Sean Hannity Show - Brennan’s Puppet - July 29th, Hour 3

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show

29:16

Brennan’s Puppet - July 29th, Hour 3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
	Right, news round of information overload hour.
	Here's our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
	It is 800-941 Sean, if you would like to join us.
	We have a lot of developments as it relates to the declassification.
	If you remember the career senior intelligence officials, they did a determination, an audit, if you will, of the 2016 election.
	And we read the what their findings were.
	They didn't find any evidence of Trump Russia collusion at all whatsoever.
	And that was the case up until early December of 2016.
	And then all of a sudden, uh, according to the declassified documents, well, then Barack Obama did not like what they had to say and ordered another intelligent uh intelligence community assessment.
	That got taken over by the likes of Brennan and Clapper and and others, and it came up with a conclusion that completely contradicted what senior intelligence officials had concluded.
	As John Solomon says, it was polluted or corrupted, and it was turned on its head, according to Tulsi Gabbard's at the direct orders of Barack Obama himself.
	There's a lot of speculation about who might be held accountable to all of this.
	Uh, but it goes even further with this.
	The person responsible for the second intelligence uh assessment uh ended up being somebody that uh John Solomon now has done a deep dive into, and I have a just the news.com headline.
	He's the founder, editor-in-chief, and and chief investigative reporter about how social media posts unmask an anti-Trump sentiment of the CIA officer that helped draft the second intelligence community assessment report, the one that they wanted,
	the one that's set in motion, a phony narrative about Donald Trump and Russia, uh that even career and senior Intel officials uh had said this is absolutely ridiculously wrong, and they didn't care because they wanted their report to basically sabotage an incoming president.
	John Solomon joins us now.
	Am I am I assessing that right?
	Yeah, listen, this is an important story.
	Uh and I want to remind everybody back in the Reagan years, 40 years ago, the Reagan administration used to always say, People are policy.
	The people you pick and put into these positions end up crafting and driving the policies and the in in the uh conclusions that government makes.
	And I think we now know something about a woman named Susan Miller.
	She was the CIA counterintelligence chief as Russia collusion was playing out uh in 2016, 17, 18.
	Uh, and uh she has been on media the last few days now that she retired, saying I uh helped lead the team that drafted this uh ICA, this intelligence community assessment, the one that brought it up.
	By the way, the the ICA is the second ICA.
	They had uh they had the first version of it, which got rejected for political reasons.
	Yeah, and by the way, they had briefed it to Congress already.
	So Congress was told, no, Vladimir Putin didn't have a preferred candidate.
	No, he didn't try to help Donald Trump, and then they do have uh on 180 degree flip in December of 2016 as Barack Obama's leading uh uh leaving office, and then they release a different conclusion.
	Well, this woman has said in numerous uh legacy media interviews that she was the woman that led the team that helped draft this intelligence community assessment.
	What do we know about this woman other than what role she played in the CIA?
	And the answer is since she retired in the last year, she's been very active in social media.
	We know this because of the great work of my colleague here at Justin News, Jerry Dunley, one of the great investigative reporters.
	He went through all her social media, particularly LinkedIn, where she's a uh uh a prolific poster.
	Uh social media for business colleagues and uh lots of us who are professionals use it.
	Well, uh, in her time there, she's referred to Donald Trump as a dictator.
	She's referred to MAGA supporters as Nazis.
	She suggested to the steel dossier, which John Duran's report flatly said didn't have any truthful information or accurate information in that it still might be true.
	This is a woman that clearly, at least now Has anti-Trump sentiments of a uh massive uh uh level, uh very prolific in how she writes it.
	There's a point where she's talking on social media people sharing stories, and they say, no, Trump uh there are parallels to Trump and Hitler, and she says, it's not lost on me, the the comparison.
	These are really remarkable statements that she's making that Jerry dug up.
	Uh, we've also gone through some of her interviews and looked at some of the things that she said.
	But when you look at this woman, she clearly, at least today is very anti-Trump, and this is the sort of woman that was helping John Brennan drive that second conclusion by her own description, by what she says.
	This is what she did.
	Okay.
	Let's go through some of this because this is pretty amazing to me.
	All right.
	So she's writing, you know, exhaustively on on Link LinkedIn and recently retired, CIAA counterintelligence officer, and she's doing these media interviews and apparently handpicked, allegedly handpicked by former CIA director John Brennan himself after they they didn't like the uh the career senior analyst assessment, they decide to make another assessment.
	He gets chosen for this, and she has repeatedly been out there suggesting Trump may be a Russian asset or a Kremlin asset, uh claiming uh that Christopher Steele's anti-Trump dossier, which we know has been totally completely debunked.
	It was debunked, correct me if I'm wrong, as early as twenty sixteen in December, and it was even debunked before that, and people were warned not to use it because they knew it was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton.
	Is that correct?
	Uh yeah, that's right.
	Yeah, they had concern.
	Also, here's another reason.
	Beyond just who paid for it, when they looked at it from an intelligence product standpoint, it didn't rise to the level of trust uh meaningful or uh meritorious intelligence.
	It actually using it in the ICA the way they did violated the very intelligence rules that Obama's team had put in place to govern these analyses.
	So they break their own rules by putting it into the report.
	They knew it wasn't corroborated and that it had multiple things in it that were disprovable, falsely wrong, like Michael Cohen didn't go to Prague.
	Remember that famous line?
	Oh, we know that didn't happen.
	So uh that's why it wasn't supposed to be put in the report, and then they shoehorn it in there anyways.
	All right.
	So let's look at some of the things, for example, she also was sending mixed messages that the IS uh the ICA team had found no collusion.
	So, you know, how do you have a both ways when writing their assessment in late 2016 and even claim that there's no collusion finding was made clear in the ICA, but she's singing a very different tune.
	And and let's go to the heart of this, which is why was this ever questioned in the first place when you had senior career intelligence officials coming to a very different conclusion?
	Why did Barack Obama direct a second assessment to take place in the first place?
	There's no real reason.
	And what what role did Brennan Clapper and Comey play in all of this?
	Well, one thing we know for certain, one thing we know for certain is that John Brennan wrote an email to his team saying, I want the dossier in after the team said we don't believe it belongs here.
	It will bring shame on the intelligence committee.
	It's not the sort of product that we should be basing analytical results in.
	And John Brennan writes an email saying, I want it in.
	Now, that's important for some reason because his story's always been the FBI wanted it, and we do know the FBI wanted it in.
	But uh when he overrules his own people, we know that he he took that action, right?
	There is an email, uh John Radcliffe's uh report makes uh uh clear.
	Now we know from last week's release, which is the House Intelligence uh committee's uh review of this matter back when Devin Nunez was still in charge of it, uh, that uh several people had concerns about the way this analysis was done.
	It didn't follow the rules.
	It shouldn't have used the steel dossier given all the things they knew about it, and John Brennan lets that go on.
	Barack Obama lets that go on.
	Why?
	Because he releases that report in the aftermath.
	He makes it public in January to dirty up Donald Trump as Donald Trump's about to take the oath of office for the first time.
	So and all of this, all of this activity in December of January, which we've been focusing on in the last couple weeks, has to be looked at in light of what Barack Obama knew in July 2016, because in July 2016, there's an intelligence intercept.
	I think we're gonna learn a lot more about this in the next couple days with a new declassification.
	But in July 2016, uh uh John Brennan goes over and personally briefs the president and tells him there's intelligence.
	Hillary Clinton has uh authorized a dirty trick where she's gonna try to make it look like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are colluding to win the election.
	He knows that, Barack Obama knows that, John Brennan knows that before the FBI opens up their investigation called Crossfire Hurricane.
	In other words, they know what they open up on is the likely fruits of a Hillary Clinton political dirty trick.
	Not a real intelligence threat, not a security matter, a political dirty trick.
	And they bite on it and they legitimize it by going to the FISA court, getting a special counsel, uh interviewing everybody, making Mike Flynn go through help.
	Uh knowing that Barack Obama knew that at the beginning at the top of the food chain, and he doesn't stop it.
	Tells you that uh Barack Obama has some things he really needs to answer to to the American public.
	All right, quick break.
	We'll come right back more with John Solomon, founder, editor in chief, and also chief investigative reporter, JustHnews.com on the other side.
	Then we'll get to your calls.
	800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program as we continue.
	We continue.
	John Solomon is with us.
	New developments as it relates to the declassified documents uh involving Russia, Russia, Russia, and what a real hoax it was, far worse than we ever knew.
	Uh John Solomon, editor in chief, founder of JustHnews.com, also the chief investigative reporter.
	Let's go to when did they know the dossier was was political in nature?
	When was the first warning?
	The one that I remember was Bruce Orr, oddly enough, considering Nelly Orr was working on the dossier, but Bruce Orr warned that it was political in nature and shouldn't be used.
	Now that's just prior to it becoming the bulk of information for what became four FISA applications, three of which James Comey signed.
	Uh Comey and the FBI director, uh deputy FBI director, Andrew McCabe had pushed in December of 2016 to include Steele's debunked dossier in the 2016 ICA, but didn't they know by December, didn't they get rid of Christopher Steele by December of 2016?
	And didn't they take him off the payroll for a period of time?
	Wasn't he discredited by that time?
	Wasn't the dossier discredited by December of 2016?
	It has.
	And let me give you the precise time frame.
	In August of 2016, is when Bruce Orr gives the first tip off that, hey, uh, this is probably coming from politics.
	Now there are other places where they're learning that, but that was an important one because it was a senior Justice Department official.
	In November 1st, excuse me, in the fall of 2016, based on information that was declassified in 2020 by the first Trump um administration, the CIA warned the FBI that Christopher Steele's network of sources that he was allegedly basing this information on uh was infiltrated potentially by Russian intelligence and that they need to revalidate him.
	Don't rely on them.
	They didn't revalidate him.
	They kept him going.
	On November 1st, the FBI terminated Christopher Steele, the source because he had gone to the news media and and leaked information from the dossier and the existence of what the FBI was doing.
	So by December, all that baggage, all of those red warnings are there, but there's one other thing that has happened.
	The FBI's counterintelligence team has built a spreadsheet.
	You and I broke this on your show many years ago.
	The spreadsheet went line by line.
	Everything that uh um Christopher Steele was asserting came from his sources, and they were uh 90% of it they determined either wasn't corroborated or had been debunked.
	It was either uncorroboratable or debunked.
	That makes it a very bad intelligence product.
	The sort of thing you're not supposed to use to create an ICA for the president of the United States.
	Well, that that the but the senior Intel officials that did the original ICA were screaming the same thing that this goes against all standards, and Ratcliffe's review of everything and and post-mortem on this said the same thing.
	Last question.
	Um, and it's about two different subjects.
	Devin Nunes and the Intel board chairman want security clearances revoked uh over this and other abuses.
	And what do you make of former FBI agent struck deleting all of his posts on social media yesterday?
	Uh maybe he just decided to take a break from social media.
	He's not gonna keep it from the Justice Department.
	You can take him down, but obviously Twitter archives them.
	They're there for everybody to see.
	So I don't think it's a grand conspiracy what Pete Struck done.
	Maybe he just decided the uh after all that's been exposed about him, he doesn't want to stay in the town hall anymore and keep talking about it because we now have the facts to judge his behavior much differently than we did uh a few years ago.
	But no one's going to get rid of those posts.
	They're in time machine.
	Uh Twitter's going to keep them.
	I I think he just gone silent on social media probably because the heat's turning up on him like so many of the players now.
	People are beginning to realize we trusted these FBI agents, but they may have misled us.
	And I think that he's bracing for a moment.
	I think this next revelation that comes out the timing of Pete Struck dropping off is because there's going to be the classified annex of the Durham report being released.
	I asked President Trump in an interview ten days ago would you declassify he said yes he immediately went and started the process that's going to happen.
	What that annex is going to show is that it wasn't just Barack Obama and John Brennan that knew that Hillary Clinton was pulling a dirty trick that the FBI themselves knew that the Hillary Clinton was doing this dirty trick and they continued to proceed down the line of crossfire hurricane the FISA warrants all the things that we now know about.
	The I think that moment's going to be a very difficult moment for people who worked in the Comey McCabe FBI because it's going to show they were legitimizing something they knew to just simply be a dirty trick.
	I want to see if this grand conspiracy is followed through on I don't want to overpromise and under deliver but it has all the markings of the biggest political scandal far bigger than Watergate in the last hundred years.
	Let's see where it goes we've been disappointed before.
	John Solomon Justinnews.com we appreciate your time and your hard work as always and thank you for sharing it uh with us as always also you know how I know I'm getting old Linda gray hair?
	All right wise wisenheimer are you calling me a wise ass it's 5 30.
	It's allowed you're a wise wise that's wise ass comment you're right that's a wise ass kind of indeed it is I mean there are other things that are indicative of old age you know asking a lot of questions what did I tell you earlier I can't remember why did I walk in this room what did I come here for all of those are giveaways I haven't gotten to that point in my life yet but if I do I'll let you know.
	What's that?
	So I I'll tell you how I know I'm getting old.
	So when I read the hard copy of the New York Post every day, which I do and I kind of that's the one thing I take my time with.
	I've raced through where do you get it from I it's all over the place down here.
	Is it really 7 Eleven you get at CBS you can get it at Publix you can get anywhere.
	It really is New York with sand.
	Okay.
	It's New York with sand and and and better weather than the crap weather you've been having in the Northeast all spring and summer long has been horrible.
	So you know you're getting old when when I go to page six which is like the gossip page and it's always interesting and when I start seeing somebody over and over and over again and I have no earthly idea who the person is and apparently this young woman Sidney Sweeney is very very popular.
	Do you know about this girl?
	I know about her because in the news I have never seen her before no.
	Okay she's all over page six almost on a daily basis or they have a picture of her in there like every day.
	She's like the the it person of the the hour right?
	Correct.
	And anyway so she starts this ad campaign and now there's a backlash to it and the ad campaign includes her wearing American Eagle gene products modeling with a dog and a white Mustang.
	Okay?
	The ads declare that Sweeney has great genes uh G E N E S. Now I interpreted that me to mean oh she's an attractive young lady.
	Okay?
	That's how I interpreted it.
	The word G genes spelled G-E-N-E-S is replaced with genes, which is what they're selling.
	Now these people on social media have lost their mind and they're trying to tie the ad to Naziism and racism.
	Did you mean to include a bunch of Nazi dog whistles in this?
	Now I think I'm pretty hip to anti Semitism.
	I mean, there are people out there that are claiming and it's gone more viral than I ever thought it wouldn't.
	We talked about it a little bit yesterday.
	I talked about it with Patrick Beth David on his podcast that are are try trying to rewrite history as though Winston Churchill was not one of the most heroic and brave, you know, people in his time and and battling back the forces of evil with blood toil tears and sweat.
	Um and what are we what is I'm victory?
	One of one of one of the great leaders of our time during the bombing of Britain, this guy's walking among the people, and he's standing up.
	He understood Hitler was evil.
	And and thank God, you know, he was able to lead the way and and Europe was saved and victory in Europe occurred, and somehow they're arguing, well, he didn't save Western civilization.
	No, but he he saved it for his time.
	And I'll go back to my interview with Levin earlier, and it's like, well, Reagan said it best, you know, we are but one generation away from freedom.
	Every generation has their moral obligation to preserve the cause of liberty and freedom, and it it lands on their shoulders.
	You can't blame somebody from the forties that defeated Nazism and Fascism, and we defeated Imperial Japan and expect that they're responsible for the every every generation thereafter.
	And I know this is a debate.
	Apparently, some some people are buying into this revisionism, and I'm having a hard time understanding how they are claiming to be conservative and believing that, but I do believe in freedom of speech.
	But I digress.
	And anyway, the apparently MSDNC had an opinion piece arguing the ad shows a cultural shift to whiteness as well as ABC's Good Morning America platforming the criticism with a report on critics comparing the ad to Nazi propaganda and with racial undertones.
	Whiteness is ugly.
	This is the ideology of the left political consultant and writer, Ryan James Gurdusky, writing on X in response to the MSDNC opinion post.
	I mean, this thing has gone super heavy viral here.
	And I'm just I I don't know this young girl.
	I don't know much about her.
	I guess she's a movie star.
	I have no idea.
	She's laying on a lot of TV shows and stuff.
	All right, so she's very popular.
	She's a pretty young woman, fine.
	That's why she's in the paper.
	Okay, she's doing a gene ad, and it's like, oh, okay, she's a pretty girl, so we'll we'll spell genes, G-E-N-E-S.
	How does that have anything to do with Nazis?
	Tell me what I might be missing here.
	You're not missing it.
	You're just missing a liberal gene.
	We went from a very long period of time where the ugliest and most out of shape people were supposed to be the people that we looked at and said, whoever you are, it's beautiful.
	Instead of addressing the real issues of maybe that nose ring is not for you.
	Maybe you shouldn't dye your hair 18 colors.
	Maybe you should work out because you might get diabetes and it's hard on your knees and your joints and your heart.
	We weren't allowed to talk about these things.
	So they put a pretty girl in jeans because guess what?
	That sells genes.
	And they did a double on town on the work.
	Well, guess what?
	They did the same thing years ago with Brooke Shields, and it was a huge controversy.
	You know what comes between me and Mike Alvins?
	Nothing.
	Right, but she was 14 years old, so it was gross.
	I mean, I wouldn't let my 14-year-old daughter do that.
	But you know, they have to be.
	I'd say I actually met her once in fairness to her.
	She was lovely.
	She's a very nice lovely lovely woman.
	It doesn't mean that she wasn't, you know, manhandled and manipulated as a childhood star.
	If you're 14, that's a parent parental decision, and I'm not going to get into a personal life.
	All right.
	So leftists are melting down after American Eagle dropped this ad with Sidney Sweeney over the blue jeans.
	Then the ad shows Sweetie flaunting the genes in a provocative fashion.
	Okay.
	AKA, I guess, Brooke Shields and Calvin's.
	And it shows, you know, her doing that with a voiceover of the actress talking about her genes.
	And then he took the ad to employ wordplay in order to imply that people with good genes was spelled with a G are better than others.
	I mean, come on.
	That is such a stretch from the real anti-Semitism we hear every day.
	Let me tell you what it is.
	It's an opportunity to take a very popular story And make it woke as a joke in an effort to make people who are looking at it and say, Oh my gosh, for a moment I let go of my woke as a joke isms and just read an article and thought, Oh, she looks good, the genes look good or whatever.
	Or for guys to look at that girl and go, oh, she looks pretty.
	Now we have to go back to our woke as a joke is and say that everything that is pretty, you know, it really isn't.
	The things that they're saying are normal, the things that they're saying are pretty, the things that they're saying are supposed to be the everyday now.
	It's all a bunch of woke BS.
	And for once, they actually had an ad that had a double entente, had a smart ad writer, the copy was good, and we kept it moving.
	They just want to make it ugly because it actually isn't.
	Okay.
	I now some people think she's very attractive.
	I think she's moderately attractive.
	There's my humble thing.
	But who gives a rip?
	At the end of the day, you know But jeans me but uh but apparently everybody thinks she's super attractive, and then that that is the reason why I this is my interpretation.
	They're talking about genes, meaning how she looks.
	She has a certain feature of her body, which I will not go into here, but anybody who looks at the picture can see there's a part of her body that they accentuate more than others.
	So I don't know.
	I'm I'm looking at it.
	I have no idea what you're talking about.
	Obviously, your second sign of aging is your inability to see.
	So we'll work on that.
	But at the end of the day, now you have to text me the answer so I can be an informed host.
	But the point of the matter is it's well, I'm only looking at a printed version here.
	It's not like it's a big picture.
	It's pretty big.
	It's pretty big.
	Print, online.
	It's all it's all big.
	At the end of the day, I think I figured on, you're catching on, good job.
	The point of the matter is is that they're mad.
	It's very very wrong of you to be talking about people's body parts like that.
	I wasn't talking about any particular body part, I just said you are.
	Oh, my word was featured.
	You know, it's one way to put it.
	Sure is.
	You know what?
	Can everyone just take a deep breath and calm the hell down?
	Listen, nobody pull this girl for Adam.
	I don't.
	But she's not a Nazi.
	I don't see anything Nazi related to this.
	She's as much of a Nazi.
	Just like Calvin Klein and Brooke Shields back in the day.
	That's what I see.
	The left is completely backwards.
	This girl is not a Nazi, just like the shooter last night was not white.
	Everybody on the left likes to be able to do that.
	That was a little weird of CNN to say You think?
	We're looking at the picture.
	I'm like, guys, some things are just facts.
	Sorry that it doesn't think you know.
	Why are you watching them and not me?
	I always watch the enemy.
	That's what I do.
	I watch all the channels I can't stand, so I know exactly what they're saying, so I can prepare.
	Stop watching me.
	Look at that and moving on.
	You know, if you want to call people names, I'm gonna tell you something.
	One of the w the worst things you can call people is a racist.
	The one of the worst things you can say is they're misogynists and sexist.
	You can say they're a Nazi homophobe, xenophobe.
	I mean, it's like Chuck Schumer, his latest comments, oh, Americans don't want people of color to vote, among other things.
	This is what he said.
	Listen.
	It's been clear.
	When we fight for democracy, when we protect democracy, we gotta fight fire with fire.
	We're not gonna stand idly by, as Maya said.
	We're not gonna let them revert to Jim Crow and if you don't think they want to revert to Jim Crow, just look what they did in the Save Act, which went back to Jim Crow for the whole nation.
	By so making it hard.
	They said you need ID, and they made it so hard to show ID that probably half the people in America couldn't vote.
	We wouldn't let it pass.
	Democrats, they needed our vote.
	They went to court.
	Many of us, Durban, myself, and others when we plaintiffs and we beat them in court.
	But it shows why we need legislation.
	Because these guys are undoing everything in every way they can.
	They don't want poor people to vote.
	They don't want people of color to vote.
	They don't want Democrats to vote.
	They don't believe in democracy.
	We do.
	They don't want poor people to vote.
	They don't want people to of color to vote.
	They don't want Democrats to vote.
	I mean, they just make this up.
	You're racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist, xenophobic, Islamophobic.
	You want dirty air and water and grandma and grandpa to be thrown over a cliff by a republic.
	It's the same crap.
	Here's what's so funny.
	I always, you know, you and I've talked about this for years, and it's so true.
	You never have to wonder what the left is doing because they pretend and they project it on the other side.
	You want to know what a Nazi is?
	Just look at Antifa.
	Look at the people calling for the complete and total elimination of the Jewish people.
	What about the anti-Semitism in the school?
	That's what we're talking about.
	These are the Nazis.
	That's a Nazi.
	Okay.
	Well, and and let me add one other point here.
	Chuck Schumer has to go harder and harder and more radical left.
	Let me tell you what Chuck Schumer's greatest fear right now is that he's going to get primaried by AOC.
	And if he gets primaried by AOC, she wins by double digits, if not by 20 points or more.
	He knows she would crush him.
	Knows it.
	And Chuck Schumer, that's why he can't stand up to Mom Donnie.
	He's never going to stand up to the squad.
	Neither can Hakeem Jeffries.
	And they are no they are just leaders in name only.
	They are impotent.
	They are weak.
	They are gutless.
	They are cowardly.
	And they have no business even being in the House or Senate.
	Either one of them.
	And they lie with abandonment.
	You know, look, if if anybody has stood up against this Nazi talk and Nazism and anti-Semit and sta stood against anti-Semitism, it's been me.
	It's been this show.
	We have been consistent.
	We find antisemitism from anybody, virulent antisemitism calls a Congress, uh, worldwide.
	It's growing, College campuses.
	We've been chronicling it.
	And and for those people, you know, that we played yesterday this podcast, which was repulsive in the comments that were being made about about Jewish people in during the Holocaust and Hitler.
	It was I I can't even believe the level uh the depravity and the ignorance of these people on this podcast.
	I don't even know who they are.
	I mean, it's it's scary.
	The lack of knowledge about Israel, its history, its homeland, how it's been attacked again and again and again, and that they get accused of atrocities.
	Meanwhile, they lost nearly 40,000 people in a single day on October 7th.
	Nobody ever brings that part up.
	800, 941 Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.

▲