Major news unfolded as Congressman Jim Jordan, House Judiciary Committee chair, publicly announced a criminal referral against former CIA Director John Brennan for allegedly lying to Congress. Jordan specifically accuses Brennan of making knowingly false statements under oath about the Steele dossiers role in intelligence community assessments linked to the 2016 Trump-Russia probe. In his exclusive discussion with Sean Hannity, Jordan details how newly declassified reports contradict Brennan's testimony, revealing an intent to damage President Trump and suggesting a broader political conspiracy. The episode features Jordans firsthand insights and highlights potential legal actions that could impact top Democratic figures, illustrating why integrity in government testimony matters for public trust.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hour two Sean Hannity Show, 800-941-Sean is on number if you want to be a part of the program.
Big news last week, John Brennan.
This is an ex-post by Congressman Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee Chair.
John Brennan lied to Congress.
Today, we referred him to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
And then he linked a letter that he sent to the Attorney General, Pam Bondi.
We write to refer significant evidence that the former director of the CIA, John Brennan, knowingly made false statements during his transcribed interview before the Committee of the Judiciary on May 11, 2023, while testifying.
Brennan made numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the CIA.
Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, a witness commits a crime if he knowingly, willfully makes a materially false statement of representation with respect to any investigation or review conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee of Congress.
And he goes on to explain a lot of the details.
For example, let me go back in time.
We'll start in 2017.
Now, if you recall, in 2016, the dirty Russian disinformation dossier was used as the basis of the first FISA application warrant.
It was unverified, and we all know, unverifiable, and completely debunked by December of that year, 2016.
Here's Brennan in 2017 saying that the dossier wasn't used as the basis for any intelligence community assessment.
Here's what he said in a House hearing that took place.
Do you know if the Bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filings?
Applications, petitions, pleadings?
I have no awareness.
Did the CIA rely on it?
No.
Why not?
Because we didn't.
It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had.
It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.
It was not.
Okay, let's move forward to 2018.
This is a clip of John Brennan saying he was concerned about the veracity of the steel dossier, but the FBI had an obligation to seek out the truth on it.
Here's what he said on Meet the Press with then host since departed, Chucky Todd.
How was the Steele dossier treated?
How did you treat it?
You said you looked at it in December.
I assume it's been looked at by, it was obviously looked at by the FBI.
We've now learned they've tried to confirm some of it and have had some success.
Some not yet.
They don't say it's, they don't, they say it's unconfirmed, but that's about it.
Well, there were things in that dossier that made me wonder whether or not they would, they were in fact accurate and true.
And I do think it was up to the FBI to see whether or not they could verify any of it.
I think Jim Comey has said that it contains salacious and unverified information.
Just because it was unverified didn't mean it wasn't true.
And if the Russians were involved in something like that directed against individuals who are aspiring to the highest office in this land, there was an obligation on the part of the FBI to seek out the truth on it.
Then one more clip, again, 2018.
This is Brennan saying the Steele dossier didn't play any role in intelligence assessments to Obama or Trump.
Listen to this clip.
When did you first learn of the so-called Steele dossier and what Christopher Steele was doing?
Well, it was not a very well-kept secret among press circles for several months before it came out.
And it was in late summer of 2016 when there were some individuals from the various U.S. news outlets who asked me about my familiarity with it.
And I had heard just snippets about it.
I did not know what was in there.
I did not see it until later in that year.
I think it was in December.
But I was unaware of the provenance of it as well as what was in it.
And it did not play any role whatsoever in the intelligence community assessments that was done that was presented to then President Obama and then President-elect Trump.
You recall, we now know, thanks to Tulsi Gabbard's declassifications, that in fact that we had career senior Intel officials look into the whole question of any Trump-Russia collusion and senior career intelligence officials assessed there was none.
And that was presented.
And according to the declassification, it was Obama himself working with Clapper and Brennan and other people that demanded a new intelligence assessment that ended up concluding the exact opposite.
And that part of that conclusion was based on the dossier.
Jim Jordan, House Judiciary Committee, Chair, true or false.
No, true.
As I said last week, Sean, you're not supposed to lie, but you're definitely not supposed to lie when you're under oath and you're talking to Congress.
And that's exactly what it looks like Mr. Brennan did because he repeated those statements that you played when he was in front of us last Congress.
He said the dossier played no part in the intelligence community assessment.
And I pushed to not have it in the intelligence community assessment.
The only problem is, as you pointed out, is when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabber declassified the House Intelligence Committee report from a few years ago, it said just the opposite.
In fact, it related a story in there, Sean, where another CIA official actually confronted Mr. Brennan and said, this dossier doesn't hold up.
There's no underlying intelligence to support it.
Shouldn't put it in the intelligence community assessment that we take to President Trump and brief, well, then President-elect Trump shouldn't do that.
But Brennan responded by saying, yeah, but doesn't it ring true?
And I think just showing his entire motive, his mindset, which was to go get President Trump.
And then that's exactly what they did, as we've talked about many times.
They then went up to Trump Tower on January 6th, 2017, when it was President-elect Trump, gave him what he thinks his defensive briefing, his intelligence briefing that you get before you become president.
And in fact, what they were trying to do is set him up and create the predicate for the whole Mueller investigation and how they were going to try to sabotage his entire first term.
But the reality, too, is, is it true or false that in August of 2016, that Bruce Orr had warned everybody that the dossier is political in nature and nobody should trust it.
Wasn't Brennan aware of it then?
And number two, didn't Brennan himself have a meeting in the White House informing Obama that Hillary Clinton's campaign was building up a narrative about Donald Trump and Russia as part of a political scheme?
Yes, exactly right.
And they had this meeting also in December of 16, again, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, where they decided to do the new IC assessment, the new intelligence community assessment, the new report.
And that's the one that they put the dossier in, for goodness sake, because they go up to Trump Tower and brief him about it.
Comey does it himself.
So, yeah, this all played out as part of this effort.
And again, I think the motive is clearly displayed in this fact that Tulsi brought forward when she declassified this report, where you have this person saying to Brennan, we shouldn't use this dossier at all.
But his response is, yeah, but doesn't it ring true?
They wanted to believe it.
They wanted to believe this garbage document was true.
And you're right, Sean.
Remember, it was the Clinton campaign through the law firm who then hired the public relations.
The law firm's Perk at Perkins Cooey.
Perkins-Cooey then funnels the money to an op research firm, Fusion GPS.
Fusion GPS then hires Christopher Steele, former MI6 agent, correct?
Exactly.
A foreigner who writes down all this garbage that they used in the ICA.
And maybe more importantly, when Trey Gowdy, the first clip you played, was asking Mr. Brennan the questions.
He said, did you ever rely on this in your court filings?
Teresa, I think, getting at this idea, they used the dossier to help get the FISA warrant to spy on President Trump's campaign.
So this is what we know that first FISA application went in and the bulk of information was before the election in October of 2016.
And James Comey signed not only that one, but the two succeeding ones, and there were four total.
Yep, exactly right.
So there's a pattern here.
We think he lied to when he was under oath in an open hearing, when Trey was asking him questions.
We think he also wasn't square with us when we deposed him last Congress.
And then, of course, here's the big irony.
We were asking these questions last Congress.
The context was we had brought Mr. Brennan in to talk to him about another lie, which was the 51 former Intel officials who told us in that letter before the 2020 election that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian information operation when the FBI had the stinking laptop and they knew that was garbage.
So it's this pattern we see from Brennan where he doesn't seem to be square with us in Congress or with the American people.
And that's why we sent the referral.
And I pointed out last week on your show, Sean, that I don't do this very often.
The facts have to be there.
I mean, it has to be clear to me and to our committee that this guy wasn't square with us.
If this guy was lying to us and he was under oath and had an obligation to tell the truth, then and only then do we send these referrals to the Justice Department.
But we think it certainly warrants here, and that's why we sent it.
It all began in 2016 with the dossier and this whole Russia collusion issue was designed to help Clinton win the election.
Then, of course, when they do the 51 former intels and tell the country that piece of garbage lie, that was designed to help Biden win the election.
So, and then, as you say, the lawfare was, of course, to try to keep President Trump from getting back in office.
So, it was always political.
But then, what happened back in 16 between, again, Election Day and Inauguration Day, is they said, wow, we didn't stop him.
He won the race.
Now, let's use the dossier.
Now, let's use the Russian hoax as a way to undermine President Trump.
The question that you ask, I think, is the central question.
This is a call for the Justice Department.
Was there a conspiracy?
Can they prove there was a conspiracy to stop him from winning and then undermine his first term and then prevent him from winning reelection?
Can you just prove all that?
That's the question for Attorney General Bonzi, Deputy Attorney General Blanche, and the team at the Justice Department.
What we know is what we've referred.
John Brinnen and Williams.
Well, a conservative attorney, Mike Davis, an informal advisor, according to reports of the Attorney General Pam Bondi, is claiming now that this grand jury will consider whether to bring criminal charges against top Democratic figures that he claims have colluded over the last decade to impede Trump, starting with this dirty Russian disinformation dossier.
And he is taking it all the way through the pre-bunking of the very real Hunter Biden laptop.
They knew it was going to be dropped because they knew that Rudy Giuliani's then attorney, Bob Costello, had a copy of it.
They had verified its authenticity in March of 2020.
They were meeting weekly with big tech companies, warning them they may be victims of a Russian disinformation campaign in 2020, knowing that the laptop was real.
And then when it finally came out in the New York Post, they wouldn't tell those companies, is this true or not true, ultimately resulting in the suppression of that information prior to an election that I think would have had a great impact on it.
And then lawfare and weaponization from 2020 to 2024 to make Trump unelectable in, you know, in 2024.
Yeah, no, look, I think you've described it exactly what it is.
I saw Mike Davis' report from what he had said, I think, over the weekend.
We'll just have to see.
This is, again, this is a call for the Attorney General.
If they think the facts are there, and there are a lot of good facts that you just pointed out and the facts that we've discovered in our committee, and we've, again, referred them to the Justice Department.
We'll just have to see.
But I think it's a compelling case.
They were certainly out to get President Trump for the last nine years.
All right, quick break, right back more with Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee in Congress.
We'll continue.
We'll get to your calls on the other side today.
Give us a call, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of this program as we continue.
Entertaining Americans, Coasted Ghost.
Continue now.
Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Let me ask this question.
How did Comey get off the hook?
I guess the statute of limitations have run out unless there's a grand conspiracy charge.
But Comey, you know, signed three of the four FISA warrants.
That's a nine-month period of time.
My understanding is Christopher Steele was kind of booted in December of 2016 because they realized that the dossier was garbage and bar talk.
And so he was out, but Comey kept still, kept using it for two more FISA applications.
And then a third one signed by Rod Rosenstein at the time, the fourth one.
And are they not by law supposed to go to the court and say that the information provided to them to acquire the FISA warrant, that false information was given to the court, and then give the court a chance to rescind that?
Yeah, they are.
They're supposed to Sign on and say this is accurate information.
The only one who got in trouble was the guy who actually changed information.
He changed the contents of an email.
This Kevin Kleinsmith, but he basically got a slap on the wrist.
Remember, when we all start to figure this out, and it was you and it was some of us in Congress and a handful of people started to dig into this.
It took us a while to get all the facts and get everything figured out.
And by the time we did, then you get into the Biden administration because of the 51 Intel letter and everything else and what happened in that campaign.
And of course, the Garland Justice Department and the Biden administration aren't going to prosecute anyone.
And so now here we are eight years later, and we have an attorney general, we have an administration who's saying we're going to hold people accountable who did things wrong.
Now, the left says we're engaging in the very law fair they engaged in.
That's just not true.
We're trying to hold people accountable so this kind of garbage doesn't happen in the future.
So we will just have to see.
But the reason Comey wasn't held accountable sooner is because it was a Garland, Ray, the Garland Justice Department and the Ray FP.
He was protected and the statute of limitations ran out unless there's a grand conspiracy charge.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Now, with Brennan, the statute of limitations on him lying 18 USC 1001, lying to Congress has not run out because he just testified in front of us two years ago.
So that's a five-year statute of limitations.
So there's certainly that charge.
But will that be part of a bigger, broader conspiracy charge?
That's up to the Attorney General.
All right.
He is the chairman of the very important House Judiciary Committee.
Chairman Jim Jordan is with us.
We'll stay focused and dialed in.
I spent too many years of my life unpeeling every layer of that onion with a small ensemble cast, you included.
Thank you.
We appreciate your time, Jim Jordan.
Thank you, sir.
Take care, Sean.
All right.
Look, we have maybe the longest government shutdown in history that we're facing.
It's impacting a lot of people, but more importantly, you still have the Biden-Harris hangover, which is a bad economy, which has put a lot of people in a bad spot.
And they're putting bare necessities on high-interest credit cards.
And you got to save money.
And that's where Pure Talk comes in.
My wireless company, a veteran-owned company, America's wireless company.
Look, you get the same cell towers, the same 5G network as the big carriers, ATT, Verizon, and T-Mobile.
Same exact ones.
You get the same exact service, and the average family saves over $1,000 a year.
That's real money in your pocket.
Anyway, Pure Talk gives you plenty, unlimited talk, unlimited text, plenty of data, $25 a month for the same service.
Anyway, make the switch.
It's simple.
It's fast.
It's easy.
You dial pound 250.
You say the keyword save now.
If you do it now, our friends at Pure Talk will give you 50% additional off your first month.
That's pound 250.
Keyword save now.
Switch to my cell phone provider, an American company, a veteran-owned company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk.
I know we're all locked up in the off-year elections, and we'll have an announcement tonight about these off-year elections on Hannity on the Fox News channel that you're going to want to tune into.
Let's put it this way: we will be on the road this week, and hopefully, many of you might be able to join us.
I'll tell you and announce it tonight.
Kamala Harris suggesting this weekend she might be running for president again.
When are they going to see a woman in charge in the White House?
In their lifetime, for sure.
Could it be you?
Possibly.
Have you made a decision yet?
No, I have not.
But you say in your book, I'm not done.
That is correct.
I am not done.
I have lived my entire career a life of service, and it's in my bones.
And there are many ways to serve.
I've not decided yet what I will do in the future beyond what I'm doing right now.
That should scare every Democrat.
I don't think she's electable, my own opinion.
No surprise, Gavin Newsom, United Socialist Utopia of California.
He was on the All the Smoke podcast.
Have you heard of All the Smoke podcast?
I didn't hear that one.
But anyway, he said Republicans are putting America to a pre-1960s world that anti-woke is anti-black.
Listen to this.
They're literally putting America in reverse.
I mean, quite literally, to a pre-1960s world.
You got the Supreme Court talking about getting rid of the Voting Rights Act.
And that's very real.
That may likely happen in just a matter of months.
I mean, they're rewriting history, censoring historical facts.
It's an unbelievable moment.
All this anti-woke stuff is just anti-black.
Period.
Full stop.
All the CRT, ESG, DEI stuff, that's all this is.
It's this great purge, and it's happening in real time.
And I'm just, I'm sitting here, and I feel like, you know, luckily I'm governor, but like, we're not doing enough.
We're not calling this out.
We're not drawing a line here.
And he goes on to describe raising himself and hustling to pay bills when he had a very privileged upbringing, which is kind of laughable.
He blasts Trump ICE raids and says it calls it terror on the streets of America.
And then he admitted it's not exactly a secret that he himself has presidential ambitions and admits finally for the first time.
Here's what he said.
It's fair to say after the 2026 midterms, you're going to give it serious thought.
Yeah, I'd be lying otherwise.
I'd just be lying.
And I can't do that.
Governor, you have long said that if you ever run for the White House, you need a compelling why, a reason.
Are you moving closer to figuring out your own why and your own decision?
Yeah, Nietzsche said if you have a compelling why, you can endure anyhow.
And so I don't think, I think the biggest challenge for anyone who runs for any office is people see right through you.
If you don't have that why, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.
And so, look, well, that will, that faith will determine that.
You certainly seem to like being on the ground in South Carolina.
I have to say that.
Seeing you up close, you were having a good time.
I happened to, and thank God I'm in the right business.
I love people.
I actually love people.
Oh, love people.
That's why he's running.
All right.
This will be the question America will need to answer.
Do you want the United States to be California?
Do you want the highest income taxes in the country?
Because that's what he's instituted.
And that's what the current state of California is.
Poverty rate, highest in the nation.
Schools, mostly the worst in the entire country.
Highest sales taxes, highest gas taxes, more money for illegals than any other single state.
Sanctuary, state, and city policies, galore.
Does he think that that will help him win a general election?
May help him in a primary, but will it help him win a general election?
We'll start getting serious about this when the time matters, but right now is not the right time.
All right, let's get to our busy phones.
Andrew is in the great state of Tennessee.
Andrew, how are you?
Glad you called.
Happy Monday if there is such a thing.
Hey, quick idea for your listeners out there regarding the ICE tracker that the Democrats are trying to put together.
A really easy way to defeat that is we need to just fill it with garbage reports.
So across the country, the ice tracker happens, just start reporting stuff.
It'll make it unusable.
Another way that that could be done faster is if someone out there has the skills to code it up, you know, you could have it automated and just have it filing reports all the time.
I actually think that's something probably ICE should be doing itself if they have to.
The fact that this is even allowed, I mean, think of what's happening here, what Democrats are supporting.
They are supporting removing the element of surprise, which then does what?
What happens in that moment?
That means they're basically putting a target on the backs and the foreheads of ICE agents and making their job more dangerous and more difficult.
And anybody that supports this, as far as I'm concerned, if and when something happens to these ICE agents, and I pray to God it doesn't, but they're exponentially, in my opinion, they are increasing the odds that somebody is going to get either seriously hurt or killed.
And this is a very dangerous practice.
And if that's not aiding and abetting law breaking, I don't know what is.
And they're institutionalizing it.
You know, so we'll see what happens.
Andrew, good call.
Appreciate it.
Let's go to Wisconsin.
Mike next on the Sean Hannity show.
What's up, Mike?
Hey, Sean.
Pleasure to get to talk to you today.
I've got a question.
I wish I could have gotten it to you before Jim Jordan got away.
But what's up?
I've got a complaint.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats have blown it with this shutdown because they have not passed a budget.
If they would have passed the budget, we would be in the 27th day of our new fiscal year.
But they have not passed the budget since one budget since 1967.
That was in 1996 under Bill Clinton, and they blew that one up by $102 billion.
Okay, explain to me how, again, unless you nuke the filibuster, explain to me how Republicans, they do have a majority, but they don't have that magic number 60.
How do Republicans get to that number?
They would need Democratic support.
They're not going to get it in this hyper-partisan environment we live in.
So I agree with you.
I'd prefer to return to regular order, but under the current rules, it's impossible.
The budgeting process should be where if they don't come up with a budget as they are required, constitutionally required to do, they stay in Congress until they get a budget done.
And they don't.
Okay, but you could stay there till the cows come home.
Do you really think that under Chucky Schumer and these radical Democrats that the Senate is going to ultimately approve any budget Republicans put forward?
I doubt it.
Yeah, well, I'm picking on Congress as a wholesale for the last 60 years.
Okay, granted, the system's atrocious.
Granted, they should return to regular order.
Granted, they should be passing their budgets on time, and they're not.
And the system's designed that they can't get it done, especially in the environment we're living in.
I want the same thing you do.
Yeah, I wish we could get the media.
I think yourself and everybody else in the media needs to hold them accountable and put their feet to the fire about what.
There's nothing I can do or say that's going to convince a single Democrat besides John Fetterman to do the right thing.
Correct.
Nothing.
There's no rational discussion with these people.
They've lost their minds.
Yes, they have.
But if all the voters, if we put the subject out there enough where both sides get a hold of it, where Democrats start holding their own leaders accountable, then maybe something will get done.
Well, then why wouldn't they go along with a clean CR, which Chuck Schumer has supported his entire political career, but now is giving in to the radical left and his party.
Yeah, again, he's trying to blame it on the Republicans, and the Republicans are pointing their fingers at Chuck as they should be.
Yeah, I mean, look, I get it.
Now, look, we have a lot of news on this, and I went through it earlier, and I can just tell you the Schumer shutdown.
There's going to be an end in sight.
And I'll tell you why, for a lot of different reasons.
Democrats have said that they know it's going to impact and hurt poor people, but they're doing it anyway because they hate Trump and they don't want to give up their, quote, leverage.
And the Democratic Party is in this doom spiral and loop, if you will.
And they're on the losing side.
You know, even, for example, their argument about health care, it's based on lies.
If you strip away the lies about Obamacare subsidies that are going to expire this year, Democrats' main excuse for shutting down the government, what they're not telling you is that the Obamacare subsidies are already sending premiums soaring and expected to rise $1,665 or 20% on average, according to a Paragon Health Institute study.
If you have the subsidies, that only amounts for 4% of that money.
That's it.
And Democrats are lying when they say that.
But Democrats, you know, they're now demanding the subsidy.
They're demanding $1.5 trillion.
The only, you know, right now you have two Democrats that, Fetterman and one other one, that have said, you know, they're losing.
You know, Jake Tapper, fake Jake, even asking Chris Murphy if he's willing to let Americans go hungry why they're using, you know, we played it last week.
There's one congresswoman saying, well, that's our only leverage point.
Hakeem Jeffries dismissing leverage talk as food security, you know, snap programs and snap benefits may be halted because of this.
And the agriculture department posted a stunning notice that these subsidies are ending.
The world's largest federal workers union just demanded Chuck Schumer, and Democrats reopen the government.
They're the ones keeping it closed.
The American Federation of Government Employees President, it's time to pass the clean CR and end the shutdown.
But they're not doing it.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
Appreciate the call, my friend.
Quick break, right back.
We'll get to more of your calls coming up here.
800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program as we roll along this Monday.
The left wants to silence Hannity.
Don't let it happen.
Make the commitment now.
Three hours every day at 3 p.m.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Back to our busy phones.
800-941 Sean is our number.
Mike in Canada.
I wanted to discuss the Ontario provincial ad that's been run on US TV that I know that you've seen relating to you, Ronald Reagan and his stance on trade.
I did, and President Trump got a little pissed off about it because it's out of context with where we are today.
But what's your point?
Okay, well, the issue that he described when he went online late at night to tirade and say that the ad was fake, there's nothing fake in that ad.
The Ronald Reagan speech in 1987 ran, I don't know, between five and six minutes.
I watched it on YouTube, and the gist of what Reagan was trying to tout at that time had nothing to do with protectionism.
He was embracing free trade.
He was embracing capitalism.
He was embracing the idea that everybody wins.
You can increase the amount of, you know, commerce that you conduct, as opposed to putting limits on it.
Protectionism kills jobs.
It erases.
I hate to tell you, with all due respect to my friends in Canada, and I think we should be best friends.
I like our friends in Canada.
I'm glad you got rid of a little Justin, but you could still do a little better.
But putting all that aside, Canada put massive tariffs on American farmers, American dairy products, on a lot of American meat and poultry and cheese and dairy and milk.
You guys put that on us, and it's been on us for a long time.
So if we want to be honest about it, you started this fight.
Now, somebody's in office that's fighting back, and you guys don't like it.
Get your own government to embrace what you're demanding that we embrace, and that's free and fair trade.
And you'll have a much better time.
Insist that, obviously, that people conduct themselves with a little bit of dignity here.
Yeah, but you're not acknowledging your country started this trade war.
Canada started it, not the U.S. 1987, we approached the United States.
At the time, Brian Mulroney approached Ronald Reagan about the concept of, hey, can we find a way to...
The last 15 or 20 years, Brian Mulroney was great.
Maybe one of your best prime ministers ever.
I loved him.
I knew him.
Okay.
God rest his soul.
He was a great guy.
But you know what?
Take a look at Canada's policies towards the U.S. over these years and how much you put on us.
