All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show
28:46
FBI Leaks - September 25th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
When we see them trying to chill speech of jokesters, when we're seeing all of this, that is a playbook out of Hitler and I won't deny it.
At my speech on the ellipse, a tyrant.
We used to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators.
That's what we're dealing with right now, Donald Trump.
These are the two things I got from the United Nations: a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
All right, thanks, Scott Shannon.
Hour two Sean Hannity show, toll-free.
Our number is 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, very interesting how events were unfolding yesterday.
And MSDNC, they're the ones that broke the story about James Comey and the fact that he may be indicted.
Also, we have the issue of whether or not there might be an indictment coming for Letitia James.
But the whole thing is, if you look at the timing and what's actually going on, it's pretty interesting.
In my view, that probably means that Comey got what's called a target letter, hence the leak.
And again, this is speculation on my part, but hence, I would argue an educated guess.
The leak to MSDNC probably told that charges would be filed, probably knows what it's about, false statements to Congress.
Now, yesterday, the grand jury was not meeting.
They have been meeting today.
We're waiting to see if we hear any news later today, because if there's going to be an indictment, and I don't know if there is, I'd say maybe the odds probably are 60% when you look at the venue in which this grand jury is located in Virginia, Northern Virginia.
But they're meeting today.
The other day that it could happen would be next Tuesday.
They do have one problem on this aspect of it, and that is the Statute of Limitations would run out later next week because they're talking about lying to Congress in September of 2020.
And the month is coming to an end.
And that means the statute of limitations would be up.
Now, if in fact Cash Patel, our FBI director, goes forward with his investigation into a grand conspiracy, and we have talked at length about this, the statute of limitations would not be applicable.
That would mean you can go all the way back to Hillary Clinton and her top secret classified information on her server.
You could work your way through the lies and, you know, the dirty Russian disinformation dossier that was bought and paid for by Hillary becoming the basis of FISA warrants.
That would lead you through, you know, the second, you know, after we had career senior intel officials give an assessment of the 2016 election.
And then Obama didn't like it.
According to reports, he himself ordered his top lieutenants, that would be Brennan and Clapper, to come up with a new intelligence assessment that contradicted the real intelligence assessment.
Then it would lead through a grand conspiracy into 2020, and that is the FBI pre-bunking the very real Hunter Biden laptop that they verified as authentic in March of 2020.
They spent the entire summer meeting weekly with big tech, social, big tech, and social media companies, telling them, oh, you're likely going to be victims of disinformation in the 2020 presidential campaign leading into all of the lawfare through 2024 from 2020 to 2024.
That would be the grand conspiracy investigations.
Under those circumstances, the statute of limitations would not apply.
Anyway, the person I would say has broken more stories on all of this over this 10-year period and doesn't stop.
He's been unrelenting.
He's the founder, editor-in-chief, and chief investigative reporter for justthenews.com.
Our friend John Solomon is with us, sir.
How are you?
I am well, Sean.
Okay, so you're as well connected as anybody as I know.
I'm assuming you might know more than me, but I understand that this has gone before the grand jury today, that they didn't convene yesterday.
Do you think my theory about a target letter, my theory about why it went to MSTNC in terms of news, my theory about it not being a venue that is a slam dunk, even though I think the case is, and we can play James Comer and President Trump in a minute, but what are your thoughts?
I think you set it up perfectly in just how you described it.
You're exactly right.
So this grand jury is meeting in Richmond, Virginia.
Why are they bringing the charges here?
Because when James Comey last testified that he never authorized a classified leak, he was testifying remotely in Virginia during the pandemic.
So the proper venue is Virginia.
Richmond, the Eastern District of Virginia, is the courthouse.
Agents and other witnesses are bringing that testimony today.
And we'll see if the grand jury ends up a bill of indictment today or next Tuesday before the statute of limitations comes out.
Now, the evidence is very clear, comes from a very powerful source.
It isn't some outsider.
It isn't some agent years later looking at it.
James Comey's own general counsel, James Baker, told the FBI in documents we broke on your show just a few weeks ago that he had been instructed by Comey through his chief of staff, James R. Bicki, to leak classified information in the fall of 2016, just before the election.
That is a powerful witness.
It isn't someone who's turned against Comey.
It's his own inner circle saying, yeah, that's what happened.
James Comey knows that that allegation is out there in 2019 and 2020 because a special prosecutor looked at it.
They made the decision in 19 and 20 that they're not going to charge Baker for the leak as Comey asked him to do it.
Then Comey goes back before Congress on September 30th, 2020.
That's hence the five-year statute of limitations and says, I double down.
I didn't instruct anyone to leak a classified intelligence.
So after knowing that the evidence was there, he doubles down on the denial, something that his own inner circle says he did.
That's why this case is being brought.
We'll see where it is.
And in the old days, people would say a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked, but we're not in the old days, in the era of Trump.
Not only have judges and FBIs and institutions become partisan, but grand juries can have partisan struggles as well.
So an indictment, even on very clear evidence, isn't always a certainty.
So we'll have to see what happens.
I think that 60% guesstimate you gave is a really good guesstimate of probably what the odds are that something will come of this.
Let me play two clips of Jim Comey himself.
One is him claiming that he knew nothing about the Russia probe.
And this is pretty spectacular to me, considering he signed three of the first four FISA applications, the basis of which we now know and the basis of which the second intelligent assessment regarding the 2016 election, they added the Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian disinformation dossier.
But this is him trying to claim he knew nothing about the Russia probe.
Listen.
In October, when the warrant was submitted, the application was submitted.
What effort had been made to verify the dossier in October?
I don't know specifically.
So in October, it's clear, Mr. Comey, there was no effort to verify the dossier before it was given to the court.
Do you agree with that?
I don't know the answer.
I don't remember learning anything additional about Steele's sources.
Not that I recall.
No.
I don't remember who ever.
Were you aware that in December 2016, the CIA tells the FBI they characterized the dossier as internet rumor?
I don't recall being informed of that.
Question, John Solomon.
Did, in fact, James Comey sign the first FISA application in October of 2016 to spy on one Carter Page, but also give them a backdoor into all things Trump world.
And did they use Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for Russian disinformation dossier as the basis for that warrant, a big part of the basis for that warrant?
Oh, absolutely.
Yes, he did sign the first one and the second one in December.
Why is that important?
In December, we now have these new explosive documents from the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, the ODNI, Tulsi Gabbard, and documents from Cash Pratelle.
What do they show?
They show that it was James Comey himself that was trying to force the Steele dossier into the intelligence community assessment so that they could make some claim that Donald Trump was in bed with Russia, even though all the evidence proved otherwise.
He was still trying to get, he not only knew what was in the Steele dossier, he was one of its largest proponents trying to impose it on the rest of the intelligence community.
And that's not, that's people like John Brennan saying that in documents and emails.
Comey's entire description, his hands off, I don't know much about this, it's just not true when you look at the actual documents.
Didn't he sign three of the four FISA warrants?
Yeah, he signs the third one in April, and then he's fired in May.
And then the last one, I think, it gets signed by Andy McCabe.
And wasn't Christopher Steele, you know, wasn't he pushed out of being a source for the FBI prior to the signing of the second one?
That's exactly right.
There are three major warning signs in the time that this happens.
In September of 2016, the CIA first warned the FBI that Steele's circle of sources, if you can call them that, which are mostly Clinton people, that they had been compromised potentially by Russian oligarchs and he needed to be revalidated.
They then submit the first warrant, the search warrant.
They get it approved.
On November 1st of 2016, Christopher Steele's terminated for illegally leaking information from the investigation.
In December, there is a whole new tranche of intelligence that comes in that shows that the things that Christopher Steele was saying isn't true.
And on top of that, the FBI's analytical team had gone through the dossier line by line.
They created a spreadsheet.
You and I talked about this on your show four or five, six years ago when we first broke through the spreadsheet.
And they went through and they couldn't find a single line that was accurate.
And they found many lines that simply could be disproven.
So by the time December rolls around and they're authorizing the second search warrant, the FISA warrant, there is overwhelming evidence inside the FBI that Christopher Steele's document is a bad document, a bad intelligence product, something the FISA court should not be relying on.
Instead of telling that to the court, they try to sustain the notion that this is still a credible document.
And I think a lot of people now, people who are investigating this now, Sean, they believe that Comey's motive possibly in December of 2016 to try to squeeze the steel dossier into the intelligence community assessment to get the CIA and the NSA to kind of put their name into it or to imperture to it may have been an effort to try to protect himself with the FISA court, which is he knew it was a bad document or his bureau knew it was a bad document and he wanted some other validation to have a defense with the court.
Now, that's what some people are looking at.
We'll see what the ultimate evidence shows out.
But that period of December that you just zeroed in is a very important period.
So what we just heard from James Comey is either a lie or he signed a FISA warrant and he didn't know what was in it.
I don't know which would be worse, but he then was made aware of it, that it was part of the FISA application, the bulk of information, as a matter of fact.
And he claimed he knew nothing about the Russia probe.
We know we have evidence that that's a lie.
Is that correct?
Yeah, but we know from the Inspector General's report that the FBI knew that the FISA was bad, failed to tell the court.
We know that James Comey signed the warrant saying he had read it all and could verify and attest to its accuracy.
From that testimony you just played, he seems to have a lot of equivocation about whether he knew what he was signing.
And then we now know that the key testimony that the grand jury is reviewing right now in Richmond, Virginia, that he didn't authorize a leak of classified information in that same timeframe, October 2016, that his own people.
Yeah, they all.
And as a matter of law, we get into this with Greg Jarrett last night.
He, once he knew that the steel dossier was unverifiable, had an obligation legally to go back to the FISA court and say, we found out that the information was false.
Let me play another clip for you.
This is him admitting to Lindsey Graham that he wouldn't have signed the Pfizer warrant, knowing what he knows now.
Listen.
Knowing then what you know now about all the things that we've come to find, would you have still signed the warrant application against Carter Page in October, January, and April?
No, I would want a much more complete understanding of who we were.
Thank you very much.
But he knew.
That's the point.
He certainly knew a lot.
And the fact that he would claim he didn't know it means that he didn't take his responsibilities at the time seriously before the FISA warrant, because when you fix your name, you're telling the court, I have checked this out personally.
So he's had it in many different ways, right?
He's either an ignorant FBI director who assigned his name falsely to a document that he'd really checked this out, or he knew all along what was going on and he was trying to create a cover story afterwards.
Neither one of those are going to be flattering to the legacy of James Comey, nor is today's potential results from the grand jury.
This is a moment of extraordinary consequence for a guy who used to brag that he reported to a higher authority to hire loyalty.
We'll see if that loyalty involved the right truthfulness.
Yeah, a higher honor, Mr. Higher Honor himself.
Meanwhile, you know, when he said to Lindsey Graham, knowing what you know now, by the way, so did every other person that signed those FISA warrants.
John Solomon, Justthendenews.com, founder, editor-in-chief, chief investigative reporter.
This is pretty blockbuster.
We're watching this news very closely.
We'll watch today.
If it doesn't happen today, we'll see what happens Tuesday.
It's a very tough venue.
So I'm managing people's expectations here.
I know there's going to be a lot of fury.
However, the grand conspiracy investigation by Cash Patel has to be watched as well.
John Solomon, thank you, sir.
Yeah, great to be with you, Sean.
Great work.
800-941-Sean, our number.
All right.
So we're now, the Democrats are angry.
Democrats are furious.
Democrats are mad and unloading on the White House because in a memo from the Office of Management and Budget that Politico published, the administration signaled that they're prepared to go further than usual in terms of furloughs if there's a government shutdown caused by the Democrats.
Now, anyway, those notices will be in addition to any furlough notices.
In other words, essential services, for example, grandma, grandpa will get their social security check, Medicaid, Medicare.
That'll all be up and running.
Our defense or Department of War, they will be open.
They will be protecting us.
ICE agents will be on the border.
Essential workers will be there.
Now, historically, government shutdowns work this way.
Government employees get a free two, three, four-week vacation.
They come back and get back pay.
I hope they stop that process, by the way, if in fact the Democrats shut it down.
Democrats are demanding a trillion dollars in new spending, and Trump said no, not doing it.
Now, Democrats are saying that shutdowns are bad, but they're the ones that are threatening to cause it.
Let's just take a trip down memory lane, shall we, and listen to Democrats talk about the bad, bad government, big, bad government shutdown in the past.
We believe in governance.
We want to keep government open.
A shutdown is very serious.
There are real consequences when the government shuts down.
It harms our national security.
It harms our economy.
And it harms service members, veterans, retirees, and vulnerable communities.
We all know a shutdown is unnecessary and completely avoidable.
The tragedy here is all the civilian employees.
It is the American people who are going to suffer.
Border Patrol agents will not be paid.
TSA agents will not be paid.
Small businesses will be hurt.
Not only is it irresponsible and purposely misleading, it is dangerous precedent to be threatening a shutdown.
I'm worried about our air controllers, those in the military.
We have over almost 40,000 in the military as well as personnel who work in the military.
And they won't have checks.
I mean, this is real.
The real people's lives at stake.
It is not normal to hold 800,000 workers' paychecks hostage.
It is not normal to shut down the government when we don't get what we want.
Our troops deserve better.
Our children deserve better.
And the American people deserve better.
These chaos agents, they don't have a plan B.
They just want to see everything burn.
Shutdown is really an extremist policy designed to appeal to an extremist base and hold the whole country hostage.
So if you, this shutdown, you know who's going to feel the pay?
You know who it hurts?
You.
Now, all of a sudden, they're pushing for a government shutdown.
You just can't make it up.
It's such hypocrisy.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, let's say hi to Nikki is in Louisiana.
Nikki, hi, how are you?
Glad you called.
Hi, yes.
I'm a widow of an ICE agent, and the way that the media and outlets have been portraying ICE agents has just been so irresponsible.
And it's really scaring me because, I mean, I raised a family, you know, with a dad, ICE agent, and the things that we had to go through.
And as, you know, people moving from New York to the border and my kids growing up in that area, we went through a lot.
And we're not enemies to illegals.
All their friends were illegals who came in, and we love them.
And the agents are so caring, and they're such great people, and they're so kind.
And it just really, it's so irresponsible to portray them in a light where they're just not human when they, better than anybody, understand what the average illegal goes through.
And they want absolutely no part in discriminating against them or hurting them in any way.
I mean, they're only there to really catch the child pornographers.
I mean, I talked to my husband.
We had the closest of marriages, and he told me everything that he did.
And it was scary to hear that these people are coming and, you know, and they're hurting.
They're hurting their own community.
And we were in that community.
You know, 10 miles from our house, there would be beheadings.
And, you know, my kids would go to school.
And I'd wonder, oh, my gosh, what's going to happen?
There's a lot of danger on the border.
And it's just, to think that an ICE agent could be killed because of all that, because these people are not understanding that.
We have friends that are illegal, that we love them.
And it bothers me.
I have no problem with immigration.
I'm the product of immigration.
All four of my grandparents came to America at the turn of the last century from Ireland.
Is it really too much to ask people to do it legally?
Is it really too much to ask that we vet you and make sure you don't have radical associations?
Is it really too much to ask post-COVID that we have a health check?
Is it really too much to ask that you not be a financial burden on the American people?
The reckless, irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric of the left, and I would argue Newsome, part of it, you know, calling it authoritarianism, et cetera.
You know, meanwhile, the sanctuary state of California is aiding and abetting and providing benefits for people that did not respect our laws, borders, and sovereignty.
And then Gavin, of course, signs this reckless, dangerous, irresponsible bill where ICE agents can't wear masks, which essentially puts them in a position to be doxxed.
But he exempts California Highway Patrol, which guard him, just like he exempted himself by going to the French laundry, just like he exempted his kids by sending them to a private school so they could have in-person learning while the rest of California, you know, everyone else's kids were learning remote.
Or Jasmine Crockett, when I see ICE, I see slave patrols or Tim Walls, Donald Trump's modern-day Gestapo, or Mayor Karen Bass accusing ICE and Trump at Homeland Security apparatus of conducting a reign of terrorism or terror,
or Brandon Johnson comparing federal immigration enforcement to terrorism, or Michelle Wu in Massachusetts, the Boston mayor, you know, comparing them to Nazis and ICE agents enforcing federal law in a sanctuary city, you know, comparing it to a neo-Nazi organization, or Representative John Larson after ICE operations in his district.
He called federal immigration forces Trump's personal secret police, the secret, the SS, the Gestapo.
You know, it's unbelievable.
It's dangerous.
It's reckless.
And if you look at this shooter in Dallas with the shell casings and the anti-ICE message, gee, I wonder where some of these ideas may have come from.
I just wonder out loud.
Anyway, people like your husband, we're a hero, Nikki.
God bless you.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Fletcher is in Texas.
God bless Texas, Fletcher.
How are you?
Good.
How are you doing?
I'm good.
What's on your mind?
Well, I wanted to talk about Charlie Kirk.
And the reason I wanted to bring this up is because of the violence yesterday in Dallas.
I live in Houston.
But the thing I don't think people are really getting or don't really want to discuss about it is the reason why Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
People keep blowing it off like it was something he said, and it's not.
I mean, a lot of people said the same things.
You did.
Bill O'Reilly said the same things.
Michael Knowles, Ben Shapiro, the list goes on and on.
It wasn't what he said.
It was who he was talking to.
He was talking to young people.
And that's what scares the Democrats because that's their demographic.
That's who they keep going after.
That's who they want to indoctrinate.
And so, you know, if you think that, you know, the rhetoric that comes out of these Democrat mouths is reckless in that, you know, they just don't seem to get it, what they're doing.
They know exactly what they're doing.
They knew that somebody was going to take a shot at him.
I mean, you look at when the rhetoric started ramping up, and this has to do with education.
It was right about the time that the Department of Education was getting defunded.
And it really ramped up even more in July and August when Donald Trump started cutting off funding to some of these Ivy League universities.
We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars worth of money here that gets eventually funneled back into Democrat hands.
So if you think they were just being reckless, that ain't the case at all.
They knew what they were doing.
Well, there's no doubt.
I think what made Charlie's mission particularly special is the fact that he'd go into these hostile environments.
And we got to remember we've become so accustomed to the indoctrination and that these have become indoctrination centers.
You know, think about this.
How many kids on college campuses hear a message from a peer that, you know, it's a good idea to get involved in a church?
How many of them hear a message that hookup culture is not good for you?
How many of them hear a message, you know, not to do drugs?
How many of them hear a message on how to respect women and how women and men should get along and treat each other?
You know, how many hear a message, don't be the kid throwing up in the bushes at a frat party?
It's not usual.
And that is a threat institutionally to these indoctrination centers.
And that's what made Charlie so effective.
You know, if there's a silver lining, and how do you ever tell Erica Kirk there's a silver lining?
But she knows it.
It's true.
It's that it is, they now have applications for, what, 120 some-odd thousand new chapters of Turning Point USA is, you know, they have no idea what they did to Charlie is, you know, I'll quote Chuck Schumer on the steps of the Supreme Court.
They've unleashed a whirlwind of new activists and people on college campuses that will hear a very different message when they should be hearing in the classroom, but they're now going to hear regularly.
And that is an incredible legacy of a great man, Charlie Kirk.
Appreciate the call, my friend.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
To our busy phones, 800-941-Sean, our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
Let's say hi to Jay.
He's in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, hanging out with Linda.
What's up, Jay?
How are you?
Hi, how are you doing?
It's a great honor.
What's going on?
I was just wondering with the California law and everything.
That's just pretty much a show vote, right?
Because they really can't do anything because ICE is a federal agency, correct?
Oh, how stupid is it?
They made such a fanfare out of it on Saturday.
Gavin Newsom did.
And not only does it not take effect till January, A, but B, it is unconstitutional.
There is a supremacy clause.
The jurisdiction to enforce federal law is with the federal government, not with state governments.
And every ICE official from Tom Holman, Christy Noam, and all these people, I've interviewed them all, and they all say the same thing.
Nope.
They're not changing a thing.
And nor should they.
But I will tell you this: we need a thorough debate investigation into states and cities that have sanctuary, state, and city policies.
And we've got to ask, how is that not aiding and abetting those people and actually using taxpayer money to benefit people that didn't respect our laws, borders, and sovereignty?
Because you know what?
To me, that makes them complicit.
Anyway, I'm just up on the clock.
I do appreciate your call.
God bless you.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
▲
Export Selection