With the surprise indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, Sean Hannity leads an in-depth discussion featuring Oversight Project President Mike Howell and Trump attorney David Schoen. Hannity frames Comey's charges false statements and obstructions a turning point after years of what he calls âa never-ending witch hunt against Donald Trump. The guests highlight the long-running conflicts, the role of Lindsey Halligan in securing the indictment, and the broader implications for DOJ credibility and future accountability. This matters because it raises critical questions about political weaponization of justice, media hypocrisy, and whether this case sets a precedent for transparency and truth at the highest levels of government.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I'm innocent.
Let your rage fuel you.
Every time we hear a new story, we let it fuel us.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
More behind the scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
All right, thanks, Scott Shannon.
Hour to Sean Hannity Show, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, a lot of developments as it relates to the indictment or the reckoning of James Comey and his actions and the actions of deep state operatives.
What the FBI director Cash Patel has said is there is a full, complete investigation that is ongoing into what he's calling a grand conspiracy starting all the way from no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute James Comey famously saying or infamously saying in July of 2016, he using Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for dirty Russian disinformation dossier to sign not one but three FINA warrants.
As a matter of fact, Carter Page will join us on Hannity tonight.
His life was ruined as a result of this, but it was also a backdoor to everything Trump world.
And you put this all together, you know, pre-bunking the Hunter laptop that they had verified as authentic in March of 2020.
They spent the whole summer of 2020 pre-bunking it with big tech companies and social media companies.
You might be victims of disinformation about Hunter and Joe Biden.
Then weaponization, the double standard, no liberal cared about, well, nobody arrested Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden for top secret classified information.
But let's go through Baron Trump and Melania Trump's closet when they had full access to Mar-a-Lago.
It's getting more and more interesting.
You know, we have burn bag information, declassified information.
You know, we know, for example, that career senior Intel officials after the 2016 election, that they had ascertained that there was no Russia-Trump interference in the election.
And then, according to the declassified materials of Tulsi Gabbard, then it was Barack Obama himself that ordered a new intelligent assessment.
That is highly unusual.
Then you have just over the weekend breaking, you know, the John Solomon story that the FBI had secretly placed against all rules, regulations, protocols, and standards, 274 agents into the crowd on January 6th.
You know, the one riot that Democrats only want to talk about.
They'll ignore the 574 that killed dozens of Americans, injured thousands of cops, and caused billions of property damage.
President Trump even saying Sunday, because the then FBI director Christopher Wray, in fact, said multiple times that that did not occur.
And the president said Sunday that Christopher Wray engaged in inappropriate behavior during his tenure, adding that he would think that the Justice Department might be investigating him.
And they may be, I have no idea.
Cash Batel went on to say that these agents were sent into the crowd to control the crowd control of mission after the FBI had heard that a riot had been declared by Metro Police.
But he also pointed out that goes against FBI protocols and standards.
And this whole issue of, is this retribution against Comey?
No, is it a case of people abusing their power?
Well, one person that can attest to all of this, our friend Jason Chaffetz, former congressman from Utah and author of They Are Coming for You, How Deep State Spies and NGOs and Woke Corporations Plan to Push You Out of the Economy.
He put out an ex-post this weekend pointing out that's super important in the Comey case from the IG report.
Comey was asked under oath if he authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports.
And Obama appointed Inspector General, that's Michael Horowitz, determined that Comey violated applicable policies in his FBI employment agreement by providing one of the unclassified memos that contained official FBI information, including sensitive information, investigative information to his friend with instructions to the friend to share the contents of the memo with a reporter.
Anyway, Jason Chaffetz, how are you, sir?
Hey, glad to join you, Sean.
Let's talk about overall the reckoning, I think, of Comey's making, as Miranda Devine called it in the paper today.
Yeah, well, he earned this one.
I want it to come sooner rather than later because I just want the truth to surface.
And there's enough truth out there that we know now that we're able to put it together.
In real time, when I was there in Congress, chairman of the Oversight Committee, and we're swearing in and having these, you know, Director Comey and others before the committee, you couldn't quite see it, but there were points where you just thought he wasn't being candid.
He was hiding things.
But, you know, those were suspicions at the time.
But what we could piece together is that, yeah, there was $10 million, roughly, from the Clinton campaign that did go overseas and to create this so-called dirty dossier.
I think later they came back, the Federal Election Commission, and dinged them for how they did that and mislabeling it.
So, again, another deceptive move.
But this, you've got to remember, we had multiple cases where there were leaks coming out of the FBI.
They were going one direction.
They were all affecting an election.
And some of those were pointed out by the Department of Justice Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.
And of course, the DOJ would never prosecute him.
They immediately dismissed them.
But I'm glad those were in writing from the Inspector General.
And I think that's an important part of the case.
It's not some Republican saying this.
This is the Inspector General saying this.
Between the Durham report, Michael Horowitz report, the failed special prosecutor crossfire hurricane, and Mueller's inability to find anything against Donald Trump.
If they could have found something, they would have found it, would they not?
Yeah, they would have been all over that in a heartbeat.
I mean, it's along the way, they were essentially making it up and spieling it, and they were enticing other people.
You know, the ones that bothered me were people like Adam Schiff, and they would go out to the cameras and say, look, I have a classified clearance.
I'm on the Intel Committee.
I've seen it firsthand.
Well, we know what an incredible, deceptive lie that was.
You had good people like John Radcliffe and Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes and others and on staff there, Cash Battell, they would go back out and say, that is not what we heard.
That is not the testimony that was happening.
Adam Schiff and alike were making this up again to totally affect an election and how they aren't.
And again, then they could use the auto pen, right, to get an immunity agreement.
But I think we're going to find with the Auto Pen is that was bogus.
That was bogus.
And it's not authorized.
And I think these people are still in legal jeopardy if the White House and Department of Justice would get their act together on the AutoPen.
What do you think should happen there?
Because you're right, one of the recipients of those preemptive pardons was Adam Schiff himself, as we affectionately call him on this show, the congenital liar.
Well, they have to do a more thorough job of proving how that auto pen was used.
I think James Comer, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, is doing a great work.
He's bringing him in one at a time.
He's getting them under oath.
Some of them are pleading the fifth.
Some of them, like Neera Candon, are revealing shocking things.
The staff secretary not seeing the president for upwards of six weeks, relying on memos, internal memos, supposedly with signatures or initials.
But if those memos don't match up exactly verbatim with what was actually put into the auto pen, then I would argue that it's invalid.
Those types of things are going to have to be adjudicated and they're not going to be swift, but they should be happening right now.
As best they can tell, they're not.
Do you see the possibility for superseding indictments in the case of Comey?
Because none of this touches, for example, the fact that they never were able to verify the dirty dossier and they knew that it was proven false.
Wasn't Christopher Steele out by December of 2016?
And didn't people like Comey still sign those Pfizer warrants?
And wasn't the bulk of information in those Pfizer warrants presented to a FISA court?
Wasn't it the dirty dossier?
I think what needs to happen is the Department of Justice needs to make a referral.
It should happen anyway, but if they want to be official about it, make a referral to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts.
He is the one that oversees the FISA court.
If they have information now, which I know they do, that shows that these so-called FISA warrants were invalid because they were not verified.
Essentially, that's the same thing as saying Director Comey and others that potentially had signed those, but specifically to Director Comey, the allegation is they lied to the court.
Now, Sean, you and I have talked about this multiple times.
You and I lied to court.
We're going to jail.
How many other judges in the country will put up with that?
But so far, it's been stone-called silence.
If you know that a director of the FBI lied to the court, how come the court is doing nothing about it?
And DOJ needs to make that recommendation.
Well, I'd like to see all of it.
What do you make about the president and the comments by Director Ray on the issue of sending in FBI agents, 274 of them, and apparently going and saying that he had never done that and didn't know they were there?
Hey, look, I'm glad we got Cash Patel there now to uncover this and reveal this.
That is absolutely shocking.
Director Ray was given every single opportunity to be candid to answer that.
I think it is deceptive at best to suggest that he didn't know about that.
More and more of this just looks so fundamentally wrong.
274?
Are you kidding me?
That opens up a whole nother avenue that needs to be further explored.
Yeah, we had heard reports of Juan 2 in their focuses on specific names, but hundreds of people that were there, what did they do?
If they know that there's a crime happening or something illegal is happening, they have a duty and obligation to stop it.
But no, were they instigating it?
Were they conduits to making it happen?
What was the overall goal and objective?
There are people out there that know that, and they need to get to the bottom of that.
Well, and what Cash is saying, it's not even the purpose of special agents to ever be a part of riot control.
That's not their job.
Yeah.
Again, this totally out of protocol, totally out of the norm for significant political gain for the Democrats.
And I think that's, again, I think Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, for that matter, they've got their hands full in sorting that out.
That number's out there now.
I want to hear them go this step further.
They need to bring those people in one at a time, and they need to start understanding and getting them under oath and having them tell and describe exactly what the instructions were.
Why were they selected?
What were they supposed to do?
What was their goal and objective?
And there will be some people in there, I think, that will give some honest answers.
Quick break more with our friend Jason Chaffetz.
He's a former congressman, author of They're Coming for You, How Deep State Spies, NGOs, Woke Corporations plan to push you out of the economy.
Then your call's coming up as well, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Keeping the truth alive.
All right,
we continue with Jason Chaffetz, former congressman, author of the book, They're Coming for You, How Deep State Spies, NGOs, and Woke Corporations Plan to Push You Out of the Economy.
Then we'll get to your calls coming up, 800-941-Sean this Monday.
What about what Cash is discussing, this grand conspiracy that from the moment that Donald Trump and Melania Trump came down that escalator, there has been, you know, deep state operatives, as we refer to them, that have done everything humanly possible to undermine Donald Trump.
First, for example, the dirty dossier was used as the basis for a Pfizer warrant.
But that dossier was designed to defeat Donald Trump in the lead up to the 2016 election.
Then when it didn't happen, then we have career senior intel officials.
Well, they make an assessment that there was no Trump-Russia collusion.
Barack Obama, according to the classified information, doesn't believe in it.
And they debunked a very real laptop that they had verified as authentic.
Then you have four years of weaponization.
Is this a systemic issue of deep state operatives putting cinder blocks on the scale of an election?
I really, I really do.
Unfortunately, I really do think so.
And look, the people that were there in real time, Cash Patel, remember, Devin Nunes was the chairman of the Intel Committee, and he was just over the weekend on with Maria Bradaromo and talked about this grand conspiracy.
He also happens to be currently the chairman of the president's intelligence advisory board called the PIAB.
So he would have some insight to this.
The fact that you're hearing multiple people talk about this leads me to believe that they aren't just throwing that out there.
They are foreshadowing where this is going.
And there are other characters that I think are going to be brought into that, including Hillary Clinton herself.
And Mark Elias might be part of that, just a guess, the attorney.
And then you also have people like Jack Smith who, you know, why did they do that raid on Mar-a-Lugo?
What was the instruction there?
What was the communication?
These are things that only the DOJ and the FBI can look at.
But now that there are people that are going to be more objective, I think we're going to start to figure that out.
In addition to Clapper, Comey, you know, and the other cast of characters.
All right, Jason Schaffetz, appreciate your time.
800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
I-25 now to the top of the hour.
800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
New York Post report: left-wing terror attacks are on track to hit record highs this year.
Democrats accused of inflaming tensions with their rhetoric against the Trump administration.
Words do have impact.
They have consequences by any objective measure.
Hitler, Stalin, fascist, you know, Mussolini, racist, sexist.
It just goes on and on and on, never stops.
And anyway, we saw lefty slam for celebrating a fugitive activist, Assada Shakur, who executed a New Jersey state trooper, Chicago Teachers Union, facing backlash after posting a tribute honoring this guy that killed this state trooper, if you can believe it.
You know, there's a viral video, I believe we have the woman on TV tonight, of a woman who's just doing a man on the street interview, pro-life activist, and then gets sucker punched in the face, knocked her out, gave her a black eye for weeks.
And anyway, this woman that punched her is, you know, for no reason at all.
She didn't have to answer her questions.
She could have said no, thank you and moved on.
She was charged with second-degree assault, but prosecutors dismissed the case in July when they failed to turn over evidence on time.
I mean, this is D.A. Alvin Bregg.
You think he would do that for a conservative?
Now, with all of what is happening around the country and all the violence, you know, that is happening around the country, and we saw more violence in Michigan this weekend, et cetera, and elsewhere.
You know, you have to, you know, wonder.
Donald Trump has decided that he's going to restore law and order and safety and security.
He understands what we've been saying.
It is a prerequisite if you want to pursue happiness.
Let's go to Portland, Oregon, where protesters are clashing with law enforcement that are there to protect innocent people.
Pretty unbelievable.
Well, it's not only Portland, but the president trying to help out Chicago for years since Obama first became president.
We've scrolled the names, names most people have never heard of before, but supposedly every life matters, but not if they can't weaponize it politically, especially against Donald Trump or Republicans.
But it's gotten so bad, you can predict on any given weekend how many people will be shot and shot and killed in Chicago.
And there's not been a single Democratic politician in this blue state, blue city, that has had the desire, the willingness, the common sense to protect innocent lives.
Here are Chicago protesters clashing with law enforcement.
Weeks ago, you were a f***ing f***ing piece of s***.
You little f***ing race.
Nice little costume.
You're wearing camouflage on your f ⁇ ing.
What you're doing is wrong.
Yeah, let's keep the murder, the shootings, the death, the dying, the suffering continuing.
Remember that young girl that was killed in her grandmother's backyard or our friend Giano Caldwell lost his brother.
I mean, and those are just a few of the names we know.
I scrolled names and it goes on and on and on and on and on.
Anyway, let's get to our phones.
Let's go to Illinois.
Let's say hi to John on the Sean Hannity show.
Hi.
Hi, Sean.
I don't believe that President Trump is the biggest victim of the weaponization of our justice departments in both state and federal.
I believe that's the American people.
That's who they're actually targeting.
They're trying to take away our weight, our American way of life.
Well, Trump is the face of that.
I don't want to play linguistical gymnastics with you.
But I think technically we're on the same page.
Yeah, I agree with that.
And I do agree that Trump was a target, but I think that they're targeting him to shut up the rest of the conservatives because they figure if they can get to him, then they could get to anybody.
Yeah, I mean, and I think that's what all the weaponization has been about.
I think you're dead on right.
And look, let me play for you, Devin Nunes.
He was on this weekend with Maria Bartaromo and how this Comey indictment should be the first part of this grand conspiracy against about two dozen people that he's identified.
Here's what he said.
He will be lucky if there is not a grand conspiracy charge brought, which is really what should be brought against probably about two dozen characters in the United States over the last seven, eight years.
The larger part is whether or not you can bring a kind of grand conspiracy case.
And, you know, people talk about, you know, there's the law, which is, you know, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, but there's also a term in there called misleading.
And what a lot of these guys did is they made up things using intelligence that didn't exist, but acted like they knew something that actually wasn't there.
Okay, not wrong.
Now, I'm going to add one other thing and let you respond, John, in Illinois.
And that is when I asked Cash Patel the question about a grand conspiracy, which I've laid out in great specificity and detail and was just talking to Jason Chaffetz about.
But there's been a lot of talk and a lot written about the investigation into a grand conspiracy.
To the extent possible, what can you tell us about that?
In other words, that this is longstanding.
If it is in fact a grand conspiracy, the statute of limitations would be eliminated.
Is that what the investigation is about?
Well, Sean, what we're doing is building a case for the American public under the Truth and Transparency and Accountability Initiative.
And what I mean by that is A.G. Bondi brilliantly highlighted our partners, Director Ratcliffe at the CIA and Director Gabbard over at the DNI.
We are working with them because the documents that would facilitate an investigation of this magnitude don't just rest at the FBI and DOJ.
They're throughout the intelligence community.
Okay.
Makes sense, John?
That's where I think it's headed.
I think that's what Devin is suggesting.
And I think that's what J.D. Mann said.
I think that's what Pam Bondi is saying.
And I agree with that totally, but that brings me to another point that I've said over and over.
And it kind of aggravates me when people say the far left party of the Democratic Party.
There is no far left.
They're all that way.
It's just that the new generation coming up wants to say who they are.
The other ones, your Chuck Schumers and your Nancy Pelosi's, try to hide what they've always been.
They're just as radical as the rest of the party is.
Great point.
Thank you, John.
800-941-Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
Tony in Seattle.
Hey, Tony, how are you?
Hey, Sean, how are you doing?
I'm good, sir.
Glad you called.
Excellent.
Hey, I was wondering, why are we not looking at the Pfizer court judges that signed off on these four Pfizer warrants?
It just seems like when we start from the bottom, we get more going to the top instead of starting from the top, going to the bottom.
The most revealing moment, and we played this last week, was Lindsey Graham asking everybody that signed those Pfizer warrants.
There were four of them over a year's period of time.
And actually, Carter Page is going to be on tomorrow night on Hannity.
And that ruined his life, backdoored into the Trump administration campaign, transition team, et cetera.
And all of them, oh, no, we know what we know now, we never would have signed it.
Very revealing is because I would argue, based on my timeline, I see it very differently, is that they did know and they didn't care, except they got caught.
That's my take about it.
Yeah, they see the news and they know that it's doing, but they still signed the Pfizer warrant.
It just doesn't make any sense.
These people have an oath to the government, you know, to uphold the law.
And nobody's, nobody.
But they never went back to the Pfizer court as the law requires and said what the information presented to you was inaccurate.
They were supposed to do that immediately upon getting knowledge that what they presented was false.
And they didn't do it.
All right, my friend, appreciate the call.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, let us say hi to Josh in Georgia.
Hey, Josh, how are you?
Hey, Sean, how are you doing?
Hey, the other day you were talking about how you received a lot of professional slack from some of the other voices on the conservative side for promoting Trump early on before anyone really knew for sure if he was going to do what he said.
And I remember because in 2015, I had just left active duty and I'd known you before as a kid in high school and as a politics major in college.
I used to listen to you on Fox all the time, all the way back in the Hannity and Combs days.
But then he became a part of my life again on my drive home from work in 2015.
And you were saying, hey, I've spoken to this guy.
I've met with him.
I've vetted him.
He is who he says he is.
He does what he says and he says what he means.
And I didn't believe you at first.
I voted for someone else in the primary because, you know, like you said, other people were saying, why are we going to vote?
You know, we don't know who this guy is other than that he's a TV show host and a real estate mogul from New York.
And like a lot of the country, I was like, hey, if he's from New York, he's probably automatically liberal.
You know, I don't know.
I don't know.
And, you know, so I don't think you get enough credit for being for promoting Donald Trump and figuring it out before the rest of us.
You know, and now over a dozen years later, you know, it's turned out that you were right all along.
And I put a lot more stock in who you promote as a candidate ever since you were proved right.
You know, 10 out of 10 on making that call, sir.
Well, I'm going to tell you something that is concerning me about our movement now.
We had the peace and the details on a peace plan for Gaza and for the Middle East today.
There has been, unfortunately, not only a rise of anti-Semitism within the halls of Congress and on college campuses.
And we've seen this movement grow worldwide and even among now some conservative voices in the country.
And, you know, there's no reason I didn't get into a fight with Glenn Beck, who attacked me for years, or I don't know, who else did it?
Ben Shapiro.
I mean, I can go through a list.
And I hold nothing against anybody.
I really don't.
I'm too busy with my own life to really care what they're doing.
But I can tell you right now, I'm having a hard time, you know, listening to this developing attack against Israel.
And I'm not really sure why there's any moral ambiguity among some of the people that are in our movement.
Now, I am a believer in Reagan's admonition that if somebody's 80% on your side, that they're not your enemy.
However, when it comes to moral clarity and those that did not want or did not see the imperative to take out the Iranian nuclear sites or those that have been pressuring Israel to end this conflict early and not defeat their enemy after they lost the equivalent based on their population size versus ours,
what would have been the equivalent of 40,000 dead Americans in a day and their citizens being raped and their citizens being kidnapped and their citizens being decapitated.
My message to Israel is go win your war and then we can talk peace.
If we're at that point now based on the statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the president today, I'm hopefully we're there.
But, you know, there's been inordinate pressure on Israel not to win their war.
And I think they ought to be able to defend their homeland.
I'll give you the last word.
I agree with you 100%, Sean.
It really, I don't get this sense.
I don't get this concept that somehow they're losing the moral high ground by going too far in retaliation for something that, you know, they're not the ones that are tying children up and burning them alive.
And really for them to stop short of ending the threat permanently, of making sure that radical terrorists are not living within their own borders and plotting to commit further atrocities is there is no moral gray ground.
I mean, what year is this?
It does feel a lot like it's rhyming with the 1940s.
And I'm with you.
Like they need to prosecute their war to win, not for half measures.