All Episodes
Previous Next
May 26, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
32:25
GAI vs NY Times - May 25th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Well, we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country sound We'll all be tired.
High than a jail.
And if you want a little banging, come along.
That when it comes to whistleblowers, you are not entitled to it.
That's his individual Mr. Allen.
Mr. Chairman, these individuals have been determined these whistleblowers.
These are not whistleblowers.
They've been determined by the agency not to be whistleblowers.
I'm proud of the progress my administration's made.
We've reduced the deficit in the first two years by 1.7 trillion dollars in the first two years.
I wish we could have just a normal human being as president.
That's what I want.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, we have coming to your centaur.
Sean Hannity.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
And welcome back to the Sean Hennedy show.
I'm Greg Garrett filling in for Sean.
He's taking some well-deserved time off.
And I'm happy to be here.
Check out my columns on my website, thegregger.com.
Follow me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett, and I hope you'll pick up my new book, The Trial of the Century, about the famous Scopes Monkey Trial.
It was a hundred years ago, but it is as relevant, if not more relevant now than ever before, where we find rampant acts of government abuse and misuse and America's civil rights and civil liberties being egregiously violated by corrupt government actors.
Joining me now are Peter Schweitzer and Eric Eggers of the Government Accountability Institute and hosts of the Drill Down Podcast.
Gentlemen, thanks for being with us.
Great to be with you, Greg.
Thanks, Greg.
Look, one of the reasons I was so anxious to talk to you is because you guys apparently are now in the crosshairs of the New York Times.
Which frankly is a badge of honor.
And like Howard Beale, you're not going to take it anymore.
Right?
So you you came out with your podcast and you have defended yourselves and are challenging the New York Times.
Tell us what's this all about?
Well, Greg, it's uh great to be with you as always.
Yeah, I mean, for us, uh, the issue really comes down to the fact that as at the Government Accountability Institute, we're about government accountability.
We write books, things like Clinton Cash and uh, you know, books about the Bidens, etc.
But we also have this mission that if we're contacted by congressional committees or by the FBI, we're glad to talk to them.
Uh we were approached by the FBI uh in 2015 under the Obama administration.
They were investigating the Clinton Foundation.
They were fascinated by the material we had in Clinton Cash.
So we had a series of conversations with the FBI at the early stages of that investigation.
Now it turns out that certain people in the FBI, uh it appears to be people like Tim Tebow, et cetera, uh, leaked the fact that we were communicating with the FBI uh to the New York Times, uh, and they went after us uh and and essentially said we were part of this plot to frame Hillary Clinton, which is laughable.
We were approached by the FBI, the material we attached and and gave to them uh was of course public records and financial records, uh things like that.
Unlike the dossier, which was totally, you know, the Trump dossier, which was totally based on false uh uh anonymous uh made-up information.
Uh, and that's what we're so frustrated about.
We're happy to cooperate with law enforcement at any time, but the way it was presented, I think was outrageous.
Yeah, how it was presented to be to be clear, Greg, is it was presented as if Peter Schweitzer and the Government Accountability Institute is attempting to sell information about Hillary Clinton or about Hunter Biden, actually.
They put it In the article about Hunter Biden, as if we're proactively approaching them, said, hey, here's some stuff you should take a look at it.
When in fact the opposite is true.
The FBI proactively, because of the quality of the work that we've done here in both Clinton Cash and Secret Empires that detailed the information, Hillary Clinton's relationship with Russia, Hunter Biden's relationship with a variety of people in nefarious regions of the world.
They came to us and said, hey, what do you have?
We'd like to learn more about that.
That's kind of the opposite of the way the New York Times presented it.
Yeah, no kidding.
I mean, what journalist in America hasn't been contacted by law enforcement that says, um, hey, look, we understand you may have some information of value to us in enforcing the law.
Um, you know, we would like access to it.
I, you know, when I was a young reporter in Kansas, I remember getting a call from the FBI, and I said, look, most of what I do is is uh, you know, public record, uh, but uh I'm, you know, issue a standard subpoena and NM will comply with the law and turn it over to you.
And, you know, that's what I did.
Ended up that the guy I'd been reporting about, uh, who was clearly a crook, went to prison.
Uh, the FBI pursued him, and he was prosecuted and convicted by a jury and went to prison.
So the, I mean, this is not uncommon, but it it it it it strikes me that what the New York Times is doing here in misrepresenting uh your work is that they're trying to smear you, right?
I mean, is that their motivation?
Yeah, uh I think I think that's part of it, yes.
And it's part of this larger debate that they have of uh sort of going after, I think, conservatives in America.
And you know, here's the irony uh, you know, in all of this.
Um this was presented um in the context of the the Russian dossier, sort of defending the Russian dossier, uh, which we know, of course, is was made up and is fictional and is not true.
Um, and yet they try to present it as we're sharing this information with the FBI in the context of trying to undermine the Russia uh dossier investigation, which I just you know think is laughable.
Um there was even a Twitter exchange that I had um with Peter Struck, you know, the famous FBI guy, who who again tried to say, oh, you know, the FBI is dealing with you know Peter Schweitzer, this is you know terrible, this is outrageous.
Um, and look, we have always been, Greg, as we've talked about, we've always been about information that is real, that is factual.
You can retrace the evidence that we find.
It's hard to find.
You have to find in court records, financial records, sometimes you know, shipping records, etc., but you can retrace our steps.
Um, and to try to sort of, you know, besmirch what we're doing, uh, and that they're having some kind of clandestine discussion with the FBI that's nefarious, uh, is just laughable.
We'll talk to any law enforcement agency that is interested in our work, and if they have a legitimate investigation going on, same with the Congressional Committee, we'll talk to them.
We're glad to do it.
Uh, and this is, I think, what is happening, so desperate in the attempt to protect people like Tim Tebow and the FBI, who killed the Hillary Clinton investigation, who pushed the Trump-Russia collusion investigation in a desperate attempt to support them.
You've now got outlets like the New York Times that are attacking the work.
Here's the irony, though, Greg.
The New York Times actually ran in 2015 a 4,000-word front page piece confirming our findings in Clinton Cash.
I remember it.
Yeah.
And and by the way, the New York Times in their new, they've now run two stories on our discussions with the FBI.
In neither story, Greg, do they ever mention the fact that they actually confirmed our reporting in 2015?
It's it's outrageous.
You know, because I either they know it and want to conceal it, or they don't even remember that they did that.
You know, and I'm not sure which it is.
Well, here's the real irony, Greg, is that the fact that the steel dossier exists in the first place is due in large part, not just for the reporting that we did in Clinton Cash, which exposed the scheme by which the Clinton Foundation took in over 100 million dollars from people that made money on the sale of uranium assets, including U.S. uranium assets that ended up in the hands of Vladimir Putin.
But the fact that the New York Times would then validate, confirm, and build on that reporting in their own story, helped create this idea.
And it and the Clinton campaign knew about this vulnerability that they had.
Hey, as they did polling, as she was ramping up her campaign for president, the number one vulnerability they had was that storyline.
And so as a way to dodge and perform some political jujitsu, they fabricated the idea that the Trump campaign was a Russian asset.
They then paid for and got this deal dossier created.
They laundered it through political operatives in the intelligence community, fed it to the mainstream media.
So the whole idea of the Trump being a Russian asset came because the Clintons knew they were vulnerable with this Russian narrative.
And that, by the way, has impacted not just the 2016 election, but the 2020 election, because the idea that the Hunter Biden laptop was suppressed, came from the fact that that might be Russian disinformation.
Again, the whole Trump Russia connection came from the Clintons because, in part, of the vulnerabilities created by the New York Times own reporting.
It's wildly ironic.
Yeah, I mean, it totally is.
And you know, your New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash, I read over and over again, so impressed with it.
I actually quoted from uh your book in my subsequent book, uh, The Russia hoax.
And the subtitle is the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
There was this scheme to clear Hillary Clinton, and it wasn't just her email scandal, in which she quite obviously uh committed crimes under the espionage act, obstruction of justice, and destroying 33,000 documents under subpoena.
But, you know, uh, what we find out in your book, Clinton Cash, is you know, the tens of millions of dollars in Russian rubles or dollars that are lavished on the Clinton Foundation, which I recall, Peter, you wrote, you know, the the Clintons treated as their personal piggy bank.
Yeah, that's that's right, Greg.
And by the way, the subtitle of your book, I mean, boy, was that prophetic.
You nailed it.
That's a that was five years ago.
Yeah, I mean, that we we exactly know that now, and and I would commend everybody.
I don't generally encourage people to read the Columbia Journalism Review, but a couple months ago, uh Jeff Gerth, formerly of the New York Times, uh, had a long story on how did this whole Trump Russia collusion narrative start.
And it's precisely that point.
It started because the Clinton campaign did internal polling and they found their number one vulnerability was this charge concerning uranium one and them making money from the Clinton Foundation.
That's why they went ahead and did this dossier.
Uh, and you're quite right.
I mean, the whole issue with Clinton Cash was the fact that the Clintons were essentially laundering money through the Clinton Foundation, and they were taking over from very nefarious sources, including some 145 million dollars from shareholders in Canada and elsewhere who acquired uranium mines in the United States and in Kazakhstan.
That was approved by our federal government, including Hillary Clinton, and then months later, they turned around and sold those assets to a huge profit uh to Russia, to Rossatom, the Russian state uh uh atomic agency.
So it was a clear operation of enrichment to the Clintons.
Uh, and I think everybody knew it.
And the New York Times confirmed that.
They confirmed the fact that the Clintons were hiding the donations, even though they had signed a written agreement with Barack Obama's president saying they were going to disclose all of them.
So all of that was out there and that was clear.
And and um we uncovered the scheme, and all you need to know is basically that when the Clinton Foundation, when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, within two years, their donations from overseas dropped by more than 75%.
It was a scheme of self-enrichment.
Once she wasn't going to be president, these foreign oligarchs had no reason to pay her money anymore.
Yeah, and and the money began to suddenly just vanish, you know.
She's not president, so uh we're not gonna pay her anymore.
Um, you know, and it's so funny.
Uh you the New York Times, not remembering their own reporting confirming your work, must have the same contagious case of amnesia that James Comey seems to have.
I don't remember anything about the dossier or the Russia hoax or anything.
All right, guys, stick around for just a second.
We're gonna pause and take a quick break, lots more to ask you about, including the finding in the Durham Report that there were four criminal investigations into Hillary Clinton operations, and James Comey made those magically vanish.
He's a magician.
We'll be right back with more of the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean.
Want to continue our conversation now with our guests, Eric Eggers, Peter Schweitzer of the Government Accountability Institute.
And we were talking about, you know, you're now in the crosshairs of the New York Times.
They're trying to smear you as uh, I don't know, colluding with the FBI, which is, you know, absurd.
But one of the things that we find out in the Durham Report is that there were not one, not two, but four criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton's activities, and we find out in the Durham Report that thanks to James Comey, all of those were shut down and they magically disappeared.
What do you make of that?
Yeah, it's pretty stunning.
I mean, traditionally, the way the FBI works in a matter like this is if you have four individual individual investigations taking place at four different field offices, those investigations continue.
What James Comey and the leadership did was consolidate all of them so they could basically control it.
Uh and the Durham report is devastating.
It talks about the fact that senior FBI officials are saying, you know, we don't really want to do this investigation because she might be president one day, and we don't want to be on her bad side.
And as far as I'm concerned, that's not the way you run a criminal investigation based on thinking that that person might be president.
Now, one of the key differences between Peter Schweitzer and I is that when law enforcement calls me, I tend to try to duck the call.
But you know, Schweitzer's happy to take it and cooperate.
And I think that that's the really the big takeaway from this is that it's not like we sent information to the FBI that hey Shake, look at this.
Four different offices, four different agents, four different supervisors said, hey, these findings reek of corruption, of influence peddling, of things that might be violation of U.S. law, things that by the way are violation of international law if you try to do them elsewhere there.
And so uh like there's clearly legitimacy here.
Four different offices thought so, and only because they thought Hillary Clinton might be president, did they say that they were tiptoeing, quote unquote, around the law.
Um, we have email exchanges that Lisa Page is talking to Peter Struck's like, hey, you can be very careful here.
And I think what the Durham Report does a great job of contrasting the kit gloves they treated the Clintons with as compared to the Trump Rush investigation, which we now know is based on a total fabrication.
Guys, great work, and thank you for taking the time to explain it.
Eric Eggers, Peter Schweitzer of the Government Accountability Institute.
As always, thanks for being our guest here today on the Sean Hannity Show.
We're gonna pause and take a quick break, but I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
Lots more to talk about.
Be sure to pick up my new book, The Trial of the Century, order it pre-sale online.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Sleepy Joe just signed more executive actions in one week than most presidents did in their entire term.
So much for a democracy.
Looks like Joe is the new dictator.
Hannity's on right now.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean.
You can follow me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
You can go to my website, the Greg Jarrett.com, and there you'll find more information about how to buy my new book.
It comes out in just a few days.
It's called The Trial of the Century.
It's about the famous scopes monkey trial.
And you know, people say, why did you decide to write about a trial as famous as it may have been in 1925?
What does that have to do about today?
Because it was all about our free speech and civil liberties.
They they were on the precipice.
They were in jeopardy, they were at risk.
And a courageous School teacher and his legendary lawyers stood up for American rights.
And those rights, by virtue of their work, are sustained and we enjoy them today.
You know, history books tend to overlook this critical moment in American history.
When in the 1920s, this deep religious fervor swept the nation.
Almost overnight, books on evolution were banned under the mistaken belief that Darwin's cornerstone theory undermined the Bible, which it did not.
In Tennessee, it became a crime to teach evolution in public schools.
And I say this young school teacher by the name of John Scope Scopes was arrested and charged with the crime of teaching out of a state approved textbook evolution, and the legendary attorney, Clarence Darrell, volunteered at his own expense to defend him.
And Darrow's brilliant, devastating cross-examination of the fundamentalist icon, William Jennings Bryant, who was the prosecutor in the case.
Think of this.
The defense attorney called the prosecutor to the witness stand.
That confrontation was described by the New York Times as the most amazing court scene in Anglo Saxon history.
And most Americans know nothing about it, which is why I wrote the book.
And the stunning outcome dramatically shifted public opinion.
It spelled the beginning of the end for the kind of government intrusion that our Constitution forbids.
And free speech rights were rescued by Darrell in that trial.
Generations of Americans became Darrow's beneficiaries.
It's the reason I became a lawyer.
And isn't it interesting that it foreshadowed today's fraught culture wars where our civil liberties are again in jeopardy?
You just heard it in the last segment with my guests Peter Schweitzer and Eric Eggers, an incredible story about government abuse and media abuse.
So you can get our book, The Trial of the Century, available in bookstores nationwide beginning on Tuesday.
Order it right now, Amazon.com, Barnes Noble.com.
But let's talk a little bit more about government abuse and corruption.
You will find it in the recent congressional investigation that uncovered an ungodly amount of foreign money flowing into the Biden family bank account.
So here's how it worked.
When he was vice president, Joe Biden would fly off to countries overseas.
He'd meet with leaders there, as well as wealthy business operators, nearly all of whom had close ties to those governments.
And isn't it curious that within weeks of those visits, huge amounts of cash began secretly being sent to shell companies and LLCs controlled by Hunter Biden?
Tens of millions of dollars.
It happened after every single Joe Biden visit to China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Romania.
It's a long list.
All of those countries over which Joe Biden had foreign policy influence.
So what were those countries buying?
More to the point, what was Joe selling?
Was he peddling access as well as promises of future influence that would benefit America's adversaries?
Well, it sure looks like it, doesn't it?
The House Oversight Committee was informed by a credible whistleblower that the FBI now has in its possession a smoking gun document depicting, and here's a quote, a criminal scheme involving Joe Biden and a foreign national in the exchange of money for policy decisions.
The committee is trying to get the document.
The FBI is not denying that It has the document, but the agency refuses to turn it over.
They told the committee, oh, trust us, everything's okay.
You don't need to see this.
Well, who in their right mind would ever trust the FBI?
Trust is earned.
The FBI has squandered that trust.
We know it from the Durham Report.
The Bureau weaponized its authority to launch a damaging investigation of Donald Trump in 2016, quote, without any actual evidence of collusion.
And the FBI lied to the FISA court to spy.
Comey and others lied to the president.
They lied to Congress.
They lied to the American people.
When the Muller report eventually found no collusion conspiracy, did the FBI apologize?
No, they're undeterred.
But it's worse than that.
The Durham Report also reveals something we never knew before.
The FBI conducted 278,000 improper warrantless searches on U.S. citizens under FISA.
So they weren't just spying on Donald Trump's campaign.
They were spying on you 278,000 times.
Hey, here's a news flash.
Why don't we abolish the FISA court?
It was always a bad idea.
It was a recipe for disaster.
It was ripe for abuse, and it happened.
But you know, it wasn't just about the 20016 election.
In the next presidential contest, 2020, the same FBI went about influencing the outcome in favor of Biden against Donald Trump.
They directed social media platforms to suppress and center, censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Despite they'd the fact they'd already confirmed it.
They knew it was authentic.
They verified its contest.
They didn't tell you about that.
They kept it a secret.
The FBI's crooked actions worked.
Polling data shows that 16% of Biden voters would have cast their ballots differently had they known the truth.
And when Biden was sworn in, the FBI, the DOJ, they went about covering up Biden family corruption.
They buried incriminating evidence, which helps to explain why no criminal charges have been brought in a five-year-old criminal probe despite a plethora of compelling evidence of criminalities.
U.S. attorneys appointed by Joe stepped in and actually blocked the planned prosecution.
You know, I laugh whenever I hear Democrats in their sycophant members of the media say, well, you know, influence pedaling is wrong, it's unethical, but it's not a crime.
Nonsense.
It's a variety of serious crimes, bribery, fraud, conspiracy, a criminal violation of the foreign corrupt practices act, a violation of Faro Laws.
Those are all crimes.
There is only one explanation for why no criminal charges have been brought.
The fix is in.
Biden is being protected by a corrupt FBI and a rotten Justice Department with Attorney General Merrick Garland at the helm.
This is exactly what our founding fathers feared the most.
They worried that a future president might violate his sacred oath of office by secretly conspiring with malign foreign actors to betray our nation for cold hard cash.
Our founders feared Joe Biden.
When we come back, we're going to talk about the latest efforts to stop Donald Trump from becoming president all over again.
This time it's not a criminal investigation that he colluded with Russia.
No, it's a flurry of planned indictments, none of which are based on believable evidence or sustained by the law.
That doesn't matter to his enemies, local prosecutors, and a garland appointed special counsel.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean On the Sean Hannity Show.
Be sure to pick up my new book.
It's out next week.
It's called The Trial of the Century.
A fascinating look into America on the precipice when our free speech rights and civil liberties were in jeopardy.
I'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hennedy Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean.
Follow me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett.
Go to my website, theGregJarrett.com.
My new book comes out in just a few days, The Trial of the Century, about the famous Scopes Monkey trial.
Now, this was the most important case of the 20th century.
The great Clarence Darrow's seminal defense of freedom of speech helped form the legal bedrock on which our civil liberties depend today.
It was the biggest legal blockbuster of a generation and the most heralded courtroom drama in America.
You can also order the trial of the century now online.
Go to my website.
A couple of clicks, you can buy the book.
And if Clarence Darrow were alive today, he would volunteer to defend Donald Trump.
How do I know this?
Here's what I wrote in my book in just the first few pages, quote.
Darrow detested the unchecked authority and unlimited resources of prosecutors who cared more about netting convictions than rendering true justice.
End of quote.
I mean, Darrow always railed against government abuse, especially prosecutors who selectively targeted people they dislike.
Sound familiar?
Yes, well, it should.
That's what's happened to Donald Trump.
In New York, for example, an unscrupulous Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, indicted the former president without bothering to state an underlying crime.
Why?
Well, because none exists under law.
Bragg ran on the campaign promise of getting Trump.
And so doing, the DA shredded the code of ethics that govern his conduct.
It is a purely political prosecution.
Everybody knows it.
His own deputy wrote a book confessing it's a political prosecution.
They hated Trump.
They wanted to stop him from becoming president again.
And in Georgia, same scenario unfolding.
An equally unprincipled DA Fanny Willis is her name.
Poised to indict Trump for supposed election fraud.
There's no evidence whatsoever that Trump urged anybody to phony up ballots or manipulate the vote count.
The biased DA has seized on a snippet of a conversation and misconstrued it and mangled it.
You know, Trump argued that legitimate ballots had not been counted, and that illegitimately cast ballots had been counted.
He had a legal right to make that request to lodge a protest.
That's not a crime.
There's no other evidence that Trump directed or pressured anybody to commit election fraud.
But Fanny Willis, she wants to be famous.
She wants to be the one to stop Trump.
That's what this is about, nothing more.
Then there's the absurd Mar-a-Lago documents case.
Garland appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, the mindless media drooling over the prospect of an indictment.
You know, never mind that Joe Biden did the same thing, except he stored classified documents in four locations, not one.
But he's a Biden.
He gets a pass.
I said from the first day of the infamous FBI raid.
You cannot prove that Trump intended to violate the law.
Why?
He didn't pack up the presidential papers and take them to Florida.
He didn't box up anything.
By law, that is a job required to be done by the governmental service administration, the GSA.
Merrick Garland wanted a spectacle.
And it's an egregious abuse of government authority, misuse of power.
But it's nothing new.
As I write in my new book, The Trial of the Century, it happened nearly a hundred years ago when states tried to take away, rob you of your civil liberties, your right to free speech, your right to education in a classroom.
I hope you'll check out my new book.
You can go to my website and order it, thegregarett.com.
It comes out next Tuesday in bookstores nationwide.
And check out some of the interesting conversations I've been having on social media with Devin Noonz, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee.
I want to wish everyone a happy and safe weekend as we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
I'm Greg Jurrett, In for Sean on the Sean Hannity Show.
Thanks for being here.
We'll see you next time.
▲
Export Selection