All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 27, 2019 - Sean Hannity Show
01:44:42
Winning The House

Congressman Louie Gohmert takes over for the vacationing Sean and digs into the impeachment hearings and gives a first-hand look at the battle brewing to fight a liberal takeover in The House. Your votes in 2020 will be more important than ever!The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
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.
Hi, folks.
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
My good friend, I just love the guy.
This, you probably think, well, it sure sounds like Sean, but actually it's not.
This is Louie Gomert, and I am a lowly legislator from Texas and honored to be here for Sean today.
So we've got some great guests during the show.
We'd love to hear from you and take your questions and comments.
So feel free to call in at 800-941-7326-800-941-Sean.
And that's S-E-A-N.
So, hey, how about this impeachment thing?
It's just incredible.
And like Sean, I get attacked constantly, and it's amazing.
You know, as my chief of staff often says, you know, when you're over the target, you're taking flack.
So it sounds like Sean's been over the target for a number of years now, and I have as well.
And so let's just got an article from November 30th by Cheryl Atkinson.
Just hit some high points about the 2016 election.
And people are continuing to say, as my very dear friend Jerry Nadler said on the floor when he accused me of spouting Russian propaganda, when it's not Russia propaganda at all.
And in fact, as I went around and had to come back around, by the way, when somebody accuses you of something inappropriate or calls you a name or something like that, under the House rules, you have the right to be recognized and demand that his words be taken down.
Normally, it results in the person saying, well, I didn't mean to say that about you or withdraw the comments.
But if it weren't for double standards, as Chris Plant said, there'd be no standards at all.
And so they violate their own rules constantly.
And that's a problem.
But the truth is, we know Ukrainians, there were Ukrainians that were trying to throw the election Hillary Clinton's way.
And in fact, even though it's not a reliable source, Politico back in January 2017 and Yahoo News, also not just the greatest source, but they were reporting on the Democratic National Committee consultant, Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked under the Clinton administration.
She reportedly acknowledged in her 2017 interview with Politico that she worked as a consultant for the Democratic National Convention, or committee, rather, and during the 2016 campaign.
And her goal was publicly exposing the Trump campaign aide, Paul Manafort's links to pro-Russia politicians in Ukraine.
And Chalupa admitted coordinating with Ukrainian embassy and with Ukrainian and U.S. news reporters.
And so that was 2017.
But according to these reports in 2014, that's when Chalupa began researching Manafort.
And as you'll recall, the FBI had investigated and wiretapped Manafort for allegedly not disclosing his Russia-related lobbying work.
And then when they failed to make a case, they discontinued the wiretap.
But then in 2016, and this is all in Sheryl Atkinson's article, March 25th, this is election year, as you'll recall.
Chalupa reportedly met with top Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in an effort to tarnish the Trump campaign by exposing, quote, ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort, and Russia, unquote, according to Politico.
And again, it's political, it's politico, it's not that reliable of a source, but this is what they reported.
Of course, then August 8th, a guy named Peter Strzok wrote to Page that they would stop the Trump, stop Trump from becoming president.
And Ukraine had actually formed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau in 2014 because the Obama administration had required a quid pro quo.
You have to create something like the Anti-Corruption Bureau in order to receive U.S. aids.
That sounds familiar.
Yeah, it's okay for an administration to do that.
August 19th was when Manafort resigned as Trump campaign chairman.
And the same day, Ukrainian parliament member Sergei Leschenko, who was part of the Petro Poroshenko bloc, the political faction, held a news conference to draw attention to Manafort and Trump's pro-Russia ties.
That was in Ukraine.
The original link to a photograph of that news conference was recently removed, however.
But at the news conference in Ukraine, Leschenko was said to be exposing, quote, a firm run by U.S. businessman and Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who reportedly directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling party.
I mean, this stuff was going on back then, 2016.
That's in August.
And so that went on.
And of course, in 2018, you have two senators, Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley from Homeland Security Committee and Finance Committee, respectively.
They've asked Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray, good luck on Ray doing anything helpful, but for various records, including forensic images of Chalupa's devices.
And they're also seeking records from the National Archives to obtain White House visitor logs reporting any meetings between Chalupa, Ukrainians, and Obama officials.
So, I mean, that stuff is going on.
I'm amazed that you would have somebody either as ignorant or as corrupt as that to the point that they would say that bringing up those Ukrainian reports is actually spreading Russia propaganda.
But, you know, that's what some people have to say.
So I also wanted to point out with the FISA court, it's supposed to be renewed in the coming years, and it's been amazing.
I got to Congress under when President Bush, George W. Bush was starting his second term.
And then there were the eight Obama years, and now we're in, thank goodness, the Trump years.
But it's amazing how many people will badmouth the FISA courts and the Patriot Act.
And then when it comes time to renew them, reauthorize them, holy cow, people come out of the woodwork from both parties saying, yeah, we've really got to do this, got to do this.
I've been uncomfortable with the Patriot Act.
I've had concerns.
And it got down in 2005 or 6 when it was first reauthorized.
I would not give in until we got sunsets.
The Republican chairman was furious with me.
There were promises made by the Justice Department to any other Republican members that wanted to have sunsets.
But as I pointed out to the other Republican members before the hearing started, look, you know, the Republican Attorney General's office has not provided the information we've been requesting for years until the sunset came up.
It's important to have sunsets.
And I would submit that there are some things that need to be sunset.
But it's been a couple years ago that I just could not believe.
As a former felony judge in Texas, I couldn't believe that the FISA judges were not upset and had not called some of these people before him or her or them and sent some people to jail for actually committing a fraud upon their courts.
And I am deeply offended that this one FISA judge finally, after all these years, says, well, she's concerned and we need to look back at anything that was submitted by this one FBI agent.
Are you kidding me?
There was an article back in June of 2018 when I was questioning Rosenstein.
I mean, if somebody brought an application for a warrant and an affidavit for a warrant, they had to swear they were verifying the truth of everything in there.
You can't verify the truth if you hadn't even read it.
So I was grilling Rod Rosenstein on whether or not he read it.
And this article by Craig Bannister, CNS News, June 29, 2018, quotes me as saying, when you approve a FISA application in your mind, does that mean you should read it and understand what's part of it?
Rosenstein says, you should certainly understand what's part of it, sir.
And I said, but you're parsing words.
So does that mean you need to read it?
In your opinion, is that correct?
Rosenstein, well, it depends on the circumstance.
I couldn't believe this guy.
He signed that fourth application verifying the truth, and he's sitting there saying, yeah, he doesn't really read it.
He kind of knows what's in it.
I mean, there should not be another application for a FISA warrant ever granted by a court until when and if these things are taken care of and redressed.
This is nuts.
But in any event, this is Louie Gomert.
I'm sitting in for Sean today.
We're so glad you joined us.
We're going to take a break and we're going to come back with your calls.
And we'd love to hear from you again.
The number is 800-941-7326, 800-941-Sean.
And want to shout out to the station where I normally listen to Sean, KTBB, Paul Gleiser, and crew in Tyler, Texas.
Y'all come on back.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
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.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Ham, 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.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nayfak from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
The way we operate in the Department of Justice, if we can 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.
Well, how about that?
That was Rod Rosen's time as the Deputy Attorney General telling us there'd be consequences.
And yet, it turns out he didn't read applications he signed.
So unless he was lying when he said there would be consequences, which should have consequences as well, he needs to have some consequences.
And hopefully we'll get there.
But let's take a call from New Jersey.
Jane, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louie Gomert.
Oh, hello, Congressman.
It's very nice to speak with you.
Oh, I'm just Louie.
When I was a judge, you had to call me judge.
I'm just Louie.
But Jane, you had a question.
Yeah, well, Mike, my question is, when the CIA notified the FBI that Carter Page was not working for the Russians, he, in fact, was working for the CIA, they continued with the investigation.
And where was the CIA leadership stepping in and saying, wait a minute, we gave you information that Carter Page was working for us, yet you're continuing to do surveillance on him and getting FISA applications and trying to gain him as a foreign agent when he wasn't.
And my concern is those people that were involved with all of this, when the Dorham report comes out, I only hope that they don't get a slap on the wrist and, well, you know, they did this, but don't do it again.
Yeah, well, I hope, you know.
It's a great question, and it's because you're a thinking person.
And a thinking person like yourself would wonder, why didn't they jump in and stop it?
They knew that Carter Page was not a Russian asset.
He had done work for them.
So I don't know.
It seems to me that there has to be some corruption.
For heaven's sakes, you had Brennan.
You had Clapper.
We know these guys would lie, and they didn't seem to have a problem.
It certainly didn't appear they had a problem lying under oath because they did have to come back and say, oh, you know, that wasn't accurate, at least.
That appears to be another problem.
And look, I'm not expecting anything from Horowitz's report.
We got the first indication back when he did the report on Striking Page.
And when he came before us, I said, look, you got hundreds of pages documented of just the worst kind of bias and prejudice against Trump.
And yet you conclude you throw the big bone to the Democrats that put you in your position and said, but there's no indication that that affected any of the investigations.
And, you know, the fact that every single investigation turned out 100% consistent with their bias and prejudice should have been a clue.
But Horowitz is out there.
Yes, he shows some corruption, but then he soft pedals and back pedals.
So I'm hoping more from Durham and Barr than I have seen at all from Horowitz.
But Jane, please keep thinking like you are.
That's a brilliant question.
They should have protected Carter Page.
Let's take a call from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Travis, welcome to the Sean Hannity.
Pardon?
Okay.
Oh, got 20 seconds.
Travis, got a question?
Make it quick.
Oh, all right.
We'll hold him over.
But we'll be coming back shortly.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
We're so glad you're here.
Number to call in is 800-941-Sean.
800-941-Sean.
We'll be right back.
Thanks.
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.
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.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and, frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Napok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hello, this is the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Louis Gomert sitting in for Sean.
And we do have a guest with us.
And you'll get to hear from a real whistleblower.
This is what a real whistleblower is.
It's not somebody that hears something secondhand and hates President Trump.
It's somebody that puts their job at risk in order to try to do what's right.
And this person's name is Adam Lovinger.
Adam was working as a strategist in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, ONA.
And he's also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and McDonough School of Business.
And since the spring of 2014, he's co-taught the first and only course in net assessment in an American MBA program.
But Adam was working for the Defense Department, and he was supposed to be analyzing and was analyzing information and contracts to make sure that the Defense Department was getting the biggest bang for their buck.
And so he found a problem that he didn't think they were getting their money for, and he reported it.
And as a result, he's, I guess, Adam, are you there?
Yes, I am, Congressman.
It's great to be here.
Well, it's great to talk to you.
You are a real American hero.
Unfortunately, you lost your job or were suspended without pay.
But tell us about what you found and what you reported up the chain of command.
Yes, sir.
Well, it's a great opportunity to be with you today.
Thank you very much.
You know, the Office of Net Assessment, where I've worked since 2006, Congressman, is, I would describe it, as the highest level strategy office within the Pentagon.
And net assessments, it's kind of a fancy word just for, you know, long-range, big-picture strategies.
What I've found is I brought into the Pentagon in 2006 to work on Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it became clear to me quite quickly that those campaigns were not being governed by strategies.
And so I went to work for the highest level strategy office in the Pentagon.
And what I've found is that the office over time has really become derelict in its duties.
And what I mean by that is just recently, just this month, Congressman, there was what I would call our generation's equivalent of the Pentagon Papers.
The Washington Post put out a multi-day series on the tragedy of our role in Afghanistan for 18 years, the longest war we fought in our history, that has been conducted without a strategy.
2,300 Americans dead, 10 times that number wounded, nearly a trillion dollars spent on that conflict.
And the overall conclusion of a report that the Washington Post had to litigate to get out of the Pentagon was that we had no strategy.
It's really remarkable.
And this is the Sean Annity Show.
I'm Louis Gomer talking with a true whistleblower, Adam Lovinger.
And let's go straight to what you found that got things stirred up for you.
You had discovered what, let's see, USAspending.gov reported was $1.06 million in contracts through five payments beginning in 2012 to a guy named Stefan Halper.
Is that correct?
That's correct, sir.
Really, you know, the flip side of whistleblowing and addressing up the chain of my command that the highest level strategy in the office in the Pentagon wasn't doing its job was that what was this office doing?
What was the office doing with tens of millions of taxpayer dollars?
What it had become, Congressman, is a slush fund to distribute tens of millions of dollars to politically connected contractors.
And Stephen Halper, who has been in the news quite a bit as a figure who spied on the Trump campaign, he was getting money from the office of net assessment to do things that had nothing to do with net assessments, nothing to do with high-level strategies, as well as some of Hillary and Chelsea Clinton's friends.
And so the office was hijacked, derelict in its duties, not doing the high-level strategies office strategies that our warfighters need to fight and prevail in America's war.
You're just paying other people for what you couldn't find was anything in return.
It seemed like if the DOD is going to pay somebody, there ought to be a quid pro quo and not just paying them.
And were you the one that had identified a contractor named the Long-Term Strategy Group whose president is Jacqueline Neumeier?
Was that you?
Well, so I mean, what I identified, Congressman, is there were numerous examples of team gross mismanagement.
Our time is about to run out, so I wanted to get to the heart of what got you in trouble.
But that was apparently, well, Chelsea Clinton and Neumeier attended each other's weddings.
In 2011, Chelsea said that Neumeier was her best friend, according to this article.
But when you saw that we were paying over a million dollars to Stephen Halper, then you put that in a memo and send it up the chain?
I was, yes, I did, sir.
I reported up the chain of command as every whistleblower is supposed to that this was, and by the way, I'm the only lawyer in the office, so I have a double duty, not only as a civil servant, but as a lawyer, to report what I see as gross mismanagement.
And it was clear to me, and I reported up the chain of command, that I thought this was an illegal use of a contractor, in this case, Stefan Halper.
And what we found is that whistleblowers get destroyed.
If you want to identify that the highest level strategy office is derelict in its duties, and you report that, and you report that it's doing things it shouldn't be doing, the whistleblower gets destroyed.
That's what I've learned from this experience.
And that's what we've seen.
It's what Tony Schaefer experienced as a whistleblower.
And it appears, and especially documented in the Epoch Times article about you, that security clearances are how they go about preventing people from working in an administration and cleaning up the mess.
But you didn't even have any idea that Stefan Helper appeared to be setting up the Trump campaign at the time you were finding all these payments, did you?
No, I didn't, sir.
I was just doing my job.
It was yet another example, and I would say it's exhibit B, C, or D, take your pick of the gross mismanagement that I was identifying.
That's, you know, he was some of it.
Adam Lovinger, what's scary to me is, you know, you would think, well, gee, if there was, we know there was some corruption in the FBI at the top levels.
We know there was some in the DOJ.
And it certainly appears there was some over in the Intel community.
But to find out the DOD, the Department of Defense, was paying somebody involved in this effort to bring down Trump, first to defeat him and then to have him impeached, is just really extraordinary.
Now, so what is your status right now, Adam?
Well, sir, my case is currently before the DOD Inspector General's office.
I understand just from reading the press that Attorney John Durham is criminally investigating the Office of Net Assessment that may be holding up the DODIG.
So the DODIG report on my case was begun in 2017.
And so it's been, I've had to wait for quite a while for justice, and it hasn't come down the pike yet.
But, you know, one thing that's just very clear to me, sir, is that the system in DOD is designed to fire whistleblowers, not correct the problem when whistleblowers report that problem.
And we really need to hold multiple senior bureaucrats accountable because currently they're not held to account.
And so they just do this again and again.
And the problems like we saw reported in the Washington Post on Afghanistan, we're going to continue to lose our wars if these problems aren't addressed.
Yeah, it is so true.
And it is a little scary, though, to think that there could be corruption that is this widespread.
Of course, on the other hand, you had former President Obama bragging that there were no scandals during his administration.
Perhaps that had something to do with them prosecuting more whistleblowers or leakers than any other administration.
I read somewhere they prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations put together.
That does tend to keep down the investigations into corruption within an administration.
But it's really unfortunate, Adam.
You're a great guy, smart person, exactly what we need helping keep our administrations clean.
And I'm just sorry you've been so mistreated.
But I know another friend, you know Ezra Cohen, right?
Yes, indeed.
We went over to the Trump NSC together.
And those back in where we came from, the Defense Department were not happy to see us in those jobs.
And they used security clearance to keep him from being hired to a critical role and kept him on hold for a number of years, even after President Trump wanted him hired.
And they're just still some deep staters within this administration.
And the good thing is, from my standpoint, that this Trump derangement syndrome seems to make folks raise their ugly heads.
And so it's easier to tell who it is that thinks that they're supposed to be running things instead of elected officials.
So hopefully in the days ahead, we'll be able to get rid of those.
Or when I was in the Army, the line was, you know, one more screw up, you're headed to outer Anti-Weetok.
We had a listening post on the end of the Aleutian Island chain.
And, you know, you don't even have to fire folks.
You just send them to the proper outer Anti-Weet Talk of today and let them decide what to do.
But we have got to get these folks out of the Trump administration so that the president can be successful in cleaning things up.
But Adam, we got to take a break.
That was Adam Lovinger, a true whistleblower, that not one liberal came to his defense when he identified corruption.
Not one, not one.
And that's a true whistleblower, not somebody that heard things secondhand.
So we will be right back.
Call in 800-941-Sean, and we'll be taking your calls when we come back.
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.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith political warfare and, frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nefok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louie Gomert sitting in for Sean.
And let's go straight to Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Teased this call earlier.
Travis, thanks for hanging on.
You had a question.
Yes, Louis.
Great honor to speak with you.
My pleasure.
Question.
Yep.
So do you think Nancy Pelosi is just sitting there trying to hold on to the impeachment articles to hope and pray that the Senate gets, you know, more Democrats in it and ultimately they can pass it along.
Well, it's a great, yeah, that's a great question.
And there is so much that we don't know right now because nobody has ever been so inconsiderate of the Constitution that they would have impeachment when there were no crimes and then sit on it after, you know, I'm sure you're aware in judiciary, we didn't get to bring real fact witnesses.
And then when we made the request under the rules for a minority witness day, as the rules require, we were told, you know, basically the time is of the essence.
We just, we got to move on.
So we weren't allowed to have real fact witnesses.
And so we're in uncharted territory, and we're going to have Alan Dershowitz on later to talk about this.
But the problem for the Democrats is if Pelosi wanted to sit on it and hope that Democrats won the majority in the Senate next November, then, well, McConnell will still be in charge up until January of 2021 when they're sworn in.
And that's when that Congress ends.
And if she has not sent impeachment to the Senate before then, or the Senate has not taken up impeachment and said, look, your own resolution says that you passed, that you voted to present this to the Senate.
And so thank you very much.
We're taking it.
They could go ahead and have the trial.
The Democrats in the House might try to stop them.
But if they don't send it down at the end of this Congress, that impeachment should not still be active.
And in fact, if we take the House back over in January, we could vote to recall it anyway, even if somebody were arguing that it was still active.
We could vote to pull that down.
So it's an interesting idea, but I don't see how that would work for Pelosi.
I think she bit off more than she originally wanted to.
I think she wanted to be lashing out at Trump and throw enough mud at him that it would help them defeat him in 2020.
But I think she got forced into this by the left-sided left wing of her party.
But we are out.
We'll be back shortly.
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.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith political warfare and, frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Mayfook from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louis Gomert sitting in for my friend Sean.
And I'm delighted to have a professor from Harvard to restore some hope after hearing Feldman do a soft shoe in our judiciary committee.
But Alan Dershowitz was the youngest professor at age 28 to youngest full professor of law in its history.
And he had the Felix Frankfurter professorship from 93 until 2013 when he retired.
But, you know, he is an honest, honorable person.
And we're delighted to have Professor Alan Dershowitz on the Sean Hannity Show.
Thanks, Professor, for coming on.
Well, thank you.
And coming from you, that's a high compliment.
So I appreciate it very much.
Well, you would understand.
Some folks don't, but I do have a number of very liberal friends in Congress.
I can get along with people that are honest, even though we have differences of opinions like you and I do.
But you're an honorable person, and you've always stood up for civil liberties, and that makes you a hero.
Well, you're a better man than many of my former friends.
I have to tell you, these are people I've helped.
I've written recommendations to their kids in college.
I've gone to the police station at 2 in the morning to bail their kids out from a drunken driving charge.
And now because they see me as supporting the Constitution in President Trump's favor, not only won't they talk to me, they want to know in advance where I'm going to be, what events, so they can have trigger warnings and make sure not to come to any place so I won't pollute the atmosphere around them.
It is just a little bit of a little how old friends can turn against you based on just differences about how you interpret, understand the Constitution.
Well, and I see you really, knowing your history, see you as John Adams who would have been willing to defend a British soldier in the Boston massacre because I didn't defend British soldiers.
I'm not that old.
But I actually did defend Richard Nixon, who I didn't support at all, who I thought deserved to be impeached.
But I was on the national board of the ACLU, and when they named him as an unindicted co-conspirator, thereby not giving him an opportunity to defend himself, I went to the national board of the ACLU and I said, no, no, you shouldn't be, as the ACLU, pushing for his impeachment.
You should be neutral on that issue.
We can, as individuals, say what we think, but as an organization, you should be neutral.
But you should be in there defending his civil liberties.
Civil liberties means everyone's civil liberties, people you disagree with, people you agree with.
I defended the civil liberties of Richard Nixon.
I defended the civil liberties of communists.
I defended the civil liberties of Nazis marching through Skokie.
I defended the civil liberties of people I abhor and despise.
But civil liberties means everybody has to have the same rights under the Constitution, whether you like them or not.
And if both sides in an adversarial situation like court aren't doing the best they can, then it doesn't work.
I agree with you.
I mean, the adversary system requires that there be lawyers on both sides.
Usually the prosecutors get the better of it because most people in America who are tried for crime are guilty.
Thank God for that.
We wouldn't want to live in a country like Iran where most people who are tried for crime are innocent.
But nonetheless, there has to be a process.
There has to be a process for President Trump.
There has to be a process for me when I'm falsely accused.
There has to be a process for members of Congress.
There has to be a process for everybody.
Felix Frankfurt, whose chair I held, once said that the history of liberty is a history of due process, a history of procedure, a history of making sure that we do everything by the book.
That's the key, and the book is the Constitution.
And so the rule of law matters, and that includes the Constitution.
But that segues into the impeachment.
You are familiar with the articles of impeachment, the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress.
So how do you see those fitting into this due process notion?
Well, the Framers had a big debate at the Constitutional Convention about A, whether to have impeachment in the Constitution.
And they said they wanted it.
They didn't want a king to come to America.
They wanted a president who was subject to the rule of law.
Yeah, they wanted impeachment.
But they wanted it to be very rare, and they wanted to set up specific criteria for when a president can be impeached only when he commits treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
They rejected open-ended concepts such as maladministration, and they would be appalled, appalled to see a president impeached for abuse of power or for obstruction of Congress.
Abuse of power.
Every president since Adams has been accused of abusing power.
I could take the whole show going down the list.
John Adams, accused of abusing power for enforcing the Alien and Sedition Acts against his political enemies.
Thomas Jefferson, accused of abusing power for the Louisiana Purchase and for going after Aaron Burr, his political enemy.
Abraham Lincoln for suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt for detaining 110,000 Japanese Americans.
John Kennedy for wiretapping Martin Luther King.
You go down the list and down the list and down the list.
The idea that a president can be impeached for because the political opponents think he's abused his power would just be Hamilton and Madison's nightmare.
And then the other charge is even more dangerous obstruction of Congress.
As you said in the beginning, we live within an adversary system.
Impeachment is an adversarial concept.
Some people want him impeached.
He's on the other side.
He is under no obligation to cooperate with those who want to impeach him.
He has every right to invoke every procedural safeguard and say, go to court, take me to court.
If the courts rule against me, fine.
Then you can enforce the subpoenas, but we're not going to voluntarily comply with partisan subpoenas.
So both of those articles of impeachment are unconstitutional and in themselves constitute an abuse of power.
Well, it's amazing, though.
And you mentioned the word maladministration.
That was part of the discussion back in the Constitution.
And it was my impression, and after a decade of sitting on felony cases as a judge, you know, some things will flash red lights.
But I got the impression from, and I want to be sure and say his rank correctly, Lieutenant Colonel Vinman, that since he prepared the talking points for President Trump when he spoke to President Zelensky of Ukraine, and Trump did not follow his talking points, it really appeared to irritate him because, as he basically said, that was my area of expertise.
But that shouldn't lead to a tell President Trump what to say.
Exactly.
Yeah, but he thought he created the foreign policy, and the president should go along with it.
But this is serious, and we had a caller earlier, Professor Alan Dershowitz, for those just joining, who was saying, what if Pelosi wants to hold it until she sees if the Democrats take the majority in the House?
But I don't think they can hold that over to another Congress.
Do you?
No, I don't.
And in fact, if they hold it any period of time beyond a few more days, maybe after the new year begins, I really do think that President Trump's lawyers could go to court and seek a declaratory judgment saying either Pelosi has to announce there has been no impeachment because you don't have an impeachment until you've sent over the articles.
I don't believe that's the law, but either announce that or the Senate has to start its trial.
You can't have a situation where the president has been impeached by the House and there's no process in place for him to be able to vindicate himself and be acquitted.
The impeachment process is a process.
It doesn't begin and end with the House.
It just begins with the House.
It's a two-step integrated process.
And the President has the right now to be tried in the Senate if he chooses to.
Otherwise, he has the right also to make a motion, to dismiss.
He could make a motion in front of the Chief Justice saying, look, the two articles of impeachment don't state impeachable offenses under the Constitution.
How John Roberts would rule on that, nobody knows.
Rehnquist did not rule on that when Clinton made a similar motion.
But look, we're on uncharted waters.
We've never seen a president impeached on grounds that don't appear in the Constitution.
Yeah.
Well, especially high crimes and misdemeanors.
I mean, we don't even have a misdemeanor here, much less a high crime.
So it does stretch the bounds of credulity.
But I'm so grateful that you're such an honorable person, stand up and call things like you see them.
I love seeing you get the courageous award that David Horowitz, not to be confused with I.G. Horowitz, that doesn't have that much courage, not like David.
But you're an amazing person.
You're an American icon, and I'm sorry for what you've been through.
You've even had false allegations thrown at you, which apparently is the way you go when you can't agree with somebody these days.
You try to destroy them and their families.
It's the easiest thing in the world to make a false allegation.
This is an allegation by a woman I never met.
She hid her emails, and then we finally got her emails.
And in the email, she admitted she never met me.
And then she wrote a manuscript, which also she tried to suppress.
And in the manuscript, she said she never met me.
She claims she saw me once talking to Jeffrey Epstein about business, but she never met me.
And then we have our own lawyer on tape saying she was wrong, simply wrong.
It was impossible for her to have been in the same place as me.
We have the former head of the FBI investigating from top to bottom.
We have her best friend.
We have her talking to the FBI, saying who she had sex with, not me.
And yet people believe it because they want to believe it because they see me defending the rights of President Trump and they say, oh, how do we silence this guy?
Well, a false accusation.
That's a good way of silencing him.
And they've succeeded in some context.
The 92nd Street Y, which I've spoken at every year for the last 25 years, has said to people, I can never speak there again, even though they know I'm innocent.
They know I was falsely charged.
They don't want trouble.
I remember during the McCarthy period, people didn't want trouble.
So if anybody was accused, they were guilty.
That's why I wrote my book.
I wrote a book called Guilt by Accusation, the challenge of proving innocence in the Me Too.
You can get it for $2 on Kindle and a couple of more bucks for a hard copy.
But I think if you read it, you'll see there's just no evidence that I ever met this person.
And yet, here I am accused.
And people look at me as if I did something wrong.
I've had a wonderful marriage for 36 years.
I've been, you know, during the time of this allegation, I have never touched, looked at another woman other than my wife.
And yet, I'm accused.
How do you protect yourself?
How do you protect your children from being accused?
Your nieces, your nephews.
That's where due process has got to come in.
If you don't have due process, you can't be protected.
And, you know, at this point in your career, with all of the efforts you've had through the decades standing up for due process and the rule of law and trying to make sure everyone got treated fairly, it is such a travesty for you to be at this point and unable to defend yourself.
Well, I'm sure I'm not sure if I'm not sure if I'm going to court.
I'm suing a woman, and I probably will end up suing her lawyer as well because, you know, people like this don't do it on their own.
They do it because lawyers push them into it.
And her best friend said she was pressured by her lawyers to accuse me because her lawyers saw a pot of gold at the end of their angle.
They ain't getting no pot of gold.
If they suborn perjury, they should go to jail and they should be disparate.
And I'm pushing very aggressively for that result.
Well, I hope that happens.
I hope it works out for you.
I appreciate it.
Because you're a great American, and we just appreciate your being on and explaining things.
I would love to have had a class under you.
Your understanding of the Constitution, it really is iconic.
And we appreciate you coming on the show.
Thank you, Professor.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Number to call, 800-941-Sean, and we will be right back after this word.
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.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nayfak from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louie Gomert sitting in for Sean.
And we have a good friend.
We've been friends for many years.
He's a guy that knows about standing up for what's right and what it costs you in the way of slings and arrows coming from the left.
He was the chairman of the House Intel Committee, and now he's the ranking member, which means he has to sit by the chairman and endure the lack of due process.
But welcome Devin Nunez, Congressman from California's 22nd District, to the Sean Hannity Show.
Judge Gomer, you're sounding good, man.
Right after Christmas, before two years, it doesn't get any better.
Devin, I just said you're a truthful, honest guy, and then you come on and say, I sound good.
You know, people will question your credibility right off the bat, but they know you and know, you know, you've endured quite a bit after you first tried to do what was right and get to the bottom of these abuses back when, you know, so much was classified.
Now so much more has come out.
But you have not had an easy life since all of this corruption began in going after candidate Donald Trump, right?
Well, that's true, Louis, but you have to remember, if they're shooting at you, that means you're right over the target.
That's true.
The more I got attacked and the more vicious it became, the more I knew that we were right where we needed to be.
And you're starting to see that, you know, even some in the mainstream media, not very many, but some, are having to admit that, that we were right the entire time, what the House Intelligence Committee Republicans did and said at the time, that there was massive corruption.
And, of course, the Horowitz report proved that even beyond our wildest expectations, because there were certain things that even we didn't know about.
But, of course, we wanted to get as much of that out to the public as possible.
Yeah, and you did.
You got everything released that you could in the time you were chairman.
But in fact, there are stories out today that Adam Schiff still has not released some of the testimony.
Is that right?
That's true.
So the roughly 70 interviews that we did in the last Congress, the Republicans did, they were slow-rolled by then the Trump administration, DNI, which, of course, Trump's never had any control whatsoever over the national security apparatus, as I think we all know, as we all know now.
But those are still classified, and Adam Schiff and the Democrats are in no hurry to get them declassified.
Now, most, I mean, Horowitz report was so damaging to them because Horowitz found so many facts that people just didn't know about.
There's so much evidence there that now it would be nice to have those declassified, but it's not necessary.
I think Durham, the U.S. Attorney Out of Connecticut, has plenty of ammunition to try to bring and prosecute, bring these dirty cops to justice, so to speak.
Well, and that's, you know, as a former felony judge, it bothers the heck out of me that for three years now, the FISA courts have not shown any pride in their office.
So they either didn't mind being lied to or having fraud upon their court, or they knew that people were not being honest with them.
And it just drives me crazy.
But then to have Horowitz, yes, like you said, in each report, he's found these terrible abuses, but he was in that position because of Obama.
And somehow at the end, he draws conclusions, I would think, and I would say inappropriately, to say, ah, but like with the false information, it was only Klein Smith that changed the document, basically letting all these other people go.
And Devin Nunez is our guest.
Devin, it seems to me that if there aren't more than one individual that's held accountable, including being prosecuted and convicted, then I'm afraid this isn't going to stop.
What's your thought?
Well, we dropped Devin.
Well, that is a concern of mine, and it appears that there are a lot of people that are concerned.
But Klein Smith certainly, according to what the finding is from the Inspector General, Horowitz, that he actually committed what appears to be perjury.
He committed a fraud upon the court, and there should be some consequences.
But Devin, we got you back.
What do you think?
Doesn't it appear that there should be more than just Klein Smith held accountable for all these abuses?
Well, I was going to say the other thing that happened is the courts finally came around and actually supported the Horowitz report.
Now, people should not be rest assured with that.
And I think this is probably what you were alluding to, Louis.
The Republicans in the House had warned the courts clearly about the fraud that was being committed on the court, and they did absolutely nothing.
So, you know, look, I'm glad they've accepted responsibility and admitted that they've been frauded, but it's probably too little, too late.
You know, if they don't do anything about this, and I mean, they would have to take some real drastic measures, I think, to give the American people and any Republican or conservative any confidence at all on these courts because, you know,
we can never have it again in this country where the intelligence services that are supposed to protect Americans from foreign invasion and are foreign bad actors around the globe and supposed to gather intelligence so that we have some type of map moving forward on where our enemies abroad are at.
We can never afford for those tools to be turned against a political party.
And no matter what they say, this is bigger than just the Trump campaign and the Trump advisors and even the president himself.
It really is, Devin.
This is an attack on conservatives and Republicans, especially.
Well, and you said to use it against a political party, even if it's just an individual, to have this kind of abuse to go after somebody.
And I think you've mentioned it before.
If they can do this to a very wealthy president of the United States, think what they can do to individuals that don't have wealth or power.
I mean, it is a little scary.
And I've said before, but it sounds like the only thing Orwell got wrong was the year.
It wasn't 1984.
But to have the court authorizing this kind of spying on people.
And I know some say, well, it was legal surveillance, not technically spying.
Well, what do you think spying is?
It's surveillance.
Well, yeah, that's just nonsense.
I mean, the people that don't use the word spying, I don't tolerate it at all.
Matter of fact, if they ignore spying, I say it like five times because I'm sorry if you're wearing a wire and you're recording somebody and they don't know about it, that's spying on them by any normal person's definition.
So, you know, if you're not willing to fake the word spying, you're just part of the cover-up.
I'm sorry.
It may hurt people's feelings, but that's the way it is.
Well, how about the lack of due process instead of an accused being able to confront witnesses against them, having hearsay witnesses,
opinion witnesses come down into a secured skiff where you receive classified information and questioning them and then dribbling out the things that help your side or your position and dragging your feet on things that don't.
I mean, Devin, I didn't know until we came down there that they were not having classified testimony down there.
I thought if it was in the skiff, surely it was classified.
I was shocked to find out that it was.
And in fact, what was it that Schiff would tell each witness before they started testifying down there?
Well, I was just glad that finally, the rest of the Republican conference was able to come down there and experience what only a few of us lucky individuals, Republicans, have been experiencing with Adam Schiff and the Democrats for the last three years.
You just had a little taste for how nasty it's been down there.
And it was nice to finally get more exposure.
And I say that only halfway joking.
I really think that having the other Republican members who hadn't been down there in the skiff and what became the star chamber, you guys really needed to see that just to see how wrong it really was and to see how bad their behavior was.
Well, you had mentioned before that they, before anybody testified, that Schiff would tell them, look, this is unclassified what our questioning here and your answers.
So if you think that there is an answer that might have something classified, then you just tell us.
That sounded to me like a way to flash to the witness.
They didn't have to answer anything they didn't want to from the Republicans.
They could just say, I can't answer that.
A way to dodge questions.
And Chairman Schiff is fond of saying, oh, yeah, the Republicans got just as much time to question, and they had every opportunity that the Democrats did, but you didn't get any witnesses, any more witnesses that you wanted than we did in judiciary, did you?
No, this is the most bizarre thing of all of this.
And this is why the media is so culpable in this and part of the larger problem.
The media has allowed this to happen.
They've become a mouthpiece, assassins, part of the Democratic Party apparatus.
And that's been the real challenge, I think, is that we don't have a free and fair press in this country any longer, no matter what they tell you.
Because under no circumstance would one political party be able to impeach a president like this and conduct hearings like have been occurring in this whether it's Schiff's star chamber or whether it was this whole impeachment charade.
This is just, it wouldn't happen with a normal fair press because you just cannot, I think every American knows you cannot just impeach a president without giving not only the president, but also the president's party all the witnesses that they want, all the questions that they want to have answered.
That's just not just not normal.
And what happened is, is by the press, because what they do is Pelosi and Schiff, and they all run out there and they'll say things like, we've given equal time.
Well, equal time to the witnesses that were down there, but then when it got to questions that you didn't like, you cut us off.
Yep.
And so, but the press should have been every day saying, no, no, no, no, no.
There should have been editorials from coast to coast.
Yep.
It should have been.
Calling on the Democrats to allow Republicans to have every witness that they want so they can prove their case.
And what would have happened had we had our witnesses, it would have quickly come out that this really was just a total fraud and just another continuation of the Russia hoax.
And what I call it is, it's more like it's the cheap knockoff version of the Russia hoax.
That's what this Ukraine hoax.
Well, it was amazing to hear Speaker Pelosi saying, oh, yeah, we've been working on this impeachment for two and a half years.
This supposed phone call that gave rise to this impeachment, it didn't happen two and a half years ago.
It only came after the Russia hoax was proven to be just that, a hoax.
So I don't know.
Has your committee continued to do other things besides pursue the president?
Well, even when we had control, when I was the chairman, the Democrats did almost zero work.
It was full-time on the Russia hoax.
Remember how many times they said that they had more than circumstantial evidence of Trump colluding with Russians?
Yep.
And then you fast forward when Adam Schiff became the chair.
I had a meeting.
I brought all the Republicans in.
I said, well, guys, I know that we've been the Russia committee for the last two years.
For the next two years, we're going to become the impeachment committee.
And I think some of our members at the time were like a little taken aback by that, our own Republicans.
I don't think they truly understood it.
Well, we're running out of time, but I wanted to ask you quickly.
There are people that say for anybody to indicate that there were Ukrainians that may have tried to help Hillary Clinton, that that's Russia propaganda.
That's not just propaganda, is it?
Well, the Ukrainians that we have been talking about, it's very, very clear.
The Ukrainian ambassador in the United States, along with four high-level Ukrainian officials in Ukraine, all had badmouthed the president at the time, candidate Trump in 2016.
It doesn't mean that it was a large government.
Yep, that's right.
Yeah, like a government, but the Democrats were definitely, they had operatives.
It's even worse than the Russians because they had operatives, just like they had Christopher Steele, a foreign operative, they were doing the same thing by having operatives work with the Ukrainian ambassador to say nasty things about a president, which, as you know, it's almost unprecedented for an ambassador in United States America to get involved in politics.
Well, Devin Nunez, we hope that you'll be in charge of things shortly.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louis Gomert, and we'll be right back after this.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louis Gomert sitting in for Sean.
Honored to be here.
Glad you're with us.
And let me say, so I see on the TV screens we have here in the studio that people are coming after McConnell.
But look, the president did not get due process in the House.
He didn't even get what he would have been entitled to if the secret star chamber had been a grand jury.
It's just outrageous what's gone on.
So for the leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, a man with whom I've had many differences, but for him to say he's coordinating with the White House, how else are you going to go about making sure that the president has due process that he didn't get in the House?
You have to coordinate with the White House just as the Democrats did when Bill Clinton was being impeached.
They were in the minority, but the president's party would need to coordinate to make sure that he did get due process.
So that's just ridiculous the way they're coming after Mitch McConnell on that.
And we have special guests waiting for us, good friends of mine.
First met them after their son, well, after Billy and Karen's son, Aaron Vaughan was killed as one of the Navy SEALs and some other personnel that were killed on a Chinook over in Afghanistan.
And it's my honor to have Billy.
And Karen's not on with us right now, but their daughter, Tara, is on with us.
And welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
Billy, it's nice to talk to you through the Sean Hannity Show.
Tara, it's good to talk to you again.
Thank you, Congress.
Nice to talk to you, Lynn.
Yeah, well, come on.
Let's go.
Yeah, well, come on, Tara.
It was Louie when we talked each time before.
It's Louie now.
All right, thanks.
All right.
So tell us about the organization that was started in Aaron's honor.
He was killed in action in Afghanistan August 6, 2011.
But tell us what you have done in his honor to help others that have been serving for us.
Billy, jump on in.
Go ahead, Sarah.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Okay.
So our family started an organization called Operation 300 back in 2012, just a little over Aaron was killed, like you said, Louie, while serving in Afghanistan.
And really, the organization was just to honor his service, honor his life, and in addition to take care of families like his children who had lost someone serving in the military.
So our main program is that we provide adventure camps for children who have lost the father serving.
We provide mentorship to these children, and we also care for military widows.
And this is really just our family's way of giving back to so many who have given on our behalf and really continuing Aaron's legacy of service to our country and to our people.
Well, he was obviously an amazing man and a great defender of the United States.
And I was, of course, there.
You had Sean Hannity, who has been such a great advocate for what you're doing and being there in person.
Was that a year ago?
Was that January of last year?
Wow.
A year ago this weekend.
Yeah, Sean.
Wow.
A bunch of you were there.
Well, because Sean was there, it drew a lot of people and a lot of money was raised.
And anyway, so if somebody wants to help this organization, and this is for the children of people who have given their lives in the service of our country, right?
For both our kids and for the widows.
And for the widows.
Yeah, the widows or widowers.
Yeah.
Yeah, we've been in there nearly 300 kids this past year, seven camps doing things with men that they would have done with their dads.
And, you know, and we plan to do the same next year.
We already have seven camps scheduled.
The camps will all be full.
The kids come, the moms come.
It doesn't cost them a dime to come.
And as I said, they come and do things.
They sail, they fish, they shoot, they ride horses, they do things they would have done with their dad.
And they're put with a male mentor who would have been about the age of their dad.
And all of that, all of that, as y'all know, comes made possible by donations from America.
We're a nonprofit organization, and as I said, they come from all over the country.
It doesn't cost them a penny.
Well, and that's 501c3 from the RS, Rick.
Yeah, absolutely.
Go ahead, sir.
So how could people help out?
Where can they go to find out more information about Operation 300?
So you can go to our website at op300.org.
And I do want to mention, too, we have a really cool event coming up January 9th.
If anyone is in the Southeast Florida region, Pete Heg says, as you know, from Fox and Friends and a veteran himself, is going to come and actually host that event for us in Jupiter, Florida.
We still have tickets available again at January 9th, and you can find that information on op300.org.
Wow, that's terrific.
Well, Aaron was an amazing guy, obviously.
I didn't know him while he was alive, but have come to know so much about him since he's been physically gone.
But what you're doing is keeping his memory alive and perpetuating that through the good you're doing for all these kids.
What other message would you like for people to keep in mind with what you're doing?
Shara, why don't you tell them real quickly about the other thing that we're going to add to share with the Gold Star Tourist in Washington?
Sure, sure.
So as I said before, Louie, our main program has really focused on the children of fallen soldiers and widows of fallen soldiers.
But in 2020, we're starting a couple new programs that we're very excited about.
And the first one we're doing in April, and it's called our Gold Star Family Freedom Tour.
And our family, my family, this past summer was able to go on a trip to D.C. You were there.
And it was a really, really amazing experience.
We were given access that the normal citizen is not given access to monuments and the Capitol.
And, you know, I sat there that whole week and thought if there's anybody who deserves access to our nation's treasures, it really is the people who have sacrificed a family member to preserve them.
So we're putting on these Gold Star family tours, and I'll wrap it up quickly.
But basically, what we're going to do is we have 23 Gold Star family members, and these are not just children, these are children.
These are Gold Star wives, these are Gold Star mothers, these are Gold Star kids and fathers.
And we're going to take them to D.C. on an all-expense paid trip, and we're going to give them that really neat access, VIP access to the monuments and the Capitol buildings and things like that.
And we're also taking them to New York City for a couple of really cool things to do, a tour of the 9-11 Museum and really just treat them to a special weekend.
And then the second thing we're launching in 2020, we don't really have an official name for it, but it's really Gold Star Family Wellness Weekends where we just, you know, maybe bring in Gold Star moms and dads and maybe wives and just spend the weekend really focusing on, you know, healing and rest and relaxation and just also letting them know how appreciated they are and that they're not forgotten.
And if there's a message that we are trying to get out there, it's just that, that you are appreciated and you're not forgotten.
And there's so many thousands of Americans that would love the opportunity to thank one of these family members.
And we love that we get to be a part of making that happen.
Well, I know Erin's smiling on what you're doing.
And so thank you, Billy.
Tell Carolyn hello for me.
I bet she's listening up.
And Tara, thank you so much for all the work that you've been doing in this cause.
It's wonderful what you're doing.
We appreciate it.
And that's op300.org, correct?
Yes.
Yes, sir.
So check it out.
Thank you, Louie.
Yo, thanks so much, Tara.
And we will be right back on the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louie Gomert.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louie Gomert sitting in for Sean.
Let's go right to the phones.
800-941-7326.
Josh in Florida.
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louie.
Hi, Congressman Gomert.
How are you doing today, sir?
As far as I know, I'm okay, Josh.
How about you?
Well, I'm all right.
I'm down in Florida.
I'm a truck driver, and I'm also one of your constituents.
I live in Sherman, Texas.
Ah, okay.
To get to my point, my question rather, I was just wondering throughout this whole impeachment thing, why did no one from the House ever quote from Title 22, you know, the Ford Assistance Act, or even more specifically, the part of Title 22 that specifies what's supposed to happen in Ukraine.
Because I'm not an attorney, but I can read and I can comprehend the English language.
And it seems to me that those laws, the way they're written, they specify that it's the president's job to make sure that we're not giving American taxpayer money to agencies or entities that are either openly hostile toward the United States or that are corrupt in nature.
In my opinion, he could have straight up just told the president of Ukraine, listen here, we're not going to give you any foreign aid until you can prove to us that you're acting on the corruption within your government or within your country and dealing with those people.
And he would have been completely within his rights to do so, in my opinion, because the law says that that is his job alone.
I just don't understand that.
Well, you make a good point.
And the House has voted even on Ukraine funding that we needed to make sure that corruption was being eliminated.
And they really weren't doing that much of a job.
I was surprised how many Democrats kept bringing up, well, the president didn't even ask about this kind of investigation until 2019.
Well, that was when Zelensky got elected because the prior president was reportedly involved in corruption.
And so this is a guy that ran and got elected to be president of Ukraine on an anti-corruption platform.
So, of course, that's when you ask for help to go after corruption.
But you're right.
And it is not uncommon at all.
I mean, you look back at the Obama administration, they were telling some countries, gee, we will give you help or more help if you will legalize same-sex marriage or legalize abortion, things like that.
And I remember reading a quote from a Catholic bishop in Nigeria after that was reported there.
And the bishop said, our religious beliefs are not for sale to the United States or President Obama or anybody.
So that stuff has gone on, but especially if it's a country that has been corrupt, certainly we shouldn't be sending our money there.
So there is nothing wrong with that.
And absolutely, there's nothing wrong with trying to get to the bottom of the 2016 corruption.
And Josh, I point out, I haven't here on the show, but I pointed out before, one of the consequences of this democratic effort is that it has stopped, appears to have stopped, Zelensky in Ukraine from getting evidence of the kind of corruption that affected or may have affected our 2016 election.
They were certainly trying.
There were Ukrainians that were trying, even if the Ukrainian government wasn't, there were certainly Ukrainians trying.
So anyway, we do need to get to the bottom of it.
And we shouldn't be sending money to countries that are trying to help engage in that kind of conduct.
So let's go to Rick in Georgia.
Rick, welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louis Gomert.
Yes, sir.
Nice to meet you.
Nice to talk to you.
I've got to look at your thinking patterns and so forth.
Admire you and thank you for your services.
Where are you in Georgia?
Atlanta.
Ah, okay.
Well, I spent four years, even though it seemed like 20, at a place called Fort Benning, Georgia, if you're familiar with that.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
So you have a question.
Yes, sir.
Has this impeachment backfired on the Democrats?
Is that why I mentioned Pelosi is not sure what our next move should be?
I just get the impression that the tide's turning and they're not sure what to do.
Well, I'm hoping the tide is turning.
I'm hoping that people are waking up because this whole impeachment has been a sham.
And when Speaker Pelosi said that, you know, we've been doing this for two and a half years, this phone call that they based their whole impeachment on didn't happen until July.
And by the way, Adam Schiff hired a former National Security Council person the day after the call, as Carrie Pickett had pointed out in an article she wrote.
But I'm hoping that Americans are waking up.
It is critical that they wake up.
The government has been spying on people, Americans, it shouldn't have.
And that's at the bottom of this whole effort.
So we'll see.
I hope and pray people will wake up.
It's time.
And this is the Sean Hannity Show.
We'll be right back.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louis Gomert sitting in for my friend Sean.
Glad you're with us.
A lot has been going on, obviously.
We're coming to the end of the year.
But one of the things that our president has done that I thought was just superb is address some real injustice in our military.
Now, I was in the Army for four years, and there were some abuses time to time in the military justice system.
But I was shocked in the last few years to read a brief that indicated that during World War I, World War II, Korea War, and Vietnam, all put together, there were seven Americans who were tried and convicted of war crimes in a combat theater.
But that with Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been over 200 that have been tried and convicted of war crimes in a combat theater.
And that's just outrageous.
We send people over to fight on our behalf, and then we tie their hands.
And the rules of engagement were really tough under President Bush, but under President Obama, they got even tougher.
I was hearing from people, you know, it went from you could only shoot if you were defending yourself to, well, you could only shoot if you were defending yourself, and you could be sure that there were no civilians in the area.
And there were a lot of people prosecuted that shouldn't have been.
And in my opinion, one of those was a lieutenant named Clint Lawrence.
Clint is on the phone with us, as is Lauren McLaughlin.
I got to know Lauren back when she was the associate producer for Sean Hannity's radio show.
She married Linda's brother, and they have a beautiful baby that I've been privileged to see.
But Lauren and Clint Lawrence are both on with us now.
Say hello to Sean's audience.
Hello, and thank you, Congressman, for having us on.
I mean, what an incredible, it's like a credible Christmas gift to be here and on the phone with Clint.
It's still a very surreal moment for me to know that he's out and he's free and he can now live his life and go forward.
And it's an honor to be here.
Well, thank you, Lauren.
Clint, yes.
Yeah, it's great to be here.
Thank you, Congressman, for everything you're doing.
Well, thank you for what you're doing.
And I had I was thinking that Lauren got me involved with your case, Clint.
And then she sent me a clip that I was guest hosting Sean's show.
And I read, I was outraged.
And I mispronounced your last name.
I said Lawrence.
But anyway, I couldn't believe that somebody in your situation had been prosecuted and convicted of murder and going to be spending his life in prison when you are a brand new lieutenant in the position.
You were platoon leader, right?
Yes, sir.
And that's what happens when you have a commander-in-chief that does not understand the way the military fight.
Well, I'm concerned he did, but didn't care.
There was more concern about prosecuting our military, it seemed like, and getting that done to assuage some foreign leaders than it seemed like there was just doing right by our military.
And I know we had a Secretary of Defense still there who was upset when the President and other secretaries that were upset when the President was considering pardoning you.
But we had started a Criminal Justice for Warriors caucus in Congress, and you were part of the reason for that.
And Derek Miller, the sergeant, who you knew well from the disciplinary barracks, he was saying we got to get Clint out.
He's an innocent man.
And then to find out just how much and how many people that we had that had served prison time when their only offense was doing what they were sent to do.
It was just such an outrage.
But Clint, you have an amazing attitude for somebody that had been in prison for doing nothing but defending your men that were under your command there in Afghanistan.
And I'm amazed.
I mean, as a Christian, I would hope I would have that kind of outlook, but it's amazing you're not more bitter.
Well, you know, it's an honor to be put in this situation, I'll be honest with you, because, you know, this afternoon you just had Billy and Karen Vaughn on, and those are the real heroes.
Families like that are the real heroes.
And so it's the least that I can do to honor the Navy SEAL, Aaron Vaughan, and to honor those of my brothers and sisters who have given the ultimate sacrifice.
It's the least that I can do to fight to make sure that our brothers who are locked up and our brothers who are facing hard times, maybe with medical situations, with the VA, with all of these different things that our brothers and sisters face when they come back from war.
It's the very least that I can do to fight for them.
And there's a picture, a graphic that I saw on the internet the other day.
It was of a soldier carrying another soldier on his back, and the soldier that was carrying him looked really tired.
But the graphic said he's not heavy.
He's my brother.
So I'm not going to complain about it.
So it doesn't do any good.
It doesn't do any good at all, Congressman, at all.
And you know this.
And with your leadership in the Justice for Warriors Caucus, you know this.
It doesn't do any good to complain about something if you're not going to offer a solution.
And so that's something that I'm so thankful for that we have leadership now.
Finally, we've got leadership who understands how the military fight and how the military needs to fight to win a war.
Well, you've got a lot of support in Congress.
We're hoping we'll have more members join.
And if anybody's listening, you might ask your member of Congress if you joined the Justice for Warriors Caucus, because the more of us there are, the more good we can do for people that were unfairly prosecuted.
But, you know, the UCMJ provided some shortcuts to justice.
And the reason that was done was because, of course, constitutionally it's Congress that sets up disciplinary system and can set up tribunals and all.
And that gave rise to UCMJ.
But the idea was that we needed to provide shortcuts for combat theaters.
But what we've seen happen is people get engaged in combat situations and they're defending themselves or the people in your case under your command.
And then they get brought back to the United States and they don't have access to the witnesses that were actually there in country in the combat theater.
And like in Derek's case, nobody had bothered to check fingerprints on the gun to show that the Taliban activist had grabbed his weapon.
And in your case, I mean, there was information there, but your defense team wasn't aware of some and wasn't allowed to introduce others.
But you were being, there was information that your soldiers under your command were being tailed, and it appeared to be the bad guys.
And also that, let's see, I believe, wasn't there evidence that one or two of them had fingerprints on they had helped make IEDs that had killed American soldiers, and yet the prosecution was saying, oh, yeah, these are innocent civilians.
Am I wrong about that?
These men, Congressman, these men that the United States government under President Obama said that were innocent civilians, these men had the blood of Canadian and American soldiers and Marines on their hands.
These men were responsible indirectly for the lives of our warfighters that we send over there to help fix their country.
And then the Obama administration turns around and says, oh, by the way, I'm going to try to make the Afghan president happy, just like they did in several other cases that we've got going on right now.
The Biden 4 case, it happened in Iraq.
And by the way, under the Obama administration, it wasn't just about war crime.
It was about any crime.
Any crime under the UCMJ with anybody that is subject to the UCMJ under a president like President Obama is you're wide open.
And there's nobody to watch your back except for people like the Justice for Warriors Company and people like people that actually cure.
And so it's not just war crime cases.
If you have a commander-in-chief that does not care about the military, didn't this kind of crap happen?
Well, and when President Trump was considering a pardon for you and others, we had a number of secretaries and people in the military that were upset and said, oh, no, the system's working.
And if the president intervenes, it's going to devastate morale.
But, you know, I've traveled around Afghanistan a good bit and Iraq when we had people there.
And from what I'm hearing, morale has gone up tremendously as military members, your pardon and other actions by the president, as people in the military have said, wow, we have a commander-in-chief who has our back.
We don't have to worry about a commander-in-chief that wants to suck up to some foreign leader and will throw us under the bus to get that.
Isn't that what you've experienced since you've been out?
Absolutely.
And Congressman, I'll say this.
Look, the commander-in-chief understands.
President Trump understands this thing right here, this one thing.
There's nobody in the United States military who's going, who's looking to just go off the res and do whatever they want and just say, I'm not going to follow any rules.
I'm going to do whatever I want.
There's nobody like that in our military.
We've got a very professional, very rule of law military.
We've got some great men and women.
Some of the most talented, articulate, the most amazing men and women in the world are in the United States.
They really are.
So we don't have a military like that.
And so for anybody to say that President Trump's pardons are going to make everybody just go willy-nilly crazy, that's an insult to the military itself.
And that sounds like some nonsense that would come from one of those four-star generals or admirals sitting in the synagogue.
And look, that's something that is an insult.
If anyone who says some nonsense like that does not know or has not spent a day around a member of the world's greatest military, because that's just not how you do things.
And to have a President Trump who understands that is just absolutely a shot of NOF into the morale, just like you said, of the military.
It is.
It really is.
It's something that, you know, we could go on for, we could start three or four more wars under a commander-in-chief like this.
And, you know, I don't want to.
None of us want to.
But when you have somebody who has your back, you'll do anything.
In terms of you'll stay up 23 hours a day if you have to.
And, you know, because you know that that person loves you, so you love them back.
And so under President Trump, we have a president, and we know it in the military.
The United States military knows that the president loves them, and he shows them all the time.
And that's not what we had under President Obama.
He didn't understand how the military fights.
He didn't understand anything about the military.
He was just, he was okay with giving clemency to people who were traitors to our country and drug dealers and these quote-unquote nonviolent offenders from the streets somewhere.
And he didn't care.
He couldn't even be bothered with military cases because he didn't understand them.
And so the president, President Trump understands that.
Devastating to morale was not President Trump pardoning you.
Devastating to morale was when somebody like Bergdahl was that was just really a devastating blow to our military.
But Lauren McLaughlin, you, after this first came up about the injustice in Clint's case, you stayed on it.
You got to know family.
You continued to get others involved.
You got Linda.
You got Sean Hannity involved.
And people were standing up for Clint.
So it's wonderful to have you as the communications director for the Justice for Warriors caucus.
Thank you for what you did years ago and what you continue to do.
And we're going to be an encouragement, I guarantee you, to our military.
Clint Lawrence, thanks for loving your country and continuing to love your country.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Louis Gomert.
We'll be right back.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
This is Louie Gomert.
And I know I'm very grateful to Sean.
He is a blessing to me, and I know he is to you, or you wouldn't be listening.
So thank you so much.
It is an honor and privilege to be here.
We just had Christmas two days ago, where we celebrate the birth of the greatest gift mankind has ever known, Jesus.
And we're going to have a new year.
I just have a feeling 2020 is going to be a great year.
I hope it is for you.
I hope and pray it is.
This country is in some trouble, and we have still got patriots that love it and are willing to lay down their lives for it.
But we're in for a fight.
It's, you know, people say, well, we're endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, so why do we have to fight?
It's like anything you inherit.
If you don't fight for it, bad people will take it.
So I'll leave you with this from Ecclesiastes 10, 2.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
God bless you.
Happy New Year next week.
This is The Sean Hannity Show.
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.
▲
Export Selection