All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show
29:16
Brennan’s Puppet - July 29th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
All right, news roundup 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 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, according to the declassified documents, well, then Barack Obama did not like what they had to say and ordered another intelligence community assessment.
That got taken over by the likes of Brennan and Clapper 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 Gabbards, at the direct orders of Barack Obama himself.
There's a lot of speculation about who might be held accountable to all of this, but it goes even further with this.
The person responsible for the second intelligence assessment ended up being somebody that John Solomon now has done a deep dive into.
And I have a justthenews.com headline.
He's the founder, editor-in-chief, 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 set in motion a phony narrative about Donald Trump and Russia, that even career and senior Intel officials 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 assessing that right?
Yeah, listen, this is an important story.
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 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 in 2016, 17, 18.
And she has been on media the last few days now that she retired, saying, I helped lead the team that drafted this ICA, this intelligence committee assessment.
The one that brought the ICA is the second ICA.
They had.
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 a 180-degree flip in December of 2016 as Barack Obama's leaving office.
And then they release a different conclusion.
Well, this woman has said in numerous 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 Dunlevy, one of the great investigative reporters.
He went through all her social media, particularly LinkedIn, where she's a prolific poster.
It's a social media for business colleagues and lots of us who are professionals use it.
Well, 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 Steele dossier, which John Dern'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 massive level, very prolific in how she writes.
There's a point where she's talking on social media, people sharing stories, and they say, no, Trump, there are parallels to Trump and Hitler.
And she says, it's not lost on me, the comparison.
These are really remarkable statements that she's making that Jerry dug up.
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 said.
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 exhaustively on LinkedIn and recently retired, CIA counterintelligence officer.
And she's doing these media interviews and apparently handpicked, allegedly handpicked by former CIA director John Brennan himself after they didn't like the career senior analyst assessment.
They decide to make another assessment.
She gets chosen for this, and she has repeatedly been out there suggesting Trump may be a Russian asset or a Kremlin asset, claiming 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 2016 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?
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, meaningful, or meritorious intelligence.
Actually, using it in the ICA the way they did violated the very intelligence roles that Obama's team had put in place to govern these analysis.
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?
Well, we know that didn't happen.
So that's why it wasn't supposed to be put in the report.
And then they shoehorned 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, the ICA team had found no collusion.
So, you know, how do you have it both ways when writing their assessment in late 2016 and even claim that this no collusion finding was made clear in the ICA, but she's singing a very different tune.
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 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.
And John Brennan writes an email saying, I want it in.
Now, that's important for several reasons because his story has always been the FBI wanted it, and we do know the FBI wanted it in.
But when he overrules his own people, we know that he took that action, right?
There is an email that John Ratcliffe's report makes clear.
And now we know from last week's release, which is the House Intelligence Committee's review of this matter back when Devin Nunes was still in charge of it, that several people had concerns about the way this analysis was done.
It didn't follow the rules.
It shouldn't have used the Steele 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.
And all of this, all of this activity in December of January, which we've been focusing on the last couple of 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 going to learn a lot more about this in the next couple of days with a new declassification.
But in July 2016, John Brennan goes over and personally briefs the president and tells him there's intelligence.
Hillary Clinton has authorized a dirty trick where she's going to 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, interviewing everybody, making Mike Flint go through hell.
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 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, justthenews.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 involving Russia, Russia, Russia, and what a real hoax it was, far worse than we ever knew.
John Solomon, editor-in-chief, founder of JustTheNews.com, also the chief investigative reporter.
Let's go to when did they know the dossier 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.
Comey and the FBI director, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe had pushed in December of 2016 to include Steele's debunk 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 timeframe.
In August of 2016 is when Bruce Orr gives the first tip off that, hey, 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 administration, the CIA warned the FBI that Christopher Steele's network of sources that he was allegedly basing this information on was infiltrated potentially by Russian intelligence and that they need to revalidate him.
Don't rely on him.
They didn't revalidate him.
They kept him going.
On November 1st, the FBI terminated Christopher Steele's source because he had gone to the news media 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 Christopher Steele was asserting came from his sources.
And they were 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.
But 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 post-mortem on this said the same thing.
Last question, and it's about two different subjects.
Devin Nunes and the Intel board chairman want security clearances revoked over this and other abuses.
And what do you make of former FBI agent Strzok deleting all of his posts on social media yesterday?
Maybe he just decided to take a break from social media.
He's not going to 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 Strzok done.
Maybe he just decided 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 a few years ago.
But no one's going to get rid of those posts.
They're in time machine.
Twitter is going to keep them.
I think he's 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 Strzok 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 10 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 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.
I think that moment is 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, justthenews.com, we appreciate your time and your hard work as always.
And thank you for sharing it with us as always also.
You know how I know I'm getting old, Linda?
Gray hair.
All right, Weizenheimer.
You call me a wise ass.
It's 530.
It's allowed.
No, you're a wise ass.
Laura Wise.
That's a wise ass comment.
You're right.
That's a wise-ass comment.
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, God bless you.
So, I'll tell you how I know I'm getting hold.
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?
It's all over the place down here.
Is it really?
7-Eleven, you get it at CVS, you can get it at Publix, you can get it anywhere.
It really is New York with sand.
Okay, it's New York with sand and better weather than the crap weather you've been having in the Northeast all spring and summer long.
It's been horrible.
So, you know, you're getting old 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 of 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 it person of 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, G-E-N-E-S.
Now, I interpreted that to mean, oh, she's an attractive young lady.
Okay, that's how I interpreted it.
The word 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 Nazism 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 would.
And we talked about it a little bit yesterday.
I talked about it with Patrick Beth David on his podcast that are trying to rewrite history as though Winston Churchill was not one of the most heroic and brave people in his time and battling back the forces of evil with blood, toil, tears, and sweat.
And what do we, what does our aim?
Victory.
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 thank God, you know, he was able to lead the way, and Europe was saved, and victory in Europe occurred.
And somehow they're arguing, well, he didn't save Western civilization.
No, but 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 lands on their shoulders.
You can't blame somebody from the 40s that defeated Nazism and fascism, and we defeated Imperial Japan and expect that they're responsible for every generation thereafter.
And I know this is a debate.
Apparently, 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, 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 Gerduski 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 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 spell jeans, G-E-N-E-S.
How does that have anything to do with Nazis?
Tell me what I might be missing here.
It's possible I could be missing something.
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 jeans.
And they did a double.
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 my Calvins?
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 been.
I'm going to say, I actually met her once in fairness to her.
She was lovely.
She's a very nice woman.
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 parental decision.
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.
The ad shows Sweeney flaunting the jeans in a provocative fashion.
Okay.
AKA, I guess, Brooke Shields and Calvins.
And it shows, you know, her doing that with the 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 with 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 ism 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.
Now, some people think she's very attractive.
I think she's moderately attractive.
That's my humble.
But who gives a rip?
At the end of the day, you know.
But jeans, but apparently everybody thinks she's super attractive.
And then that is the reason why this is my interpretation.
They're talking about jeans, meaning how she looks.
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 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 answers when I can be an informed host.
But the point of the matter is, 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 big.
At the end of the day, I think I figured.
You're catching on.
You're catching on?
Good job.
The point of the matter 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, oh, yes, you are.
Oh, my word was featured.
Feature.
That's one way to put it.
Sure is.
We're features.
You know what?
Can everyone just take a deep breath and calm the hell down?
Listen, nobody.
I don't know 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.
It's a provocative gene ad, 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 get away from 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.
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 myself.
Whoa, that means I'm not on the enemy list anymore.
I guess they stop watching me.
Look at that.
I mean, there's the win here for me.
You know, if you want to call people names, I'm going to tell you something.
One of the worst things you can call people is a racist.
One of the worst things you can say is they're misogynist 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 got to fight fire with fire.
We're not going to stand idly by, as Maya said.
We're not going to 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, Durbin, myself, and others, were lead 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 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 have 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 this?
That's what I'm talking about.
These are the Nazis.
That's a Nazi.
Okay.
Well, 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, 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 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 anybody has stood up against this Nazi talk and Naziism and stood against anti-Semitism, it's been me.
It's been this show.
We have been consistent.
We find anti-Semitism from anybody, virulent anti-Semitism, halls of Congress, worldwide, it's growing.
College campuses, we've been chronicling it.
And for those people, you know, we played yesterday this podcast, which was repulsive in the comments that were being made about Jewish people during the Holocaust and Hitler.
I can't even believe the level of the depravity and the ignorance of these people on this podcast.
I don't even know who they are.
I mean, 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.
▲
Export Selection