All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 16, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
30:05
Doug Collins - February 16th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
All right, that's Leonard Skinner's Simple Man, and that can only mean one thing on this radio show, and that is All Things Bill O'Reilly.
All Things O'Reilly at BillOReilly.com.
Mr. O'Reilly, sir, welcome back.
Hope you had a good time down south, and welcome to the frozen hell of New York.
Well, I'm not that pessimistic about it up here, but I had a great time down.
How could you not be anything but pessimistic?
It is the highest tax state in the union.
Anybody that was going to rise up, Bill, they packed their bags, they sold their house, and they got the hell out of here.
And we're the two idiots that stayed.
Well, I can't object to the last part of your statement, but I think that folks in New York are going to rise because it's so bad here.
But I'm confused today, Hannity, and I need you to straighten me out.
Are you ready to do that?
There's always something, a sleight of hand is coming.
Go ahead.
All right, so I'm watching your show last night on television, okay?
So what I want to know, if you know, is why Geraldo is so upset about the Canadian truckers demonstration.
So, I mean, here's a guy who was fairly verbal, if I remember correctly, during Vietnam, and, you know, as many people were, and throughout his career has been the champion of the underdog.
Now, certainly the truckers in Canada would be considered the underdog.
And it seems to me that they are protesting peacefully.
So why the angst on the part of Geraldo?
Do you know?
Calling them selfish, calling them thugs, saying that they're self-involved, all of which he said.
I'm in agreement with your analysis that that's not the Geraldo that I've known over the years who has a lot of compassion for people.
I think that there is, with COVID, this is my theory.
With COVID, there are people that have not kept up with the science.
And then, of course, we have people that use science only when it's convenient science that advances their political narrative.
But if you're following the science, you now know it started with Delta.
It's called a breakthrough case.
Fully vaccinated people can still get COVID.
Fully vaccinated and boostered people are getting COVID.
Fully vaccinated, boostered people and with natural immunity are getting COVID.
Now, prior to Delta, there was an argument that could be made that the unvaccinated were putting themselves at risk by not getting the vaccine.
That was the argument.
If you got the vaccine, you weren't supposed to get COVID.
That's what they said.
They sold it and they were wrong as usual.
But right now, anybody can contract COVID, even if you had it before.
I know a ton of people that have had it twice, Bill.
And there's nothing, there's no difference in coming into contact with somebody vaccinated, unvaccinated.
And here's the thing.
Even Washington, D.C. has lifted the mandate restrictions and the mask restrictions.
And you see, all of these restrictions in an election year are beginning to fall by the wayside because people don't want them.
Yeah, I mean, look, there are two sides to the story that if you are vaccinated, you might not spread COVID as much as an unvaccinated person.
Some scientists back that up with studies.
But the theory that you can't demonstrate peacefully, I don't know why Geraldo is objecting to that.
Now, he can put forth that he thinks everybody should be vaccinated and boosted.
Fine.
That's fine.
I don't have a problem with that.
All right.
But to, as you put it, denigrate the truckers themselves, I'm not getting that.
So when I see Geraldo, if he's cogent, which is often not the case, I'll ask him.
Man, that's cool.
Well, the thing is, you know, the truckers, by the way, what has been so impressive to me, it's been almost like a block party type of atmosphere.
The exact opposite of what happened in the summer of 2020, which nobody wants to talk about except a few of us, because we had 574 riots around the country and dozens of dead Americans and thousands of injured cops and billions in property damage, arson, and looting.
So it's a little frustrating to me because they have handled this the right way.
They're petitioning their government in a peaceful way.
When they were asked to move the trucks to allow commerce to continue through Detroit, they complied with that.
Some of them did.
I mean, there were a couple of people that had to be.
50 arrests, and there are some arrests going on right now in Ottawa.
But all of that is.
No, they're ticketing now.
But they're also talking about with these emergency powers, Bill.
They're talking about putting these guys in jail, $100,000 fine, taking away their licenses and their rigs, and leaving them with no means to make a living.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
You know why Little Justin's doing that?
Little Justin's an authoritarian jackass.
Why?
I wouldn't do that.
I wouldn't say that.
I mean, maybe he's not, but I don't know that.
I do.
But he got pounded so bad for running away.
So the truckers come into Ottawa and Little Justin hightails it for some hideout that nobody knows about.
So he looks weak, right?
Everybody knows he looked weak.
So now he's got to come back as one of the village people and sing Macho Man.
That's why he's doing this.
Okay, so that's why he's doing it.
I mean, maybe he is an authoritarian.
I don't know.
And I don't care.
I don't care what the Canadians do.
It's not going to happen in the USA because, as I predicted accurately, COVID's on the decline.
Could come back.
Everybody should, you know, be very cautious still.
But all this stuff is going to, I hope, dissipate now for good.
And so we can get back.
We have a sub-variant out there, and it looks like it's taking hold in other parts of the world, which would be an indicator it might take hold here.
That's the sub-variant of Omicron.
But go ahead.
No, and I mean, look, once we get back to normal, then we can turn our attention to what a horrific display is going on in Washington, D.C.
Well, before you make that pivot, I have something else I want to ask you, and I really want to get your take on this.
All right, you see what's happening.
You saw the filing, background information filing in the Sussman case by John Durham.
Yep.
And you've read it.
And then you probably read Sussman's lawyer's response, a six-page response they put out late yesterday.
Yep.
My question is, now the media is getting all up in arms by saying they're spying.
Well, the reality is, I don't care.
I understand they weren't looking at the servers, but they were looking at the traffic president.
There's no question what happened.
There's no question what happened.
Exactly.
They spied.
That's such a joke.
This is such a farce.
So let's just put aside any theories here.
All right.
I don't like to do that.
I'm not a speculative guy.
I'm a fact-based guy.
So you got the Justice Department in the form of John Durham putting out to the American people there was a company run by a guy named Jaffe, Rodney Jaffe, that had access to the highest levels of the American government and what was going on on the internet.
And we believe Durham, the Justice Department, remember, he's talking for the Justice Department.
We believe that Jaffe either sold or gave information to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
That's the story.
Okay?
That's it.
The document says that number one.
Hanny, look.
I'm just generating it down so everyone understands it.
All right, simple man, but you're missing an important point.
All right, go tell me what the important point is.
So the document talks about the defendant's billing records that he got paid regularly, repeatedly, by the Clinton campaign.
Yes.
The defendant had assembled and conveyed allegations about Donald Trump to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive and a U.S.-based internet company, and the Clinton campaign, and that this information was exploited.
It wasn't infiltrated.
The New York Times is right by saying anyone, it was Kash Patel who used that word and it got repeated.
But were exploited for Internet data mined at a particular health care provider, Trump Tower, Donald Trump, Central Park West department building, and the executive office of the president.
So what does mining mean, Bill?
Okay, that's the accusation.
That is the allegation.
Correct.
And it has to be proved.
Correct.
Okay.
But the essential plot doesn't have to be proved because that's what Durham is saying, that there were guys in there and they were spying on Trump, trying to get dirt linking him to Russia.
Nobody's refuted that, by the way.
No one.
So that's where you start.
Then all of the other allegations up to Durham to prove them.
All right?
So you would think that journalistic entities, media, would be fascinated by this because of its parallels to Watergate.
So the Washington Post's motto is, democracy dies in darkness.
Washington Post doesn't want to know anything about it.
In fact, the only article they put out was trying to debunk it, the whole thing.
All right?
None of the networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, none of them have covered it up to this point today.
We're Wednesday.
This came out Friday.
Here's the worst part, Bill.
Let me tell you where it's worse.
And you know, I spent three years unpeeling every layer of the onion as it relates to the Russia gay conspiracy theory hoax.
And we know this is factual now.
It's overwhelming, incontrovertible.
Hillary Clinton paid for a Russian disinformation dossier that has been totally, completely debunked.
They were warned before the first FISA application that it's not verified.
At the top of a FISA warrant, it says verified.
It wasn't.
It never was.
And they did it four times.
They spied on a candidate, a transition team, and a president.
That is separate and apart from this whole sussman case.
And that's the point I'm trying to make, that it's not, nobody is refuting that.
But you just said Hillary Clinton paid.
Now they're going to parse that by saying, well, her campaign paid.
So they didn't know what Podesta was doing.
John Podesta was the head of the campaign.
Again, due process is important here, and so is language.
No, I believe in due process and the presumption of innocence, and I said that yesterday in the case of Sussman.
But what the allegation of Durham said is the defendant assembled, conveyed allegations about Trump to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients.
Now, he's being charged with lying to the FBI, and he didn't tell them this part, is what I'm understanding, including a technology executive at a U.S.-based internet company and the Clinton campaign.
So you're right, they'll say it's the campaign.
Right.
They'll say it's a campaign.
But look, let's let that all play out.
But the horrible scandal and another scandal in the corporate media is they're not interested in knowing this, Anity.
They don't want to find out.
They want to either hunter Biden the story.
Totally.
They have.
Or they want to try to diminish it in ha ha ha in their smug way, saying there's nothing here.
This is all BS and paranoia on the part of the far right.
So when, you know, when are the folks going to rise up against the corrupt corporate media?
Now, the audience and readers are receding, and they're receding, you know, in big numbers.
In drops.
It's very difficult.
You know what numbers used to be like.
I'm going to tell you why they're not going to touch it.
Number one, it's politics, pure and simple.
It's raw politics.
Number two, they are complicit, Bill.
Yeah, they're because for three years peddled lies, mistruths, conspiracy theories, and they aided in the betting.
They were a story, weren't they?
They were real interested in a speculative story that turned out to be bogus every single freaking day.
How about this story?
Hannity was right the whole time.
How about that story?
Am I ever going to get that headline, Bill?
No, Hannity.
No one likes you.
So no one is going to do that.
Including you.
No, you're my friend.
All right, more with Simple Man Bill O'Reilly.
Then your calls, 800-941-Sean, as we continue.
I'm all with Bill O'Reilly, allthingsO'Reilly at BillO'Reilly.com.
I need a minute at the end of this to talk about the Trump streaming thing.
You only have a minute.
Go.
Okay.
BillO'Reilly.com beginning tomorrow night, 8 p.m. Eastern.
We are going to stream the highlights of the Trump O'Reilly History Tour, the fabulously successful tour that we did in December.
We put it together.
If you're a member of BillO'Reilly.com, you get it free.
If not, nominal fee.
We do have some production costs here.
And that will go throughout the President's Day weekend till Monday midnight.
So you will see a totally different side of Donald Trump.
And you should watch this, Hannity.
No, I will.
I wanted to go to it.
I wasn't able to.
I had something come up last week.
I don't know if you'll even recognize the man.
But I want to say one thing.
Everybody lied, and I saw all these phony press articles that no, but Bill, I saw the pictures.
I mean, the place was Texas pictures.
They were packed.
So last week, the Washington Post actually tells the truth about how successful the history tour was.
And they got the numbers wrong.
They underplayed the numbers about how much money President Trump made, but no one picked it up.
And that's unheard of.
For the Washington Post goes out on a wire.
I just read it.
And, you know, I'm so used to fake news that I just kind of brushed it away, but it was unfair to you.
Anyway, sir, we appreciate it.
Oh, looking forward to your next book, by the way.
It's going to be the latest in his killing series.
And you want to give the title out or wait?
Killing the Killers, the Secret War Against Terrorists.
Hannity has his copy.
It hasn't arrived yet.
You told me it was coming.
I haven't got it.
You're getting your mail screened.
But it will be.
You'll have it.
All right.
Everybody watch the stream on billorely.com at Trump.
You love it.
Thanks for having me.
And bye.
All right, 25 now to the top of the hour, 800-941, Sean.
You want to be a part of the program?
Now, we have pointed out and covered probably more than any other show in great detail and great specificity the spying that took place with Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for.
Dirty dossier, Russian dossier, with this information, now totally debunked, and used on four separate occasions in spite of all the warnings and admonitions that it was not verified.
Now we know it's unverifiable.
The people that signed off on those warrants never verified the information, which means that they lied to the court.
Nobody's been held accountable.
And they used it to spy on candidate Trump, transition team Trump, and then later President Trump.
Now we have this new spy scandal.
And it doesn't matter all along the way when Donald Trump made the allegation that they spied on me.
Now, this issue with Sussman is very different.
Again, he's innocent until proven guilty.
We always say that about anybody, but you make your own assumptions.
He's being charged with lying to the FBI.
And when you look at the exact words of what Durham's court filings say, you know, about Michael Sussman, charged with lying to the FBI about his work on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
And he was a lawyer at large at a large international law firm, Perkins Cooey, and that he was serving as a counsel to the Clinton campaign.
That is where he got himself into the trouble with James Baker.
The document continues that the defendant, Mr. Sussman's billing records, reflect that the campaign defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work.
And the defendant assembled and conveyed allegations about Donald Trump to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive at a U.S.-based internet company and the Clinton campaign.
And then that these allegations were, I know people have been quoting Kash Patel.
It was not in Durham's filing, as was rightly pointed out by the New York Times for once.
It wasn't infiltrated.
That was never used in the filing of Durham.
But they, quote, were exploited.
In other words, the information that they obtained, exploited from internet data mined at, quote, a particular health care provider, Trump Tower, Donald Trump's Central Park West apartment building, and the executive office of the President of the United States.
In other words, they were mining and exploiting data from the Trump White House and Drum Tower, etc.
And the filing goes on that the defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and or his associates were using supposedly rare Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.
Those claims about Trump and Russia were completely bogus.
But the spying allegations detailed in the filing, well, they ring true to me based on what we already know.
But that's going to be decided in a court of law, not by Sean Hannity.
But I will tell you, the amazing thing about this is you've got a respected federal prosecutor, and nobody in the media wants to cover this story.
Now, here's how the media dismissed and were mocking Donald Trump for saying that he was spied on.
Our conspiracy theory, president, is at it again.
And whenever something like this happens, I wonder what are the president's sources of information?
Where is he getting these ideas?
This central conspiracy theory that animates Donald Trump's entire presidency, that he was spied on.
President Trump in a Twitter tirade accusing the former president of spying on him at Trump Tower by wiretapping phones, but offering no evidence or even what prompted those allegations.
We have been living in, really through the Trump campaign and unto this hour, this alternative reality.
The way that Donald Trump seems to think about what a president can do feels very Nixonian, that he has a much more inflated view of a president's powers for him to believe that a president could even, in theory, because the election is on, go in and tap the opponent of his preferred candidate.
Trump's mind is a little bit of a mystery to me.
Okay, that's the mob.
That's the media.
Our friend Doug Collins, former congressman from Georgia, and he's right.
He made the statement, we need more answers from the Durham probe.
Here's what he said.
There's a lot of blanks.
And I think that's the big, you've just hit on the perfect reason that this investigation needs to, and we need more answers from it.
This was just not a lawyer who was doing this on the side.
This was groups that concertedly said, number one, we've got a terrible candidate, Hillary Clinton.
We're not going to beat Donald Trump.
We've got to tie him to Russia somehow and progress this narrative.
But what disturbs me even more, Steve, though, is this kind of wiretapping, this kind of hacking is not something that would go unnoticed.
So my question is: why was there silence?
Why is there silence in the mainstream media?
But also, are they also covering up for the fact that the intelligence community, DOJ, Comey, Strzok, Paige, Orr, Clapper, Brennan, all of these who are complicit, did they know about it?
If they knew about it, they kept it quiet.
This is much bigger, and these questions need to be answered because we do not need a government working against us as we saw during that time.
We were bringing this out.
It's now time to put the real players to test.
I mean, this is getting very, very interesting.
Now, there was a six-page response to the filing of John Durham and basically saying that all this is BS, saying, quote, these allegations are irrelevant to the charge offense and are plainly intended to politicize the case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.
Keep in mind, though, this isn't a spying allegation that the Clinton campaign is facing.
What it sounds like to me, what I'm totally guessing and speculating here, it sounds like they're looking for a flip here.
In other words, they're basically saying there might be more charges to come.
It'll be interesting to see if Durham responds to the response of Sussman.
Again, innocent though proven guilty.
We stick by that rule under every set of circumstances, regardless of whether people like it or not.
And it's just going to be interesting to watch and observe and find and see.
Anyway, Doug Collins is with us now, former congressman from Georgia.
How are you, sir?
I'm great, Sean.
How are you doing?
I'm good.
Now, the headline of Durham is simple.
Now, if, and I say if, he proves his case, we know that in the previous instance, and I don't know of any involvement in Sussman in that case, that the Clinton machine, we know they spied on Trump.
We know that through the dirty dossier and how that was used by top officials in the intelligence community, FBI especially, to lie to a FISA court.
And they got FISA warrants that allowed a backdoor spying through Carter Page.
But if this is true and the case is proven, then the only conclusion I can come up with is that they spied on Trump.
What's your take?
It is.
I mean, it's becoming more and more of a fact now.
I think what you just said about Flip is probably very true, whether Sussman is enough to, you know, have enough evidence to flip or not, but he is involved in lying about issues surrounding this.
Sean, the bigger issue is what the clip you played a few minutes ago, and that's something you and I have talked about over the years.
Is what was the involvement of the intelligence community and the DOJ?
We know that this started as a cover-up of Clinton's emails.
We know that the timing, we know when Strzok was involved, we know when this all began to form.
And we also know now, thanks to some declassified documents from John Ratcliffe and others, that President Obama and Vice President of Biden were briefed on the plan by Clinton.
So the question I have is: was it a complicit act by the federal government during the Obama five years and the DOJ all the way up into the Trump years?
And if so, where is that part of the investigation at this point?
And that's why you notice I haven't heard Comey or Strzok or anybody else say a word in the past week or so.
McKay, Baker, maybe they're worried.
And if it's true, they should be.
It sounds like Durham, as slow as he's been, and I don't think he can get any slower.
It sounds like he is at least indicating through this background filing and factual finding that he's going to present an assessment case, which is what this filing was all about, that he's onto something much, much bigger than what was previously known that he was into or what he might have known.
That's what it sounds like to me when I read Durham's filing.
What do you read?
Yeah, I do too.
I think because he has been, you know, talk about slow.
I mean, glaciers move it at a faster pace.
Especially how much we've known, Sean, about this case.
This is what makes it really interesting to me.
It's how much we've known that we put out, that, you know, folks like Rackliff and Jordan and myself and all we and Nunez, we all put this stuff out.
We were seeing it.
We couldn't put the dots together because we didn't have the resources to do it.
But we knew it was happening by what was coming out.
I think this is an interesting move by John Durham.
He's not done this before.
He sort of telegraphed ahead to what he's looked up and found.
And I think it's sending a signal across the board that if someone has not been cooperating or someone has something that they want to come forward with now, now's your time.
And if you notice how he worded in his documents, he said, we expect to prove.
And Durham, I don't think, would use those words unless he had the receipt, so to speak, on this.
So it's going to be interesting.
I think he's sending a message to those out there saying this is nowhere close to over.
But he also knows he's dealing with a syndicate, so to speak, of the Clinton machine that is deeper than anything we've ever seen in modern political history.
But the bottom line is that they used a dossier that was not only full of lies, Hillary Clinton paid for it, but it's unverifiable because it's filled with lies.
How come the people that signed off, very high-ranking people, for example, of the four FISA applications, James Comey signed off on three of them.
Rod Rosenstein signed off on the last one.
By that time, we had heard from the sub-source, and I believe Steele even walked it back himself.
But the sub-source for the dossier or collection of documents that later became known as the dossier, that, in fact, the sub-source said that was just bar talk.
That was never meant for public consumption.
We were just screwing around, you know, like two hookers urinating in Donald Trump's room at the Rich Carlton in Moscow, which never happened.
Yeah, that one has been the classic case, Sean, that I've not understood for years.
How Comey with his precede Superman cape on, you know, saving the world, was actually messing over the world because he was sort of leading this.
And you have McCabe, you had Struck, you had Paige, you had this whole moral cabal at DOJ.
Plus, now that we found out even more, the complicitness of the intelligence community with Brennan and Clapper, why they've never been charged is a mystery to me.
I don't know if maybe Durham or others are holding out to say, you know, we're going to bring this in in a different route.
But that one is the one that makes people really sit back.
Your listeners, folks that we listen to all the time, they sit back and they say there's two systems of justice in this country.
The ones, I mean, those were things that should have never happened and yet have never been charged.
So my only hope is, is that maybe with his last filing, is that there's going to be some resolution to those outstanding issues.
But I mean, look, it's amazing what you saw when even when McCabe got fired and others to get there, you know, what VOJ does to protect its own.
All right, quick break.
More with former congressman from Georgia, Doug Collins, as we continue.
All right, more with Doug Collins, former congressman from the great state of Georgia.
The biggest thing that scares me in this country right now is the dual justice system.
And I am very, very concerned.
I don't believe we have equal justice anymore in this country under the law.
I don't believe we have equal application of justice in this country under the law.
I think we have a dual justice system.
I mean, you can see it.
You know, if you're a conservative and you're jaywalk or spit on the sidewalk, you're going to get 10 years in jail.
If you're Hillary Clinton, you can pretty much get away with anything.
If you're part of the Biden family syndicate, you could pretty much get away with anything.
Because I can tell you this, Doug Collins, that if it was anybody with the last name Trump that did a deal with China, $1.5 billion with the Bank of China, and according to Peter Schweitzer's new book, that they also raked in another $31 million from China,
if the Trump family took in $3.5 million from a Russian oligarch, the first lady, former first lady of Moscow, if Donald Trump was on tape, he was the vice president and said, you're not getting a billion dollars until you fire that prosecutor investigating my son who's being paid millions with no experience at all whatsoever, I think there'd be a very different reaction.
And the fact is there's not only a different reaction in terms of media, because they would be breathlessly reporting every aspect of it, but also in terms of justice under the law.
Well, exactly, Sean.
You've hit it perfectly.
My question is, just switch the names, Don Jr.
and Hunter Biden, or Eric Trump and Hunter Biden.
It's a completely different standard.
And Sean, I'm into wonder.
They bought this line so heavily after November 2016, they had also invested in Hillary and were so devastated that Donald Trump won that the media basically sold and now cannot find a place of repentance to come back and say, look, we still don't like Donald Trump, but we were wrong in these areas and we went with it.
But they just continue and they believe the old adage, if you lie long enough, people will begin to say it's the truth.
The problem is, and the hope is for some of us who still believe in the possibility of justice here, is that this Durham filing, the Durham latest announcement, although they've been definitely silent on it, they can at some point be silent on it because hopefully, you know, the indictments are going to come and the truth is going to be revealed.
All right, Doug Collins, former congressman, great state of Georgia.
▲
Export Selection