All Episodes
Previous Next
July 11, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show
31:39
The Deep State - July 10th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
We're going to make official the greatest victory yet when I sign the one big beautiful bill.
It will kill over 10 years, 100,000 people.
That is 2,000 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, G.O.P., you'll have a very blurred vision.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the Revolution Show.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean.
This is our last hour today.
If you want to join the program, please give us a call.
We'll be taking a lot of your calls in this hour.
The number is 1-800-941-7326.
That's 1-800-941 Sean.
If you have a question or a comment, happy to have you on the program.
So give us a ring, 1-800-941-Sean.
In a few minutes, I'll be joined by Peter Schweitzer, who is one of the best authors when it comes to political corruption.
He's the author of the book, Blood Money, Red Handed, Throw Them Out, Profiles in Corruption, Secret Empires.
My favorite is actually Clinton Cash, which was an eye-opening book into what I think is, you know, Clinton, Hillary Clinton corruption.
And in fact, so much so that I quoted it pretty extensively in the first three or four chapters of my book, The Russia Hoax, that came out in 2018.
Speaking of the Russia hoax, so there, obviously, a couple of days ago, the news broke.
Fox News exclusively had it that the Department of Justice and the FBI have launched a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan.
And it arises out of the pernicious lie that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 presidential election in his favor.
And the principal piece of so-called evidence was a document infamously known as the dossier.
It was secretly financed by Hillary Clinton.
In fact, she invented the hoax.
And then, you know, it was the dossier was written by Christopher Steele, this foreign agent, ex-British spy with a checkered past in espionage.
As I said either yesterday, today, maybe both.
You know, this is a guy who thought he was James Bond, but he was Inspector Clouse.
And then, of course, Comey and Brennan and Clapper and the whole gang brokered it to collaborators all over the place, the FBI CA, Department of Justice, of course, the Trump-hating media.
And the dossier was complete garbage, and the FBI debunked it almost from the outset.
They fired Christopher Steele, who was a human source for the FBI.
Why did they fire him?
Because he was lying.
And, you know, but the Bureau and Comey concealed those inconvenient facts and exploited the document as a pretext to go after Trump with a vengeance.
First, to prevent him from getting elected.
When that failed, they doubled down to drive him from office.
And a guy who knows a lot about this is Peter Schweitzer, as I mentioned.
He's president of the Government Accountability Project, host of the Drill Down podcast, New York Times best-selling author.
I mentioned five or six of his books just a moment ago.
They're all must-reads.
And Peter joins us now live on the Sean Hannity Show.
Peter, thanks so much for being with us.
So what is your general reaction to the news that Comey and Clapper are under investigation?
Excuse me, Comey and Brennan are under investigation.
It's great to be with you as always, Greg.
Yeah, you were on the front of this story, really.
I remember when you and I talked about this in 2017, when the initial news was breaking about these allegations about Trump.
And there was a moment when I thought, man, these are such serious charges.
They seem to have detail.
And you told me, you said, look, there's another shoe that's going to drop about how this is all fake and made up.
And look at what it put our country through in 2016, really up until the present time.
And the question is, should there be a price or a consequence paid for that by senior intelligence officials?
And the fact of the matter is, if you break the law, it doesn't matter what your role is.
And I think that just on the issue of lying to Congress, the evidence seems overwhelming.
I always defer to you on the legal part of this.
But, you know, lying to Congress is actually supposed to be a serious crime.
And not just if you or I were to do it, if the head of the CIA or the head of national intelligence has done it.
And I think that is where it's going to begin.
But I think the investigation is going to expand beyond that because you had a misuse, a misuse or a abuse of power by both of these individuals.
And the thing we know about Washington, Greg, is if you allow things to fester, if you allow people to get away with this kind of conduct, it will be imitated.
And it has, in fact, been imitated.
So you have to, if they've broken a law, which I think they clearly have, you have to make an example and demonstrate to people this is not the sort of behavior that we're going to allow our elected officials to do to put our country through.
You know, Democrats and Brennan himself is classic projection.
Oh, this is vengeance, retribution.
It's politically driven.
And of course, he's accusing Republicans of doing exactly what Democrats did.
So as I say, it's classic psychological projection.
But, you know, I talked to Newt Ingrid about this yesterday, Peter, and he said, well, if you find out that somebody has broken the law, what are you supposed to do?
Say, oh, well, you know, you're a Democrat, so have a nice day, no problem.
We'll look the other way.
No, you can't do that.
You have to enforce the law.
And it doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.
I mean, that's the way I see it.
I suspect you see it that way, too.
Absolutely.
And look, here's the thing, especially these guys that are in the intelligence world.
Look, we need people in the intelligence world.
Everybody, you know, acknowledges that.
We need people keeping track of our enemies.
We need to be able to engage in covert actions.
But what you really had here was a covert action carried out against the United States in the United States.
And that's not something that these intelligence agencies are supposed to be doing.
And I think in your introduction, you laid it out really well, which is they knew that the dossier was fake.
They used it as a predicate to expand the investigation.
There was all this garbage that was put out.
Remember the whole thing about Alpha Bank, that somehow Trump had some back channel to Alphabank, which was totally ridiculous.
The New York Times covered that story based on quote-unquote intelligence leaks.
This was a dirty op that was carried out on the American people, and it was targeted, as you said.
It was targeted against a particular individual, Donald Trump, and it's the classic example of corrupt behavior.
You know, they used the definition, what's the definition of a dirty cop.
A dirty cop says, I found the man, now I'm going to find the crime.
In other words, I don't like this guy.
I want this guy gone, so I'm going to figure out some way to concoct something to put him away.
And that's what they did to Donald Trump.
So the question becomes: what do you do in that kind of scenario?
Does anybody want to live in a country where both sides, or up to this point, has been one side, but both sides are doing this to each other?
No.
That's why you have to bring clarity to this, and you have to, again, demonstrate that intelligence operatives cannot, under any guise, be carrying out these kinds of covert operations within our borders to try to manipulate an election, to try to overturn an election by getting a president impeached.
And that was their goal, I think, all along.
First, it was to defeat him in the ballot box.
That didn't happen in 2016.
Then it became we've got to get this guy out of power by any means necessary.
And, you know, they were so clever in conniving about it.
When I wrote my first two books, particularly the second book, I laid out what I thought was Hillary Clinton's role, that she was behind it all.
And of course, I knew then that she had financed it, her campaign, and the Democratic National Committee had paid for the dossier.
And, you know, Christopher Steele was triple-dipping money from the Hillary campaign, money from the Democratic National Committee, money from James Comey's FBI.
But what I didn't know is that, and it came out the year after Witch Hunt was published, there was a secret meeting in the Oval Office with President Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, was there.
Joe Biden was there, vice president at the time, and James Clapper, who was the DNI.
And Brennan shows up and he tells them that we have found out that Hillary Clinton has approved a plan pitched to her by her acolytes to smear Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
Now was totally made up, and her motivation was to distract from her own email scandal, which was damaging her campaign.
And somebody came up with the idea, and again, she approved it, that we can shift the attention away to a greater scandal involving Donald Trump.
So Obama knew about it.
Biden knew about it.
Obviously, Brennan Comey knew about it.
And almost simultaneously, the dossier began to appear.
The dossier was actually handed over on July 5th, so before the July 28th Oval Office meeting.
It was handed over to the FBI in London.
And I didn't know then, but we now know now that Hillary Clinton was behind it.
And I bring it up because you wrote the book Clinton Cash, and it just dovetails with the schemes of the Clintons, doesn't it?
It does, Greg.
Right.
And by the way, Witch Hunt was just superb in sort of laying out the ins and outs of the evolution of this.
There's also interesting confirmation from another source, Greg, and that is a guy that used to write for the New York Times named Jeff Gerth.
He wrote a piece in ProPublica, which is left-wing, funded in part by Soros, at least it used to be.
And he wrote a long essay in the origins of the steel dossier, and he came to the same conclusion.
And in fact, what he points out is that the Clinton campaign, after Clinton Cash came out, and you and I talked a lot about that, and you were really helpful in spreading the word about the Uranium-1 story, the fact that the Clinton Foundation had taken money from investors who were involved in helping Russia, Rossettom, to acquire these U.S. uranium mines.
Gerth found that the Clinton campaign had actually done polling and found that one of the most damaging things to her with voters was uranium-1.
And Gerth in his article says that one of the reasons they wanted to finger Trump as a Russian asset was to flip the narrative.
As you said earlier, the things that they accuse Republicans of doing, oftentimes they themselves are actually literally doing.
And that is the case here.
And so it was a clever, slick manipulation.
And what they were counting on and what they got was the slovenly response of the mainstream media.
Think about this, Greg.
I mean, you and I have been doing this for a long time.
If somebody came to you and said, hey, I've got this thing on Joe Biden, and it has all these things on Joe Biden that you want to believe, but it's completely unsourced.
And some of it is just ridiculous, totally out of character, you would just say, well, first of all, what is the sourcing?
Second of all, are there multiple sources?
You would ask questions.
The media didn't do any of that with the Steele dossier.
The Steele dossier was anonymously sourced.
It had ridiculous stories in it.
And the media ran with it, hook, line, and sinker, just like the Clintons expected them to do.
And then they used the mainstream media buy-in to reporting on these lies to justify further investigations of Donald Trump, his family, people in his circle.
So it's this like revolving door, this reinforcing structure that operates all based on peddled lies.
And again, do we want to go through that again?
Do we want people to be able to manipulate that way again?
I don't think so.
So that's why I think these legal investigations are very, very important.
And I give the Trump administration a lot of credit for doing it.
It takes a lot of courage because this sort of thing hasn't been done before.
And by the way, it hasn't been done before because I think it's harder to find something more outrageous as a smear than the steel dossier.
So it is well justified.
The great Peter Schweitzer, thank you so much for taking the time.
Again, Peter has written so many great books, my favorite, Clinton Cash, but also Blood Money, Red Handed, Throw Them All Out, Secret Empires, Profiles in Corruption.
The guy is all over it.
All bestsellers.
You've got to read him.
Peter Schweitzer, thanks very much.
We'll be right back.
Give us a call.
Join the program with your question or comments.
1-800-941-Sean.
We'll be right back.
And we're back with Sean Hannity Sean.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean.
Time for your calls.
We've mostly been talking about how John Ratcliffe, the current CIA director, has declassified and released an internal agency review of all the machinations that helped fuel the Russia hoax.
And then he issued a statement.
All the world can now see the truth.
Brennan, Clapper, and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals all to get Trump.
And in an interview with the New York Post, he said this, this was Obama, Comey, Clapper, and Brennan deciding we're going to screw Trump.
And that's what they did.
And of course, it all turned out to be a hoax, which means now the FBI and the Department of Justice is investigating two of the people, James Comey and John Brennan.
False statements, perjury, maybe.
How about defrauding the government?
Deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy.
I think all of that is in play.
It should be.
Whether or not a grand jury will issue indictments, only time will tell.
Time for your calls.
I want to thank you for waiting patiently.
Let's go to our first caller.
Eric's been standing by from Texas.
And by the way, our hearts and prayers go out to the people of Texas for their horrible losses.
But Eric, do you have a question or a comment?
A two-part question, Greg.
You're doing great.
Unfortunately, I do have a buddy of mine who's got a daughter missing.
It's horrible.
So given the payment, the parties involved and the continued acts of omission, at what point does this, is there enough there for it to be considered treason?
And then the second part is, what are the statutes and limitations on such a crime against the United States?
Well, treason is, you know, efforts to overthrow the government.
This looks like efforts to overthrow an election, to rig an election in favor of, you know, Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump back in 2016.
I'm sorry, what was the second part of your question, Eric?
What are the statute limitations on were to be considered treason?
And I guess maybe the follow-up to that would be, is there something else that they would likely be charged with or to get something on any of these parties?
So the ones I just mentioned, you know, defrauding the government, seven-year statute limitations, deprivation of rights, five years.
The False statement is five years, perjury, five years.
Here's the thing.
Brennan last testified, falsely, I think, just my opinion, two years ago in 2023.
So there's no statute of limitation problems there.
As for the other ones, the seven-year doesn't pose a problem.
The five-year would, but the law says you suspend the statute of limitations if there's incriminating evidence deliberately held or fraudulent concealment.
Well, because we've just now found out this new information that was clearly concealed over at the Central Intelligence Agency, and I'm guessing more at the FBI, that would toll the statute of limitations, and it doesn't start running until the discovery of the concealed incriminating information.
So, you know, there are ways of getting around the statute of limitations for the crimes that I think they're looking at.
Treason, I doubt very much if they'd be looking at that.
But good question, Eric, and thanks so much for joining us.
Let me turn to Blake now from Florida.
Hi, Blake.
How are you?
Hi, Greg.
I'm on WOKV here in Jacksonville.
Great job you're doing today.
You salted a lot of your comments with Hillary Clinton being involved in the creation of this.
And we need to go back to the, remember the fact that Hillary Clinton was an understudy of Saul Olinski, and he wrote the book Rules for Radicals.
And one of the things that he posited in that book was that you attack or you blame your adversary for the bad work that you're doing.
And that's exactly what's happened all the way through this from the very beginning.
I think we need to keep in mind just exactly where this has come from because this is their playbook that the Democrats have been playing, have been using.
Yeah, dirty tricks.
I mean, you know, it's right out of the Dick Nixon dirty tricks playbook as well.
And, you know, that's no coincidence, the Nixon thing, because it was Hillary who was a junior staffer on the Watergate investigation when she was right out of college and law school.
And, you know, I think she learned a thing or two about the effectiveness of dirty tricks and how to avoid the precipice that Nixon fell over and getting caught.
In other words, how to do a dirty trick without getting caught.
And for the longest period of time, you know, she didn't get caught.
And the only reason we really know about her scheme, her plan, inventing the Russia hoax, approving it that was pitched to her by her Confederates in her campaign is because Brennan made the mistake, I guess, of putting it in writing.
And John Radcliffe has discovered Brennan's handwritten notes memorializing that Oval Office meeting with Obama and Biden and Comey was there and Clapper was there and Loretta Lynch,
who was then the Attorney General, in which Brennan disclosed that Hillary's come up with the Russia hoax, this smear of Donald Trump.
And they knew that it was completely phony.
Did Obama as President of the United States come forward and say, look, we've discovered this.
It's wrong.
It's unethical.
You know, it may be illegal.
No, he kept quiet about it and quiet to this day.
Same thing with Joe Biden.
He never disclosed it.
And they knew.
And, you know, Hillary Clinton became very adept at things like that.
And her track record is demonstrative of it.
Let's go to our next caller.
Greg joins us from West Virginia.
Hi, Greg.
How are you?
Hey, Greg.
It's Greg.
Yeah.
Hey, so with Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and the Clinton campaign, and I'm sure a lot of others, these people weren't working separately, correct?
That's correct.
They seem to be working together in a conspiracy, if you will.
Right.
So where did the RICO charge come in?
Well, it's interesting you bring that up.
Now, RICO is basically, it's a federal crime.
It usually targets organized criminal activity.
And you have to prove a pattern of racketeering activity and enterprise under the federal statute.
And, you know, normally it's used to go after things like, you know, murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, blackmail, bribery, drug trafficking.
You know, look what we learned in the P. Diddy Sean Combs case, in which Comey's daughter, by the way, was one of the lead prosecutors.
And they failed on RICO.
Why did they fail?
Because it's exceedingly difficult to prove a racketeering case in sort of non-mafia organized crime cases.
It's so complex.
You have to prove all these predicate crimes, and then you have to prove that it was an ongoing criminal enterprise.
And jurors really struggle wrapping their heads around it.
You know, if it's John Gotti or something like that, yeah, they get it.
But when it's not, you know, mafia figures and organized crime, yeah, they have a tendency not to really comprehend or understand the complexities of racketeering.
So while it technically would qualify and it's been used in political corruption cases in the past, normally those cases dealt with things like, you know, politicians on the take, bribery, and so forth.
So, you know, I suppose it's an option.
It's not one that I would recommend just by virtue of its poor historical record.
Let's go to our next caller.
Will joins us from Florida.
Hey, Will, do you have a question or a comment?
Yeah, and thank you for taking the call.
And I was thrilled to hear that you're filling up for Sean.
I get to hear you for three hours, getting to your legal mind.
But I hear everybody talking about Comey, Clapper, Brennan, and Hillary.
And why can they indict Hillary?
I mean, there's no pardons on her.
Yeah.
Is there a statue on her?
Well, so you're going well past the normal statute of limitations because her role in it was back in 2016 when she came up with a plan and her campaign financed it along with Democrats and so forth.
Her role was key, obviously.
She, you know, was the instigator of the Russia hoax.
Um, I agree that she should be interviewed, and you know, that puts her in jeopardy.
Why wouldn't they?
Why wouldn't they interview?
No, I think they should interview her.
And here's the problem.
Do you think that they would?
Yeah, I think they would.
Do you think they will?
Yeah, I do.
Really?
Yeah, here's the thing: if she lies in the interview about what she did, especially in the face of Brennan's now newly discovered handwritten notes, that it was all her idea to smear Trump.
And if she lies about that, she'd be charged with false statements and perjury.
So that would therefore put her in legal jeopardy.
On that basis alone, I would interview her if I were the FBI.
And I'd want to know who among the people involved in your campaign was involved in providing the phony information to Igor Denchenko, who gave it to Christopher Steele and who put it in the dossier.
And did you know about that?
And did you approve the payments that were funneled through a law firm by the name of Perkins Cooey that then paid Christopher Steele for the phony anti-Trump dossier?
What did you know about it?
And obviously, I would ask her: did you approve the plan pitched by your team on the campaign to frame Donald Trump?
And, you know, again, if she lies about any of those things, she's in legal jeopardy.
So I absolutely would sit her down for an interview.
Now, she would go to court and fight tooth and nail against an interview or a deposition.
But I don't frankly think she has a leg to stand on to prevent an interview pursuant to a subpoena or whatever it takes.
We're going to pause and take a break.
We have more callers standing by.
Our number is 1-800-941-7326.
Give us a call.
Again, the number is 1-800-941 Sean.
We'll be right back.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
Just a minute left.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
Joining us now from Louisiana is Rick.
Hey, Rick, do you have a question or a comment?
Yeah, sure do, Greg.
I was really wanting to go back to the lawyer that lied about the Carter Page situation that actually got them in to the Trump campaign from the beginning.
From my knowledge, as far as I know, he only got a slap on the wrist disbarred for such a serious they could re-review that anytime well.
Yeah, his name is Kevin Klein Smith.
The case has been resolved.
He got probation.
James Bosberg, the judge, gave him a freebie.
Klein Smith altered a document that said Carter Page was not a source for another U.S. intelligence agency when, in fact, he was.
He added the word not.
So basically, falsified documents, and he got off pretty easy.
I doubt it could be revisited.
Great question.
And that's it for the Sean Hannity Sean.
Greg Jarrett, it's been a pleasure to be here yesterday and today.
Hope you have a great Thursday.
Bye-bye.
▲
Export Selection