Sean Hannity Show - Brennan and Comey vs. DOJ - July 10th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 11, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show

31:13

Brennan and Comey vs. DOJ - July 10th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	We'll all be inside.
	Highland.
	And if you want a little bang in your yin yang, come along.
	We're going to make official the greatest victory yet when I sign the one big beautiful bill.
	It will kill over 10 years, a hundred thousand people.
	That is two thousand days of death, like we've seen in Texas this weekend.
	This big beautiful bill.
	Well, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then you, GOP, you have a very blurred vision.
	Freedom is back in style.
	Welcome.
	To the revolution.
	Yeah, we are coming.
	We all sits here.
	Don't play off gets all the same consciousness.
	John Henner.
	New Sean Hannity show.
	More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold inspired solutions for America.
	Welcome back to the Sean Hennedy Show.
	I'm Greg Jarrett.
	Happy to be with you filling in for Sean today.
	You can follow me on X, formerly Twitter.
	My handle is at Greg Jarrett.
	Go to my website, thegregger.com, read my columns, and we'll be taking your calls uh very shortly.
	And I see we have a couple of people on the board.
	We appreciate if you want to join the show.
	All you have to do is call 1-800-941-7326, 1-800-941.
	Happy to hear from you.
	Well, the big news a couple of days ago, uh, the disclosure that the FBI and the uh Department of Justice are investigating James Comey and John Brennan, formerly the FBI director and CIA director respectively.
	And it's based on a CIA review that came out about 10 days ago, a week ago, really.
	The CIA finally confirming what I wrote in a book called Witch Hunt six years ago, that it was John Brennan who insisted that the phony anti-Trump dossier be included in the classified Intel assessment,
	the official impramater document of the intelligence agencies, even though Brennan knew the dossier was a collection of lies.
	And why would he do that?
	Well, he needed the dossier in the Intel report because it gave the dossier credibility.
	So that when Brennan and Comey and Clapper leaked it to the media, reporters would run wild with it.
	And of course they did.
	Comey and Clapper were all in on Brennan's scheme.
	All of them together exploited the Intel report and the dossier to try to drive Trump from office, falsely accusing him of colluding with Russia when they knew he didn't.
	Joining me now to talk more about it.
	And you know, John has been out front in all of this news since you know the corruption with Comey and Brennan began way back in 2016.
	And John is such a fine investigative reporter.
	He's broken more news on this topic than anybody, so it's excellent that we have John with us today.
	And John, thanks so much for being with us.
	I note your most recent column that came out today.
	Yeah.
	Is entitled Russia Gate Secrets Unlocked.
	So tell us a bit more.
	It's kind of it's gonna be a good thing.
	But first, I just want to shout you out because chapter two of Witch Hunt was the place where it was first so solidified that Brendan's testimony was never true, that Mike Rogers had undercut him.
	Uh, and now we know even the top Russia desk officers at the CIA were undercutting Brendan.
	Uh, but props to you in that great book.
	I go back to that book often, Greg, because at the end of the day, whenever I'm doing a new one, there's such great focus.
	And you've used the word conspiracy many times.
	Yes.
	And I do believe right now that the Justice Department is looking for the first time at whether what happened from uh early uh July 2016 to the present may have been an ongoing conspiracy by a large group of people, including President Obama, John Brendan, James Comey, and others, because they had to have known what they were doing was based on false information.
	Why is that?
	If you forget about a very important passage in the Durham report that came out, because if the Durham report was chock full of lots of things, but there is intelligence that comes in to the top of the United States government and is briefed directly to President Obama in July, that there is a Clinton plan to hang a Russian shingle on Donald Trump's uh campaign house.
	And that means that when they open up on July 31st, they already know that what they're probably looking at is a political dirty trick.
	And when you take the fact that Brendan was the guy that told Obama about it, and you take the fact that Brendan tries to get the dossier and does get the dossier into the ICA, but blames it on the FBI, says he didn't overrule anyone when he did, he's clearly covering up for something.
	And I think at the end of the day, for the first time, the Justice Department is beginning to look at this long period of time, a 10-year period, like you treated it in Witch Hunt, like you've treated it in your great columns, which is this may very well have been a uh detailed conspiracy, and a conspiracy case can be uh brought years after the statute of limitations is brought if you have some events in the statute of limitations.
	And so if there's testimony in 23 and 24 that isn't truthful, that's designed to cover up what happened in 16, you can tie it all together.
	I think we might be moving in that direction uh for the first time, Greg.
	In your book would be the opening chapter of the indictment, I think.
	Yeah, and uh you know, so long ago I laid out the potential crimes by all of these people, and which included conspiracy, defrauding the government, deprivation of rights under color of law.
	Of course, uh, you know, false statements, as I identified in my most recent column uh on Wednesday it came out.
	You can see it on Fox News.com or my own website, theGreggerrett.com.
	So you know, these guys knew that this was fabricated evidence that we're they were using to support a gay case against Donald Trump.
	So that's deprivation of rights, it's defrauding the government.
	It's a conspiracy of two or more people were involved, and there were a lot of people involved.
	And uh, you know, they exploited it as a basis to investigate Trump.
	They used it to come used it to obtain spy warrants, deceiving the FISA court judges.
	He vouched for Steele's document as credible when he knew it wasn't.
	He called Steele reliable, but he didn't tell the judges, oh, by the way, I fired him for lying, so he wasn't uh uh you know responsible.
	I mean, the statute of limitations on all of that stuff is told or suspended if the incriminating evidence is fraudulently concealed, and this was.
	So there's a lot here for prosecutors to look at, don't you think?
	Oh, there's no doubt.
	And I think what you're seeing in the story that we broke this morning that you referenced is there's an effort now to free from the FISA courts uh domain some evidence that has been sitting there for a long time.
	We've talked many times on Sean Show and other places about the classified annex of the inspector general's office on Russia collusions and blew the whistle on the FISA cheating.
	There are all these interviews that were conducted as part of that review.
	Many of them have evidence of potential crimes that aren't related to the FISA court, but because they had some FISA information, the FISA court wasn't going to allow them to be released.
	What Cash Patel did in the last few days is he went to the FISA court and said, listen, we'll take out the FISA stuff now, because we know all about that.
	We'll protect that, but if we do that, please let us take the other parts of these interviews that the IG got or transcripts of court proceedings that don't reference the uh parts that don't reference the IG, and let's give that to Congress, let's give that to the prosecutors downstream for that.
	And the new judge on the FISA court gave the okay for that.
	This is a treasure trove of documents that you have tantalizing hints of what it is, but then it says in the IG report, oh, but it's classified, we can't tell you what we know about it.
	This is a whole body of evidence.
	You take that with what we learned from the CIA.
	If you're a prosecutor, you have a new body of evidence.
	As much as we learned over the last decade, there are still 30 to 50 percent of the scandal and the twists and turns of the cover-up and the conspiracy that most Americans and most members of Congress have yet to see.
	Cash Patel has set in motion uh the opportunity to open that treasure trove box of evidence, and that might ignite the sort of conspiracy case that you have so eloquently laid out over the years.
	So I've got to think that James Comey and um John Brennan are um sweating this thing out right now.
	Um Jason, I want to play a clip if I can, you know, because uh Brennan came out uh and he uh he decided he was gonna try to get out front of this, and he said he he's totally clueless about it.
	So here it is.
	Quite frankly, I don't know what is true.
	Um, there's so many things that get out into the media bloodstream.
	And it's interesting that it was, I think Fox News and Post are reporting things like this.
	Um I don't know whether or not there's any you know validity to it, if there is it was a referral, if there is an investigation, uh presumably if there is an investigation, that people will be questioned, I would be questioned about it.
	But again, I've had no contact from them.
	But again, uh I testified in front of many, many congressional committees in the House and the Senate over the years.
	And I continue to explain exactly what we did during this process, why we tried to make sure we stayed true to our intelligence responsibilities and that we were not going to do anything at all to try to interfere in that election.
	And again, it was a it was a challenging time, but also one I think that the people who actually worked this, both in terms of trying to collect intelligence prior to the election, and then the ones who put together the intelligence community assessment, they really I think showed the best of what the intelligence community and what CIA is made of.
	So uh again, I I am clueless uh about what it is exactly that uh they may be investigating me for.
	Well, uh Brennan was always intellectually clueless, but he's not clueless about what he did.
	Um in point of fact, um, you know, he testified numerous times, and it's it, you know, when you testify a lot and you're lying a lot, it's hard to keep your story straight.
	But he testified pretty consistently over and over again that he did not push for the dossier to be included in the ICA, the intelligence community assessment.
	And yet, the review that came out by the CIA, thanks to John Ratcliffe just about 10 days ago, and I'm quoting here, Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that quote, my bottom line is I believe the information, meaning the dossier warrants inclusion in the report.
	So in writing, he is contradicting his sworn testimony.
	I mean, you know, John, you've seen a lot of smoking gun documents in your day, but that strikes me as one of them.
	Yeah, no, listen, it is a smoking gun.
	It is uh material evidence.
	I I want to uh when you take this action in December, and that's why I think now we're beginning to hear people inside the Justice Department and FBI talking about things like a conspiracy from a criminal investigation perspective.
	I want to remind everybody what John Brennan's notes of his conversation with President Obama in on August 3rd, 2016, because it makes what John Brennan does in trying to push to get the steel dossier into the um ICA all the more uh troubling from people.
	The handwritten notes from um John Brennan of what he told the president was that uh the uh Hillary Clinton had approved on July 26th a proposal from one of her campaign advisors to velify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal, claiming interference by the Russian security services.
	That is directly the intelligence that uh John Brennan shared with President Obama and others on that day.
	That means he knew the steel dossier produced by the Hillary campaign was part of that fake scandal effort to have that prior information of what he told President Obama, and then pushed to put a document he knew it was a political dirty trick into an official intelligence assessment over the objections, over the objections of his own Russia experts in the CIA is extraordinary.
	It's not just the fact that his testimony is false, right?
	Or contradicted by his own emails.
	It's the continuation of a plan that they knew Hillary Clinton was trying to create a fake scandal, and the CIA and the FBI were going to give credence to that fake scandal, knowing it was a fake scandal, because it would further a political rather than an intelligence cause.
	And I think for the first time people are starting to realize hey, Barack Obama was told what was going on, and then his people gave a legitimate gave legitimacy to a scandal that was completely bogus.
	That looks like the very conspiracy you laid out in your great book.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's it it's really incredible because um Brennan's own top um deputy uh of analysis warned him in writing.
	You cannot put this dossier in the intelligence assessment because it was junk, and and they all knew it was junk.
	But Brennan insisted on doing it.
	So you've got another smoking gun document that implicates John Brennan.
	Um again, John Solomon's most recent column, go to uh just the news.com, Russia Gate Secrets Unlocked.
	The inimitable John Solomon, one of the best investigative reporters in America.
	Thank you for taking the time.
	Appreciate it, John.
	Take care.
	Awesome.
	Great to be with you.
	We're gonna pause, take a quick break.
	We'll be back with more of the Sean Hennedy show.
	I'm Greg Jarrett.
	Our number is 1-800-941-7326, 800-941.
	And I'm Greg Jarrett Filling, and for Sean on the Sean Hannity show, we've been talking about the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
	It is one of the worst cases of corruption ever.
	And I think the dirtiest trick in political history.
	And make no mistake, the media bears equal blame.
	They were driven by their hatred of Trump, which made them accessories in the hoax.
	They convicted him, the court of public opinion, with no real evidence whatsoever.
	And after two years, when the Mueller report came out and said there is no criminal collusion conspiracy between Trump and Russia.
	It blew an absolute hole in the credibility, the trust of the mainstream media.
	How did they react?
	There was no apology.
	There was no Meia culpa.
	They simply moved seamlessly to their next faux scandal involving Donald Trump.
	Pretty shameless.
	And that's where the media is today, which is why.
	We start with this week in Russiagate.
	It is as if there are no shoes on the Trump human centipede that are not about Russia.
	Russia, Russia, Russia.
	This cloud about collusion with Russia will hang over him no matter where he stands.
	It certainly feels like we're in the opening stages of a devastating political chapter in American history.
	Evidence is mounting for the president's meddling in the Russia probe.
	Tom Friedman said the election hacking is at the caliber of a Pearl Harbor or a 9-11.
	Do you agree with that?
	I completely agree with that.
	Donald Trump now sits at the threshold of impeachment.
	I personally think it's over.
	I don't think there's anything that can be done that can stop this at this point.
	Cacophony, this gushing of lies, problems, questions, chaos that will stop this presidency in its tracks.
	You told the Washington Post last week that, quote, there's a smell of treason in the air when it comes to this investigation.
	A lot of people are afraid to use the T word, treason.
	But in the end, that's what people are investigating.
	It does look like collusion.
	It does look like he's listening to Putin more than he is American intelligence.
	I've never seen that before.
	And so what you were listening to is a compilation of commentary by journalists and pundits.
	And there were only two kinds idiots and morons.
	And it's even worse than that because they were mean, they were malicious, and they abandoned the principles of honesty in journalism.
	Integrity.
	Forget about being neutral or fair or objective.
	They didn't want to be.
	And so is it any wonder that Americans no longer trust the mainstream media?
	Let's go to our uh color line.
	Uh joining us now is Janet in New Mexico.
	Janet, I love the name.
	It's my sister's name, so thanks for hanging on.
	Uh, do you have a question or a comment?
	Uh yes, it's a pleasure to speak with you.
	Well, it just reminded me uh John Brennan had also signed the letter along with 50 other former intelligence officials stating that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian operation and that was later refuted.
	So I he's he's involved in quite a few things, isn't he?
	Oh, he absolutely is.
	I mean, and you know, it's so typical of those uh people.
	There were so many people, uh I think fifty-one total who pretended they were knowledgeable people in the intelligence community.
	They still had at the time security clearances, and they abused that uh that clearance, and they created this incredible illusion, which was totally false, and they had to have known it was false, but they didn't care because they figured that their letter coming on basically the eve of the 2020 presidential election,
	um, would save Joe Biden and damage Donald Trump, and it did.
	I mean, it was it was diabolical, it was despicable.
	And you know, all of those people, none of them have ever apologized for what it is they did.
	They're proud of what they did.
	Yeah.
	And you know, it's awful, isn't it, Janet?
	I mean, it's terrible.
	It is.
	I'm glad it's going to be uncovered.
	I hope that it's far reaching and uh judgment is fine or justice is finally served to several people.
	So thank you for taking my call.
	My pleasure.
	You know, the just picking up on what Janet said.
	I mean, the difficulty, though, is uh if you bring a case, you gotta bring it in Washington, D.C. Yeah, Langley's out in Virginia, not much better, but you know, if it's a false statement perjury case, a conspiracy case, most of it took place in Washington, D.C., so you'd have to present the evidence to a grand jury.
	And let's assume, for the sake of argument, you do get an indictment.
	Um the trial would be in you know the venue of Washington, D.C., the absolute worst place to bring a case against a Democrat in a politically charged prosecution that involves the subject matter of Donald Trump.
	And they hate him there.
	Uh he got 6.6% of the vote in the last election, November of 2024.
	Kamala got 92 plus percent of the vote.
	And you know, if you think I'm overstating it, I'll point out a couple of cases uh uh brought against Democrats, in which to me they had the goods on them.
	Greg Craig acquitted.
	Igor Danchenko.
	They really had the goods on him.
	Uh you know, he was the guy who supplied the phony information to Christopher Steele.
	Where did Danchenko get it?
	From a Hillary Acolyte acquitted.
	So, you know, bringing a case against somebody like uh James Comey and John Brennan.
	They're heroes to the people who live in Washington, D.C. It's a venue like no other in America.
	And that I think would be the real challenge.
	Let's go to Amy from Kentucky, who joins us now.
	Hi, Amy, how are you?
	Good, Greg.
	Thank you so much for taking my call.
	It's a little um off of the Russia hoax narrative, but I have a question for you as a legal expert.
	I read today that there was a New Hampshire judge that issued an order stopping the um birthright citizenship executive order.
	And I thought the Supreme Court said that federal judges cannot do this.
	So my question to you as a legal expert is will this hold up and how long you think it's gonna come up the works for this.
	Well, so you're absolutely right in pointing that out.
	Um what the Supreme Court did was say you you lower court federal judges, district court judges, you cannot issue nationwide injunctions.
	It's an abuse of your authority, unless you certify a class action that's nationwide.
	And that is essentially what this judge has done relative to birthright citizenship.
	Now, I don't object to it.
	And here's the reason why, because it will bring to the fore all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I think rather quickly, the issue of birthright citizenship and Donald Trump's order interpreting uh the 14th Amendment uh as meaning not uh you know automatic citizenship to children of people here illegally.
	And I wrote a column on on this, and the title of the column, if I recall correctly, was Trump has a legitimate argument on birthright citizenship.
	And what I did was I went back to the framers of the 14th Amendment and those who sponsored it, and I examined their debate and discussions.
	Uh I believe it was Lyman Trumbull, a senator, who uh seemed to make it clear that he was not meaning to grant citizenship under the circumstances I just described, because it at the time it was meant to give citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their children.
	But it has been contorted, uh arguably, to mean something else.
	And so, you know, the Supreme Court when they issued that uh landmark decision a couple of weeks ago, three weeks ago now, the end of the term, last day of the term, saying no more nationwide injunctions, they had a caveat in there for class actions, and that's how this case was brought about.
	So great question, um Amy.
	I appreciate it.
	Very good.
	Let me go to Jim, who joins us now from Ohio.
	Hi, Jim, how are you?
	Hey, thanks, Greg.
	You know, it always occurred to me voters are not ignorant, you know.
	I mean, we didn't we all see through it, right?
	I mean, it it just smelled fake, the fake dossier.
	I always thought it kind of helped Trump rather than hurt, you know, and I just don't know why they don't use the strategies we do and just get credible candidates.
	Honest proven results candidates, you know.
	But and I guess my my question would be to ask your opinion.
	If fake news does not work, I mean, why do they keep continuing to try it?
	I mean, yeah, but because they're fundamentally stupid people that are driven by their own prejudices, their political biases.
	Um that that's uh my blunt response to that.
	But you know, it did not help Donald Trump, the dossier in and you know, the Russia hoax, even though it was utterly deflated by the Mueller report, but you know, it hung over him, and he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
	So, you know, but I I sort of look back on this whole thing.
	And I think, you know, Trump learned a lot in his first term by virtue of that fake scandal and the phony dossier and the whole witch hunt.
	And he learned just how malevolent the deep state is and how embedded and endemic it is in Washington, D.C. And you know, he he became a lot smarter in choosing, for example, uh people in his cabinet.
	Uh people like uh, you know, Cash Battle, Pam Bondi, um, you know, the list goes on and on.
	Uh, you know, I Secretary of Transportation is was a brilliant pick.
	I mean, uh, all of them.
	I Treasury Secretary Scott Bassett, I mean, really smart people, much better than his original choices in his first term.
	And uh the guy came out blazing.
	Um, you know, I did a podcast uh a couple of weeks ago in in which I started off by saying, have you ever seen a president achieve so much so quickly within the first four or five months?
	Foreign policy, domestic policy, huge wins before the United States Supreme Court.
	So maybe looking at it optimistically, things worked out the way they were supposed to, and that uh Trump now is having a much better second term than he would have otherwise had he prevailed in 2020.
	So, you know, that's my take on that.
	Let me go to uh Herb, who joins us from Missouri.
	Hi, Herb.
	How are you?
	I'm fine.
	Uh five years ago, I concluded that the puppet masters of Obama chose Joe Biden specifically because he was he had uh severe form and progress in dementia.
	I took care of my dad for his last few years with dementia, and I could see it all over Joe Biden back then.
	Then they were able to do all these terrible things that almost destroy America and get the general public to blame it on Biden instead of going after the people behind him.
	That's what you must do.
	In 1963, I had a communist political science professor, and I started following billiards around Southern California at the various colleges.
	Uh he and I are both 80 years old now, and I believe that he is still the one pulling all the strings.
	His wife's goal was to destroy the United States of America and turn it into the United Communist States of America.
	So, you know, it's an interesting point that you make.
	I I don't I don't think Joe Biden was handpicked by anybody.
	I think he was the accidental president who hid out in the basement and would never have been elected but for the pandemic and the help of Congressman James Clyburn in South Carolina.
	If you're looking for somebody to blame for Joe Biden for my money, it's Clyburn.
	We're going to pause, take a quick break.
	We'll be right back with more of the Sean Hannity show.
	I'm Greg Jarrett.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Sean Hennedy.
	Coming up next, we have a really terrific author and investigative reporter by the name of Peter Schweitzer.
	You know him, author of a variety of must read books.
	Peter is going to be joining us in just a moment to talk more about the Trump Russia collusion hoax.

▲