president said, I said, call him.
I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars.
I said, you're not getting a billion.
I'm going to be leaving here.
I think it was, what, six hours?
I looked.
I said, we're even in six hours.
If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money.
Oh, son of a got fired.
I mean, you can't get any more clear.
You don't get the billion unless you fire the prosecutor that I know is investigating my son.
You don't get the billion dollars.
If you fire him, you get the billion.
My zero experience son.
It's just so pathetic.
And the fact you're not even allowed to bring it up.
The mob and the media doesn't even bring it up.
The mob and the media spent all these three years lying about Trump Russia.
Now we finally get to the bottom of it.
A little late, but we got to the bottom of it.
Now they're going to put the country through this impeachment, you know, coup attempt with Ukraine when you got a real Ukraine scandal.
There's no evidence.
By the way, Director Ray, start reading.
Somebody send a message to FBI Director Ape.
Read the court decision in Ukraine and read the January 11, 2017 political article about Ukrainian interference.
Now, are we saying that Russia didn't interfere?
No, we're not saying that.
Russia did interfere.
Putin's a hostile actor.
Russia is a hostile regime.
You know, I'll have more flexibility after the election.
I'd like to get those transcripts of the calls after he got re-elected.
How much flexibility do they give him?
We'll continue.
All right, Hannity tonight, Nine Eastern.
Fox, we are loaded up.
All right, so Inspector General Horowitz was before Lindsey Graham's committee.
We'll check in with him.
We got Kevin McCarthy, Senator Mike Lee, Senator John Kennedy, Senator Josh Hawley.
We will have all the news the mob and the media will never give you.
What a week this has been.
What a number of months coming.
And yeah, it's going to get bigger and deeper than you ever imagined.
Anyway, that's it.
We'll see you tonight at 9.
Be back here tomorrow.
As always, thank you for being with us.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
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.
