All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 15, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
30:52
More Hot Water for Clinton - February 15th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Day number one eighty-five.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show.
Glad you're with us.
Right down on toll-free number.
It's 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
We'll get to your calls at the bottom of this uh half hour.
Uh we've been telling you about this new filing from the special counsel, John Durham.
I know it's taken forever.
Trust me, I am as frustrated as all of you are.
Um now, before we get to Durham and his new filing and what it means and what it says and what it doesn't say, it's important to take a trip down memory lane.
And that trip is very simple.
Is we know this is now incontrovertible, irrefutable, and we were able to, over the course of nearly three years, with an incredible ensemble cast, two members of which will join us in a second, John Solomon and Sarah Carter.
Uh, we were able to slowly unpeel every layer of the onion, completely vindicated by the Horowitz report, and now vindicated even further.
And what did we learn?
We learned that Hillary Clinton uh used her money and controlled the DNC money, and they funneled his money to a law firm, Perkins Couie.
And they then hired former MI6 agent, guy by the name of Christopher Steele, and Christopher Steele put together a series of documents that we now refer to as the dossier, the dirty Russian disinformation dossier, and not able to verify one thing in that dossier.
And remember it was Andrew McCabe, deputy FBI director, that said, uh no Pfizer Warren if there's no dossier.
And four separate times, they last three months.
The Pfizer court was lied to.
That allowed then the spying on Donald Trump the candidate, Donald Trump and his transition team, and Donald Trump is president.
And that's not where the story ends.
If you look at this new filing from the special counsel, John Durham, we now know that the Clinton campaign paid a tech firm.
This is in relation to the filing as it relates to the Sussman, uh, who's the attorney, Perkins Cuey, uh, the susman who lied to the FBI and the evidence that Durham will bring in in this case and when it cooked when it goes to trial, assuming it goes to trial unless he flips, and we know that the Clinton campaign paid a tech firm to quote infiltrate, you interpret that word as you wish, the servers at Trump Tower, and then later at the Trump White House.
The Federalists described it as Democrats framed and spied on Trump while he was president.
What was the end goal?
The end goal was to portray Donald Trump as something that he was not a Russian asset, a Russian uh compromised by Russia.
How ironic since Hunter Biden is and the fam Biden family syndicate is.
Um we've made all the comparisons we could possibly make to Watergate, Watergate, 69 people indicted, 48 convicted for breaking into the DNC, stealing information, and also trying to bug the place.
And but not only did they hack into an opposing campaign and steal material here, uh, but they also now were talking about having access to the president, the office of the president of the United States, the office of a presidential candidate, and the office of the president of the United States.
Now, the media, the mob out there, they're out there saying, What does it mean that they did anything wrong at all whatsoever?
There was no spying on the on Donald Trump, no spying.
They said it with certainty.
Here's a montage.
It's completely wrong.
It did not, it did not happen.
This was there was no spying.
There was a pizza gate.
The conspiracy team.
It's pizza games.
No one was spying on the president through the microwave.
No one spied on the Trump campaign.
There was no spying.
There was no spying.
No spying.
There was no spying.
There was no spy.
Wow.
No spying.
There was no spying, of course.
There was no spying.
There was no spying on the Trump campaign.
On the Trump campaign.
It's been a year and a half.
There was no spying on the Trump campaign.
Of this crap.
No spying on the Trump campaign.
Which is a conspiracy theory.
No spying on the Trump campaign.
Facts matter.
And oh, by the way, no, there was no spying on the Trump campaign.
All right.
Well, we know there was spying on the Trump campaign vis-a-vis, the dirty dossier, etc.
etc.
Anyway, what does this all mean?
We bring back our incredible ensemble cast.
They worked the their fingers to the bone for three years on covering the dirty dossier story.
We got John Solomon, editor in chief of JustTheNews.com, Sarah Carter, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor.
All right, so we look at this filing of Durham, John Solomon, we'll start with you, your interpretation of it.
Listen, it's an important revelation, Sean.
It it it indicates that the effort to continue to uh promulgate a fake story by the Clinton campaign continued after the election.
In November, December, January, February, the same players that were trying to spread a false narrative that Donald Trump had a secret communications system with the Kremlin through the Alpha Bank.
They were still trying to penal that and they peddled it to the FBI before the election when the FBI knocked it down, they went to the CIA in uh February of 2017 after President Trump is president to keep trying to find somebody who would take it seriously when in fact all the evidence suggests that it shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
Even their own people, even the tech executives inside this project were saying this is a red hearing.
This doesn't look right yet they were pedaling the story anyways.
I think that's the big news in this filing.
What's your take Sarah Carter?
Well I think it's very interesting.
I agree with John on most of it and I actually and I actually want to take it even a step further.
I think Sean that the fact that you played the montage of all of the media apparatus without even an investigation buying blatantly the lies coming out of the people that were basically in Hillary Clinton's pocket makes the media a real culpable in this.
They were the youthful idiots.
They were being used by Hillary Clinton and everybody else to propagate lies and propaganda against President Trump.
And it was extraordinarily dangerous to our national security.
I mean, this isn't just a simple tall tale.
This was a lie that basically called the President of the United States a Manchurian candidate.
And what they were saying is that the President of the United States was in the pocket of the Russians.
And I I I can't even begin to express like how dangerous that is I mean what it did to the American people what it did to uh the morale uh within all of these agencies uh the disturbing amount of investigations the lies that were being uh conducted the people whose lives were directly under threat because remember this wasn't just about President Trump this was about everybody in his circumference.
I mean this is what Hillary Clinton did and everything points to her and I think that the what John's saying is absolutely true and I think the biggest revelation I think for everyone here is not just the useful idiots but that it points directly to Hillary Clinton and I think that that's what John Durham exposed in his filing.
Now, late yesterday, Sussman's lawyers fought back.
They filed a six-page memo in D.C. federal court, and previously they were attacking the Durham release, by the way, the discovery update, if you will, and basically saying and accusing Durham of going out of his way to include uncharged inflammatory allegations, including what Sussman called the gratuitous claim that...
his office had an active ongoing criminal investigation of defendants' conduct on other matters uh then of course they got mad at the news media and in Sussman's estimation the fact that Donald Trump seized upon this is is wrong as well and then Sussman is asking the court to strike the special counsel's factual background portion of its motion which if granted would mean that the court would treat it as if those sections of the motion were not filed with the court um I doubt that's going to happen.
Is it possible in any way John Solomon that somebody like John Durham would file something uh on factual background base on a factual background basis that would be inaccurate or false?
I don't think so.
Listen I do think some of the reporting around this may have been um inaccurate or I mean I don't want to use the word exaggerated but not quite precise in the early going.
For instance there was a word infiltrate that was used early on in these stories.
It's not in there.
Yeah it's not in there not only that it actually what's described in there is not an infiltration of the servers, but of the logs that of internet traffic, which is really something downstream from the servers, the fingerprints we leave behind on the internet when we're using the internet.
That's still a form of spying that still violates Americans' privacy, including President Trump's if this is what has happened.
But it's not an infiltration of the servers like what Fancy Bear the Russians did on some of the servers involving the DNC.
A second part that has gotten a little bit contorted.
There's an assumption that when these White House server logs were were in there, some of the media assumed automatically that occurred after Donald Trump was president.
I don't see it's unclear to me what Durham is saying, whether it occurred uh whether it was Obama era logs or Trump era logs.
Uh that part is a little bit I think some people made some assumptions without reading it carefully.
So some of the reporting's a little bit off, but I don't think that John Durham has put any false information there.
This is a very careful prosecutor who's been trusted with some of the most important investigations in American history, including the CIA uh uh waterboarding investigation.
So there's a guy that's very careful with information and evidence.
I gotta take a quick break.
We'll come back, we'll continue more with Sarah Carter and John Solomon on the other side.
Look, I love when I hear from you, my listeners about your experience experiences with the companies that support this program.
Uh we continue with investigative reporters.
He is the editor in chief of JustHnews.com, John Solomon, investigative reporter, Fox News contributor, Sarah Carter.
Uh I've got to believe, Sarah, as and and I looked at the six-page filing by Sussman's attorneys and I looked at it very closely, and uh it's certainly whether or not it's it they're only looking at IP addresses and where these computers are going to.
The question is, do they have the authority to do so?
Because if they don't have the authority to do so, that would then by definition, would it not be called spying?
By any other definition, yeah, by any other name, right?
It would be called spying.
I mean, because I think John brought up a really good point, you know.
Uh that if you're watching the traffic, you're watching where it's flowing.
I guess it would I was described to be this way by one of my sources.
If you're like standing on one of your major highways, for example, in Virginia, it would be like I-95, and you can see the traffic moving up and down the highway.
You can see where that traffic is going.
You could see that that traffic may contain classified information.
Where that traffic is leading you, to what warehouse it's going into, to who that traffic is communicating with.
That gives you a lot of information on the person, on who the person is talking with, on if it's a foreign, for example, if it's a foreign entity or outside of the country.
Well, John and I, way early on, Sean, with you, we broke the stories on the NSA illegal surveillance of American citizens.
And you know, people during the Obama administration.
And just how wide of a of a branch, I guess the Obama administration expanded to rope people in to what I would consider and what anybody else would consider, and what the Pfizer court considered illegal spying.
I think that's a good thing.
But look, but let's go through this here.
Now, wasn't Sussman is it factual that Sussman got paid through the Clintons?
Because Durham is saying he got paid through the Clinton campaign.
True or false, I'll ask you, John.
Yeah, no, he was on the Clinton payroll.
That's irrefutable.
Okay.
Maybe you don't like the word infiltrate, but is it true that then tech professionals were hired to look at be it IP addresses?
Uh look, I'm the least technical person you'll ever meet, so I have no idea what I'm half saying here.
But I'm going by the report that that they were looking at addresses inside of Trump Tower and the White House, and would that be legal or illegal?
Depending on how they access it, right?
There's a very interesting choice of words that Durham uses that these tech execs exploited, meaning misused, exploited, took advantage of access they had under a government contract to look at something that was for political purposes.
That that's the inference that he leaves behind.
But there's a lot of detail missing from this, and I think the legality of this is going to rest on specifically what was done.
Did money change hands?
Did someone use a classified piece of information or a classified tool to extract the information?
We don't have that level of information.
That's why I've tried to be very careful of this thus far.
There clearly Durham is putting a spotlight that he doesn't like what happened here.
Something seems untoward, but we don't know the full nature of it.
Now the big the charge against Sussman, Sarah, is that he lied to the FBI and in the this filing, as was required by the court, uh we have Durham giving information about what what he's doing, what he's involved in, and and very specifically he's getting into the the factual background that is the basis for the indictment, is he not?
That's right.
And he's well, and he and he he flat out states that that you know, I mean that's been kept from the FBI.
He withheld information from the FBI, he didn't tell them that he was working with Hillary Clinton when he brought this information that possibly, you know, President Trump, uh, the servers at uh you know Trump Tower were communicating with the servers in Russia without the bank.
All right, let me let me get to the bottom line basics here, because then that information was then used to bludgeon Trump.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
All right, so now the question is is there any scenario under which uh that funneled money from Hillary's campaign used to look into a server at Trump Tower or the White House could be used for any good purpose, legitimate purpose whatsoever, because I can't think of one, John.
Listen, this is not the stuff that private people and politicians should be doing.
They're spying on the internet traffic that we all assume is private when we engage in it.
But here's the most important thing.
When you step back 30,000 people, but did he have a warrant to do so?
Because would he be able to do that without a warrant?
No.
Not that no, that's exactly why we have a FISA court, you know why we have judges.
So that's why there's so much concern about this.
But let's take one step back.
What you see from June July to February is a constant effort by Hillary Clinton acolytes to continue to peddle false information.
They first steel takes it to London FBI, they reject it, then Steele takes it to Washington FBI, then the FBI fires steel, then Sussman takes the information.
He walks it into the FBI, then Sussman, because the FBI didn't believe the Alpha Bank story, he walks it all the way over to the CIA.
They continued to flood the system with false information to defame Donald Trump when there was no basis for the allegations.
We're going to hold you over more with Sarah Carter and John Solomon on the other side.
800-941-SHAWNOS on number.
You want to be a part of the program.
Quick break.
Right back.
I 25 now to the top of the hour.
We're trying to unravel what is an emerging story that we've been following very closely, and that is we already knew about the dirty dossier.
We knew that that was false information, and that the Pfizer court approved four separate times uh the ability to spy on Donald Trump a candidate, then his transition team, and then the president.
Uh now these new allegations, as you look at what was called the factual background portion of the filing as required by the court of special counsel, uh John Durham, in in the case uh that he's been working on now for a couple of years.
Uh Sussman now has put out a response to this, a pretty angry response.
Um anyway, the uh there was an interesting piece, I think it was in the Federalist, where they actually make the case that Sussman may regret this strategy filing this motion because it would provide Durham an opportunity to respond to both Sussman's complaints and the details that are extraneous and to respond to the counterpoints that Sussman included in the motion.
And then secondly, they point out that Sussman's filing will prompt even more coverage of Durham's various filings, whereas if he had said nothing, the complicit media would likely have dropped the coverage of the case a day after or a day or two after.
And his filings also provided Sussman with a heads up on the special counsel strategy, likely intentionally so, with the hope that Sussman may decide to cooperate.
Um those are three interesting theories that they put out there.
John Solomon, any take on that?
Yeah, listen, there's no good ending for Michael Sussman in this case because at the end of the day, a respected former Justice Department lawyer peddled information to the FBI, to the CIA, to the news media that we all know now was blatantly wrong, and by the way, proven to be wrong at the time.
Look at what's going around Sussman at the law firm.
You see these tech executives in real time saying, uh, hey, this stuff isn't true.
It's a red hearing, and yet they're still out there sharing it.
Another person who's not going to look good at the End of this is Jake Sullivan.
He's the guy that jumped on this revelation and spreads it.
These are people that should be better and know that when they put their name behind something, it should be true before they foist it into the public realm.
And I think there's no good ending on that front.
It's irrefutable at this point and incontrovertible that there was access to both the Trump Tower servers and the White House servers.
We all agree on that point.
Well, the log servers.
Yeah, I would say the logs.
It's very different.
It's what leaves the computer goes out into the internet that they were tracking.
There's a lot of the colours.
Okay, so what do you call it the log the log part of the server?
Yeah, well, no, it's it's what happens when the servers start to communicate.
What happens in cyberspace away from the server that tells what was going on that server, but it isn't the same as actually being inside the server like a hacker.
That's trying to make it.
But that would be illegal in and of itself, would it not?
And it would give an indication of where uh those servers might be communicating or searching, correct?
Correct.
That is so I think that's important point.
Now let's go back to Jake Sullivan for a minute.
He was a policy advisor for Hillary in 2016, and he put out and propagated this bogus story about Trump's secret line to Russia.
Now, an interesting side note is Sullivan's wife works for the attorney general, Merrick Garland, who oversees the Durham probe.
Why she has not recused herself is a whole other question, Sarah Carter.
Well, why hasn't she recused herself?
And why are they continuing to allow this to go on?
And we have to ask ourselves these very serious questions, Sean, because Jake Sullivan is not only in the middle of this, but there are so many other people.
You know, when John brought up and you were just talking about, we were talking about like the fact that they kept peddling the lie, right?
I believe they wanted to pedal the lie.
I mean, when we were looking at this from the very beginning, if we go all the way back, you know, to 2017 in our reporting early on on this.
It was very direct.
It was very obvious that even with Christopher Steele and his dodgy dossier, even with all of the insiders inside the DOJ, and as we peeled back the layers of the onion, like you explained, John uh and Sean, as we peeled those back, we continuously kept seeing players that were being fed lies.
Either they were being fed lies by people in the DOJ, by people in the State Department, by Christopher Steele and his dossier, by other dossiers that were floating around out there.
So it appears that there was a concerted effort to create a disinformation campaign.
And in order to create that type of campaign, you needed to find some kind of legitimacy, some kind of basis in order to spread the lie.
And I think what John Durham is doing here, and I think what we've seen exposed here is the fact that they were using these pings off these servers, which we reported early on on your show, both John and I, that these pings were were being dismissed by the FBI, but that they were using that ping to create some kind of false platform to spread a disinformation campaign against the president of the United States.
Let's go over what we know and and and separate it from what we believe.
We know that Sussman has been charged for lying to the FBI.
We know that the court required John Durham to give additional information as to the evidence that he's going to be presenting in court.
This is the filing that came out Friday.
Um part of the factual background, he exposes these the what you're calling the log portion of a computer system.
In other words, that would trace where the system is reaching out to in terms of the internet or pings as you call it, uh, Sarah, uh, that that was that that that what a tech company was paid for by Perkins Cooy.
Sussman works for them.
He lied to the FBI about it, that he was being paid by the Clinton campaign, and that Sussman uh has this tech firm finding out where the Trump Tower servers are looking and where the White House servers are looking.
Not in not inside the computer, but where they're looking outside the computer.
Where out what what sites are they?
And the reason that they're doing it is for the purpose of accumulating a narrative that Donald Trump is connected to Russia in a nefarious way.
Am I wrong on any part yet?
John.
100% right.
So that's the story as Of right now.
Yes.
Sarah.
Yep.
Yes.
Now, this is separate and apart from the dirty dossier, correct?
Yes.
Correct.
All right.
So now what what now I'll ask you the final question each.
What happens next, John Solomon?
Uh listen, there's going to be uh a trial.
We're going to see what happens there.
I think there are more people under investigation right now.
That's what John Durham said.
That is the thing that Michael Sussman's lawyers are most angry about today.
Durham saying that there's still other parts of this under criminal investigation right now.
That's the part I'm going to be keeping my eye on.
And also you go you can't ignore what John Ratcliffe had to say and Rick Rornell had to say.
That's right.
And that is that both of them are suggesting that multiple people could be tied up in all of this.
Right.
I mean, uh how is this really then different from Watergate?
If you're if you're in other words, if there's any level of spying, be it the pings or the logging into where they're where their computers are going and searching and looking, uh, or the White House where they're going and searching and looking, isn't it?
It's still spying, isn't it?
Sarah?
I think it's far greater than Watergate, Sean.
Because if you look at Watergrade Watergate and you look at a spying operation, yeah, you had a spying operation, it was devastating, it went public, it was American, it led to an impeachment of a president.
I think when you're looking at this, when you're looking at the scope of what happened here to President Trump, it wasn't only just spying, it was spying with the intention of destroying a duly elected president of these United States.
It was spying with the intention of going against the American people.
It was spying with the intention of utilizing and weaponizing multiple agencies and bureaucracies in the United States that we haven't trusted.
We have interested our taxpayer dollars to.
These are armed agents of the federal government who were involved in targeting a sitting U.S. president.
So in my opinion, this goes far beyond Watergate.
And this is a reason why John Durham is doing such a thorough job because he's up against some of the toughest people in the world right now.
He's up against an intelligence apparatus and a law enforcement apparatus and a bureaucracy that is wielding extraordinary power.
And it's like David and Goliath.
And it's got to be one of the toughest jobs ever.
And that's why Sussman is fighting back so hard.
He's like a rat on a sinking shit.
And as long as they keep talking, Durham, Durham's gonna have something to go after.
Um this is uh having you guys help unwrap this, it gets a little complicated.
I think you've made it very, very uh plain and simple and absorb something our audience can absorb.
Um anyway, thank you both.
I appreciate it.
Sarah Carter, John Solomon, 800 941 Shauna's on number.
If you want to be a part of the program, just trying to get to the bottom of all of this.
Quick break right back.
The final hour of the Sean Hannity show is up next.
Hang on for Sean's conservative solutions.
Music All right, back to our busy phones.
Uh Paul is in Georgia.
Paul, you're on the Sean Hannity show.
Glad you called.
Hey, Sean, thank you for taking my call.
I've been listening to you when you were taking over for Rush feeling for some slide before you had your show.
Oh, thank you, my friend.
By the way, how much do we miss Rush?
Do you realize it's two days from now, I believe, and it's been a full year was since he we lost him.
Can you believe that?
Oh my gosh.
I no, I can't.
Just listen to his voice on the golden line.
I know.
You can't replace somebody that great.
You just can't, but you know, we all got to try.
Well, you know, the reason I called Sean was, you know, it's it's really hard for me to comprehend that you know, here Durham has has been in doing this for two years.
Um cover it a lot, but Mueller spent 40 million dollars and didn't even get close to what Durham has done scratching.
I I just like to know why.
It's funny how whenever somebody from the right like myself or anybody else commits any kind of petty crime, it's a crime of a century, but when a left or Democrat does it, it's a call to scandal.
Why is that?
Because we we don't have equal justice and equal application of our laws and we have a dual justice system.
And if your name is Hunter Biden or you're part of the Biden family syndicate, nothing happens to you.
If you're a part of the the Clinton, you know, cabal, uh, nothing happens to you.
If your last name is Trump or you like Trump or you support Trump, are you or have you ever been a supporter of Trump?
Uh then you get, you know, ten years in jail for jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalk.
I I don't want a two-tier justice system.
I uh uh everybody should be treated equally under the law.
That's our our foundation for all laws in this country is our constitution.
And we're basically every time if we have a two-tier justice system and no equal justice and no equal application, you might as well take that document and put it in the shredder because it's meaningless.
The document is meaningless.
It is a lawless America.
You know, Mark Levin once called it a post-constitutional America.
That's what he was describing.
Yes.
Yes, and uh I'll tell you, we are too close for government in my age.
I'm only 60 years old, and uh I'm still driving semis, and I love it, and um I I love this country, and I just hate to see where it's going.
And I just want you to keep up the good work that you're doing, Sean.
And I don't know if anybody's told you, I hope they do, but us Americans are appreciative of what you do.
Listen, I can't do this without you, and we all are in this together.
It's an all-hands on deck moment for the country.
So hang in there, Paul.
We really appreciate it, buddy.
Uh, Terry in West Virginia.
Hey, Terry, we have about 90 seconds.
They're all yours.
Hey, Sean, appreciate you taking my call here.
If the Trump Towers and the White House servers were possibly uh hacked, then I think this is not only just a crime against the rule of law, but also the crime of espionage.
It's still an opportunity to gather information about the president, this sitting president of the United States who's doing business for the people on the citizens.
And I would personally like to see some high-ranking politicians uh receive some punishment over this and set some examples and hopefully get rid of this two-tier uh judicial system that you you alluded to there with Paul in Georgia.
So uh you really summed it up pretty good for me uh in what I wanted to say.
Uh you know, our people down here in the trenches, we are sick and tired of the political hacks that continually get by with things day in and day out and never get punished for anything.
The same things that we would get 20 years for, they're getting to walk away to and and just get probation or something.
So the people are really sick of it down here, and uh we need we really need Mr. Durham to uh come to the front, which it appears that he is doing.
And we really need to get him to come to the front and show the people and the citizens of this country that there is still the rule of law that that uh governs this country, and uh the little people down here have just as much right to the uh pursuit of life liberty or you know, the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as as anybody else.
We cannot be a lawless society.
We're we're a constitutional republic.
And to you know, and Ben Franklin famously saying, you know, during the constitutional convention asked, is it about monarchy or a republic?
His answer was a republic if you can keep it.
You know, Reagan's once famously said, freedom is but one generation away from extinction.
And every generation needs to step up.
▲
Export Selection