All Episodes
Previous Next
May 25, 2020 - Sean Hannity Show
01:15:15
Best of Sean Hannity: November Is So Important

In this "Best of Sean Hannity", Sean's guests focus on the November election and just how important it is! Plus, the polling numbers show Biden's campaign is falling apart... will he make it to the convention?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.
Technically speaking, it's not completely done, settled, finished, and over, but for the most part, I would suspect it is.
And that is the news today about General Flynn.
Finally, justice is coming in this case.
As we now know, the Justice Department has dropped its case against Flynn with all the information and evidence that had been withheld, so exculpatory, the corruption within the FBI.
What is our goal here?
Is our goal to get him to admission or is it to get him to lie?
Why would an FBI agent ever write?
Our goal is to get somebody to lie.
That's called a perjury trap.
To prosecute him or to get him fired.
That shouldn't be a goal either of anybody in the Department of Justice, the FBI Department of Justice.
Now under the Attorney General Barr, this has happened.
The judge will have to approve the motion to dismiss.
And with Sidney Powell as his attorney, and she will be on Hannity tonight, I would hope that this order, this is vacated and that as a result, he would then be free to sue people.
Then you have really dumb people that just hate all things Trump that have been up to their eyeballs in aiding and abetting all of this.
Like Nadler is out there.
What do you mean?
He pled guilty.
Mr. Nadler, he was told his son would be prosecuted unless he signed the dotted line.
They didn't think he lied.
Remember, Flynn called the deputy FBI director McCabe.
Do I need a lawyer?
No.
What did Comey do, the FBI director?
He brags about sending them all in.
I sent them in.
I took advantage of the chaos.
I did something I wouldn't do or get away with in prior administrations like the Bush administration and Obama administration because they have a process.
Normally, you go through the White House counsel before you would speak to the National Security Advisor, setting up Flynn.
And of course, the original 302s are still non-existent.
Then, of course, we have the scope memo in August of 2017 after the FBI knew in February of 2017 that the dirty Clinton bought and paid for Russian disinformation dossier used as the predicate and the bulk of information for all of the FISA application warrants.
Well, they used that as part of the mandate or scope instructions given by then Deputy Attorney General, maybe acting Attorney General at the time, Rod Rosenstein, to Mueller.
But at that time, they knew the dossier was BS.
Anyway, what was the bottom line?
To get to Trump, they illegally spied on a candidate.
They denied Carter Page's civil liberties, constitutional rights.
Then they spied on Trump's transition team.
And in the words of Attorney General Barr, they spied on a president deep into his presidency.
And they did it by using not only unverified, but unverifiable.
And at some point before the third application, the second renewal, they knew it was debunked.
Now we know that there was some coordination with the DNC and Christopher Steele and Hillary Clinton's campaign and Christopher Steele and that Steele has now hilleried his emails and erased them all.
Jay Seculo is with us, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, also a counsel for the president.
Jay, big news.
I would assume Judge Emmett Sullivan in this case is going to be rather ticked off.
I think he's going to be ticked off at the Department of Justice that was leading this, particularly the special counsel's office.
I want to say something, Sean, because as someone who lived this for three years and knew this was a sham and a scam and a fraud on the American people, here's what I released a statement.
I said, justice is being served.
The actions of the special counsel against General Flynn were outrageous.
The special counsel should be ashamed of the conduct of his agents and lawyers that he allowed.
The Attorney General and the Department of Justice are correcting a horrible wrong.
But what I want to focus on for a moment, Sean, is Bob Mueller.
This was all known to Bob Mueller, the special counsel, the vaulted praised special counsel.
Jerry Nadler's comment, by the way, he pled guilty is absurd, but is that a great shock?
But what is shocking is that Bob Mueller let this happen.
He was the special counsel appointed in this case, came in with this, you know, pedigree in Washington, well respected.
He should be apologizing, which is not enough, by the way, apologizing to General Flynn and the American people.
But when you read the order that the Department of Justice filed, for instance, things like Peter Strzok saying serendipitously, good news to Lisa Page, the special counsel.
By the way, these are two leaders of the FBI, that the investigation had not technically been closed on Flynn in a technical sense.
Quote, our utter incompetence actually helps us.
And then James Comey.
James Comey, St. Jerome the Magnificent, higher than thou, higher calling, was told by Sally Yates, of all people, I'm shocked to read this.
Now, he told Director Comey, tells Sally Yates he has sent over agents to interview General Flynn.
She is flabbergasted and dumbfounded.
Other senior DOJ officials hit the roof upon hearing of this development, given that an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with DOJ.
Do you realize you know what was happening here, Sean?
Let's go running this.
Jay, this is an attempted coup, Jay.
None of the normal processes were followed.
Where are the original 302s?
You know, what they did to Carter Page.
Look, what I've been telling this audience now, we're in a very dangerous place for this country.
And let me give you a quick observation of where we are, because the lie is the truth.
The truth is a lie.
In the case of a national emergency, they can't come together and help a president.
There's not one good thing, Donald Trump, not even the travel ban or the largest, fastest medical mobilization to save New York's backside that Donald Trump accomplished.
Every single bit of equipment, beds, personnel, ventilators, everything, Donald Trump, because they weren't prepared.
Now, for example, they impeach Trump for a quid pro quo.
They ignore zero experience Hunter being paid millions and Joe saying you're not getting the billion unless you fire the guy.
Russian interference, they ignore completely in the media, and the Democrats ignore Hillary's dirty Russian, well, Russian information, dirty dossier.
Obstruction matters, not Hillary's email server and deleted subpoenaed emails.
I believe, I believe, if it's Kavanaugh or Trump, but not Joe, where are the I believers, Jay?
They care about civil liberties, but when a candidate for president of the United States is spied on, oh, it's fine as long as it's Trump.
Their silence is deafening.
They set up a 33-year veteran hero of this country the way they did.
What's our aim?
Is it to get him to lie, admission, or just to get to be able to prosecute him?
That should never be their goal.
A corrupt jury four person in Roger Stone's case, pre-dawn raids, Jay, 29 guys, tactical gear, CNN cameras for lying to Congress, frogmen, or in the case of Manafort, exculpatory material withheld in Flynn's case, Papadopoulos' case.
You get my point, Jay?
This is not America.
Sean, I lived your point for three years as the primary counsel in this case, along with some really competent colleagues.
I mean, we had a leadership team of our legal department defending the president here that was top-notch.
And we lived this.
But you just mentioned the tactics.
Understand.
I want everybody that's understanding left, right, and center.
Bob Mueller did this.
Bob Mueller allowed this.
Bob Mueller didn't know what Fusion GPS is or was.
He does not know what his agents had done.
He allowed his agents to wipe clean their phones, which had evidence in it, and their lawyers to wipe their phones.
How would you like to be the lawyer that's committed this fraud on Judge Sullivan?
Let me go to the next aspect of this was what we got into a lot of people.
The lawyers accountable is what I say.
Go ahead.
Okay, what about the scope memo?
Now let's look at Rod Rosenstein.
Now, James Comey signed three of the four FISA applications.
They used the dirty dossier as the bulk of information.
Jay, in February, we now know of 2017, they knew it was BS.
February.
Yep.
In the scope memo put out by Rod Rosenstein, I assume by then acting AG, I'm not sure where he was or deputy AG, he is literally telling Mueller what to investigate.
And by the way, by that time, they had already interviewed Steele's primary sub-source on three occasions, and he completely undercut the Steele dossier.
The FBI knew Papadopoulos and Paige denied most of the allegations against them.
They have the exact quotes.
You know, in the case of Papadopoulos, he said, what the hell are you talking about?
You know, what you're saying is like treason.
I'm not involved.
I don't know anyone in the campaign involved.
I have nothing to do with Russia.
Page, pretty similar circumstances.
Then the FBI tried to close the investigation against Flynn, and then in comes Comey and Peter Strzok.
And the scope memo shows Rod Rosenstein, who knew better, authorized a search and destroy mission against Donald Trump, Jay.
That's what happened here.
Well, Sean, like I said, I mean, I lived it.
I mean, I knew I knew what they were up to.
As soon as this investigation should have been over before it started, it should have never started.
But they knew there was no Russia collusion.
Then they went on this obstruction nonsense.
Now, here's the question that I want to ask.
And I think, listen, Attorney General Barr and his team have done a, are doing this exactly by the book.
They're going where the evidence leads.
But you mentioned James Comey.
Signing the FISA warrants, would not tell the president what was going on, although Yates and others in leadership said, you need to do that.
Does not go to Loretta Lynch.
Goes over Loretta Lynch, actually, during the Clinton matter.
And how was he bolted?
Another one held up as this paragon of virtue.
He goes around lecturing about a higher calling.
The guy was a dishonest, bad cop.
By the way, I don't think this is deep state.
This is right at the time.
You remember when Joe DeGeneva?
I flinched, Jay.
They're dirty cops.
I flinched.
Joe DeGenova was right.
They're dirty cops.
Oh, go ahead.
No, go ahead.
You go.
Yeah, I was going to say, Joe was right.
But, Sean, this isn't, you never scratch the surface very deep here.
This isn't the regular FBI agents.
But I want to talk to young FBI agents.
I want to talk to FBI candidates.
I want to talk to FBI cadets, analysts that are in training to become agents.
Don't do what these guys did.
They don't, Jay.
You know what?
All the FBI people I know are saying, thank you for wearing our pin in solidarity.
And by the way, this is not us.
And they all say it's hurt their ability to do their job because the public doesn't trust them anymore.
Now, what about Director Wray?
Because Director Wray in July, well, his FBI at that point in July of 2018 defended the FISA applications.
They knew better.
That's a year and a half after knowing that it was based on the steel dossier.
Why would they defend that?
Let me just say that I suspect there is a top-to-bottom, and I don't know this, I just suspect this, there's a top-to-bottom review of exactly what was going on.
We know there's the Durham report or the Durham investigation, I should say.
Investigation.
Yeah.
And not a report.
That's going on.
I think that's going to reveal a lot about what has taken place and what is taking place.
But I will tell you this, Sean, that none of this restores what was taken away from General Flynn.
But I got another message from some of the lawyers out there.
Like the lawyers representing General Flynn before Sidney Powell came in and did an unbelievably fantastic job.
What in the world were you doing in your representation of General Flynn?
This is one of the largest law firms in the United States.
What in the world were they doing?
Stay right there, Jay Seculo.
I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration, in the George W. Bush administration, for example, or the Obama administration, the protocol, two men that all of us have perhaps increased appreciation for over the last two years.
And in both of those administrations, there was process.
And so if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there'd be discussions and approvals and who would be there.
And I thought it's early enough.
Let's just send a couple guys over.
That was Jim Comey, Jay Seculo, bragging about what he did.
This is after General Flynn asked McCabe if he needed an attorney.
Okay, who do you think broke the law?
What are the charges?
When are these people going to be held accountable?
Because there were referrals, Jay, for the very same things that Manafort, Cohn, and Roger Stone got in trouble for.
So let's start with James Comey, who just tweeted out the DOJ has lost its way.
But career people, please stay because America needs you.
The country's hungry for honest and competent leadership.
I wonder what it'd be nice to see Sally Yates say, don't believe anything James Comey says.
He's an egomaniac who went around the system to advance his own position.
That's what somebody needs to say now.
So let's start with James Comey.
I think James Comey obviously puts in FISA warrants that obviously they knew were fraudulent and doing all this investigation.
What about Rod?
What about McCabe?
What about Strzok?
What about Page?
What about Clapper, Brennan?
Here's how it works, Sean.
I mean, let's be clear on how it works.
There is a U.S. attorney named John Durham who is looking at the entire Russia investigation.
It looks like they're doing their job.
All right, Jay Secculo, great work.
And boy, you are more right than anyone knew.
Great job.
Well, we put a big effort in order to promote democracy, which is what we are all about here, and remove obstacles to participation in our democracy.
Democrats insisted on resources in this last bill that the president signed last week.
We had $400 million to promote voting by mail, all of that.
However, it was not nearly enough.
We need at least five times that much in order to really meet the needs to protect the integrity of our election critical infrastructure, as well as to promote voting by mail.
It is absolutely essential at this time.
So in this next bill, we hope to get more resources to vote by mail.
If you're doing that, you have to have funds for the postal service as well, which he has objected to.
There is the ever-so-eloquent Nancy Pelosi, somewhat forgetful like Joe herself.
Why is it every bill, they're willing to hold up spending from the very beginning for workers, small businesses, those that are in need through no fault of their own during a national emergency pandemic.
Now, of course, they were busy impeaching the president and preparing to do their little tear of the president's speech before any of them were paying any attention to COVID-19.
And we know that the president was putting in a travel ban, quarantine, other travel bans, et cetera.
But what is it about every bill Democrats now proposed?
They want immigration reform.
They want amnesty.
They want open borders.
They want anybody to be able to vote, whether you have an ID, you don't have an ID.
They're always adding new Green Deal provisions.
They're adding, you know, and they'll say to rebuild America.
Yeah, they want basically socialism all across the country.
One of the things they are pushing for the hardest has to do with voting by mail.
They will tell you, no, this is out of an abundance of caution and safety.
And by the way, they want to strip all voter ID laws.
They want to remove witness requirements and signature verification.
And what should concern everybody here, you know, there are, we know we have instances where people vote by mail.
And the easiest and best and most secure way to get somebody's identity, make sure that this person has a legal right to vote, that they are registered, that they are legal citizens, et cetera.
We should not take away people's decisions to go forward with this.
A lot of this effort is being bankrolled by big Democrats because they see a political advantage in this.
You know, oh, let's mail it to every home in America.
Let's use the census.
That's how far they would like to go with all of this.
Anyway, Catherine Engelbrecht is back with us.
She is the founder of True the Vote.
And anyway, you pointed out a lot about this mail-by-voting nonsense.
Tell us where we are at this time.
And do you think they're going to ram this through?
Yeah, I mean, Sean, you nailed it.
This is not about vote by mail.
Oh, the convenience and the safety and the security of vote by mail.
That is absolutely what the left wants you to think.
But in fact, this is a very well-crafted and long-planned strategy, I would say.
Every push towards mail-in ballots are coming with the attendant clauses of removing signature verification and knocking down voter ID and opening up limitless ballot harvesting.
This is an engineered effort to inject chaos being caused by the same groups that pre-pandemic were trying to prevent states from cleaning their voter rolls, prevent states from enacting voter ID.
And now they can use all of that to their best advantage because they know that the voter rolls are messed up.
They know that they are unreliable, pushing out all of that paper into active and inactive voters' mailboxes.
You have no clue who's really getting the ballot.
And then the tsunami of paperwork coming back in, counties can't handle it.
This is absolute engineered chaos with the outcome of an intended litigation strategy that will play out for months and months and months after November.
At True the Vote, you've also gone forward with a preliminary injunction that you filed in Nevada.
And in Virginia, you also filed a preliminary injunction.
What's going on in those two states in particular?
Well, in those states, we've taken the bureaucrats to task.
In Virginia, the governor has not only struck down voter ID, but has declared everyone in the state to be disabled.
And that's how he's choosing to try to get around the universal mail-in push.
In Nevada, the Secretary of State, who's a Republican, I might add, was pushing for same thing, universal mail-in, but also now we're seeing limitless vote harvesting.
And in Clark County, they want to actually put the vote harvesters on the payroll.
They want to help the vote harvesters disenfranchise the most vulnerable populations.
It's outrageous.
And, you know, and it's, you know, I'll tell you another thing that you don't hear a lot about.
It's largely being done at the hands of Hillary Clinton's lawyer, Mark Elias.
He's the mastermind behind all of this.
And it's stunning in its breadth and depth and scope and funding.
They were talking about when the first COVID-19 bill came in, they were actually talking about allowing individuals to pick up as many of people's ballots themselves as long as the envelope was sealed.
That would be good enough.
That would be sufficient enough.
Well, there's no verification whatsoever if you do it that way.
And why do I not trust the person that is bringing all these extra ballots out of the goodness of their heart, I'm sure, to either a post office or a voting place?
That's exactly right.
Why would we?
How could we?
There are insufficient security safeguards around any of this.
The most secure way to cast your vote is in person at the polling place.
And so what we're fighting back against are the states that are denying their voters those opportunities, which will necessarily result in a dilution of legitimate votes due to the expansion of fraudulent votes, of duplicate votes, of errant votes.
This is an incredibly troubling situation.
It is a tsunami that is headed for us in November that we have got to get our arms around now.
TrueThe Voteisit.com or .org.
I know you've been around a while.
What's that?
TrueTheVote.org.
Please come check us out.
All right, truthevote.org.
And by the way, if there's issues going on in your state, you can contact them and they'll help you.
Catherine Engelbrecht, thank you so much for being with us.
We appreciate your time.
Thanks so much, Sean.
Appreciate it.
All right, our two Sean Hannity Show, 800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
So you've got the ObamaGate explosion that's happening right before our eyes.
It is amazing to watch the mob, the media, the liars, the propagandists, those that peddle in conspiracy theories and hoaxes and slander and besmirchment and that have been wrong for over three years.
Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, impeach, impeach, impeach.
And they missed what is the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in history.
Now, we've learned an awful lot about, well, what they've been up to and what this whole thing is all about.
And none of it is any good.
We learned a lot this week, for example, as it relates to, let's see, Rick Rinnell declassifying the list of Obama officials.
You know, we got 48 unmasking requests, 39 individuals, including Biden, Samantha Power 7, James Clapper.
You got, oh, what's his name?
John Brennan.
All of these, why would they be unmasking in these numbers and the dates that match up?
Dennis McDonough on January 5th, Joe Biden on January 12th, both important dates in this timeline.
Now, how is this all going to impact 2020?
Senator Lindsey Graham starting hearings on the 3rd of June.
Grassley Johnson, they are going to continue their investigation.
The mob and the media, they just say, oh, it's unmasking is fine.
48 separate unmaskings from Election Day through January of 2017, Election Day 2016.
That's a lot of it.
Anyway, let's play James Clapper.
Then we're going to play Joe Biden lying, and then let's play John Brennan attacking Rick Rinnell for telling the truth and letting us see it for ourselves.
So you did not know that it would be General Flynn when you asked to unmask these conversations.
Well, no, I did not.
Now, it's possible.
I mean, this is three and a half years ago, so I don't remember the specific reports in question.
It's a routine thing.
It's appropriate and legitimate.
When you have a valid foreign intelligence target engaging with a U.S. person, is it, for example, an insider, someone in the government engaging with that foreign adversary?
When you were director of national intelligence, did you see any direct evidence of collusion between General Flynn or any Trump campaign official with the Russians?
No, I did not.
Mr. Vice President, what was your involvement in the investigation of Michael Flynn and the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn?
I was never a part or had any knowledge of any criminal investigation into Flynn while I was in office, period.
Not one single time.
By nature, when you ask for more information about a transcript that's been transcribed from an intercept, do you have any idea who the other person is?
And I guess I'm trying to get it.
Did the people that asked who Kislyak was talking to have any idea what name would be revealed when they sought that information?
Generally not, unless within the context of the conversation, it seems to be apparent that an individual may be affiliated with a certain group or organization.
But generally, the reason why you ask for it to be unmasked is because you don't know that's the name of that individual.
And so it's not as though Obama officials were going out and saying, give me everything about Michael Flynn.
Absolutely not.
And interestingly, the number of reports that were in December 16 and January 17 that were declassified by Richie Grinnell, I was surprised at how many dates and reports there were there.
Maybe what Mr. Grinnell should do is to declassify and then release the contents of those reports in terms of what individuals were involved with.
But what he's doing now is just releasing the names of individuals who, again, were carrying out their authorized responsibilities.
That would be nearly a 300% increase, threefold increase in unmaskings just in Obama's last term, especially accelerating into 2016, all throughout 2016 through the end of their administration.
John Solomon has been on this.
We have now been unpeeling every layer of this onion together since March of 2017.
Congressman Lee Zeldon of New York here to talk about, well, we've got Adam Schiff caught lying through his teeth again repeatedly.
You know, John Solomon, I mean, they're trying to now spin this.
Oh, unmasking is not a big deal.
Well, I guess it's not a big deal for people that don't believe in our Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable search and seizure because 48 times in this period of time means that you were targeted in a way that was abusing your power and authority and you were going after one guy.
Yeah, listen, here's what's going on.
I bet you when we're done, we're going to find out that lots of Trump transition officials were being unmasked.
The Obama administration was trying to thwart the Trump administration and its early foreign policy efforts.
They lost the election.
The Democrats are headed out the door, and instead of allowing for a peaceful transition of power, they're listening in and unmasking all the conversations that Trump people have trying to get their policy and their transition team up and running.
They were spying on their successors, and there's no basis for it, no need for it.
We're going to find out it's far more widespread than just these Flynn conversations when we're done.
And let's just talk about it.
What about, for example, Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes' comments that the Trump family was unmasked?
Is that true, too?
I don't know yet, but I've certainly been told that by sources that there was concerns that Jared Kushner and others may have been unmasked at various times.
I think we need to get a more full accounting.
This is a great question.
I remember at one point, John Solomon, hearing people like you and me had been unmasked.
Was that ever confirmed?
Never been confirmed, but I think this is what I would ask the DNI to do.
Any journalist, any member of the Trump family, any member of the transition, anyone who was unmasked from September to January, let's put them on the table and find out who they were.
Your reaction to this, Congressman Lee Zelda.
So I totally agree with what John just said.
And understand, December 2016, the Obama administration was trying to get a Security Council resolution, this anti-Israel resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 2334 done.
They teed up Egypt.
The United States wasn't going to exercise its veto.
And then General Flynn and others were on the phone to get that off the table.
And the Obama administration had to scramble to get other countries to introduce this security resolution.
This was a change to even the Obama administration policy.
They weren't supportive of a resolution like this passing.
They were trying to jam up that incoming administration.
And they were pissed that General Flynn and others were successful.
You know, you don't have a right in that transition to burn it all down on the way out.
And I'll say this about General Flynn.
My first brigade commander when I was on active duty at Fort Huachuca, Arizona as a second lieutenant was Colonel Michael Flynn.
And he was someone who was highly regarded by all the men and women in our brigade.
He spent time with the troops.
Doesn't matter if you were a private or a second lieutenant.
This is a man who served decades.
He had credibility, had legitimacy.
And I'm happy that he was doing what he was doing to protect our relationship with our nation's strongest ally and not allowing the Obama administration to burn it all down on the way out the door.
John Solomon, a couple of things that we've now been able to go back and look at these transcripts, and I've been going through them as you have been, but that we've gleaned the first look at the 302.
Now, the president late last night inquired about, well, where is the original 302 on Michael Flynn?
Right.
Which is the right question.
But we did glean one thing out of the transcripts that were released thanks to Rick Rennell and the Attorney General, and that is about the original 302 that General Flynn, the reason they didn't think he was lying, when asked about this call with Kisliak, we know that he responded and said, well, I remember the call.
I honestly don't remember if we talked about sanctions, which would.
All right.
Then issue two is Sally Yates' admission in her testimony before the House Intel Committee that when she was held over in the February 5th meeting where Comey was there with her, she was held over with him and Joe Biden was there and Clapper and Brennan, and I believe Susan Rice, Samantha Powers might have been there.
I don't remember that part.
But that she was shocked to know that Obama knew everything that had happened in the phone call with General Flynn, the unmasking.
What does that mean about Obama?
To me, that means he has to answer a lot of questions.
Absolutely.
As you and I have talked about, and here's why.
President Obama had a thing for Mike Flynn.
Fired him in 2014.
When he meets with President Trump early in the transition, a month before they have that January 4th meeting, he tells Trump, you only have two problems, North Korea and get rid of Flynn.
He was out to get rid of Flynn.
Why?
Because Flynn was likely to reverse the Iran deal.
He was likely to stand by Israel.
He was likely to erase some of the Obama policies that were failures.
And so this wasn't a counterintelligence concern.
This was a preservation of Obama's legacy concern.
They were using the tools of intelligence to preserve their policy.
It was a policy dispute being hidden or masqueraded as an intelligence need.
And that's what you're going to find out when these documents are all released.
Well, what's taken so long to release them, Congressman Zeldin?
I mean, can we now go back into the Obama administration archives and see what they knew when and where?
I mean, you know, that Susan Rice memo of, again, that January 5th meeting, note to self, Obama said, do everything by the book.
Well, that was the CYA of all CYAs to me.
And how great is it that we have Rick Rinnell where he is?
If there's a way to do it, he's not someone, he's not only someone who can get it done, he's someone who could get it done today.
Every single day, he's providing the American public with more information, not telling people how to think, but just providing the information for the American public to form their own independent judgment.
I wish our government had 50, had 500 Rick Rinnells right now.
Now, by the way, leaking classified info is illegal.
There was a leak in early 2017 to the Washington Post, and there's a lot of people who are talking about whether or not what the Obama administration was doing with the unmasking was illegal.
They're not talking about how it's just black and white criminal that is crystal clear that that leak in the Washington Post is something that should result in whoever ordered that at the very least should be brought up on criminal charges.
One other thing I would mention is one other name of the unmasking that's not getting a lot of attention, Michael Dempsey.
Michael Dempsey was the person who was the daily briefer for President Obama.
The presidential daily briefing, Michael Dempsey was the one in charge, and he was on the unmasking list as well.
Great point.
John.
John McClure.
Yeah, that's a great point.
And also another person I want to point out, Sarah Raskin.
She's the wife of Congressman Jamie Raskin, who is one of the most rabid anti-Trump members of Congress.
She was a deputy treasury secretary in charge of financial policy, not really an intelligence official.
Why did she request an unmasking?
There are a lot of people that were looking at this stuff, and a lot of them didn't seem to have those job responsibilities, the intelligence, national security job responsibilities that would seem to authorize or require them to unmask.
So I think what the Congressman just said is right.
There are way too many people asking.
And, you know, the good news is that the president has tightened this up.
President Trump going forward has tightened up the unmasking rules, and you've seen a remarkable decline in the searching of Americans' phone records under President Trump.
But we don't have the truth about what went on in the fall of 16 yet.
We got to keep digging.
All right.
Now let's transition, if we can, a little bit here into opening the country.
And, you know, Adam Schiff and the Democrats and all the spending, Lee Zeldon, barely $3 trillion on things that are unrelated to COVID relief.
And tell me why, even though you're in New York, why should somebody in a red state that elects responsible governors that doesn't run deficits and debt and funds their pensions, why should they be forced to bail out a state like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, or California?
Well, and the size of the ask doesn't pass a smell test, and it keeps growing.
Now, Governor Cuomo is asking for $61 billion, and he's asking for the federal government not just to bail out the state right now, but to bail out New York State for the next three years.
And if you look at the bill that's the over 1,800-page $3 trillion bill that's going to be voted on today, the bill that includes checks for people who are in our country illegally, a massive prison release throughout America, implementing ballot harvesting and making voter ID illegal, and then changing the unemployment provision in a way where people won't be going back to work for almost a year because they're going to get paid a whole lot more to stay at home and not do any work than to go back to their jobs.
Now, in that bill, though, as well, is that you have hundreds of billions of dollars for state and local governments beyond what they are even asking for.
Whether it is a government in a part of the country that's least affected or it's a part of the country where the government has been and the people have been most affected, it's one thing to give people money towards helping for survival, whether it's a business or it's that it's the local government.
But for a local government to be asking for a certain number and to add hundreds of billions of dollars to it, it doesn't pass any smell test.
This is not a product of bipartisanship or discussion or compromise or debate or vetting.
This is a play call by Speaker Pelosi to be hyper-partisan in a pathway to nowhere rather than working with the president and congressional Republicans to try to actually get something good done.
All right.
I'm going to leave it right there.
Thank you, Congressman Lee Zelda and John Solomon.
Appreciate both of you.
All you're doing.
We'll continue to update it.
Well, we have a big article in the New York Post today about opening up baseball.
Now, there's a plan put together by owners.
Now the players union has got to sign off on it.
How do you do it?
How do you do it safely?
I have talked at length about temperature-taking turnstiles.
Literally, just walk through, take your temperature.
Your temperature's high, you get pulled aside.
You get told, here's a link when you want tickets to another game.
We'll give you better tickets if your temperature is up.
Here's what you do.
Our advice, go see your doctor.
Here's how you protect your family until you know the results of your COVID-19 test.
And here's what contact Tracy means and what it is all about.
That's how you do it.
It's not that complicated.
It can be done.
Then you, you know, everybody that goes to a stadium, I would suggest wear the mask.
Why do you, well, Hannity, why are you so obsessed with everybody wearing masks?
Because it worked in New York.
That's why.
Because the guys that were stocking the store shelves that I keep talking about and that I put on on Monday, you know, they wore masks.
And I saw them every week when I went grocery shopping and the same when I went to my drugstore.
And none of them got sick.
So it's working.
All right.
Maybe you're not doing it for yourself.
You're young.
You're healthy.
No underlying conditions.
You don't have a compromised immune system.
Okay.
We need the country open.
It will be a great big step towards normalcy if we can open up stadiums for baseball, football, concerts.
I'd even put the NHL, let them play outdoors at stadiums if need be.
And the same with the NBA.
You can heat the floors and heat the whole area around where the players are.
I'd go sit in the crowd and wear a mask.
I don't care.
Anyway, helping us sort through this.
Former NFL player, by the way, Super Bowl winner with the Oakland Raiders, now a candidate for Congress in Utah's fourth congressional district.
I would love to see him get elected out there.
And by the way, it would be a seat that would be win it back for the Republicans after the 2018 election of this Democratic radical, Ben McAdams.
Burgess Owens is back with us.
How are you, sir?
Sean, I'm doing great.
And you nailed it.
I think as we go through this process, we're realizing it is imperative we get the House back.
And thank goodness I'm part of the district.
I'll be part of that.
We're between one and three, a must-have of both sides.
So for those who across our country want our country to get back on pace and take them from the leftist that's trying to destroy our economies, destroy our middle class, Burgess4Utah.com.
Please support me during our primary so we can go out there and win this thing back with the McAdams.
We'd love to have your support.
It seems at this point, the battle, the war, the conflict is Democrats under no condition seem to want to open up the country and open it up safely.
But Burgess, I would argue that we've learned a lot.
If you protect the elderly, those like the elderly that were protected in Florida the way Governor DeSantis did, and you don't treat them the way New York did and put COVID-19 patients in nursing homes and long-term care facilities, if you protect the elderly, If people wear masks, because I sat in the middle of this shift show in New York and Long Island the whole time, and I went out and about, and those that wore masks didn't get sick that I saw,
then it seems like we can learn the lessons of what to do and what not to do.
But it seems that the crucial component in this is protecting older people.
And for any rebound that may occur, the reason why you want young, healthy people to wear masks also out in public is so that they don't get it and bring it to grandma, grandpa, or their elderly mom and dad.
Well, Sean, you just used a little bit of critical thinking, which is not what the leftist wants us to do.
I think we have to dig in deeper.
I understand.
By the way, Burgess, that will be interpreted by the mob and the media as humanity wants old people to die.
That's how they do it.
The New York Toilet Paper Times.
Any article, article, any day now.
What the message would be is that we need to fight for our middle class.
And this is what I hope our fellow Americans understand.
And growing up in the deep south in the 60s, days of segregation, KKK, I lived in a community that was 50% of black Americans during the 40s, 50s, and 60s were part of the middle class because we had such a vibrant business owner, small business ownership.
40% of our community were for business owners, small business owners.
So 50% end up being part of the middle class.
What the left is trying to do right now, what they've always done, is hurt the most vibrant part of what makes our country what it is.
The middle class, as we get compassion, empathy, service, vision, risk-taking, and a community that actually looks forward to having their kids have a much better future than they are having.
That's the middle class.
That is what they're trying to destroy, because once they destroy that, what's left is a group of elitists and a group of dependency.
That's what leads to socialism and Marxism and the most evil ideologies out there, communists.
That's all godless.
And you have to understand, they're playing chess as we're playing checkers.
That's what they've always been after.
So just keep in mind, we have innate within us the desire to want to be free and to fight against tyranny.
That's what we're seeing across our country.
Let's keep it up.
Do it smart.
But let's people figure out how to get it done.
Small business owners can figure this out because they know what it is to look to obstacles and find solutions and make sure the customers feel comfortable coming to their stores.
Let's let them do that.
And instead of these elitists, folks who work for the government or wherever they do, you know, media who are right now getting paid every single day, they're not dealing with what we, the people dealing with in terms of trying to keep our lives afloat.
You know, I don't think people understand either that, you know, I read through this bill of Nancy Pelosi and the socialist Democrats.
They want $3 trillion more dollars.
Burgess, we've already spent $3 trillion.
And by the way, we did rebuild Europe after World War II through no fault of any worker, any small business.
Hospital workers desperately needed the medical supplies.
States like New York didn't prepare for anything they should have.
So we needed a medical mobilization.
We needed a financial bailout.
But the real bailout now is take the lessons we've learned.
Nothing is going to be perfect.
But, you know, if you get in a car or on an airplane, everything's life is a risk, but we want to minimize it to the lowest amount possible.
And I'm willing, as somebody that is very resistant to ever want to put a mask on Burgess, I'll do it for the sake of elderly people so that I don't pass it on to them and they may end up having severe complications or worse because I wouldn't wear the stupid thing for a short period of time until this is all gone.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I'm totally with you on that.
We have to, again, understand that this is a very key moment for us.
And I'm something that we're excited about going through with the rest of America.
You know, we've been fighting against this, the evil leftists, for a long, long time, but we've never had a chance to really point to exactly how they operate.
They are right now the last thing they want to have happen.
And this is what evil is all about.
They hate rule of law.
They hate due process.
They hate Americans feeling hopeful and moving forward and taking risks and providing for themselves.
This is a chance once we get through this that Americans can look back.
And this is Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.
Look back and see who was for us moving forward and providing for ourselves and who was against us.
And I'm hoping the good Democrats out there can take a look at your leadership and recognize that socialism, Marxism, and communism is pure evil.
It's a deletion of God.
And when you take that out of the titcher, you don't have what we have in our country, a giving heart, an empathetic heart, someone who's trying to figure out how to serve others and move our country forward.
That is totally deleted.
And that's what the left wants to do.
And those folks like Pelosi are totally heartless.
They look at misery as being a political strategy and think about what kind of America does that to each other to look at trying to, how can we make other people feel miserable, hopeless, helpless, and that way we get our power.
They're after 2020, November.
We need to make sure that we win the House.
And this time, this House needs to be full of freshmen who care about our country, not the elitists, to get in there trying to care for their future lobbyists' positions.
A good house that believes in the principles and the concepts of leader people coming first like our president does, a senate and a president that allows us to move forward without having his hands tied behind his back.
I'll tell you, the next four years, Sean, could be the most unbelievable great years in terms of our country because across the board, Americans will feel and understand what the American Way really looks like and how it feels like, a place of hope and second chance.
And I'm looking forward to being part of that.
And again, understand.
I don't think I've been as excited about a candidate winning as you.
I am blown away at how necessary and needed your voice is, Burgess Owens.
I just hope the people in Utah are listening over on KNRS, and that's Rod Arquette's station.
Because if they are, they need to vote for you in the 4th district, Congressional District of Utah, in your run for Congress.
This is a very, very winnable seat.
We had good news last night in California, and we won two races last night.
And I think hopefully a harbinger of things to come.
Poll numbers of the president are up significantly.
I hope that continues.
And I hope after the second horrific economic quarter, we begin to see signs in the third quarter.
And then the recovery that you are describing in the fourth quarter into next year.
I can tell you this, Biden doesn't know what he's doing.
He's still in his basement trying to figure out what day it is.
But Burgess Owens, thanks, my friend.
Thank you, Sean.
Appreciate it, buddy.
BurgessForUtah.com.
That's my website.
Oh, okay.
Gotcha.
I appreciate it.
All right.
Thanks, Burgess Owens, 800-941-Sean.
174 days until Election Day.
And we have some fake news CNN polling that has come out here.
And we see that, well, according to them, and they always over-poll Democrats over Republicans.
They say Biden has a lead over Trump at five points.
Trump has an edge in the critical battleground states that could decide the electoral college.
For CNN to admit this is a battle cry.
And trust me, they did not want to admit this.
We know who they are.
We know that they're not to be trusted.
But if it's 51.46 and the president's been going up in every poll recently, I saw polls yesterday.
They were dead even.
But again, in the swing states, Trump has the edge.
And you got to remember during these elections, what do I always say, for a Republican to win, you got to thread the needle.
You got to win Florida.
You've got to win Ohio.
You've got to pick up Georgia's demographics are changing.
North Carolina's demographics are changing.
Texas, they're trying to change.
Who did I read?
I guess it was Mike Bloomberg spending millions to try and flip Texas blue.
Then you've got to pick up Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, some combination therein.
You got to make a play out on the West Coast for Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona is always iffy at times.
New Hampshire, the second district of Congressional District of Maine.
Anyway, according to this, if you look at, for example, where they are, if Trump's biggest advantage in the poll comes over his handling of the economy, 54% trust the president to better handle the nation's economy.
42% prefer Biden.
If you compare their records, which will happen in the next 174 days, it will be interesting to watch.
This is a joke, this question.
Voters divide over the two, which who has the best sharpness and stamina to be president, Trump 4946.
I'm not sure who the 46% is, but that 46% scares me.
If you look at the swing states, which matter the most, that's where you see that the president has the bigger advantage.
But I don't know if we can poll anything accurately at this point in time.
That's why we have our pollsters.
John McLaughlin, Matt Towery, Scott Rasmussen.
Scott, I didn't see your poll today.
Where's your poll today?
Well, right now, we actually show the overall numbers very close to where CNN's top line is.
We have Joe Biden up by six points among registered voters, but those who are most interested in the election are more enthusiastic about the president.
And so what that tells me is if the election was held today, we would be talking about three states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
I'm skeptical of the CNN poll showing the president up by seven in those states, partly because it's got to be a really small sample, you know, so it's not worth paying a lot of attention to.
But the reality, you know, you outlined it.
The president has to win Florida.
He has to win Ohio, and he has to do well in a couple of these other states.
Ultimately, more than any of these particular polls about what the race looks like today, it's how we reopen America that will determine this presidential election.
I've been saying this, Matt Towery, to friends now for a while.
What likely will be the driving force that ultimately determines victory, that event probably has not happened yet, and I think a lot of it, America's about to be shocked to the core with second quarter numbers, and that would be April, May, June numbers, GDP numbers that are going to be a disaster.
We all know that.
The country's shut down.
I don't think the president gets the credit he deserves for the largest and fastest medical mobilization in the history of the world, and he bailed out states like New York because they were totally ill-prepared.
Then I look at these main states that Scott's talking about, and where do you see it at this point?
Well, I see a couple of things.
For one thing, Sean, I think I don't have the actual evidence right now, but I can tell you intuitively that in states such as New York, California, some of the other states in the Northeast where, of course, New York's probably an exception because they had such a tough time.
Let's say Pennsylvania is a good example.
The frustration among these voters and these people who can't get back out and can't start their businesses up again is growing every single day.
I'm in Florida.
Florida's done a great job.
The people down here are very incredible.
And quite frankly, he gives some credit to Brian Kemp in Georgia.
Georgia opened early and they're doing well also.
Listen, I'm falling on the sword.
I was very skeptical of how you can open up salons until I saw the plexiglass and the social distancing and the masks worn and the gloves worn.
And I said, wow, that's going to work.
Well, his problem was when I'm messaging.
He talks about tattoo parlours and stuff.
That was just a mistake.
But what has happened in these red states is that they are opening.
Their infection rates are not increasing substantially, unlike what we were told would happen.
There may be some hotspots.
We'll wait and see.
But there's a big difference between the red states that seem to be happily opening up and keeping the economy going and these blue states where I believe their voters are becoming increasingly frustrated.
And you get a marginal state like a Pennsylvania, this will blow in Trump's direction in the end.
That's my opinion.
What do you think, John McLaughlin?
I don't think, I think the media was exaggerating.
They wanted to hope that the president was in big trouble, and they were using the crisis against them.
But the reality of this is the president's been very steady, and the polls that are out there that are reliable, they've had it very close regardless.
And most Americans, we're watching what's going on as far as the economic recovery, how the president keeps us open safely and reopens America.
And now Joe Biden is emerging.
So the idea that Joe Biden might be coming out in the basement, I mean, he's a very weak candidate for the Democrats, and there's no enthusiasm.
Let's look at the results in elections that many people didn't pay attention to, and that is the California 25th district, which I found very, very interesting, and the Wisconsin seventh victory by Republicans.
This all happened yesterday.
This guy, Mike Garcia, taking over Katie Hill's spot, it looks like in Congress in that district, the 25th district, it's the first Republican in 22 years to claw back a seat from the Democrats in California.
And it's interesting because even Gavin Newsom tried to open up.
Everything else is closed, but he opened up new polling places just to help in Democratic, more Democratic parts of the district.
What do you make of those two victories?
Because my interpretation is that whatever momentum Democrats might have had in 2018 would be gone.
Scott.
You know, Sean, you know, when you talk about these things, I always offer the caution that people attach too much excitement to special elections.
But these do cut against the narrative that somehow this is all a disaster for the president and for the Republicans.
Something is going on out there.
Matt mentioned people who are anxious to get back out to work.
We did a poll the other day and found that 60% of voters, six out of 10, believe that all businesses should be allowed to reopen now as long as they practice some safety protocols.
Only 26% are opposed.
This is not the narrative we're hearing.
I think that's feeding into some of these special election results.
And I think it's a larger problem for the Democrats in the sense that we are not able to sustain these lockdowns.
They are not a popular response.
And there is no plan in some of the, I live in New York City.
There's no plan here to reopen the city anytime soon.
And that is a problem in creating increasing levels of frustration.
So I think if you begin to look at the dynamics of, I think we've passed a tipping point.
Voters are saying, okay, a week or two of a lockdown may have been okay to get us past the initial surge of this.
Certainly in New York, it was well received.
But now let's get back to the business of making America work.
And I think people are looking to a different kind of leadership for that.
We have a couple of issues emerging on Biden.
One is he's recruiting AOC Casio-Cortez to serve on a climate change panel.
And he's working with Bernie Sanders, he said, John McLaughlin.
Number two, on Monday with George Stephanopoulos, Biden denied any knowledge of the Flynn case.
And then it turns out today that he was one of the people that requested the unmasking of General Flynn on eight days before he left office as vice president.
That might be a problem for him.
His problems with China and his problems with promising illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship and even suggesting that Obama, you know, he regretted what they did in the Obama years to illegal immigrants.
Yeah, I mean, this is what I wanted mentioning before.
Now Joe Biden is the candidate.
The Democrats are finding out about him.
And there's going to be buyers' remorse among the Democrats because there's no enthusiasm for him.
And when you ask voters, do you want him to be the one to lead us to help the economy recover?
No way.
Do you want him to be the one to help prevent the spread of coronavirus?
No.
And the President Trump is getting the credit for what's being done.
And in California, which is a real election, and the first time in decades that we flipped the seat from Democrat to Republican in California, they basically, the mayor held up announcing that he was going to shut the city of L.A. down until August.
He held that till right, you know, just when it's too late that the voters would react.
And as of today, the last numbers I saw, Garcia was up by 12 points.
It's not even close.
So Donald Trump is the way to get elected.
And any Trump is going to distance himself, making a big mistake.
I don't see that.
I mean, Biden is sheltering in place, Scott.
And every time he goes on and does one of his stupid virtual town halls, he looks dumber than the last one.
Even this week, another disaster.
Am I on?
Then he walks to the camera, takes off his aviator sunglasses.
I mean, it just looks so contrived and fake and phony.
And this guy, he's not been pushed.
He's not been stretched at all or challenged in any way.
And he seems to do best when he's hiding.
At some point, doesn't he have to come out of his basement?
Well, at some point, he will have to come out of his basement.
And the notion, I can't even imagine what a debate between the two candidates will look like in terms of energy level, in terms of focusing on issues and everything else.
You know, look, John mentioned Buyer's remorse.
35% of voters say it's still at least somewhat likely Biden is going to be replaced as the nominee, and that includes 28% of Democrats.
That speaks to a tremendous lack of nominee.
That raises the question.
Do you think he gets replaced?
Do you think there's a chance?
Scott Rasmussen, then Matt, then John.
It is a difficult thing to replace him for one reason.
That reason is Bernie Sanders, because a lot of Democrats say, oh, we need somebody like Governor Cuomo or whoever else.
If you take the nomination away from Joe Biden and do not give it to Bernie Sanders, the Bernie bros are just going to just leave and create a civil war within the Democratic Party.
So I don't think it's going to happen, but I think it's going to be an ongoing issue.
Matt, what if Joe Biden, Jill, his wife, says, well, you know, I just don't think my husband's up to it.
What happens then?
I think it becomes a shift show.
Well, I think it would be a method.
You know, Scott makes a very good point about the Bernie Sanders group, but probably the best way for them to do it would be for Biden to get the nomination.
And after he gets the nomination at some point there, quickly thereafter, have to bow out.
Then your vice presidential nominee would likely become your presidential nominee.
And that person is going to be an Obama-approved person.
I can guarantee you that.
So that's probably the only way they could pull it off.
And I know there are a lot of rules in DNC I don't know about.
I'm not sure they could do it prior to that.
And maybe they couldn't do it after that.
I do think this, though, I think that Biden is going to increasingly right now the public's not focused, Scott.
We're worried about a pandemic.
We're worried about our own livelihood and our safety.
When we start focusing on these candidates and they really see how weak Biden is, that's when the Democrats are going to start to really panic.
What do you think, John?
Could it happen?
I don't think so because as Scott already mentioned, if they try to take it away from Biden, and he won't have the delegates until like June 3rd.
But if they try to take it away, Bernie's going to demand it.
And the reason they replaced Bernie with Biden was because they thought that Sanders would lose to Trump.
And now they're going to find themselves, Donald Trump's going to be whoever they put up.
Yeah, well, I mean, if they pull that, I can imagine the Bernie people losing their minds.
Although, you know what?
I think I was more upset at what had happened to Bernie Sanders in 2016 than Bernie was.
But anyway, well, thank you both.
Thank you all.
Matt Towery, John McLaughlin, Scott Rashmusson.
We'll continue to follow the polls as they go.
800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
Now we know the Department of Justice is now looking into the unmasking, thanks to Rick Rinnell, DNI, and that information now sent over to the Department of Justice, and they delivered information related to the unmasking of General Flynn and likely others.
As we now have these 53 interviews that the corrupt, compromised, congenital liar was hiding from all of us.
What are we discovering?
That every person that went in there said, no, I haven't seen evidence of any Trump-Russia collusion.
And he would race out to the socialist paper of record New York Toilet Paper Times or Washington Compost or Fake News CNN or MSDNC, the conspiracy theory Roswell Rachel Madow channel and spew lies and he was treated like a deity, meaning shift.
Now we've gotten to the point, well, we know about this January 5th meeting that took place in the Oval Office.
And we know in this meeting that a lot of discussions took place.
A lot of it had to do with you had Comey, you had Biden, you had Obama, you had Sally Yates and others in the meeting.
At the end of the meeting, Obama pulls aside Comey and Yates.
Yates testifies that she's shocked, absolutely shocked, to learn that Obama knew everything about the phone call with General Flynn and this Russian soon-to-be counterpart.
As a side note, both Susan Rice and Samantha Power both said that they had contact prior to them joining the Obama administration with their soon-to-be counterparts.
What does it mean?
Well, it means I think that we have a question that needs to be asked Barack Obama.
What did he know about unmasking and when did he know it?
There is a possibility that, in fact, he may at some point be questioned about this.
Senator Grassley is saying that Biden and Obama should be interrogated about their roles in the fake Russia Gate investigation.
Here to weigh in on their observations and much more, we have John Solomon.
He is a Fox News contributor, editor-in-chief of justthenews.com.
Greg Jarrett, Fox News, legal analyst, author of the bestsellers on this topic, the latest witch hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
John, let's go through.
You've had more time now to go through the new developments.
It seems that I think the first show that we did involved you in March of 2017.
It did.
And it was about illegal surveillance, unmasking, leaking raw intelligence, wasn't it?
That's right.
We've gone full circle and started.
We've come back to where we started this great journey three years later.
Listen, remember, people showed up in my mailbox as I was coming back from your show that night.
Two people from the intelligence community.
They never gave me their names, but they said the U.S. Intelligence Committee and Community and specifically the FBI were used in a horrible political dirty trick.
And now we know in full measure, because of Greg's great books and the reporting we've all done, exactly what those two guys meant that night.
And what it meant was they set out to create a false narrative, to use the most important powers of the FBI to make it look like President Trump and Mike Flynn were engaged in a conspiracy with Russia, even though they knew no evidence such existed.
And we now know the earliest animus that anyone, of all the story characters we've had, the earliest animus for Mike Flynn started with President Obama.
He fired him in 2014 as a DIA director.
In November of 2016, he told Trump, Flynn's one of your biggest problems you're going to have to worry about.
And then on January 5th, he attended a meeting where the Justice Department officials were shocked to learn he already knew about the intercepts between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.
The questions that Barack Obama hasn't answered now need to be answered.
All right, let's look at the unmasking part from a legal standpoint.
My understanding is, you know, we know that premeditated fraud, FISA court all occurred.
They were warned before the first FISA application.
It was unverifiable, turned out to be debunked.
They were warned not to use it.
The steel had a political agenda.
It's unverified.
Hillary paid for it.
They ignored it.
They go forward.
But they knew for sure in February of 2017, Greg, that the sub-source had been interviewed by that time three separate times and did not corroborate anything in the Steele dossier, but they still went forward with two more subsequent renewal FISA warrants.
And then, of course, the scope memo put out by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller, knowing that the basis of these applications were fraudulent to even continue this witch hunt.
That speaks volumes about Rod Rosenstein.
I think he's in trouble because he also signed the fourth warrant.
And then we have the Director Ray in July of 2018, very late in the game, saying that these FISA applications were justified.
Let's go to the unmasking part.
Is it illegal to unmask an innocent American citizen?
No, depending upon the purpose.
Now, if the purpose is illegitimate, not a serious national security interest, then you're not only violating regulations, but you're violating the law.
But whoever leaked after the unmasking to the Washington Post definitely committed a crime.
That's against the law.
So it's important to get our hands on the list of the people who were unmasking.
We know, for example, already, and thanks to John Solomon's reporting, that Samantha Power, the United Nations ambassador for Barack Obama, was the unmasker-in-chief.
Well, hang on, but we do know that she testified before the House Intelligence Committee that she had no idea 300 unmasking maskings took place in her name.
Right.
One on average per day.
And her excuse was, gee, I think other people might have been doing that under my name.
No, it's her responsibility, and I doubt very much that other people were doing it under her name without her knowledge and consent.
So she's a suspect, Samantha Power.
And by the way, she has no business unmasking because she's not in the national security business.
She's the United Nations ambassador, for goodness sakes.
The other person is National Security Advisor for Obama, Susan Rice.
Now, she's very suspicious because she wrote a CYA memo at the very moment that Trump was being inaugurated, talking about how Obama wants to do the investigation by the book, meaning Trump-Russia collusion, but also holding out that maybe we shouldn't tell the incoming administration about it.
And see, that was the plan, Sean, all along, to hide the Trump-Russia collusion investigation from Trump, to lie to him, which is what Comey did on several occasions, and to keep it going.
And then, of course, Mueller and Rosenstein engaged in what was an effort to legitimize an illegitimate prosecution and investigation.
So, you know, a lot of people involved in this.
All right.
At one point, John Solomon, your reporting was very clear, a huge spike in unmaskings in 2016 alone.
And part of that was Samantha Powers' 300 unmasking.
She's denying it under sworn testimony before the House Intel Committee.
But what was the number?
What was it, like 300% increase, something like that?
Over three years, I believe it was fiscal 2014 to fiscal 2016, there had been a 300% spike in unmaskings.
And what it meant is that the Obama administration was looking at more and more incidental intercepts of Americans.
Remember, the NSA is not allowed to target Americans, but if they accidentally collect an American overseas on a phone call, they can keep the record.
And what the Obama administration was doing was increasingly unmasking it to see what American that was and who they were talking to and what they were saying.
And that is what they're talking about.
Well, that's illegal spying on Americans.
Even if they have a warrant, aren't they supposed to practice something known as minimization?
Once you know an American is on the call and they're not talking about anything that would be nefarious.
You're supposed to redact their name.
And instead, what was going on is they were unredacting the names and unredacting the conversations of the American.
And that's what gave pause to the court and gave pause to the civil libertarians.
And remember, the liberals were all upset about this until they found out it was going to benefit Donald Trump, the unmasking scandal.
And then they all went silent.
The ACLU, everybody went silent.
But this is a serious issue, whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
Americans have an assumption of privacy under the Constitution, and an unmasking erodes that protection.
What do we glean from this January 5th meeting, Greg Jarrett?
And that is where all these top officials are there.
At the end of the meeting, Sally Yates is stunned to hear that Obama had been fully briefed and up to speed on the unmasking and contents of the conversation with General Flynn and this soon-to-be counterpart of his.
And then we also learned that from the testimony that we were able to glean from this last week that, in fact, that we finally got a glimpse at the first 302, the original 302 that we've never been able to get our hands on, and that the agent, Peter Strzok being one of them, and another agent, determined when they did ask the question about this phone call that they already knew the contents of, and they were tricking him on and ambushing him on day four of the Trump administration.
But he was very clear.
He said, look, I think I talked to him.
Just don't remember specifically if we talked about that, which would not be a lie.
Right.
He was equivocal, which is not a lie.
And look, the handwritten notes, as well as a summary, which I quote verbatim in my book, Witch Hunt, says that the agents concluded that Flynn did not lie.
They didn't think he was lying.
He didn't think he was lying.
So, you know, it's impossible to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI when the agents themselves say he didn't lie.
But the sequence is important.
Remember, in late December, early January, the FBI Washington Field Office closed the case against Flynn.
No derogatory information.
He's not a Russian asset.
January 4th, Peter Strzok, at the behest of Comey and McCabe, countermanded it and ordered to keep it open.
The very next day, July 5th, Comey meets with Obama at the White House, Biden, Brennan, Clapper, Yates, Rice, they're all there.
Obama brings up the Flynn-Kisley Act conversation.
What are we going to do with this?
The very next day, January 6th, Comey goes over to Trump Tower and ambushes Trump with what was surely a trap and tells him about only two pages of the dossier.
Then Comey rushes out to his SUV and types up a memo that he hopes will somehow be incriminating.
Of course, it wasn't.
Eleven days later, of course, the perjury trap is set by Comey, McCabe, and struck on Michael Flynn.
So this has Barack Obama's fingerprints all over it.
He was at the head of it.
And that's where I want to go with my next question to you, John.
What do we glean from Obama's involvement?
Because Greg Jarrett is right.
So the meeting's January 5th.
Susan Rice is there.
15 days later, note to self.
She's memorializing that meeting from 15 days ago with the words, President Obama said, do everything by the book.
Why would you write that 15 days later?
The ambush happened four days after that.
That's 19 days after the Oval Office meeting, where they did ambush, you know, bypassing norms and what they would never get away with or try to get away with in past administrations, and you don't need a lawyer, et cetera, et cetera.
But what do we glean from Obama's involvement in this, knowing he knew the phone call, knowing Susan Rice is doing a CYA?
What do you glean from that?
Well, let's add two more things to Greg's amazing timeline.
After the White House meeting, what's up with that?
Go ahead.
Yeah, this is the most important two other events.
Three days after that meeting, the BuzzFeed gets the leak of the dossier.
So the Steele dossier is flung into the public with no context, no realization that it's all bunk.
The FBI already knows it's bunk.
And then a couple of days after that, the transcript of the Flynn call with Kisliak is leaked.
Those two leaks were designed to create in public the opposite of what was going on behind the scenes.
Behind the scenes, they knew the case against Flynn had collapsed.
The FBI was closing it down, and that Steele had been debunked by his own sub-source.
So the leaking is one of the key elements of the Obama administration trying to sustain the narrative that behind the scenes the FBI had determined was bogus.
I think those leaks are a key to any conspiracy that goes forward.
You have to understand the release of the information was designed to get the American public up in arms about something that, in fact, behind the scenes, law enforcement had determined was a big nothing burger.
What's next, Greg Jarrett?
Well, I think Durham is the next ball to drop, and I think he's looking at several areas: the line to the FISA court, the malevolence and lawlessness in the Flynn case, and finally, the overall handling by the FBI and the special counsel of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
So I think in play are things like perjury, obstruction of justice, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, deprivation of rights under colour of law.
That means people are using their powerful government positions to deprive people of their constitutional rights, people like Carter Page, and indeed people like Donald Trump.
Amazing work, both of you.
I can't wait to get the unmasking list.
This is going to get very interesting, very fast.
And we will get to the point.
What did Obama know?
When did he know it?
Great work.
Greg Jarrett, John Solomon, thank you.
We'll continue to follow it.
▲
Export Selection