Gregg Jarrett fills in for the vacationing Hannity and talks about Hunter Biden's $83,333 per month board position on the largest Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma. This is, simply put, corruption by proxy. Peter Schweizer stops by to share the latest on this scandal.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 Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So Dow, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett of the Fox News Channel filling in for Sean, who has a few days off, and he certainly deserves it among the hardest working men in television and radio.
So, Sean, I hope you're having a good time.
It's a new year, folks, and it's a new decade and it's a new presidential election coming up to the chagrin of the Trump hating media and their vengeful, rapacious co-conspirators like Nancy
Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer, Jerry Nadler and the chronically dishonest Adam Schiff, not to mention the gaggle of Democratic presidential candidates who are bereft of any good ideas that can compete with Donald Trump's economic record.
The president is poised to be reelected to another four year term.
And why do I say that?
Because historically we know that people tend to vote their wallets.
If things are going well for them financially, they do endorse the status quo.
They reject change.
Change that runs the risk of reversing the gains and their well-being.
And there's no reason why people shouldn't be self-interested in their vote.
That's what democracy is all about.
What's good for individuals collectively is good for the nation.
And as we begin 2020, the stock market continues to hit all-time highs.
Your 401k and other investments, if you have them, are probably better now than ever before.
Consumer confidence has hit a 20-year high.
Unemployment is at a 50-year low.
The best employment figures in half a century.
And poverty is down substantially, in large part because wages continue to rise.
GDP and consumer spending are incredibly strong.
And whether you like him or not, Donald Trump deserves credit for much of this because he kept his promises.
He cut taxes that boosted not just the American workforce, but incentivized employers to invest and expand.
He rolled back the onerous and expensive regulations that were choking businesses to death.
And what do Democrats have to offer?
They want to reverse course.
They want to raise taxes, not cut them.
They want to reinstate those regulations.
They want to undertake trillion dollar ideas like the Green New Deal and Medicare for all that would bankrupt the federal government and lead inexorably to inflation, maybe recession.
And frankly, Americans are smarter than that.
And it bodes well for President Trump's re-election.
And it bodes poorly for Democrats and the complicit Media who aid and abet them.
Come November, if Donald Trump is re-elected, Rachel Maddow's head will explode.
And I don't want to miss that one.
Rachel Maddow, prime time, MSNBC, who spent much of Donald Trump's first term claiming that he's a Manchurian candidate, Putin's puppet acting as a covert Kremlin asset.
Take a listen.
And if the president did that today, because he has some reason to serve that other country rather than our own, then a lot that has previously been inexplicable is now explicable.
Is our president subordinate to a foreign power?
Does our president answer to a foreign government and a foreign leader?
The worst case scenario that the president is a foreign agent suddenly feels very powerful.
What would change the world is if, you know, Russia was interfering in the election and they weren't doing it on their own, and he was in on it.
I mean, this guy is supposedly somebody who works at the Russian Central Bank.
Why did the FSB give him a medal for his work?
A medal of appreciation right after Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination for president.
If the presidency is effectively a Russian op, right?
If the American presidency right now is the product of collusion between the Russian intelligence services and an American campaign, I mean, that is so profoundly big.
That's the kind of nonsense, the BS that Rachel Maddow was peddling every night.
More than anybody else, Maddow advanced the Trump Russia collusion hoax, assuring her lapdog and unthinking viewers that the president would be tossed out of office once the Mueller report was made public.
She promised that the Clinton-funded anti-Trump dossier was absolutely true.
Trust me, she said night after night.
And she was relying on useful idiots like James Clapper Obama's director of national intelligence as her source, the last guy I would ever trust for anything.
For example, in her monologue on August 23rd, 2017, Maddow stated with unreserved certainty that quote, nothing in the dossier has been overtly disproved since it was first posted online.
Right, Rachel.
Except that all of the main allegations against Trump had been overtly disproved by the FBI.
Months earlier, they had tracked down Christopher Steele's primary information source, who, according to the recent IG report, admitted it was a collection of embellishments and lies cobbled together from hearsay built on hearsay, some of it was said in jest over beers.
But the conspicuous absence of real evidence did not stop the malevolent Maddow from peddling her phantasm.
Here she is, September 15th, 2017.
The Christopher Steele dossier, which is a controversial document for lots of reasons, Quoting from that, though, a lot of it has been proven out.
yeah a lot of it has been proven you know night after night maddow promised her brainless sycophants that they'd be rewarded by the special counsel robert muller Trump would be cuffed and frog marched out of the White House thanks to the dossier that she treated as the gospel according to Rachel.
Here's another example.
July 2nd, 2018.
In a typically obtuse monologue, Maddow informed her viewers that quote, nothing in the dossier has ever been disproven.
Except that it wasn't even close to being true.
That same month, I published my book, The Russia Hoax, disproving the main accusations in the phony dossier.
And I wasn't alone in that.
Sedulous reporting by my colleague John Solomon, The tenacity of my friend Sean Hannity day after day on his radio show, this radio show on his television show on Fox News showed that the dossier was demonstrably false.
There was no evidence of a criminal collusion conspiracy with Moscow.
The Mueller report would so conclude.
And of course, when it was released, April of this year, that's exactly what happened.
So did a contrite Maddow apologize for misleading her audience with reckless reporting and analysis.
Of course she didn't.
Was she fired from MSNBC?
No way.
There were too many other people at the network who embraced the same fraud.
You think I'm kidding?
NBC's Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, willingly bought into the hoax.
The same hoax, the Maddow hoax.
On April 15, 2018, he stated, and I'll quote, so far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue.
Nice job, Chuck.
You have earned coveted membership in the Flat Earth Society.
And it's not just the dopes at MSNBC and NBC.
The folks over at CNN adopted the dossier as scripture.
Jim Shudo said on air, quote, the dossier in fact is far from bogus.
Another CNN contributor said, increasingly, it's the accurate dossier.
Increasingly, it's the damning dossier.
Except the only thing that was damning was the stupidity of CNN and Jeff Zucker, who runs the joint.
People like Rachel Maddow have no conscience, no ability to admit fault or failure.
She expressed not a shred of regret or remorse for lying to her viewers night after night, month after month, year after year.
Media critic Eric Wimple of the Washington Post, maybe you saw this, recently condemned Maddow as a charlatan.
He wrote that she rooted for the dossier to be true.
And when it fell apart, she then just shifted her attention to something else.
When confronted in a podcast, according to Wimple, she pretended she never deceived her viewers by asserting the validity of the dossier.
She called it, in fact, creepy to suggest otherwise.
She actually said this in the podcast, quote, it's not like I've been making a case for the accuracy of the steel dossier, and that's been the basis of my Russian reporting.
That's not true.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, you just heard the clips that we just played.
Think about what she's saying.
I mean, in the history of lies, can you come up with a bigger whopper than the one peddled by Rachel Maddow?
And Maddow was just one symptom in the larger disease of media malpractice on steroids, and they were rewarded for it.
The Washington Post, the New York Times, actually won the 2018 Pilitzer Prize for their reporting on the dossier and Trump's collusion with Russia.
Except that the dossier was a fabrication, and collusion with Russia never happened.
The people who got it right—John Solomon, Sean Hannity, a great many others— Those people were mocked, they were ridiculed, they were demeaned, and the people who got it wrong were awarded Pillitzer Prizes.
In what upside-down world does that happen?
I'll tell you.
It's the world of liberal dominated journalism.
They never admit their mistakes, especially the egregious ones.
Instead, they award prizes only to leftist reporters who manage to demolish the truth, fairness, and accuracy as they move on.
And Rachel Maddow is like a cult leader.
With, you know, end of the world predictions, and when they fail to come true, she picks a new date and a new prophecy.
I'm going to be talking to John Sale, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor.
He's going to be joining us in just a few minutes.
We'd love to hear from you.
Our telephone number is 800 941326 800 941.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
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 Dow, 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.
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 Navok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
By the way, uh if you would uh connect with me on Twitter.
My handle is at Greg Jarrett.
Uh two G's at the end of Greg, J-A-R-R-E-T-T.
Uh check out my website, the Greg Jarrett.com.
And uh we love your calls.
I'm gonna be talking to uh John Sayle coming up at just a moment, one of the best lawyers in America, former uh uh Watergate prosecutor.
And we'll have him weigh in on the upcoming uh Durham investigation.
Uh it's ongoing, actually, but uh we hope there's a report that emanates from it, and maybe uh some prosecutions.
Uh, we'll have him weigh in a little bit on the media as well.
Uh in my new book, uh Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
It's available online at Barnes Noble.com or Amazon.com.
Again, the title is Witch Hunt.
Um I open chapter six, which is entitled uh The Media Witch Hunt, with my favorite quote from The Wizard of Oz, where Scarecrow says to Dorothy, I haven't got a brain, only straw.
And Dorothy responds by saying, How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
And Scareco Scarecrow replies, I don't know.
But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?
And that is the media.
Scarecrow described today's mainstream media mob and people like Rachel Maddow perfectly.
People without brains do an awful lot of talking.
Rachel Maddow should have read both my books, The Russia Hoax and Witch Hunt, because it tells the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show, your phone calls, and John Sale coming up next.
Don't go away.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week we do our podcast, Verdic with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So 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 Nayfok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
Very pleased to have with us today, uh former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, and assistant special Watergate prosecutor, John Sail, who is one of the best lawyers in America for my money.
And John, happy new year.
Thanks for being with us.
And my pleasure, Greg, happy new year to you.
You know, I want to ask you uh a few questions about uh John Durham and uh Michael Horowitz.
Now, Horowitz uh is the inspector general at the Department of Justice who investigated the FBI and the DOJ.
And if I can just broad brush a couple of his conclusions, he determined uh that there were errors and omissions and deceptions uh by the FBI to the FISA court and seeking a warrant to spy on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
And he also looked into the origins of the FBI's investigation of Trump Russia collusion that was launched July 31st, 2001.
And John Durham, uh, specially appointed by the Attorney General William Barr to look into uh the origins of the Trump Russia case, um, made a very unusual public statement the day that Horowitz's report came out.
And he said that uh he disagreed with Horowitz as to the predication and how the FBI case was opened.
So what does that tell you, John?
Well, the Department of Justice rarely makes any comp public statements on ongoing investigations.
But the actual policy, the DOJ policy, is they don't comment on open investigations, quote, unless there's a compelling public interest.
So here I think John Durham felt the American public should not think case closed, there was no political motive at opening the investigation.
But as the consummate professional that he is, and he's conducting a grand jury investigation, he didn't leak anything, and he's going to investigate this thoroughly.
And uh let me tell you, I have not met John Durham, but I have actually spoken to two former attorneys general, both of whom one Democrat, one Republican, who appointed him to some very sensitive uh investigations to run, and they've both told me he's a straight shooter, he's not political.
He's gonna call them as he sees them, and he's not going to be afraid to indict people if the evidence is there.
So I think there are some people who are gonna have a lot to be concerned about.
But in fairness, you know, I don't want to mention names.
I don't want to say who may or may not be indicted.
But just what John Durham was saying is stay tuned, it's not over.
Yeah.
I mean, he had, and he pointed this out in his statement the day the Horowitz report came out.
Uh he said uh based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General, we didn't agree with his conclusions as to predication and how the case was open.
Uh and and he went on to uh state that he has access to more information from quote other persons and entities, both in the United States and outside the United States.
So he has far greater power, authority, and jurisdiction than the Inspector General, who many people have likened to, you know, sort of an auditor.
Uh you know, I actually liken him to sort of a stenographer.
He he gets statements from people and regurgitates them in his report.
What do you think?
Well, he could he did not I think he did a very good job considering the limitations of what he did.
He had to accept people's answers.
He he had to accept people if they said they don't recall, he couldn't there's nothing he could do.
Uh uh by the same token, John Durham as a prosecutor, he has the grand jury, he can subpoena people before the grand jury, he can subpoena documents, he has access to records from overseas pursuant to various mutual assistance treaties that we have with foreign governments.
And so I think Durham did a good job considering the limited powers he had.
And I think some of the Durham findings are I'm sorry, some of the Horowitz findings are very, very troubling.
Uh so I don't think we can just say that, well, Horowitz swept everything under the rug.
Right.
I mean, he found seventeen abuses of mis where the Pfizer court was misled either by omissions or by outright lies.
And even he even found that uh a lawyer supervising uh the Spider process altered a document in a very material way.
I mean, the Pfizer court was part of legislation in the 70s to make up for the abuses under the Hoover regime, and by God, it assumed that our DOJ lawyers and our FBI agents would be honorable and would never deceive a court.
I I do this for a living.
Deceiving a court is not forgivable.
No, it's not.
And it's actually, as I describe in my book, potentially criminal.
Uh it's defrauding the court.
Uh when you're signing off, you're swearing under penalty of perjury that what you're uh representing is true, that you verified the information.
And you're right, Horowitz found 17 significant uh deceptions or errors, uh, but you actually have to turn to appendix number one, and you find a Flowchart identifying a total of 51 inaccurate statements,
errors, omissions of exculpatory evidence, and you know, the altering of a document and outright lies and deceptions.
So, you know, I identify various potential crimes in my book that that could constitute.
What's troubling to me is that the judges who were deceived, the FISA court and the presiding judge Rosemary Collier's only response so far has been to send a letter, an order to the FBI saying, uh, by thus and such a date in January, let us know how you're going to fix this.
John, I mean, wouldn't most judges who were deceived haul the the individuals who did it in front of them for a show cause contempt hearing?
Well, it may be that they're waiting to see what Durham is doing, and also, yes, of course, but the penalty for contempt may not be great enough because I I do this for a living, and I have companies or individuals who are the subject of search warrants, and it's one-sided.
It's a one-sided process.
Who is going to make up to uh Carter Page what happened here?
Uh he's an American citizen, and he was surveilled illegally.
Uh he's a graduate of the Naval Academy.
And I mean, he was to put it very simply, he was working for the good guys.
He was working for us.
And the false one of the false statements to the Pfizer Court, or one of the altered documents, made it seem like he was working for the other side.
I mean, that's not a minor little error.
That's uh go rises to the level of being shocking the conscience to use a term that we lawyers use.
You know, um James Comey seemed to be saying in his interview with my colleague on Fox News, uh Chris Wallace, that um, well, you know, I just signed off on this and I'm way up on top, and this was seven layers below, to which uh uh Attorney General Durham said that's nonsense when he sat down for an interview with Martha McCallum of Fox News.
Yeah, Bill I'm sorry, Bill Barr.
And and so um, you know, it it sort of invites the question if uh Durham concludes that the court was deliberately deceived, is it an excuse for a guy like Comey to say, well, I just trusted others when I signed it.
Well, one of the things that uh uh witz testified to during the hearing was I don't have the exact language in front of me, but he said he couldn't really conclude whether all of the FBI's egregious mistakes were the product of gross negligence or something worse.
So if it is true that Comey was just above it all, he certainly was should take responsibility because the buck stops here.
If it goes way beyond that, and he did supervise this personally because it was the most important investigation the Bureau was doing, then Durham will have to make a judgment call on that.
If the FISA court is fed 51 inaccurate uh statements and deceptions and the withholding of exculpatory information 51 times, and all of them in one direction against Donald Trump.
Isn't it hard to argue you know gross negligence?
I would rather be on the other side and rather than trying to defend the gross negligence.
Uh I want to give Director Comey and everyone else the benefit of the presumption of innocence.
Maybe that's just my nature as a defense lawyer, but I think it would yes, I think it is hard to make the case that it's only gross negligence.
You know, we have played the uh soundbite of Rod Rosenstein here before, in which he talks about how serious, you know, FISA warrant applications are.
Uh and you know, that you have to be very scrupulous uh when you sign off on that.
And you have to make sure that the information is absolutely accurate, has been properly vetted and corroborated And verified.
I mean, this is Rod Rosenstein on tape who who has said this, and yet he signed the final FISA warrant application.
So he would have no excuse to say, oh, I just trusted others when he's on record saying you as a signator have to make sure that it's accurate information.
Would you agree?
Well, I agree that a Pfizer application is so serious that the person at the top cannot just say, Oh, I'm relying on others and sign it, that they have the responsibility to be sure it's accurate, just as in the private sector, uh CEOs of companies are responsible when they CFOs when they sign off on FIS on financial statements.
They're criminally responsible, not only in terms of uh accountability to shareholders.
Last question is the launching of the Trump Russia collusion investigation again, was formally opened on July 31st, 2016.
Peter Strzok signed the papers, uh, but it was surely approved at the highest levels of the FBI.
And in my book, I go through the federal regulations of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
And it and it states you must have, before you open the investigation, two things.
You must have a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been or will be committed.
And number two, it has to be supported by specific articulable facts.
And I argue in my book that George Papadopoulos hearing a rumor is not a sufficient articulable specific fact.
So that would have been um a bad basis to open up the investigation.
And as if it was the dossier that they were relying on, none of it had been verified at that juncture.
So is that perhaps what uh John Durham is is looking at when he says he doesn't agree that the case was opened with proper predication?
Well, I think Greg, I think it's worse than you stated it, because it was opened by specific articulable facts, but they were false facts.
And the dossier they misrepresented to the court that it had been verified, and they didn't tell the court that it was funded by the opposition party.
So it's even worse.
I mean, your book, I read it, I thought it was great, I couldn't put it down, but frankly, I wondered, is it true?
I mean, I thought it was a novel.
And as I we look at it now, I mean, it's remarkable.
I mean, uh, how you uh were right right on uh in uh not only were your research because you didn't have uh access to the things that Durham and Hurrow was had access to, and you pulled things out of the public record and you analyze the law and the regulations, and it would be as I look at your book again now.
Not only is it a great read, but it was correct, it was accurate.
John Sail, many thanks for being with us.
Always great talking to you.
John Sayle, former federal prosecutor, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor.
Happy New Year to you, and thanks for being with us here.
Calls on the other side in just a moment.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
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 Delaware, 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 SAS, 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.
It's almost a dirty word.
One that connotes conspiracy theory.
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 Mayfock from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
All right, you may have noticed, maybe you saw some some clips recently of uh Joe Biden at a rally and uh being heckled by a variety of individuals or were calling him quid pro Joe.
And uh of course, the former vice president didn't like it one bit, immediately sought to uh to blame uh Donald Trump.
Uh this is a democracy, this is not a Trump rally, and the heckling quid pro Joe continued because of of course Joe Biden in his immense hubris and cluelessness.
We call him clueless Joe, not shoe less Joe, clueless Joe.
This is politics, not baseball.
Um, you know, seems to think that his son did nothing wrong and that there is no evidence of impropriety on his part.
Um that's not quite how Hunter Biden put it in an interview with ABC's Amy Rohrbach, October fifteenth.
Take a listen.
When he said, I hope you know what you're doing, what did he think you were doing?
Well, he read the press reports that I joined the board of Barisma, which was a Ukrainian natural gas company.
And there's been a a lot of uh misinformation about me, not about my dad.
Nobody buys that, but it buys this idea that I was unqualified to be on the board.
What were your qualifications to be on the board of Barisma?
Well, I was vice chairman of the board of Amtrak for five years.
I was the chairman of the board of the UN World Food Program.
I was a lawyer for Boy Schiller Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.
You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself, though.
Uh no, but I think that I had as much knowledge as anybody else who was on the board, uh if not more.
In the list that you gave me of the reasons why you're on that board, you did not list the fact that you were the son of the vice president.
Of course it is.
Yeah, no.
What role do you think that played?
I think that it is impossible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I'm the son of the vice president of the United States.
You were paid $50,000 a month for your position.
Look, I'm a private citizen.
One thing that I don't have to do is sit here and open my kimono as it relates to how much money I make or make or did or didn't.
But it's all been reported.
If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think he would have been asked to be on the board of Barisma?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Probably not.
I I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life that uh that if my last name wasn't Biden.
Yeah, no kidding.
Uh that is Hunter Biden, and I don't think it's fifty thousand a month he got uh from Barisma for a job uh uh upon which he held no qualifications to have.
It was more like eighty-three thousand.
Um, but we'll put that question to Peter Schweitzer, who joins us now, uh, who is government accountability institute president and author of Secret Empires as well as Clinton Cash.
And he joins us now.
Peter, it's always great talking to you.
Thanks for taking the time.
Oh, it's always a pleasure, Greg.
Great to be on with you.
So, how much was he Actually getting uh from Barisma Hunter Biden?
Uh he was getting eighty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars a month, which if my math is accurate is a million dollars a year.
And he got that beginning in April of twenty fourteen.
Um, you know, what happened is his business partner, Devin Archer went to the White House in April of 2014.
We know that based on White House visitors logs.
Uh and we don't know what the meeting was about, but Devin Archer, Hunter's business partner was there for you know five or six hours meeting with the vice president.
Uh and that we know in the days that followed, literally the days that followed, uh Barisma started depositing um transfers into the account of Devin Archer and Hunter Biden, and they were each getting $83,333 a month.
Um that is uh way out of proportion.
Uh you know, if you sit on the board of Exxon or other corporations like that in the United States that are much larger, much more legitimate, sitting on that board's more demanding, you're getting paid a fraction of that.
So this is a is a sweetheart deal of sweetheart deals that Hunter Biden had.
And Joe Biden had been appointed um as the point person by the Obama administration in Ukraine.
Um at one point in time he's you he's urging Ukraine to, if I recall correctly, increase their natural gas production at the same time his son is sitting on the board of the biggest natural gas company in Ukraine, right?
That's right.
I mean, Greg, you talk in your book, Witch Hunt about how the machinery of government was twisted and distorted to to you know get political enemies, in this case Donald Trump.
Um in this case, you're talking about twisting the machinery of government uh to benefit your family.
I I talk about this and call this corruption by proxy.
In other words, Joe Biden's not going to be stupid enough to take money from Ukrainians himself.
He's not going to take money from the Chinese government himself.
But if his son in effect serves as a proxy, uh, which is pretty clear what happened here.
I mean, the two countries where Hunter Biden cashed in the most were Ukraine and China, and those are the two countries that it happens to be Joe Biden as vice president was point person on for policy.
You know, that's either one hell of a coincidence, or it speaks to the issue that these foreign entities knew exactly what they were paying for when they were paying Hunter Biden.
Um, you know, most people, I think, out in the country see that and know that.
It's a big denial game still in Washington, D.C. Oh, there's nothing inappropriate about this.
If this happened in your small town, or if this happened elsewhere, people see it.
They know that the gig is up.
They know what's going on.
Um, and and it's just Joe Biden's continued assist insistence that there's no connection between his son's business activities and his venturing into new fields where he has no background in either China or Ukraine or energy or private equity, um, just speaks to that fact.
And I think it's going to really hurt him here in 2020.
What did Barisma hope to gain out of paying this enormous amount of money, more than a million dollars to the son of the vice president?
Were they hoping to gain access, influence, protection, all of the above?
Great question.
I think all of the above.
Um, you know, we know at the time that Hunter Biden and Devin Archer joined the board uh together.
And remember, Devin Archer was a former top aide to John Kerry, who was Secretary of State at the time.
So they were kind of getting a twofer here.
They were getting the vice president's son and a close aide to John Kerry, the Secretary of State.
At the time they joined the board, the for the founder of Barisma is Lachevsky, who is this sort of pro-Russian oligarch from the Yanukovych government, um, was facing uh criminal charges in uh London from the series fraud office, from Ukrainians, from others in Europe.
He was basically living in Switzerland in sort of quasi-exile.
Um allowed to come to the United States, nor was another Ukrainian oligarch named Kolomoisky, who was actually uh not allowed to visit the United States at all.
That was changed once these two joined the board.
The case against Lechevsky was dropped by certain foreign countries.
So there is that sense that that that perhaps he was being protected.
There's also the sense that um Barisma uh was ponying up uh at the bar, as it were, to get access to USAID money.
Uh The United States Agency for International Development during the Obama administration, again, this is being steered by Joe Biden, is passing out um aid and money uh to companies like Barisma.
Certainly they wanted to benefit from that relationship.
And then I think there's finally just the sense that in Ukraine, this is how politics is done.
It's a it's a highly corrupt political culture, uh, one of the most corrupt in the world.
Um some authorities say uh things go on there that would make Nigerians wince in in how corrupt it is.
So they figure that's the way they do politics and business.
We're going to do that uh in the United States, and the Bidens were all too happy to do it.
So Joe Biden is seen on videotape bragging uh about a quid pro quo.
Uh that he uh uh said he would see to it that a billion dollars in American aid was withheld from Ukraine unless Viktor Shokin, the then chief prosecutor in Ukraine, was fired.
Shokan has uh is on record telling, including the Washington Post in a July 22nd, 2019 uh published interview, that he was fired because his investigators were closing in on corruption in Barisma and also about to uh investigate and interview Hunter Biden.
So when Joe Biden and and the me mainstream media says, oh, there's there there's no connection there.
Um don't the facts suggest otherwise?
They absolutely do.
Um what I can do is speak obviously to the fact pattern, and and Greg, I mean, you I think can probably break this out from the legal context of this.
Um but what we know is that clearly Ukrainian officials were investigating Barisma.
Barisma, there were multiple investigations against Barisma, uh, because at the time it was widely recognized in in investment circles in Ukraine that uh Barisma was not a company you wanted to do business with, because there were all these huge questions about money and and how the company was formed and what it was using its money for, and that's a matter of public record.
Um Shokan confirmed that, as you said to the Washington Post.
He also confirmed that to the New York Times.
Uh and there's no reason to question him.
And the only defense that that you know Biden um and his team have offered is, well, you know, lots of people wanted Shokan fired because he was corrupt, which, you know, obviously is a question that's that's open and that can be discussed, but is irrelevant to this question.
I mean, I think it's a it's a massive conflict of interest for you to be the bearer of this threat of the the the one who's bringing forward this threat uh and and this clear quid pro quo to somebody who is potentially going to put your son in legal peril.
Um and and the fact that other people thought Shokan was a bad prosecutor as corrupt is completely irrelevant.
Um and I think this is an issue that is not gonna go away for Biden uh because he hasn't effectively honestly dealt with it.
And I think there's going to be more reporting coming out from John Solomon and others that that are going to indicate clearly um what we know about the money flows to Hunter Biden and other people connected with Barisma.
Yeah, uh under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it is uh illegal, it's a crime for a public official to confer a benefit in exchange for something of personal value to himself or to an immediate relative, i.e., your son.
And so uh you know, I've argued repeatedly that uh if the president felt that Ukraine had evidence of uh a violation of the foreign corrupt practices act by an American official, uh Joe Biden.
He had every right to ask Ukraine to please uh look into it, hand over evidence if you have any.
And the fact that uh Joe Biden may be running for the president of the United States doesn't give him immunity or Amnesty from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
I think that I think that's a that's a hugely important point, Greg.
And I think that that famous phone call now that Donald Trump had with the president of uh Ukraine's Lechevsky, sorry, um Zelensky, uh, is even more important when you consider the fact that Zelensky rises to power in Ukraine.
Uh, his biggest financial bacteria Ukrainian oligarch named Kolomoski, who is guess what, involved with Barisma.
So for the president to raise it with the president of Ukraine, that's the way to do it.
And in a sense, uh Trump is signaling to Zelensky, I want you to look at this without saying I know who your backers are.
I know that they may be implicated in this, but you need to look at this.
And I agree with you, it's completely appropriate.
The actions we're talking about did not occur when Joe Biden was a private citizen.
He was vice president of the United States.
He was executing and carrying out American policy in Ukraine, and his son was profiting at the same time.
Uh so if this is going to be looked at at all, it needs to be looked at now.
Uh if Joe Biden's out of politics, people would be saying, Oh, there's no reason to look at it, he's out of politics.
It should be looked at, and it was quite appropriate for President Trump to raise this issue with Zelinski in the manner in which he did.
Peter Schweitzer, you are a wealth of information, and your books are among my favorite, the most recent Secret Empires.
Thank you for taking the time.
Happy New Year.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
More of your calls on the other side.
Our number is 800-941.
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 Dell, 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.
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 Nayfok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
And we are back now with just a couple of minutes.
Hey, Greg, I always enjoy it when you're guest hosting.
I think you have a real knack for the radio thing.
Thank you.
Don't quit your day job, but glad to have you.
Okay, thanks for that.
I really appreciate all that.
I really appreciate all the hard work you've done with the last three years exposing a lot of the criminal behavior that's uh that's gone on with the previous administration.
I was hoping you could spend a couple minutes commenting on Susan Rice's email that she notoriously left just prior to the end of the Obama administration where she memorialized the fact that the president was briefed by all of the top law enforcement officers.
And what do you think that means going?
Yeah.
It's a great question.
And on the other side of our break, I'll provide the answer.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Radio Show.
Well, Sean is back on the radio, sort of.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
And thanks for being with us over the course of these three hours, sort of because somebody recently introduced me as Greg Hannity.
I'm not kidding you.
I was down in Florida giving a speech and book signing and did somebody mistakenly referred to me as uh Greg Hannity in the introduction.
And uh frankly, I take that as a is a compliment.
Uh, but no, we're not related.
Um, and uh he's not my long-lost child.
Um I I am actually considerably older than Sean Hannity.
Um, although his hair is gray and mine is not, and no, I don't dye my hair, and no, it's not a to pay, which is you know, the most frequent.
It's unbelievable, Ethan.
The most frequent um email uh or Twitter, you know, criticism I get is um stop wearing that awful toupee or stop dyeing your hair.
I I'm sorry, but this is my real hair, and I don't dye it.
Uh ginger cuts my hair once a month, and she can attest to the fact that no, I don't dye my hair, uh, and it's real hair that is cut.
And uh I, you know, uh viewers may not like it, and I apologize for that, but there's nothing I can do about my hair.
It's my hair.
Okay.
And uh my mother had uh pitch black hair until the day she died at age 82, and it's just a genetic thing.
And you know, what can I tell you?
And so, you know, uh, what do you want me to do?
Color my hair gray?
Should I do that?
I mean, Ethan, what do you think?
Uh I'm I'm just dumbfounded.
Uh that's pretty amazing.
Did you think I dye my hair?
I only I only thought you might have only because you told us your age recently, which I didn't believe either.
I'm about to turn 65 in April.
I couldn't believe that when you told us to be honest.
Yeah, I uh aren't I supposed to apply for uh Medicare in the six months before I turned 65, isn't that the deal?
Yeah.
Okay.
Will you help me with that?
I guess.
No, you won't.
You're lying.
You're not gonna help me.
Uh somebody's gotta help me with that.
All right.
Uh way off subject.
Uh, and I don't even recall how we got to it, but Tom, our last caller had posed a very good question.
Can you explain your view of the Susan Rice email on the very last day of the Obama administration, President Trump's inauguration day, January 20th, 2017.
Tom's Tom's a smart fellow.
Because not many people remember that email, and it's very important.
Uh, because in it, Susan Rice, uh, who was leaving as National Security Advisor for Barack Obama writes this very unusual message to herself, memorializing a conversation that she observed uh weeks earlier,
I believe it was January 5th, between Comey and Obama, in which she quotes the president as instructing Comey, uh, be sure uh to uh go by the book or some such thing in the Trump Russia investigation.
Now, why would Susan Rice write that uh memo to herself?
I'll tell you why.
Uh it was a CYA memo, and you know what that means.
Cover your you know what.
Um because at the time the FBI wasn't going by the book.
Uh they had deceived the FISA court to spy on a Trump campaign advisor, Carter Page, and we now know there were 51 inaccurate Uh statements, errors, deceptions, omissions, and lies, including the doctoring uh of one email.
And it was that very month, January of 2017, that the FBI learned that the dossier was phony.
They learned it from Christopher Steele's subsource.
So there's this conversation allegedly between Trump and Comey, in which Obama allegedly says, oh, gee, make sure you do it by the book.
Now you can draw your own conclusion, but mine is that this was a CYA memo to cover the fact that the FBI and Comey were not doing it by the book.
You can read more about it.
Speaking of books in my book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
Let's go to our next uh caller, Jerry joins us from beautiful and warm Florida.
Hey, Jerry, happy new year.
Thank you, Greg.
Hey, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
I think you are one of the most logically based people on the television or radio.
And I I really appreciate your uh input on every subject.
Thank you.
So I think I I come from a family of Democrats, Dyden the Wool, Democrats, all union people.
My condolences.
I started my Yeah, I started my own business in the mid-80s after I finally broke away from the mindset of you know that the nanny state was going to take care of me.
And um, well, let's just put it this way.
I I I have a business I run that's in Oregon, but I live in Florida, and I definitely do a lot better than I did uh working for them for uh, you know, some big company that you work for until you die, and that's what you do.
But the mindset, the mindset of the Democrat is it's really important, and I and I think I really have it down path.
And it part of it is the indoctrination of the evilness of anybody that's not wearing the same color hat.
It's basically it's just like whether you're a Yankees or a Boston Red Sox fan.
It's like by God, it might be a crook, but by God, it's my crook.
And so, you know, they they they they refuse to open their eyes to seeing anything until it literally hits them between the eyes.
That's what happened to me.
Changed my whole life was was understanding that everything I had been taught that the re that the Democrats supposedly stood for was all BS.
And then I saw in the in the mid to late 80s, the the news media carrying their water with, you know, and I I'm I'm a big hunter and and gun, you know, right supporter.
And I watched the news media lying, just outright lying about things that the NRA were doing, and they they and the news media ran with some of the stuff that was a complete lie for years and years, and it's got nothing but worse.
You know, uh Jerry, since you all your family and friends are Democrats, did you buy them my book, Witch Hunt, uh, to set the record straight and maybe open their eyes and minds with the truth.
I'm sorry, but you know, I I'm afraid if I bought them the book, they would probably tear out the pages and actually light a fire with it.
So uh they they are not they are not open-minded to it at all.
They all got I was crazy for when I started my own business.
But the point though, that I wanted to make was that until Republicans, conservatives make a compelling argument that the common man can get their head wrapped up around in an emotional basis, which is what Democrats are really good about is pulling the the emotion out of a subject and going at it in a way that somebody can understand how they are being stabbed in the back by these people over and over again and
quit citing statistics and all that kind of stuff that does not do anything to sway public opinion.
All right, Jerry, thanks very much from Florida.
Listen, I don't disagree with you.
Um and you know there's two problems here.
First of all, these Democratic candidates are trying to buy votes with you know free this, free that, you know, free college education, free guaranteed income, uh, you know, uh forgiveness of debts, you know.
It it reminds me of the old Herbert Hoover, you know, a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and you know, it's just buying votes.
Um, Medicare for All, Green New Deal, uh, you know, kumbaya, we're all gonna pay for you.
Um Americans are smarter than that.
They know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Next is John Michigan.
Hey, John, thanks for being with us.
Happy New Year.
Thanks for having me, Greg Hannity.
I know maybe I should change my name.
I don't know.
That's right.
No, it's great talking to you, Mr. Jarrett.
I uh you know, as much as I enjoy Sean, I'm actually glad you're on because I have a I have a question to pose, more of a league or statue, if that's okay.
Yeah.
Um I'm obviously a very big believer, and I think you are too.
You actually played a clip a little while ago that the media is perpetually pushing lies and false information to fit an agenda.
Right.
Um, that's obviously verified some 96% of coverage of news is negative against this administration.
Yeah.
So it's not only just false, it's intentionality is false as well.
So while the president and no legal office can really do anything to the media because they hide behind freedom of the press and the constitution.
What about the people?
What about citizens, Greg?
Can we do a you know a class action or anything against them to start holding them accountable?
I mean, because they're gonna have to address that if the people stand up and say, okay, I got 60 million people, you're wanting to sue us.
What are your thoughts on something like that?
Yeah, you know, you there would have to be a legitimate cause of action as it's known uh in a civil action uh such as a class action lawsuit for money damages.
Um and I can't think of any off the top of my head, you know.
Um it is not a crime uh for the media to lie to the American public.
I I wish it were otherwise, um, because they'd all be in jail.
Um, but it it's just not in the First Amendment, you know, protects free speech.
We have such a thing as defamation, but when it comes to uh, you know, lying um, you know, uh about a public figure, you have to show actual malice, which is a very high standard under New York Times versus Sullivan.
Uh it's an impossible standard.
Um you have to show that a member of the media um knew that it was a lie or recklessly disregarded the truth, and it's you know, it's just a a tough standard.
So the the answer is no.
But the the response that the American public should meet out to the uh corrupt media, the lying media, the biased uh hating media, is to stop watching those programs on CNN and MSNBC.
Uh and stop reading the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Um, and and the only way that you can uh let your opinions and feelings about the dishonest media be known and be effective is you know, to, you know, vote with your eyeballs uh and your ears don't listen and watch fake news media like CNN and MSNBC.
Why anybody with a brain would ever tune in to Rachel Maddow is uh confounding and bewildering to me.
She has a proven track record of getting it wrong.
She spent two and a half years telling her viewers, promising them that Trump was guilty of col of a criminal collusion conspiracy, telling her viewers that the dossier was true, and both of those things were absolutely wrong.
In my view, she has no credibility, and you would have to be insane to continue to watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.
Uh, we're gonna pause, take a quick break.
More of your calls on the other side.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in on 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 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 Nafock from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yeah, that's right.
Locker up.
Listen to Fiasco Benghazi on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Closing moments of the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean.
Let's go to our phone lines.
David in Washington.
Hi, David.
How are you?
Doing great.
How about you?
I'm well, thanks.
Oh, I had to write this down just to make sure I didn't stumble over what I was thinking.
So get this to you.
With all your investigations for your book, one thing that has always stuck out to me from the beginning was the time Hillary during the debate chuckled and said to Trump, if you lose, you'll say the election was rigged.
As we know, she was already funding the dossier.
Do you think that from things you've learned and possibly some of this was so that they after they quote unquote won the election, everyone would be in place and possibly put Trump in jail?
No, I don't think they the plan was to put Trump in jail.
I I think it was, as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page said, an insurance policy.
The Trump Russia collusion hoax uh was all an insurance policy.
In the unlikely event that Trump was elected, they would use it to destroy him and drive him from office.
That I think is what their plan was, and the assumption was that Trump would never win.
And all of this would be covered up.
If you want to read more about it, I hope you'll pick up my new book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
It tells the story from beginning all the way to the end.
There was never any credible evidence that Trump had engaged in some Russian collusion conspiracy.
There was never any plausible evidence that he was a Russian asset.
And it was all based on a fabricated phony dossier.
And now we know from the Inspector General's report that the FBI knew it almost immediately, within months of launching their investigation.
They had learned from the sub-source who provided all of the dossier information that it was phony, that it was exaggeration.
It was hearsay built on multiple hearsay.
Some of it was set in jest.
Witch Hunt is my new book.
I hope you'll pick it up.
I'm Greg Jarrett, In for Sean Hannity.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
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 a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
