Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. If you're like me
Speaker 1: and suffer from insomnia, you know what, that's not fun.
Speaker 1: You know I tried everything I couldn't get a good
Speaker 1: night's sleep. And this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
Speaker 1: That's right. It is my pillow. Mike Lindell invented it
Speaker 1: and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and
Speaker 1: it's changed my life. I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer.
Speaker 1: And the good news you can too, because go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com promo code Sean and take advantage
Speaker 1: of one of Mike Glendell's best offers, his special four pack.
Speaker 1: You get fifty percent off to my Pillow Premium Pillows
Speaker 1: to go Anywhere Pillows. My Pillows made in the USA,
Speaker 1: has a sixty day unconditional money back guaranteed no risk
Speaker 1: to you, and attend you warranty. You don't want to
Speaker 1: spend more sleepless nights on a pillow tossing interney that's
Speaker 1: not working for you. Just go to my pillow dot
Speaker 1: com right now, use the promo code Sean, and you
Speaker 1: get Mike Glendell's special four pack. You get to my
Speaker 1: Pillow Premium Pillows to go Anywhere pillows fifty percent off,
Speaker 1: and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and RESTful
Speaker 1: and comfortable and deep, peeling and recrupative sleep you've been
Speaker 1: craving and deserve my Pillow dot Com promo coach Shawn
Speaker 1: Hard Happy Monday. Glad you're with us. Right down our
Speaker 1: toll free telephone, Hume. We got a busy newsday today
Speaker 1: at eight hundred nine four one, Shawn, if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program, you know this
Speaker 1: media freak out over John Brennan, the single most political
Speaker 1: radical ever to hold the position of the CIA director,
Speaker 1: is getting more fascinating by the day. Now answer this question. Now, Remember,
Speaker 1: in spite of what he's saying, and in spite of
Speaker 1: what your idiots and the media are saying, Oh, we've
Speaker 1: actually taken the time to go and look at c
Speaker 1: I a protocol. And if somebody is to retain would
Speaker 1: like to retain their security clearance, they must act in
Speaker 1: a manner that is consistent with how a current CIA
Speaker 1: employee would act. Now is John Brennan, with all of
Speaker 1: his inflammatory rhetoric, uh, in any way acting like any
Speaker 1: CIA employee that you know. No, does he deserve to
Speaker 1: lose his clearance? Yes? Should he really be asking how
Speaker 1: he ever got a clearance in the first place? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's a probably a really good question. And
Speaker 1: how is it if you want to just look at,
Speaker 1: you know, the deep state and what a lot of
Speaker 1: what we have exposed has been proven true to all
Speaker 1: of you. We've got James Comey fired, McCabe fired. That's
Speaker 1: the director and the deputy director of the Federal Bureau
Speaker 1: of Investigation. Again, I'm not I'm not talking. Don't rank
Speaker 1: really rank and file guys. None of them are gone.
Speaker 1: Now that's the interesting part of this, And what they
Speaker 1: tell me privately is is minded me they want to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of all this more than anybody.
Speaker 1: Then you can add to departures, Peter Struck fired, Lisa
Speaker 1: pay resigned, James Ribeki resigned, James Baker resigned, and there
Speaker 1: are others. But all told, then when you look at FBI,
Speaker 1: either firings, uh departures or demotions, I can name twenty
Speaker 1: five top officials. This because the evidence is overwhelming and
Speaker 1: it's incontrovertible. You know, look at the d O. J.
Speaker 1: Sally Yates fired bruce Or, Deputy Associate Deputy Attorney General,
Speaker 1: fourth in line, fourth highest ranking official the d o J.
Speaker 1: He's demoted twice, and the President rightly will bruce Or,
Speaker 1: whose family received big money for helping create the phony, dirty,
Speaker 1: discredited Russian dossier ever be fired from the Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: Justice Department, and Trump rightly writes a total joke. It's
Speaker 1: not a joke. That's the problem. The problem is it's corruption.
Speaker 1: There's enough evidence here at this point with what we
Speaker 1: point it out last week and the correspondence with Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: both before and after the election, Before and after the
Speaker 1: firings of Christopher Steele, before Steele testified that he wouldn't
Speaker 1: even stand by his own dossie, they were still pushing
Speaker 1: this bony thing and and using it a to stop
Speaker 1: Trump from getting elected, be to hurt the incoming administration,
Speaker 1: and see really just to take him down, and they
Speaker 1: were they were conspiring to do so. We've got the emails.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that Christopher Steele was so afraid
Speaker 1: of quote and this is from last week being exposed
Speaker 1: and hoping the firewalls hold up that he was discussing
Speaker 1: we got twenty five high ranking FBI and d o
Speaker 1: J departures, firings to motions. It's all happening. And one
Speaker 1: of the big things that people are saying, well, what
Speaker 1: about brennanan Well, frankly, anybody that's fired ought to lose
Speaker 1: their security clearance. And you're saying, well, Hannity, why would
Speaker 1: you do that? What if we ever need them, Well,
Speaker 1: we could always reinstate it. Number one, But number two,
Speaker 1: I don't think this president is ever going to ever
Speaker 1: want the advice of John Brennan, James Comey, Andrew McCabe
Speaker 1: or Peter Struck or Sally Yates. Let's be honest here.
Speaker 1: And it's and and the idea that this has happened
Speaker 1: before but was never reported on is also a big
Speaker 1: issue now. One of there was a great exchange on
Speaker 1: fake news CNN. I know it sounds like a contradiction.
Speaker 1: It was a great exchange because I never saw anybody
Speaker 1: this is Look, I've watched this guy just it's just
Speaker 1: angry anti Trumper Phil mud And anyway, there's a guy
Speaker 1: by the name of Paris Denard. We should get him
Speaker 1: on the radio program. I don't know, I guess he
Speaker 1: has he worked for CNN fake news. I mean he
Speaker 1: tore this guy apart, not once, not twice, not three times.
Speaker 1: He points out that in the private sector that having
Speaker 1: a security clearance is worth a lot of money, and
Speaker 1: he directly asked fil Mud about it, and film at
Speaker 1: three separate times turns it into I've never ever indignant, outraged,
Speaker 1: I've never used this for any governmental contract. And he
Speaker 1: keeps saying, I didn't ask you about a government contract.
Speaker 1: Now I don't know anything about what film Mud does
Speaker 1: or doesn't do. If he has a consulting from it's
Speaker 1: neither here nor there. But if you want to talk
Speaker 1: about this show being ahead of the curve, well remember
Speaker 1: last week we took time out of our busy schedule
Speaker 1: to tell you about a pretty important book. And it's
Speaker 1: called Compromised. And this is put out by the Government
Speaker 1: Accountability Institute. They're the same people, Peter Schweitzer's group that
Speaker 1: were involved in exposing so much about the Clintons, so
Speaker 1: much about what we then built on as it worked
Speaker 1: for uranium one. You know, imagine this. We actually we
Speaker 1: actually got to the eyewitness and the FBI that was
Speaker 1: inside Putin's networking side the United States bribing, extorting, money laundering, racketeering,
Speaker 1: all of that, and the informant saw it and reported
Speaker 1: on it. Who was the FBI director at the time,
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller. And in the meantime, all those crimes were
Speaker 1: being committed, the FBI is being told about it, and
Speaker 1: yet they're continued to allow to operate inside the United
Speaker 1: States and they're successful. The whole purpose was to get there,
Speaker 1: you know, for Putent's thugs in the United States, to
Speaker 1: get their greedy hands on America's uranium, so that which
Speaker 1: is the foundational material for nuclear weapons. And we're told
Speaker 1: but none of it ever left the country. Well that
Speaker 1: turned out to be a total croc also because that
Speaker 1: wasn't true. But what Paris den Hard is saying in
Speaker 1: this debate, I'm gonna play it here, and i want
Speaker 1: you to keep one thing in mind is that security
Speaker 1: clearances are worth money. And by the way, and I'm
Speaker 1: not necessarily against it. You know, you build up a
Speaker 1: certain amount of sacrifice your government. You work for the government.
Speaker 1: There's literally for many people, they make a lot more
Speaker 1: in the in the private sector. For me, these the
Speaker 1: numbers sound pretty outrageous to me. But I'm not against
Speaker 1: the idea of people getting outside of government using their professionalism,
Speaker 1: the experience they have garnered to get into the private
Speaker 1: sector and make money. I'm a capitalist. But we do
Speaker 1: know that James Comey's net worth, according to Compromise this book,
Speaker 1: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, that his networth
Speaker 1: skyrocketed four thousand percent between leaving the d J and
Speaker 1: two thousand and five and returning in two thousand and thirteen.
Speaker 1: One thing that caught my eyes in this and we
Speaker 1: discussed it last week. Again we're ahead of the curb
Speaker 1: because now are these security clearances worth something? Yeah? And
Speaker 1: call Me made six point one million dollars after Muller's
Speaker 1: FBI granted Comey's employer, In other words, that the ones
Speaker 1: paying him Lockheed Martin, largest contractor in history, a billion
Speaker 1: dollar boondoggle, and under Muller's direction, the FBI granted multiple
Speaker 1: spy contracts to Lockheed Martin while call Me advised them
Speaker 1: on the legality of the operations. Call Me also, according
Speaker 1: to the book, got another six million dollars working for
Speaker 1: one of the world's largest hedge funds, and an additional
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars for a quote unused vacation time, and
Speaker 1: then it goes into Muller. You know, he cashed in
Speaker 1: as well. And in twenty thirteen, when Comey took over
Speaker 1: the FBI, on Mueller left to start a consulting firm
Speaker 1: made more than three and a half million dollars a
Speaker 1: year and giving speeches representing clients who had previously UH
Speaker 1: enriched as FBI director. Look, and I'm not saying there's
Speaker 1: anything wrong with it. This revolving door and government is
Speaker 1: what it is. I don't like it, just generally if
Speaker 1: the stench goes to high heaven. But the fact that
Speaker 1: we keep getting intertwined between these two and others is
Speaker 1: beyond the coincidence to me and troubling in light of
Speaker 1: where we now are with the deep state. But just listen,
Speaker 1: this is this guy, Paris de nard Is is right
Speaker 1: by the way. I didn't watch Fake Newcy and then
Speaker 1: I saw it on mediaite. I was reading, you know
Speaker 1: this media it's one of these websites that chronicles, you know,
Speaker 1: all the all the intramural fights and moments on cable news,
Speaker 1: which then they do a good job. Anyway, here's the exchange.
Speaker 1: A lot of these people that have these security clearances
Speaker 1: and this is the secret and and the swampy Washton
Speaker 1: d C. They have them and they keep them because
Speaker 1: it's profitable for them after they leave government. Because if
Speaker 1: you have a security clearance, especially high level security clearances,
Speaker 1: your contracts and your consulting gift pay you a lot
Speaker 1: more money because of the access that you have. I
Speaker 1: hope the President continues to do this, and I hope
Speaker 1: he adds i'm Rosa to the list because if she
Speaker 1: has a clearance, she too, because of her actions, should
Speaker 1: have it revoked. Well, I don't know if I put
Speaker 1: m Rossa in the same category of people signed those
Speaker 1: letters but filmed. I imagine you want to react profitable Paris.
Speaker 1: When I am requested to sit on an advisor board,
Speaker 1: let me ask you one question. How much do you
Speaker 1: think I'm paid to do that? At the requestion to
Speaker 1: the US with the request of the government, and you
Speaker 1: got ten seconds? How much I'll give I'll ask you
Speaker 1: a question. How much are you paid for your answer
Speaker 1: the question? And gig for for being a for They
Speaker 1: have no contracts with the U. S Government that pay more.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking here, and this is the thing I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about Zerial that's beyond this. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about your role with the federal government. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: that insultant and a contractor, the consulting firms that they
Speaker 1: form and that you all get is because you get
Speaker 1: more money when having a consultant before having the security
Speaker 1: class like that doesn't happen. I have zero consulting relationship
Speaker 1: to with the US government. Zero. I'm not talking field.
Speaker 1: That's a good talking point. I'm not talking about relationship
Speaker 1: with the government. I'm talking about in the private sector.
Speaker 1: When you have a security fans and you keep the
Speaker 1: relationships with the private sector that involved my security clearance zero.
Speaker 1: I get zero dollars from consulting companies that deal with
Speaker 1: US government. Are we clear? Well, I will be clear
Speaker 1: and saying that everybody in Washington, d c. Knows. If
Speaker 1: you don't want to be honest about it, that's on you, alright.
Speaker 1: So the point is that maybe filled Mont doesn't, but
Speaker 1: certainly this book compromises pointing out that Comey does, and
Speaker 1: that all these other people, because of their background, experience,
Speaker 1: and yes, their security clearance. Yeah, they've all they've all benefited.
Speaker 1: I gotta so I think that that was a great
Speaker 1: that nobody else is picked up on this. This book
Speaker 1: is really full of yeah, follow the money type of information. Now,
Speaker 1: I guess if these guys were friends with Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: that they probably could expect Robert Mueller to be knocking
Speaker 1: on their door and asking a bunch of questions. And
Speaker 1: if they paid taxes on it. And in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five, by the way, we still have no verdict
Speaker 1: in the Mullard and the Mantaphor case. Third straight day
Speaker 1: of deliberations. Linda and I disagree on this point. I
Speaker 1: think I think that they only asked what, no, no,
Speaker 1: you know what, you're right, say that it's for Pette
Speaker 1: thought I didn't hear it is every Do you want
Speaker 1: to hear the breaking news sounder? Jason, Yeah, And I think, no,
Speaker 1: we don't need the breaking news sounder. Just say it again.
Speaker 1: I'm always right, go ahead. Lynda McLaughlan is admitting that
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity on his own show is right. Well, no,
Speaker 1: because I said, because you had said to me Friday, Linda,
Speaker 1: I will put this out ahead of time. You said
Speaker 1: that you thought, no way man off, it's going to
Speaker 1: get a conviction, and I said, the odds are against him.
Speaker 1: If there's there's six women and they're six men. And
Speaker 1: if they're gonna be honest, and they're literally just looking
Speaker 1: at the evidence, which I know it's hard to put
Speaker 1: a side personal bias, he's gonna walk. The only thing
Speaker 1: we didn't see is the follow the money charts. That's
Speaker 1: the only then, by the way, that that's a key
Speaker 1: part of this. And you were also right that they
Speaker 1: only asked this a good day for you. It's very
Speaker 1: good Monday. They only asked ones for that. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: questions that they asked was about reasonable doubt which happened
Speaker 1: on day so far off deliberations and they may go
Speaker 1: into the night tonight if they think their vacation on
Speaker 1: the financial interests into farm bank accounts. All right, we
Speaker 1: got that. Okay, it was talking, But all right, I
Speaker 1: have to go to a break. I have to tell
Speaker 1: everybody about oh you do okay, public life. You can
Speaker 1: reclaim it. You can't reclaim anything. It's Sean Hannity shop.
Speaker 1: For decades, credit cards have been telling us buy it
Speaker 1: now and pay for it later with interest, despite your
Speaker 1: best intentions, that interest can get out of control fast.
Speaker 1: With Learning Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay
Speaker 1: off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment. Since two
Speaker 1: thousand seven, Learning Club has helped millions of people regain
Speaker 1: control of their finances with affordable, fixed rate personal loans.
Speaker 1: No trips to a bank, no high interest credit cards.
Speaker 1: Just go to lenning club dot com, tell them about
Speaker 1: yourself and how much you want to borrow, pick the
Speaker 1: terms that are right for you, and if you're approved,
Speaker 1: your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in
Speaker 1: as little as a few days. Learning Club is the
Speaker 1: number one peer to peer lending platform with over thirty
Speaker 1: five billion in loans issued. Go to learning club dot
Speaker 1: com slash today, check your rate in minutes and borrow
Speaker 1: up to forty dollars. That's lenning Club dot com slash today.
Speaker 1: Lenning Club dot com slash today all loans made by
Speaker 1: web bank member f d I C Equal Housing lender.
Speaker 1: So there's big New York Times report this weekend about um,
Speaker 1: why would the White House Council Don McGann ever give
Speaker 1: a single solitary second to Robert Muller and his team?
Speaker 1: According to this report, Now I I understand what the
Speaker 1: strategy was. This is when the president, I guess that
Speaker 1: is original lawyers Ty Cobb and and John Dowd. I
Speaker 1: don't know why would they have ever waived attorney client
Speaker 1: privilege and by the way, only the president can wave it,
Speaker 1: not as lawyers. And they decided to hand over. They
Speaker 1: wanted to be cooperative with Mueller a lot of and
Speaker 1: I know there was talk, oh, it's all gonna be
Speaker 1: over by Thanksgiving of last year. Now we'll be lucky
Speaker 1: if it's over by Thanksgiving. It this year, then it
Speaker 1: was gonna be over by Christmas, then right after the
Speaker 1: New year, then March, then May, and here we are.
Speaker 1: But the fact that in the article, I mean ethically,
Speaker 1: I just cannot understand, you know, this is this is
Speaker 1: not only the office of the President, but it is
Speaker 1: the President's Council, and um, why that would ever be
Speaker 1: waived is it's unimaginable to me. And that, you know,
Speaker 1: McCann goes on to give thirty hours of testimony to
Speaker 1: Robert Muller and his team out there is another sign
Speaker 1: of this that maybe strategically, maybe they're smarter than I am,
Speaker 1: because that has never happened before. And you know, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe that's the interview that they got. They don't get
Speaker 1: the president, they got his lawyer because the only reason
Speaker 1: at this point that I could ever see Mueller wanting
Speaker 1: the president and is to find well, what are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on firing? It doesn't matter what his thoughts are.
Speaker 1: If he got a full accounting from the president's attorney,
Speaker 1: well that's gotta be the president's accounting. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if if they're bringing them in because they set a
Speaker 1: perjury trap, well what you said is different than what
Speaker 1: you're a lawyer said. Well, this is what Rudy was saying.
Speaker 1: It'll be the special counsel. If there are two versions
Speaker 1: of events, they will decide which one they think is
Speaker 1: the truth. That's what Rudy was saying to the top
Speaker 1: of the hour. Remember FBI departures, call me fired, McCabe fired,
Speaker 1: Struck fired, Page demoted, sign Rebecki resigned, Baker resigned. In total,
Speaker 1: then you've got the DOJ departure, Sally Yates fired or
Speaker 1: demoted twice, and so many other high profile people in
Speaker 1: total that are now out. And then yeah, this guy
Speaker 1: Paris ton Art is right that, yeah, there is there
Speaker 1: is a value on the open market as it relates
Speaker 1: to the marketability of a security clearance, because you know,
Speaker 1: that's the only way that James Comey can represent or
Speaker 1: be a part of a group that represents Lockheed Martin
Speaker 1: and can go to to Muller and and offer his
Speaker 1: recommendations about, you know, how to look at the legality
Speaker 1: of bidding for you know, contracts with the government as
Speaker 1: it relates to what the FBI is spending on spy material, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying does any necessarily anything the farious
Speaker 1: in it, but there is a revolving door issue here.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you're fired, why wouldn't you lose
Speaker 1: your security clearance? I, for the life of me don't understand,
Speaker 1: except unless the thinking of Cobb, Thie Cobb, and John
Speaker 1: Dowd were that, Okay, if we give you one point
Speaker 1: four million documents and we also allow the White House
Speaker 1: Council to speak to you for thirty hours, then that
Speaker 1: basically he's speaking for the president because he's the president's attorney.
Speaker 1: I just but for me, ethnically, it's problematic, well beyond
Speaker 1: a privilege issue now, and I don't see why anybody
Speaker 1: would waive that privilege. And if you go back and
Speaker 1: passed instances, I mean that would never have happened with
Speaker 1: Clinton lawyers, and um, you know McGann literally has his
Speaker 1: loyalty to act in his client's best interest at all times.
Speaker 1: So why they would waive this privilege. I don't know
Speaker 1: the president in his official capacity as his client. And
Speaker 1: according to the article, mccannon his own lawyer, and his
Speaker 1: lawyers suspected, well, maybe they were making him the fall guy,
Speaker 1: and they devised their own strategy that was in the
Speaker 1: best interest of Don McGann. At least, if you believe
Speaker 1: the New York Times, Mueller probably was, you know, barred
Speaker 1: from eliciting or receiving this information from McGann. And as
Speaker 1: well as knowing McGann was the president's lawyer. I mean,
Speaker 1: there actually is an a B, A formal opinion my
Speaker 1: friend David Shoone sent me over the weekend that probably
Speaker 1: applies right onto this and would have prohibited McGann and
Speaker 1: Muller from ever engaging in this conduct. And then it
Speaker 1: raises questions about what did Don McGann say. But if
Speaker 1: it's used to say, well, you talk to the president's attorney.
Speaker 1: We gave you one point four million documents. This is
Speaker 1: look at the team. It's there's no evidence of any
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. And if you're trying to create a perjury
Speaker 1: trap for the president. Basically, if he says one thing
Speaker 1: that contradicts what Don McGann does, says, well, who's the
Speaker 1: one that decides which version is correct? And this is
Speaker 1: where Rudy got into a little bit of maybe it
Speaker 1: was inarticulate, but inarticulate in the sense that it was
Speaker 1: very legalistic what he was saying. He actually used the
Speaker 1: phrase truth isn't the truth. What he was saying is,
Speaker 1: you have two versions of testimony that will be given
Speaker 1: to the special counsel on say, any given issue. Who
Speaker 1: decides what version is right or what version is truth?
Speaker 1: And what version is it? It would be the special
Speaker 1: counsel would make that decision if there was a conflict,
Speaker 1: and so you know his years as a prosecutor. That
Speaker 1: was what Rudy was referring to. They will be the
Speaker 1: ones that decide who they decided to believe it. But
Speaker 1: we already know that prejudice against the president. We already
Speaker 1: know they don't like the president. It was inarticulate. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna sit there and defended, but I think but
Speaker 1: he was speaking more legal jargon too. I guess Chucky
Speaker 1: Little Todd over there at uh Conspiracy TV. He will
Speaker 1: never be Tim Russet ever. Might have the show, but
Speaker 1: he won't be Tim Russert. It was an original, amazing man.
Speaker 1: I loved Tim russur Um, I'm gonna have to be
Speaker 1: rushed into having him testified, why so that he gets
Speaker 1: trapped into perjury. And when you tell me he's you're
Speaker 1: testified because he's gonna tell the truth that he shouldn't worry. Well,
Speaker 1: that's silly, Rudy said, because it's somebody's version of the truth,
Speaker 1: not the truth. And in other words, truth is truth,
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd said, And he said, no, it's not. Now
Speaker 1: Juliannie was saying, and he said, truth isn't the truth,
Speaker 1: Mr Mayor, the truth is the truth. This is going
Speaker 1: to be, you know, bad for you. And he's like running,
Speaker 1: And in a sense he's right. But what he's saying
Speaker 1: in this statement is very clear to me and I
Speaker 1: think would be clear to most lawyers. What he's saying
Speaker 1: here is that, Okay, if there are conflicting versions of
Speaker 1: a story, big items, small item, it doesn't matter. If
Speaker 1: you're under oath and you say something that conflicts with
Speaker 1: what the lawyer said, they are going to be the
Speaker 1: ones that make the determination of who they believe and
Speaker 1: which one they believe is telling the truth. Now, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe they're both wrong. Maybe it's somewhere in the middle
Speaker 1: where the actual truth lies. But I'm assuming McGann when
Speaker 1: he speaks under oath is speaking the truth, as I
Speaker 1: would suspect the President would be. Um And then Julianni
Speaker 1: respond he said, you know, he said I didn't talk
Speaker 1: about Flynn with Comey. Comey says, you did talk about it,
Speaker 1: So what's the truth there? And I thought that was
Speaker 1: a pretty good comeback on Julianni part. They have two
Speaker 1: pieces of evidence, Julianni said of Mueller's team, Trump says, well,
Speaker 1: I didn't tell them. The other guy says he did
Speaker 1: say it, which is the truth. Maybe you know, because
Speaker 1: you're a genius. But that's the point is that would
Speaker 1: be the special counsel that would decide what they ascertained
Speaker 1: to be the truth. And they have a pre judgment
Speaker 1: and a bias against Donald Trump. What they don't like
Speaker 1: what Donald Trump is doing. I mean, the President went
Speaker 1: on a tear this weekend that this is Mueller's team
Speaker 1: as a national disgrace and frankly, any team that would
Speaker 1: hire Andrew Weisman as a national disgrace. How do you
Speaker 1: hire a guy with his track record? How do you
Speaker 1: hire a guy that lost nine oh in the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court that cost tens of thousands of fellow Americans their
Speaker 1: job and the Anderson accounting issue that literally put four
Speaker 1: innocent people from Maryland jail for a year that was
Speaker 1: overturned by the Fifth Circuit. Who loses nine hero in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court? Not many people, and that's part of
Speaker 1: his team. And by the way, what what does any
Speaker 1: of this have to do with what Paul Maniford has
Speaker 1: been charged with? I find it fascinating. It is this
Speaker 1: now goes. You know, if they wrap up like they
Speaker 1: did on Friday at five o'clock, this will be three
Speaker 1: full days no verdict in the Manaphort case. I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not reading into anything here. Let me be very clear.
Speaker 1: The odds for Manafort are not good. But you have
Speaker 1: to see this for what it is, and that was
Speaker 1: he was singled out for one reason is that he
Speaker 1: worked for Trump. The judge in the case knew it.
Speaker 1: The judge said, look, let's let's not kid ourselves here.
Speaker 1: We all know what this is about. You don't really
Speaker 1: care about Paul Manaforts tax issues. You're putting the screws
Speaker 1: to him, so he sings or composes as it relates
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump, so you can prosecutor impeach the president.
Speaker 1: Let's just be honest about what it is happening. The
Speaker 1: judge was right in this particular case. People wondering, well,
Speaker 1: why was that. Why was Judge Ellis tough on the
Speaker 1: prosecution because he sees through this he was singled out
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted for the purpose of putting the screws
Speaker 1: to him. Manafort, you know, has that I have nothing
Speaker 1: to say about what you're looking for. He worked for
Speaker 1: the president like a hundred days, and so they brought
Speaker 1: up this old tax and loan issued case or whatever.
Speaker 1: So that's what you know. This is that this isn't justice.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, it has nothing to do with Russia, nothing
Speaker 1: nothing to do with collusion, It has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump, it has nothing to do with the
Speaker 1: campaign in the election. So then you must ask yourself. Remember,
Speaker 1: the judge made a big deal about wanting to see
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein's mandate, and the mandate is so broad that
Speaker 1: it includes a two thousand five tax case. Well, that
Speaker 1: means basically anybody can be indicted it through the Special Council,
Speaker 1: and nobody's really paying a lot of attention as he's
Speaker 1: now literally, you know, handing out work all over the place,
Speaker 1: you know, ferreting out this one and that one, and
Speaker 1: you know, it's just unbelievable. Okay, where well, where's the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion in this? Well, we do know that Russian misinformation,
Speaker 1: Russian propaganda, Russian lies. We're paid for by Hillary and
Speaker 1: the d n C, whose finances she controlled. According to
Speaker 1: Donna Brazil, they funneled the money through a law firm
Speaker 1: they fired, hired Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson his group, and
Speaker 1: then they hired Christopher Steele. Christopher Steel is also being
Speaker 1: paid by the FBI. And we know that Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: didn't even believe in his own dossier. We've come to
Speaker 1: find out. We find out that under oath, under the
Speaker 1: threat of perjury, and great Brittany said, uh, I'd listen,
Speaker 1: this is raw intelligence. I have no idea if any
Speaker 1: of this is true. Fifty fifty maybe I don't know. Okay,
Speaker 1: then how did it possibly become the basis of four
Speaker 1: fights A warrants and how did they not verify it
Speaker 1: and how did they not corroborate it? And how did
Speaker 1: they not tell the judge or the four judges and
Speaker 1: the original application, three subsequent applications, Hillary paid for it.
Speaker 1: How is it that Hillary got off when it's the
Speaker 1: biggest lamb dunk obstruction of justice case we've ever seen
Speaker 1: in history and a clear violation of the Espionage Act.
Speaker 1: How did all that happen? And what we're discovering is
Speaker 1: that's why the people that have either resigned, have been
Speaker 1: demoted or fired from the FBI and the d o J.
Speaker 1: It's it's not by accident that these people have been exposed.
Speaker 1: And what are we finding fix was in for Hillary?
Speaker 1: That Hillary like she rigged the primary against poor Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: Nobody ever seems to care. I care. I don't know why.
Speaker 1: I just think in America, rigging primary shouldn't happen. And
Speaker 1: then they you then Hillary tried to do in the
Speaker 1: general election. She pays for these Russian lies. The Russian
Speaker 1: lines are disseminated through the America to the American people,
Speaker 1: this phony witch hunt begins, and all these people in
Speaker 1: all these different spots that we we interconnected all this.
Speaker 1: We have Russian influence, it was actually bought and paid for.
Speaker 1: We have FISA core judges that were that a fraud
Speaker 1: was committed on them. We've got it all. We have
Speaker 1: Christopher steel On the fourth highest ranking twice demoted. Bruce
Speaker 1: Or when is he ever gonna be fired? We have
Speaker 1: a communication stream back and forth before the election, after
Speaker 1: the election. I hope the firewalls hold. And uh boy,
Speaker 1: I'm getting a little nervous here. I'm worried we might
Speaker 1: be exposed. And you go to Struck and Page and
Speaker 1: all that corruption. I mean, it stinks to hide. I
Speaker 1: haven't want any of these people have any security clearances.
Speaker 1: So the President's piste off, When is Bruce or going
Speaker 1: to be fired? You know? When is uh? When is
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions Justice Department gonna fire him? Remember Bruce Or
Speaker 1: he's talking to steal about the dossier. Stealer had already
Speaker 1: been fired from the FBI. He's fired from the FBI.
Speaker 1: But the bulk of the FISA warrants are steals, dossier
Speaker 1: Russian lines. And yet we're dealing with the two thousand
Speaker 1: whatever tax case of Poe Manafort. No Russia, none, no,
Speaker 1: collusion none, no Trump none, no campaign nothing. This is
Speaker 1: what it's all become. And this is equal justice under
Speaker 1: the law. This is equal application of our laws. Now
Speaker 1: this is a travesty. This is a witch hunt. I
Speaker 1: don't blame the president for being piste off. He has
Speaker 1: every right to be piste off at this point. And
Speaker 1: it keeps going on and on and on, and then
Speaker 1: his own attorney, the White House Council is talking to Mueller,
Speaker 1: and then it gets into and and John Brennan can
Speaker 1: say whatever he wants about the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: no ramifications with his security clearance. And that was the case.
Speaker 1: People are trying to make you know, where is the
Speaker 1: evidence of collusion, But we got collusion. Somebody paid for
Speaker 1: Russian lines and used Russian lines to get a FISA
Speaker 1: warrant four times. These unbelievable times we're living at. You
Speaker 1: have a former top defense official. This was on Fox
Speaker 1: News Sunday, Admiral Michael Mullen. You know, risk damaging Brennan
Speaker 1: was risking damaging America's intelligence community with his anti Trump comments.
Speaker 1: Even Brennan said, he's away over the top. You know,
Speaker 1: we've got remember back the Weekly Standard November. They pointed
Speaker 1: out that it was Brennan that tried to what no, no,
Speaker 1: Now we know he lied to the Senate and Tell
Speaker 1: Committee as well as the American people about spying and
Speaker 1: and so on and so forth, and illegally spied on
Speaker 1: the Senate Intelligence Committee issue of teen. Brennan but actually
Speaker 1: tried to silence the heroes of Benghazi, keeping them from
Speaker 1: telling the truth about what happened over there, because he
Speaker 1: was afraid it would expose the Obama administrations and Hillary's
Speaker 1: big Benghazi cover up. Remember, they wanted these guys, forced
Speaker 1: them to sign non disclosure agreements. By the way, even
Speaker 1: the Washington Post people forget July thirty one, fourteen, they
Speaker 1: called for Brennan to be fired. Interesting quote, you know
Speaker 1: the accusation. Washington Post points out that John Brennan was
Speaker 1: asked by Andrew Mitchell whether the CIA had illegally access
Speaker 1: Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers to thwart an investigation by
Speaker 1: the committee into the agency's passed interrogation techniques. Accusation had
Speaker 1: been made earlier in the day by Diane Feinstein, who
Speaker 1: said that the CIA violated separation of powers principle. Brennan said,
Speaker 1: as far as the allegations, you know, CIA hacking Senate computers.
Speaker 1: Nothing could be further from the truth. Should surprise nobody.
Speaker 1: When the truth came out, Brennan was exposed as a liar.
Speaker 1: And it goes on and on, like, are we the
Speaker 1: only people that don't do any investigative reporting? You're not
Speaker 1: a reporter, Hannah. We yeah, we do reporting a lot
Speaker 1: more than they do. By the way, sixty one people
Speaker 1: shot over the weekend in Chicago. What are we doing?
Speaker 1: When is that going to be fixed? I can't believe
Speaker 1: this is allowed to continue in this great country. It's
Speaker 1: unbelievable to me. I've got to protect the people in Chicago.
Speaker 1: Is that so hard to understand? Put the resources on
Speaker 1: the ground. Dead fish isn't gonna do it. So John
Speaker 1: Brennan's threatening to Sue. Okay, Sue. I love to get
Speaker 1: you know, Discovery into his emails, etcetera. Text messages, all right,
Speaker 1: New Gingrich, Sarah Gregg much more. In an exclusive interview,
Speaker 1: coming up, I clad you with us our too, right
Speaker 1: down our toll free number. It's eight hundred nine four one,
Speaker 1: seawn if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: I pointed out that Don McGann, the White House Council.
Speaker 1: It's I can't even fathom why this happened, but it did.
Speaker 1: Um although there's been I have known about this for
Speaker 1: a period of time. Uh that he had even some
Speaker 1: thirty hours of testimony as it relates to what he
Speaker 1: saw and heard in the White House. The White House
Speaker 1: handed over one point four million documents as it relates
Speaker 1: to those witch hunt. Now, the White House Special Counsel
Speaker 1: represents the President and the office, and he gave thirty
Speaker 1: hours a testimony. But with that said, uh, new king
Speaker 1: Rich who joins us now, I think rightly points out,
Speaker 1: well now that there's no no of the heat testified
Speaker 1: the president's lawyer for thirty hours. There's no reason at
Speaker 1: all for Muller to even ask to interview the President,
Speaker 1: which I think is a thousand percent right. The only
Speaker 1: reason Mr Speaker would be to me, it seems that
Speaker 1: it would be a perjury travel Well, your lawyer said this,
Speaker 1: and you say that, and one of yours are lying,
Speaker 1: and we're going to determine who the lawar is. I
Speaker 1: think it's up to three mounts New class mourners yesterday
Speaker 1: who were just astounded by New York Times article and
Speaker 1: thought that it clearly indicated the end of all right,
Speaker 1: we're having about a hard time hearing you. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Are you want a Sports Illustrated football phone? I'm just asking.
Speaker 1: We don't have to remember they used to give out
Speaker 1: the we're gonna reconnect with you. Hang on, we'll see
Speaker 1: if we can get a better line. Remember Sports Illustrated
Speaker 1: years ago. If your order of subscription, we'll send you
Speaker 1: this really cool football phone. And I'm like, okay, who
Speaker 1: wants then you? Who wants a football phone? Well? I
Speaker 1: guess probably Jason is the biggest n of ELSA. But
Speaker 1: you know I don't want a football phone or sneaker phone.
Speaker 1: None of those craps get or get smartphone only. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well listen, or maybe a Dick Tracy watch that you
Speaker 1: can talk into, which, by the way, we actually now
Speaker 1: have it's called uh an I watch, or want to
Speaker 1: be preferable to a sneaker phone? Now that's true? All right?
Speaker 1: Do we get the speaker back? Are you calling? Now?
Speaker 1: We gotta get a better line for this. Did you
Speaker 1: want to talk to me about No? I don't. Actually,
Speaker 1: I'm just wishing you'd dial faster because I'm done talking
Speaker 1: about football phones, but I can I can fill the
Speaker 1: gap because the president with the NFL going down, I
Speaker 1: doubt they would give those. I can't even you know,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to watch this year. I can't excuse me.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I have the guests. Lady, go ahead, go ahead,
Speaker 1: Mr Speaker. Okay, you think Muller has nothing now after
Speaker 1: the cooperation? Go ahead? No, Well, what I was focused.
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyers, you know, I'm a historian. But
Speaker 1: the three lawyers I constall him with yesterday all said,
Speaker 1: I just flat out when when you give up executive privilege,
Speaker 1: which the president did, and you give up lawyer confidentiality,
Speaker 1: which the president did, and your top attorney, who's the
Speaker 1: guy who was in the room all the time spends
Speaker 1: you think about this thirty hours talking to Moore's team
Speaker 1: and saying to them, based on the New York Times coverage,
Speaker 1: that as a lawyer, he did not believe Trump did
Speaker 1: anything illegal. Now at point, what's Moller's case for just
Speaker 1: not closing up shop, writing a report and going home.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is over. Not only only a crazy
Speaker 1: fanatically Brennan, I would think that there's anything left in
Speaker 1: this story and the truth is that the time has
Speaker 1: come to just close it down, to go home. Realized
Speaker 1: that it was a dry hold. There ain't nothing there,
Speaker 1: and they're never gonna get Donald Trump in these issues.
Speaker 1: You've lived through this. How many ethical charges were thrown
Speaker 1: at you? And I think all but once you know,
Speaker 1: and even that one, I think eventually was thrown out.
Speaker 1: How many total, well, I had. I had eighty three
Speaker 1: Athletics Committee charges we beat eighty two three was the
Speaker 1: lawyer a letter my lawyer had written that was technically wrong,
Speaker 1: but it was my fault because I did sign it,
Speaker 1: but it was written by the lawyer. That's the only
Speaker 1: thing out of AD three. I then an attacked by
Speaker 1: the Internal Revenue Service under Bill Clinton, and an attacked
Speaker 1: by the Federal Election Commission. And after two years you're
Speaker 1: fighting in court. We weren't both of those, And the
Speaker 1: judges in fact chastise both the i r S and
Speaker 1: the FEC and said that they were clearly false attacks
Speaker 1: done for political purpose. By the way, I've had the
Speaker 1: same thing happened in my life. I wonder if this
Speaker 1: is a coincidence. And then you spend how many thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands and thousands of dollars and lawyers fees. There's
Speaker 1: no choice, there's no option, and uh and after that,
Speaker 1: But what it does is it effectively distracts you and
Speaker 1: prevents you from putting your full focus on the job
Speaker 1: you have. Mueller has been at this, you know since
Speaker 1: what April of seventeen. I think it's you know, high
Speaker 1: time or sixteen whatever it was, now seventeen, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's high time this goes away. It's a year and
Speaker 1: a half. What does he have. But beyond that, you
Speaker 1: have to give Trump enormous credit. You do exactly right.
Speaker 1: If it was pretty tough for me to do the
Speaker 1: speaker negotiate the only balanced budgets in your lifetime, negotiating reform,
Speaker 1: to negotiate the largest capital in text. That can do
Speaker 1: all of that, will having this kind of a fight
Speaker 1: in the way. But to watch the president calmly lives
Speaker 1: through all this, uh a little constant brawl, uh and
Speaker 1: not back down, not get tired, not get weak. So
Speaker 1: it's an amazing performance on his part. Listen, I tend
Speaker 1: to agree with you, and and in the sense that
Speaker 1: I think this is an important overall lesson for everybody
Speaker 1: in terms of all right, what do they have here.
Speaker 1: Now what frustrates me and that we're now in day
Speaker 1: three still no verdict in the Mantaphor case. It has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with collusion, nothing to do with the campaign,
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia.
Speaker 1: But this is what Muller and his team have focused on.
Speaker 1: And I believe that the judge Ellis is correct and
Speaker 1: that this was to put the screws to Manifort, that
Speaker 1: he was literally singled out because of his his role
Speaker 1: for a hundred days working for Donald Trump. And I
Speaker 1: think that all of that is true. And I guess
Speaker 1: now the big question is, well, what about the real
Speaker 1: Russian lies that were propagated to the American people that
Speaker 1: Hillary paid for, that the phony dossier that even Steel
Speaker 1: admits he never verified. That we're fed to afise a
Speaker 1: court and four applications and a fraud committed upon the court.
Speaker 1: How come we have all this Russia stuff that they
Speaker 1: could be looking at, and then we have literally Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff on tape talking to a Russian about naked pictures
Speaker 1: of or who he thinks is a Russian source giving
Speaker 1: him information about Donald Trump and naked pictures, and that
Speaker 1: evidence is there nobody talks about the real Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: And I think we've learned how really sick the national
Speaker 1: establishment has been, and how bipartisan some of that sickness is.
Speaker 1: And I think we've learned that, um, if Hillary had one,
Speaker 1: all of us who have been swept under the rug,
Speaker 1: none of them whatever come out in the open. And
Speaker 1: we're I think only in the opening stages will take
Speaker 1: you across us of taking apart things that are going
Speaker 1: to just shock us, and we're gonna look at them
Speaker 1: and we're gonna think it could really have been this
Speaker 1: bad and could they really have been this sick? But
Speaker 1: I think that I'm not just the point similar to
Speaker 1: it'sak a loot monoport per second, mean, what what do
Speaker 1: you like Palmentivo? You disliked palm Asset from the time
Speaker 1: that they invaded his house at three in the morning
Speaker 1: with he and his wife and the pajamas and had
Speaker 1: armed federal agents. Could could no practical reason, movement reason
Speaker 1: to do this except intimidation, and that the sheer power
Speaker 1: of a tyranny then manifests. Been sitting over here and
Speaker 1: I've recently started writing some lettercis and experts sitting in isolation,
Speaker 1: but the only three hours a day. I think he
Speaker 1: has no television. I mean, I mean this is a
Speaker 1: sort of thing which is considered a punishment. Uh. If
Speaker 1: you know, if he were a terrorist and he's at Montanolo,
Speaker 1: we'd have outrage about the way he's been tweeted. And yet, man,
Speaker 1: what you see is that Muller has been willing to
Speaker 1: use the power of the government to go after an
Speaker 1: individual in order, frankly, to terrify everybody else. Will signal
Speaker 1: here is not about Manafort. It's not everybody else. He
Speaker 1: might go lafter to put the screws. The judge said it,
Speaker 1: to put the screws to Manafort so he sings or composes,
Speaker 1: so they can prosecute or impeach Trump. The judge had
Speaker 1: this from day one, and I've got to imagine that
Speaker 1: this is why this jury hasn't come back yet. I
Speaker 1: can't believe they're not back, and I wouldn't read into it.
Speaker 1: I think the odds are against manaford conviction rate in
Speaker 1: federal court. You know there he called to not bring
Speaker 1: in any wusnesses and just say the federal governments not
Speaker 1: proven this case. It was a gutsy call. I agree.
Speaker 1: Let me go back to one other things. James Comey fired,
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe fired, struck Uh fired Page, demote, resigned Robicki Baker.
Speaker 1: And then if you go to and you include FBI
Speaker 1: and d o J departure, Sally Yates, fired Bruce or
Speaker 1: demoted twice associate deputy, you've got twenty five people in
Speaker 1: total that are involved at the highest levels. And what
Speaker 1: are nothing but deep state shenanigans. Why aren't any of
Speaker 1: these people indicted, and why would any of them ever
Speaker 1: deserve to keep their security clearance? And when are the
Speaker 1: House and Senate Judiciary committees gonna take seriously their responsibility
Speaker 1: to have Watergate style hearings out in the open and
Speaker 1: bring in all of these people and layoff the case,
Speaker 1: not just as you point out, not just about Trumps,
Speaker 1: but all the way back to how the Clintons have
Speaker 1: been handled, When the Clintons and their allies have been
Speaker 1: protected in ways given given immunity in ways that are astonishing.
Speaker 1: And if you put up a card and you showed
Speaker 1: the treatment of the Clinton team and the treatment of
Speaker 1: the Trump team, you understand how sick the deep state is.
Speaker 1: And this is not just some random language. You know,
Speaker 1: the last four years, fifty years, we've seen to grow
Speaker 1: through a bureaucracy which states it's above the law, it's
Speaker 1: above accountability, and it gets to define president. If you
Speaker 1: look at again a Brenner implemented, who believes that he
Speaker 1: can say the president is a traitor and then with
Speaker 1: a straight tase say no, I'm not political. And you
Speaker 1: have to think this is a guy who has very
Speaker 1: serious mental health problems, was just a compulsive wire. Well,
Speaker 1: I just want to know, I mean, you know why
Speaker 1: anyone would think it's right to keep fired or resigned
Speaker 1: people that resign under a cloud, or demoted people that
Speaker 1: somehow they deserve to keep their security clearance. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a new book out and um I had the
Speaker 1: authors on last week. It's called Compromised, How Money in
Speaker 1: Politics Drive ATBI Corruption. Now. It's put out by the
Speaker 1: Government Accountability Institute. That's Peter Schweitzer's group, and uh he
Speaker 1: wrote the foreward and Shamus Bruner wrote the book. But
Speaker 1: among the other findings here is that security clearances we
Speaker 1: discover worth a lot of money. Points out James Comey,
Speaker 1: for example, made six point one million dollars after the
Speaker 1: FBI granted his employer, Lockheed Martin, who was I guess
Speaker 1: he was representing at the time, a billion dollar boondoggle.
Speaker 1: Under Muller's direction, the FBI granted multiple spy contracts to
Speaker 1: Lockeed Martin while Comey was advising them on legality of
Speaker 1: their operations. You got another six million dollars working with
Speaker 1: one of the world's largest hedge funds, and another five
Speaker 1: grand for unused vacation time. Now I'm not saying there's
Speaker 1: anything the fairies here, but I am saying that those
Speaker 1: security clearances are worth money. Your thoughts on the five
Speaker 1: years that there is no You know, this is not
Speaker 1: an automatic earned right, This is not an aristocracy. You
Speaker 1: get the clearance for the purpose of serving the country
Speaker 1: that when you're no longer serve in the country, you
Speaker 1: give up clearances that were really very high when I was.
Speaker 1: But it would never occurred to me to try to
Speaker 1: keep clearances at that level once I quit being speaker.
Speaker 1: The ironic thing is that we found a provision within
Speaker 1: the CIA that says that, well, the only way you
Speaker 1: keep your clearance if you act in a manner as
Speaker 1: a currency I a employee. Brennan is not meeting that standard. Uh,
Speaker 1: if you listen to the media eight other places, the
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to take over the House. Uh. I
Speaker 1: would like to think that's not true. Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: there's a fascinating new book coming outside the head of
Speaker 1: polling for CBS who starts with the whole notion of
Speaker 1: how wrong they were when they tried to call the
Speaker 1: election in two thousand sixteen, and he goes back and says,
Speaker 1: you know, there's some really painful lessons to be learned
Speaker 1: by how how wrong we were. And his conclusion was, uh,
Speaker 1: that they didn't look in detail at what was really
Speaker 1: going on. He has a brand new bookout which I recommend.
Speaker 1: Everybody's names Anthony Salvanto and looking along the point team
Speaker 1: makes it I think the normal establishment types domp here.
Speaker 1: He said, what was happening the last six weeks of
Speaker 1: the campaign was that everybody who was on the side
Speaker 1: it was splitting for for Trump. And the reason was
Speaker 1: that they had all had years and years and years
Speaker 1: to decide their like Hillary, and they just couldn't do it.
Speaker 1: And Trump ran this very aggressive, was very intense campaign.
Speaker 1: As you remember, five or six major rallies a day,
Speaker 1: and each of those rallies had twenty thousand people, and
Speaker 1: each of those people took pictures with her smartphones and
Speaker 1: sent it out to twenty or more of their friends.
Speaker 1: So each rally was a four hundred thousand or million
Speaker 1: person events in terms of impact. She was doing one
Speaker 1: of it a day for fifteen hundred people. And Savanta's
Speaker 1: point is that when you looked at the momentum underneath
Speaker 1: all of what was going towards Trump. So so here's
Speaker 1: here's my prediction. If the Trump team, including the President
Speaker 1: and the Republican National Committee, which has done under uh
Speaker 1: Roland's jobs. He has done an amazing job as the
Speaker 1: chairman of raising more money than anybody in history, obviously
Speaker 1: with enormous help from the President. If that team, working
Speaker 1: with the House and Sentate committees, runs a very issue
Speaker 1: oriented campaign in September in October, we're going to have
Speaker 1: an upset as big as nineteen, as as two thousand
Speaker 1: and sixteen. I mean, everybody who told you of two
Speaker 1: thousands of sixteen that Hillary was clearly gonna win, Everybody
Speaker 1: who went into two thousands of sixteen election night buying
Speaker 1: champagne as a good leberl, They're going to be as
Speaker 1: shaken come election night, and I'll give you two quick examples. Um,
Speaker 1: every Democratic Senate incumbent responsible, Bill Okay as CORESPONSI open orders,
Speaker 1: and I doubt if the country's from with orders. So
Speaker 1: thank you. Go on try to defend that in deep trouble.
Speaker 1: Sanctuary cities are worse percent the country thinks they increase crime.
Speaker 1: So if we have a very issue ran a campaign
Speaker 1: this fall, you're going to be very happy on election night.
Speaker 1: Let's hope they listen to you. One of the smartest
Speaker 1: guys in politics, New Gingrids, thank you. We have an
Speaker 1: exclusive breaking story next than Sarah and Greg straight Ahead.
Speaker 1: Didn't the I R S scandal and the NSA atrocities
Speaker 1: convince you you need a watchdog on Washington with insider sources.
Speaker 1: You need Hannity every day. Do you think that on
Speaker 1: Brandan's hyperbole is an issue? Here is one of the
Speaker 1: reasons we're having this crisis? Well, I think it is.
Speaker 1: I think, um, you know, John is sort of like
Speaker 1: a freight train and he's gonna say what's on his mind.
Speaker 1: I think though, that the common denominator among all of
Speaker 1: us that have been speaking up though, is genuine concern
Speaker 1: about the jeopardy or threats to our institutions and values.
Speaker 1: And although we may express that in in different ways,
Speaker 1: and I think that's what this this really is about.
Speaker 1: But John and his rhetoric had become I think an
Speaker 1: issue in and of itself. You indicated that you've had
Speaker 1: lawyers contact you about possible legal action. It's forty eight
Speaker 1: hours later. What would that look like. Is that something
Speaker 1: you're serious about. Well, I have been contacted by a
Speaker 1: number of lawyers and they have already given me their
Speaker 1: thoughts about the basis for a complaint and injunction to
Speaker 1: try to prevent him from doing this in the future.
Speaker 1: If my clearing sys and my reputation as I'm being
Speaker 1: pulled through the mud now, if that's the price we're
Speaker 1: going to pay to prevent Donald Trump from doing this
Speaker 1: against other people, to me, it's a small price to pay.
Speaker 1: So I am going to do whatever I can personally
Speaker 1: to try to prevent these abuses in the future, and
Speaker 1: if it means going to court, I will I will
Speaker 1: do that. This is a dictatorial exercise of power that
Speaker 1: should frighten and call on all Republicans to say, Mr President,
Speaker 1: you cannot do this. You are trying to inhibit the
Speaker 1: free speech of people who may be in opposition to you,
Speaker 1: to use this kind of punishment to chill speak in
Speaker 1: the violation of the First Amendment. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a striking move towards authoritarianism. You know, this is what
Speaker 1: dictators do. They shut down the press, shut down to
Speaker 1: send they jailed their opponents for in this case, they
Speaker 1: steal their security clearance. What happened here was a pure
Speaker 1: authoritarian act from an president who wanted to punish one
Speaker 1: of his critics, nothing more, nothing less him right now.
Speaker 1: But do you know what he already right, it doesn't
Speaker 1: influence me already, taking away from from John Leiden. So
Speaker 1: doesn't that say that everybody else shut your mouth because
Speaker 1: something was a norm means that it's it's law. That's
Speaker 1: not the case. A lot of these people that had
Speaker 1: these security clearances, and this is the secret and in
Speaker 1: the swampy Washington d C. They have them and they
Speaker 1: keep them because it's profitable for them after they leave government.
Speaker 1: Because if you have a security clearance, especially high level
Speaker 1: security clearances, your contracts and your consulting gift pay you
Speaker 1: a lot more money because of the access that you have.
Speaker 1: I hope the President continues to do this, and I
Speaker 1: hope he adds i'm a Rosa to the list because
Speaker 1: if she has a clearance, she too, because of her actions,
Speaker 1: should have it revoked. Well, I don't know if I
Speaker 1: put m Rossa in the same category of seople sign
Speaker 1: those letters but film. But I imagine you want to
Speaker 1: react profitable Paris. When I am requested to sit on
Speaker 1: advise your board, let me ask you one question. How
Speaker 1: much do you think I'm paid to do that? At
Speaker 1: the requestion to the US government? Give me one answer
Speaker 1: and you got ten seconds. How much I'll give I'll
Speaker 1: ask you a question, how much are you paid for
Speaker 1: your answer? The question? Acting gigs for for being a
Speaker 1: They have no contract with the US government that paid more.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking hearing. This is the thing I'm not
Speaker 1: talking about that's beyond this. I'm not talking about your
Speaker 1: role with the federal government. I'm talking about the Sultan
Speaker 1: and a contractor. The consulting firms that they form and
Speaker 1: that you all get is because you get more money
Speaker 1: when having a consultant before before having the security class.
Speaker 1: That doesn't happen. I have zero consulting relationship to with
Speaker 1: the U s government zero. I'm not talking field. That's
Speaker 1: a good talking point. That was a phenomenal debate, believe
Speaker 1: it or not on fake news CNN. Now I wasn't
Speaker 1: watching fake news CNN. I saw it the media because
Speaker 1: they had the clip up Paris de Nard clabboring this
Speaker 1: the Santy Trumper of film money. I never I tell
Speaker 1: me what what contracts I had with the US cover
Speaker 1: that somebody's talking about. I told you about this new
Speaker 1: book last week, and we had Peter schweitzeran and Shamus
Speaker 1: Brunner on the program, and it's called Compromise. How money
Speaker 1: and politics drive FBI corruption? Now, what are these security
Speaker 1: clearance is worth? Now? The book points out James Comey's
Speaker 1: net worth skyrocketed over four thousand percent between leaving the
Speaker 1: d O J and OH five and returning to the FBI.
Speaker 1: In the book chronicles how Comy made six point one
Speaker 1: million dollars after Mueller's FBI granted his employer. In other words,
Speaker 1: Comey's working for Lockheed Martin, which is the largest contractor
Speaker 1: in history and what was many described a billion dollar boondoggle,
Speaker 1: and under Mueller's direction. He was the FBI director at
Speaker 1: the time. The FBI granted multiple spy contracts to Lockheed
Speaker 1: Martin while Comey advised them on the quote legality of
Speaker 1: their operations. At six point one million dollars, we're talking
Speaker 1: about this serious amount of money. Well, what are they
Speaker 1: paying for. They're paying for contacts, which by the way,
Speaker 1: can be totally completely legitimate. But the point is that
Speaker 1: security clearance is worth something, and that's the point here.
Speaker 1: And to have clapp or even recognizing that the rhetoric
Speaker 1: of Brennan is so over the top is unbelievable. But
Speaker 1: this isn't the first time that this has happened. Shawn
Speaker 1: Bigley is a partner with Bigley run A LLP specializing
Speaker 1: in federal security clearance defense. And you represent Adam Lovinger
Speaker 1: who lost his security clearance after Stephen Helper complained about him,
Speaker 1: and you wrote a op ed about your client. Why
Speaker 1: don't I just let you tell our audience what you
Speaker 1: found and what you said. Good to be with you,
Speaker 1: that's right. I do represent Mr Lovinger. He's a long
Speaker 1: time a Defense Department employee who is a very strong
Speaker 1: supporter of the President and uh In. He complained numerous
Speaker 1: times to his superiors, all of whom were Obama appointees
Speaker 1: at the Pentagon about these egregious contracts that were being
Speaker 1: awarded to Stefan Helper and also to a close friend
Speaker 1: of the Clinton families. And subsequently several months go by
Speaker 1: and his mysterious his security clearances mysteriously revoked, and he's
Speaker 1: now sitting at home trying to figure out ways to
Speaker 1: feed his family. All right, So now this is fascinating.
Speaker 1: So when did this happen? What year? So the complaints
Speaker 1: originally were filed in the fall of twenty sixteen, right
Speaker 1: around the election cycle, and they were ignored, and uh
Speaker 1: subsequent the administration comes in. He moves over to the
Speaker 1: White House as a by name request from the new administration.
Speaker 1: They had heard about his reputation and wanted him serving
Speaker 1: in the White House. And by May one he had
Speaker 1: been recalled to the Pentagon and his security clearance had
Speaker 1: been stripped. You know, when you look at all the
Speaker 1: FBI departures, for example, and the reasons why, whether there
Speaker 1: are people are fired like James Comey, Andrew McCabe fired,
Speaker 1: Peter Struck fired, then you've got the resignations. Lisa Paige,
Speaker 1: she got out while she could. James Robecki, James Baker
Speaker 1: uh and and others. And then you look at the
Speaker 1: others in the d o J, the number of people
Speaker 1: that have resigned. People aren't even beginning to pay attention
Speaker 1: to any of this. But you've got a list between
Speaker 1: the d o J and the FBI top people that
Speaker 1: have either resigned, been fired, or demoted twice like Bruce Orr.
Speaker 1: But the reality is, uh, these clearances are worth money
Speaker 1: in the private sector. And I'm not even saying that anything.
Speaker 1: The furious necessarily goes on, except it's all this that
Speaker 1: all the same people all the time. Why is it
Speaker 1: Comey is getting paid all this money from Lockheed Martin,
Speaker 1: according to this book, compromised at a time when Mueller
Speaker 1: is the FBI director. I mean these I mean, we
Speaker 1: can keep running into the same group of people. Seems
Speaker 1: to me like who you know matters in Washington, Oh, absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I mean I think a lot of people outside
Speaker 1: the Washington DC beltway may not understand that really a
Speaker 1: security clearance is a meal ticket. It's the equivalent of
Speaker 1: a professional license for a doctor or a lawyer, and
Speaker 1: without it, you're not gonna work in the field in
Speaker 1: which you practice. And so for somebody like a COMI
Speaker 1: or a Brennan who's spent their career in government and
Speaker 1: who's going to go on to lucrative uh consulting gigs
Speaker 1: or sit on boards at various defense contractors. Without that clearance,
Speaker 1: they're not as valuable. And the same thing the reverse
Speaker 1: goes for somebody like Mr Lovinger. He stripped of his clearance,
Speaker 1: he can no longer work, and now we're fighting that
Speaker 1: on appeal, and meanwhile they are pulling out all the
Speaker 1: stops to make sure that he doesn't get his due process.
Speaker 1: It's really outrageous. Let's go into your original article how
Speaker 1: the Pentagon bank rolled an alleged spy inside the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and other sort of tales. Um. Because you you
Speaker 1: literally right, you know chapter and firsts on this, I
Speaker 1: want you to explain it in detail. Sure, So back
Speaker 1: in Mr Lovinger started to notice that Mr Halper and
Speaker 1: others in this office, we're really getting a very very
Speaker 1: generous contracts to do what he perceived as very little. Uh.
Speaker 1: The contracts were kept very close to the vest. They
Speaker 1: were run by people who were of ardent Obama and
Speaker 1: Clinton supporters, including one of whom was a vocal anti Trumper,
Speaker 1: and he started raising issues and saying, look, you know
Speaker 1: the this is a perception of impropriety. What are these
Speaker 1: people doing for the money? These are taxpayer funds. Why
Speaker 1: are we bankrolling to the tune of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: people to go out and conduct research studies on things
Speaker 1: like whether or not there's enough coastal elites in the
Speaker 1: National security bureaucracy. I mean ridiculous, patently ridiculous subject matters
Speaker 1: that do nothing to inform anybody. And we're being paid
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to perform
Speaker 1: this work. On top of that, he also said, here's
Speaker 1: a specific statute of specific federal law that prohibits contractors
Speaker 1: from being used to conduct foreign relations, which is precisely
Speaker 1: what he perceived them as doing. And he was completely ignored,
Speaker 1: completely shut down on multiple levels. Uh, he goes off
Speaker 1: to the White House and I think they viewed him
Speaker 1: as a threat there and essentially did whatever they had
Speaker 1: to do to to yank him back, strip him of
Speaker 1: his clearance, and shut him up. And you know, Sean,
Speaker 1: this is a real problem. It's not just Mr Lovinger,
Speaker 1: It's an epidemic across the government. I have people who
Speaker 1: I represent in the administration on multiple different levels, very
Speaker 1: senior folks all the way to lower level folks, and
Speaker 1: their experience is probably experiencing this problem right and left.
Speaker 1: It's a tool that the deep state is essentially weaponized.
Speaker 1: It's the low hanging fruit, if you will, to keep
Speaker 1: people out of government, to keep the president's appointees out
Speaker 1: who are going to effectuate his agenda. And it's something
Speaker 1: that they've been doing over and over. Now the people
Speaker 1: responsible because you wrote another great column on that the
Speaker 1: deep state is weaponized the vetting a trumpet appointees, and
Speaker 1: I know numerous people that have incredible qualifications, and it
Speaker 1: seems the only strike against them is that they recognize
Speaker 1: that there are either holdovers from the Obama administration or
Speaker 1: people that are at odds with the current administration that
Speaker 1: are inside the important jobs. Oh absolutely, and you know
Speaker 1: we're d D is the tip of the spear on this.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's be clear, there are a good half
Speaker 1: dozen folks at the Department of Defense who are actively
Speaker 1: out to thwart the president's agenda and who are using
Speaker 1: this process as the means to do it. But it's
Speaker 1: also happening in the State Department it's happening at Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: it's happening in a number of places government wide, and
Speaker 1: they're they're doing it in very sneaky, very technical ways
Speaker 1: that that they used to sort of keep people out.
Speaker 1: And you know, here's another irony to under Brennan. The
Speaker 1: CIA was one of the worst and remains one of
Speaker 1: the worst defenders as far as due process. I have
Speaker 1: people who have literally put their lives on the line
Speaker 1: for this country who have been frozen out on bogus
Speaker 1: security clearance concerns, one of whom has been sitting since
Speaker 1: and is now working to drive through a Chick fil
Speaker 1: A to make ends meet. So, you know, for him
Speaker 1: to turn around and whine about essentially him being mistreated
Speaker 1: is really ironic. Well let me go through because you
Speaker 1: went through all of this, our friend, Well, I gotta
Speaker 1: take a break. Ka, I'll ask you. My friend Rowan
Speaker 1: Scarborough had a great piece on this that we'll get
Speaker 1: to uh as well. Eight nine for one, Shawn is
Speaker 1: our toll free telephone number. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. And as we continue with Shawn Bigley,
Speaker 1: and by the way, he represents Adam Lovinger, he's the
Speaker 1: guy that lost his security clearance after Stefan Helper complained
Speaker 1: about him. Uh, you know, I read the piece your pieces,
Speaker 1: and then I also read Rowan Scarborough I've known a
Speaker 1: long time in respect a lot from the Washington Times,
Speaker 1: and he's pointing out your client, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: Pentagon analysts stripped of his security clearance by Obama appointed
Speaker 1: officials after he complained of questionable government contracts that Stefan
Speaker 1: Helper had. Now this is what over four hundred dollars
Speaker 1: which we're talking about. And anyway, Adam Lovinger, your client
Speaker 1: is a twelve year strategist at the Pentagon's Office of
Speaker 1: Net Assessment, and he complained to his bosses about these
Speaker 1: Helper contracts and uh, then they yanked his security clearance.
Speaker 1: How often has this happened that we don't hear about it?
Speaker 1: Maybe not a side profile, as say John Brennett. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's definitely happening on a pretty consistent basis, not
Speaker 1: so much in the whistleblower retaliation context as it is
Speaker 1: in the political sphere. In other words, if you are
Speaker 1: somebody who identifies as a you know, supporter of the president,
Speaker 1: somebody who maybe the president is selected to fill a
Speaker 1: specific role. We've seen case after case where there are
Speaker 1: entrenched bureaucrats, many of them Obama holdovers, at various agencies,
Speaker 1: who are pulling out all the stops from a security
Speaker 1: in a vetting standpoint to prevent people from getting in.
Speaker 1: And I'll give you a couple of examples. We've had
Speaker 1: some agencies where they have essentially instituted a policy that says,
Speaker 1: we're not going to give what's called interim clearances anymore
Speaker 1: to political appointees. We're gonna give them all day long
Speaker 1: to to career officials, but we're not going to give
Speaker 1: them to people who the president appoints because we just
Speaker 1: don't trust them. We've had other agencies that have essentially,
Speaker 1: a year after somebody has been on boarded and started work,
Speaker 1: come act and said, you know what, that little minor
Speaker 1: thing that you self reported, maybe you had a d
Speaker 1: Y a few years ago, or some other minor thing
Speaker 1: that we didn't think was the problem when we hired you,
Speaker 1: Now it's an issue. So now we're going to kick
Speaker 1: you out to the curb. So it's that kind of
Speaker 1: behavior that's happening over and over and again, and really
Speaker 1: the only conclusion that you can draw on a systemic level,
Speaker 1: is that this is a coordinated effort to essentially prevent
Speaker 1: the president from effectuating his policy agenda, because as we know,
Speaker 1: you can't, you can't. You don't have people to execute
Speaker 1: the policy, you can't execute it. And I think that's
Speaker 1: precisely what the what the idea is. All right, Seawan Bigley,
Speaker 1: keep up the good work, will continue to follow the story,
Speaker 1: and we're going to continue to investigate the investigators and
Speaker 1: follow the money, which now is becoming more interesting by
Speaker 1: the day. One Shawn toll Free telephone number, News round Up,
Speaker 1: Information Overload is next, and then we'll check in with
Speaker 1: Greg and Sarah straight ahead. Regret essentially accusing the president
Speaker 1: of treason? Do you do you regret some of the
Speaker 1: things you have said. I called his behavior treason, which
Speaker 1: is to betray one's trust and to aiden at the enemy.
Speaker 1: And I stand very much by that claim. You're the
Speaker 1: former CIA director accusing the sitting president United States. It's
Speaker 1: not a private citizen. A lot of people here, the
Speaker 1: former CIA director accusing the sitting president United States of treason.
Speaker 1: That's that's monument that's a monumental accusation. Well, I think
Speaker 1: these are abnormal times, and I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people have spoken out against what Mr Trump has done,
Speaker 1: and maybe it's my my warning training as an intelligence professional,
Speaker 1: I have seen the lights blinking red in terms of
Speaker 1: what Mr Trump has done and is doing, and is
Speaker 1: bringing this country down on the global stage, and he's
Speaker 1: fueling and feeding divisiveness within our country. Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: badly sullied the reputation of the office of the presidency
Speaker 1: with his invective, with his constant um disregard. I think
Speaker 1: for even decency, he is I think the most divisive
Speaker 1: president we've ever had in the oval office. He is
Speaker 1: feeding and fueling hatred and animosity and misunderstandings among Americans.
Speaker 1: I think there's a big question, first of all, in
Speaker 1: terms of those who are on Mr Trump's National security team,
Speaker 1: whether they can continue to serve in good conscience an
Speaker 1: individual who basically betrayed his nation. What Mr Trump did
Speaker 1: yesterday was to betray the women men of the FBI,
Speaker 1: the c I, A, N s A, and others. I
Speaker 1: think he's afraid of the President of Russia. Why well,
Speaker 1: I think one can speculate as to why that the
Speaker 1: Russians may have something on him. Personally that they could
Speaker 1: always roll out and make his life more difficult. Mr
Speaker 1: Trump continues to have his ignorance of the facts, the
Speaker 1: willful disregard of them again just to follow through on
Speaker 1: these campaign promises that really were very flawed. I and
Speaker 1: so many other former Nascurity officials are speaking out because
Speaker 1: of the abnormal and aberrant behavior of Mr Trump. This
Speaker 1: is a very large and painful national kidney Stone relief.
Speaker 1: We feel his rhetoric is so outrageous, so over the top,
Speaker 1: so absolutely apt and you know, rooted in insanity and politics.
Speaker 1: It's so personally divisive. This is a former CIA director,
Speaker 1: former communist we ever got this position is something we
Speaker 1: really need to examine and to listen to this rhetoric
Speaker 1: day in and day out, and this absolutely ridiculous argument
Speaker 1: that somehow he has a constitutional right to a lifelong
Speaker 1: actual lifelong access UH as it relates to a security
Speaker 1: clearance is absolutely false. Now we have gone over in
Speaker 1: great specificity what the CIA itself even mandates in terms
Speaker 1: of their rules if he's not acting The only way
Speaker 1: he gets to keep his clearance if he's acting in
Speaker 1: a manner consistent with a current CIA employee, which he's
Speaker 1: not doing. Never mind all of this, it's a patently
Speaker 1: absurd argument about the First Amendment. A friend, Greg Jared,
Speaker 1: pointed out the U. S. Supreme Court case Navy v. Egan,
Speaker 1: where a president has the authority to provoke any clearance
Speaker 1: with or without a stated reason, and the idea that
Speaker 1: this is about free speech. No, this guy has more
Speaker 1: speech than he's ever had in his life. Is more
Speaker 1: notoriety that he's ever had in his life. He has
Speaker 1: more platforms than he's ever had in his life to
Speaker 1: spew his hate, his politics, his vitriol, and he's doing
Speaker 1: so freely every day. Nobody's stopping him. But to have
Speaker 1: a security clearance is very, very different. Now we have
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett three weeks and running now number one New
Speaker 1: York Times bestseller his book, which is the Russian Hoax,
Speaker 1: The Illicit Scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and framed Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and Sarah Carter is with us Fox News Investigated reporter
Speaker 1: and contributor, and Sarah, by the way, is even breaking
Speaker 1: more news that in the summer, then FBI Director James
Speaker 1: Comey had been advised that former Senate Majority Leader Harry
Speaker 1: Reid would be sending him a letter which he did send,
Speaker 1: asking to investigate allegations that President Trump's campaign had colluded
Speaker 1: with Russia, according to documents now obtained by Congress, and
Speaker 1: this was written several days after John Brennan had met
Speaker 1: with Harry Reid. And by the way, most investigators believe
Speaker 1: that Brennan privately brief read about the dossier. It's in
Speaker 1: Gregg's book, by the way, and we'll get to whether
Speaker 1: or not that had actually happened. Sara, why don't you
Speaker 1: give us more details and why that would be relevant
Speaker 1: The timing of the heads up the comby had, well,
Speaker 1: it was extraordinarily relevant, Shine because it would tell us
Speaker 1: whether or not Brennan the CIA was working with the
Speaker 1: FBI during that summer with regard to the dossier. And
Speaker 1: it seems like it would make common sense because if
Speaker 1: we think about it in terms of of the dossier,
Speaker 1: this is a foreign of spy Christopher Steele, who put
Speaker 1: together these sixteen part memos that compiled the dossier, and
Speaker 1: it would be extraordinary if the FBI was investigating this
Speaker 1: without making contact with the CIA. What makes this important
Speaker 1: is the fact that Brennan had briefed the Gang of
Speaker 1: Eight that summer and then Reid had called him in
Speaker 1: for basically a private meeting on August thousand and sixteen,
Speaker 1: so he met with Read. Two days later, a letter
Speaker 1: goes to Komy. Now, documents that have been obtained by
Speaker 1: Congress show that Comy was expecting this letter even before
Speaker 1: he received it. He goes, so here at Brennan is
Speaker 1: now talking to Read. This is on August. Two days later.
Speaker 1: Read gets this letter right, sends this letter to Coomy.
Speaker 1: Two days after the letter goes to Komy, it gets
Speaker 1: leaked to the New York Times and on August twenty nine,
Speaker 1: and then the story comes out. It flushes out even more.
Speaker 1: This is right before the election where they're accusing Trump
Speaker 1: and people in his campaign of colluding with Russia. And
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of concern among congressional officials.
Speaker 1: We know that Judicial Watch now has sued for all
Speaker 1: of the communications between Brennan and Coomy, I mean Brennan
Speaker 1: and Harry Reid, and they want to know what those
Speaker 1: connects were, what his connections were with Comey as well,
Speaker 1: and how this all evolved. Were all these agencies in
Speaker 1: collusion with each other? Were they involved with the d
Speaker 1: o J? Was the CIA involved? In the FBI's investigation.
Speaker 1: And I think that's going to be very telling how
Speaker 1: far these people were involved in in this alleged Russia
Speaker 1: Trump collusion case. Well, and then it goes to pushes
Speaker 1: the date back earlier. And then remember this is the
Speaker 1: July or the summer of and remember we now believe
Speaker 1: it all started even before they ended the Clinton investigation.
Speaker 1: As evidence points out, Greg, you write about this this
Speaker 1: Brennan Harry Read meeting in your book. I want to
Speaker 1: go over it specifically. We know that meeting took place, correct, Yes,
Speaker 1: it's actually on page one of my book. They meet
Speaker 1: on the Harry Read sends out a letter's James Commy
Speaker 1: on the seven in an obvious attempt to influence the election.
Speaker 1: He claims Trump Russia collusion and the purpose SIY did this,
Speaker 1: Brennan and Read to leak it to the media to
Speaker 1: h harm President or then Canada Trump in his election bid.
Speaker 1: And so they it didn't work, only the Washington Post
Speaker 1: picked up on it. And so then Harry Read doubles
Speaker 1: down and does it again. He says another letter about
Speaker 1: a month later, just before the election, to harm Trump. Uh,
Speaker 1: and once again he alleges Trump Russian collusion, and John Brennan,
Speaker 1: as I identify in the book, was the instigator. He
Speaker 1: did more than anyone to propagate and promulgate the Russia hoax.
Speaker 1: He's the guy who was peddling this false dossier, and
Speaker 1: James Comey was in on it all along. I tweeted
Speaker 1: out earlier today that it it is always amusing when
Speaker 1: Commy weighs in as he did over the weekend about
Speaker 1: lies and lying people, because this is a guy who
Speaker 1: surmizes about it in the book, and yet he's the
Speaker 1: guy who basically conjured out of thin air the Russia
Speaker 1: hoax all by himself, with some help from John Brennan,
Speaker 1: James Clapper, Peter Struck, Lisa Page, and others. As I
Speaker 1: explained in the book, So Brennan is not the kind
Speaker 1: of person who should ever be close to classified information.
Speaker 1: The President was correct in making sure that he had
Speaker 1: his classification revoked, and so to Comey and all of
Speaker 1: the other people I just named, they should never be
Speaker 1: anywhere near classified information. You know, look at all the
Speaker 1: people Sarah call me fired, McKay fired, Struck fired, Page resigns,
Speaker 1: Rebicki resigns, Baker resigns, uh and and other FBI departures
Speaker 1: that have taken place that are are under scrutiny at
Speaker 1: this particular time. Then you got you know, Sally Yates
Speaker 1: fired Bruce or demoted twice. And then you know, all told,
Speaker 1: between the FBI and the d o J, twenty five
Speaker 1: people resign, fired, or demoted over all of this, uh,
Speaker 1: And then you have you know, the news media still
Speaker 1: ignores the insanity that has gone on here at the
Speaker 1: top levels of the FBI and the do o J.
Speaker 1: I think it's incredible, Sean that this is possibly one
Speaker 1: of the biggest scandals in modern political history, and the
Speaker 1: mainstream media and audiences that watch the mainstream media or
Speaker 1: read the mainstream media are really blinded by what happened
Speaker 1: because the information is not getting out there. This is
Speaker 1: so important. It sits on everything our Constitution stands for
Speaker 1: because it talks about the weaponizing of our intelligence community,
Speaker 1: our privacy rights, UH, the ability for people within the
Speaker 1: government to try to unseat a duly elected president. You
Speaker 1: can't get a story bigger than this. And just to
Speaker 1: clarify on one thing, because in my story, I did
Speaker 1: reach out to John Brennan numerous times, and I did
Speaker 1: get a response, this guy Shapiro, Yes, his former chief
Speaker 1: of staff. Nick Shapiro responded on behalf of Brennan. This
Speaker 1: was his former chief of staff at the CIA, and
Speaker 1: denied any allegation suggesting that he knew about the dossier
Speaker 1: before December two thousand sixteen. The contents of the dossier. Now,
Speaker 1: when I pushed on it and said, look, you know
Speaker 1: I knew about the dossier during that summer. There were
Speaker 1: rumors all over Washington, d C. That somebody was peddling
Speaker 1: some kind of information about a report of Trump in Russia.
Speaker 1: How could I know about it? In the head of
Speaker 1: the CIA not know about it? And then he went
Speaker 1: back and said, well, he had heard about its existence,
Speaker 1: but hadn't seen the contents. Okay, So he didn't bring
Speaker 1: this up with Harry Reid. Is that what he's claiming.
Speaker 1: That's what he's claiming. He is claiming that he did.
Speaker 1: How many days after after he met with Harry Reid,
Speaker 1: did read send call me the memo or the letter?
Speaker 1: Abolutely he said that he had asked him to brief him.
Speaker 1: Reid had asked him per mission to basically put in
Speaker 1: his letter the contents of the briefing that he gave
Speaker 1: to the Gang of Eight on Russia, uh and that
Speaker 1: he had denied Read that that I guess that permission
Speaker 1: to put the contents of what he had briefed the
Speaker 1: Gang of Eight on. But Reid had sent the letter anyways,
Speaker 1: regarding whatever he knew about the dossier, don't we have
Speaker 1: evidence to that that Brennan was involved in spreading this
Speaker 1: false dossier information on the media And according to sources,
Speaker 1: Brennan was actually involved in spreading this dossier and rumors
Speaker 1: about this dossier. Now, remember this is Washington, d c.
Speaker 1: And people say a lot of things. That's why I
Speaker 1: reached out to Brennan personally. Now we have Brennan on
Speaker 1: the record saying this. But what we don't have is
Speaker 1: all of the communications which the CIA has denied and
Speaker 1: they probably will deny on a national security basis to
Speaker 1: that were requested by Judicial Watch, which would be those
Speaker 1: communications between Brennan and Read, between Brennan and Homey, between
Speaker 1: Come and Read. That would be interesting to see as well,
Speaker 1: because there is a lot of suspicion that when he
Speaker 1: had that briefing with Read on August that the contents
Speaker 1: of the dossier were discussed and Comey was well aware
Speaker 1: that a letter would be coming from Read So it
Speaker 1: appeared that they all knew what was coming down the pike,
Speaker 1: and it appeared that they all knew that it was
Speaker 1: related to this jossier. All right, let me take a break.
Speaker 1: We'll come back more with Sarah Carter. We'll have full
Speaker 1: coverage of this tonight and the reasons laid out in
Speaker 1: specific detail why Brennan does not deserve a security clearance
Speaker 1: and by the way, neither do all these other fired
Speaker 1: UH former officials. And as we continue, Gregg Jarrett number
Speaker 1: one New York Times bestselling author The Russian Hoax, The
Speaker 1: Illicit Scheme to Claire Hillary Clinton Frame Donald Trump, three
Speaker 1: weeks in running, now number one on the New York
Speaker 1: Times list. Sarah Carter, Fox News contributor, investigative reporter. Sarah
Speaker 1: has a news story. Let me go back to what
Speaker 1: Brennan knew and did and Greg if so, he's meeting
Speaker 1: with Harry Reid in late in August, right, we believe,
Speaker 1: and Harry Reid gets the details. August, what do we
Speaker 1: know about Director Brennan's briefing that it had taken place
Speaker 1: just a couple of days prior UH to that. And similarly,
Speaker 1: what do we know about Brennan using the dossier to
Speaker 1: disseminate false information. Well, he clearly had the dossier in
Speaker 1: his possession, he admits when he testified, and this is
Speaker 1: also in my book. Um, when he testified before Congress,
Speaker 1: he said he knew of Trump Russia connections and conspiracy inclusion,
Speaker 1: and he knew that in the summer of two thousand
Speaker 1: and sixteen. So there's no question that he knew about that.
Speaker 1: That's documented in my book. It's well sourced, and it's
Speaker 1: in fact his under oath testimony. So he meets with
Speaker 1: Harry Reid in late August, and it's no coincidence. It
Speaker 1: read sends out a letter to James Comey. It was
Speaker 1: all a con job. They both knew that. On the
Speaker 1: thirty one of July, Comey had already launched officially by
Speaker 1: signing papers under the name of Peter Struck, the Trump
Speaker 1: Russia collusion case, but the media didn't know it. So
Speaker 1: they were looking for an excuse to let the media
Speaker 1: know about it, to run with it, to harm Trump
Speaker 1: in the election and help Hillary Clinton. So Harry Reid
Speaker 1: leaks his letter alleging Trump Russia collusion the Washington Play.
Speaker 1: He's never gonna He's never going to tell the truth either,
Speaker 1: because no, of course not. He has a long and
Speaker 1: distinguished history of lies. He's one of the most prodigious,
Speaker 1: prolific liars in all of Congress. Let me give let's
Speaker 1: Sarah have the last word only because we're running out
Speaker 1: of time. Both of you will join us on Hannity tonight,
Speaker 1: but I want to make sure we get Sarah's last
Speaker 1: words in here. Sarah, Well, I think there's there's very
Speaker 1: there's a lot of concern here. What you need to
Speaker 1: find out, Sean, is how deep were the other agencies
Speaker 1: involved in this investigation into President Trump, What were their actions,
Speaker 1: what took place between them? What was the information shared
Speaker 1: between the FBI and c I A. I think that's
Speaker 1: very important. I think that's very telling, and I think
Speaker 1: that direction Congress is going to take right now. All right,
Speaker 1: thank you both of being with us, Sarah, Greg. We'll
Speaker 1: have more details tonight quick break. Your calls are next.
Speaker 1: You know, it's amazing. I think we've done a better
Speaker 1: job on TV. And maybe it's just because you can
Speaker 1: see it. But the day to day to day to day,
Speaker 1: issue to issue to issue the fame moral outrage of
Speaker 1: the day. Whether it's Russia, Russia, Russia, or Paul Manaford
Speaker 1: or Mrosa, it doesn't matter. I mean, it is literally
Speaker 1: issue to issue to issue. The one thing they don't
Speaker 1: do is a report on the biggest abusive power scandal
Speaker 1: in history. And all these FBI and d o J
Speaker 1: officials that abused power and we're fired or resigned or
Speaker 1: were demoted, and there's a ton of them, and then
Speaker 1: they sit so they're feigning outrage. Now Brennan lost the
Speaker 1: security clearance. I mean, you watch this guy. He is totally, utterly,
Speaker 1: completely unhinged. How this man ever became the CIA director
Speaker 1: is something we've got to ask the question. And all
Speaker 1: these people, all of a sudden, you get fired, You
Speaker 1: get to keep your security clearance. The purpose of keeping
Speaker 1: your clearance, just so you know, is if we ever
Speaker 1: wanted to, you know, to bring back some people for
Speaker 1: additional insight into the issues of the day. You lose
Speaker 1: that privilege. It is not freedom of speech being squashed,
Speaker 1: as the media's portraying this and that Brennan is a
Speaker 1: great victim here. He's not. He earned the removal of
Speaker 1: his security clearance and all these other people did too.
Speaker 1: Let's let's just remind you how how this media in
Speaker 1: this country works on any given day. This is a
Speaker 1: dictatorial exercise of power that should frighten and call on
Speaker 1: all Republicans to say, Mr President, you cannot do this.
Speaker 1: You are trying to inhibit the free speech of people
Speaker 1: who may be in opposition to you. To use this
Speaker 1: kind of punishment to chill speak is a violation of
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. I mean, this is a striking move
Speaker 1: towards authoritarianism. You know, this is what dictators do. They
Speaker 1: shut down the press, shut down to send they jailed
Speaker 1: their opponents for in this case, they steal their security clearance.
Speaker 1: What happened here was a pure authoritarian act from an
Speaker 1: intemperate president who wanted to punish one of his critics,
Speaker 1: nothing more, nothing less, threatening him right now, But you
Speaker 1: know what he said already, right, it doesn't influence something
Speaker 1: already staying away from from John Len And so doesn't
Speaker 1: that say that everybody else shut your mouth is basically
Speaker 1: sort of delegitimizing our system of government. Maybe this is
Speaker 1: the beginning of a new Satura day night massacre, and
Speaker 1: one has to wonder whether Mr Trump is feeling the
Speaker 1: pressure of the Manifort trial. It looks like he may
Speaker 1: very well have obstructed justice in this particular case. That's
Speaker 1: why I find it particularly ironic that he seems to be,
Speaker 1: you know, continuing to try to obstruct and in this
Speaker 1: case so publicly. They're starting to feel the collusion investigation
Speaker 1: closing in a little bit more, we're getting Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: most overt and obstructionist tweets to date. Um, it's not
Speaker 1: a surprise. Just around this little incident will be a
Speaker 1: strong mini case obstruction. All served briefly on Special Council Roberts.
Speaker 1: Russia Investigation, the Russia Investigation of the whole Russia investigation
Speaker 1: is Russia investigation from all things Russia investigation is a
Speaker 1: major development potentially in the Russia investigation that the Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: Russian affair and Russian investigation with the Russia investigation would
Speaker 1: hinder the Russia investigation. In the Russia investigation, Russia investigations,
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation, the Russian the instigation of this Russia
Speaker 1: investigation from the investi Russian investigation, Russia investigation, the Russia
Speaker 1: investigation of the Russia investigation, the breaking news this morning
Speaker 1: on the Russia investigation. Major new development in the Russia
Speaker 1: Medaling investigations, breaking news and the Russia investigations, the Russia
Speaker 1: Mendaling investigation, Russia investigations refused himself in the Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation, in the Russia investigation part of the
Speaker 1: Russia investigations. But we start with the major development of
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation, Russia investigation, Russia investigation, Russia investigation, Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: Russia investigation, the Russia investigation. And if the Russia investigation
Speaker 1: a massive Russia investigation, the Russia investigation, is the Russia
Speaker 1: investigation now eating up the Russia investigation, the Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation from the Russia investigation of the Russia Investigation,
Speaker 1: Russia investigation. In the Russia investigation, it was actually about
Speaker 1: the Russia investigation, the Russia investigation, breaking headlines in the
Speaker 1: Russia investigation. Lot of developments in the Russia investigation, the
Speaker 1: Russia investigation, in the Russia investigation were falling. We're breaking
Speaker 1: news in the Russia investigation of the Russia investigation, Russia
Speaker 1: investigation part of the Russia investigations. In the Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: because we have exclusive breaking news on the Russia investigation.
Speaker 1: Lots of big revelations in the Russia investigation, big news
Speaker 1: tonight in the Russian investigation, major new development tonight in
Speaker 1: the Russian investigation. In these districts. When you talk to
Speaker 1: people about Russia and that's all we talk about at CNN,
Speaker 1: you know, then this weekend I'm watching what's his name,
Speaker 1: Paris Denard over it's just clabboring. Now. We pointed out
Speaker 1: the amount of money last week that all of these
Speaker 1: people they leave, you know, government with their security clearances,
Speaker 1: then they go work for contractors like Lockheed Martin. Now
Speaker 1: do I think that's a bad thing. Not necessarily. I
Speaker 1: don't mind people making money and using their expertise, their background,
Speaker 1: their experience, uh to to advise companies on what's good right,
Speaker 1: just etcetera. But you know when you see Comey is
Speaker 1: getting huge contracts and Mueller is the FBI director and
Speaker 1: the amount of money is staggering, and then it becomes
Speaker 1: a bit of an issue to me, and then I
Speaker 1: think legitimate investigate the investigators follow the money. Questions do
Speaker 1: need to be asked? Now, the fact is this guy,
Speaker 1: Paris Denard, was right Philip Mudd at a meltdown, and
Speaker 1: he kept shifting the issue. Tell me where the US
Speaker 1: government paid, And we're not talking about that. Paris. Denard
Speaker 1: was not talking about that. He was rightly pointing out
Speaker 1: and this new book now highlights it that we had
Speaker 1: on on Friday, that yeah, there is this this industry
Speaker 1: that exists for people with security clearances. Listen, a lot
Speaker 1: of these people that had these security clearances, and this
Speaker 1: is the secret and in the swampy Washton d C.
Speaker 1: They have them and they keep them because it's profitable
Speaker 1: for them after they leave government. Because if you have
Speaker 1: a security clearance, especially high level security clearances, your contracts
Speaker 1: and your consulting gift pay you a lot more money
Speaker 1: because of the access that you have. I hope the
Speaker 1: President continues to do this, and I hope he adds
Speaker 1: I'm a Rosa to the list because if she has
Speaker 1: a clearance, she too, because of her actions, should have
Speaker 1: it revoked. Well. I don't know if I put am
Speaker 1: Rosso in the same category of the seventy people sign
Speaker 1: those letters, but film I imagine you want to react
Speaker 1: profitable Paris. When I am requested to sit on an
Speaker 1: advisor board, let me ask you one question, how much
Speaker 1: do you think I'm paid to do that? At the
Speaker 1: requestion to the US government at the request of the government.
Speaker 1: Seconds ten seconds, ten nine, I'll give I'll ask you
Speaker 1: a question, how much are you paid for your answer
Speaker 1: the question? Ack and gig for for being a for
Speaker 1: They have no contract with the US with the government.
Speaker 1: That's not what he's talking about. When I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about Zerial, That's be honest. I'm not talking about your
Speaker 1: role with the federal government. I'm talking about that Sultan
Speaker 1: and a contractor. The consulting firms that they form and
Speaker 1: that you all get is because you get more money
Speaker 1: when having a consultant before having the security class like
Speaker 1: that doesn't happen. I have zero consulting relationship to with
Speaker 1: the US government. Zero. Not to didn't say the government
Speaker 1: notice three times talking about relationship with the government. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about in the private sector. When you have a
Speaker 1: security relationships with the private sector that involved my security clearance. Zero.
Speaker 1: I get zero dollars from consulting companies that deal with
Speaker 1: US government. Are we clear? Well, I will be clear
Speaker 1: and saying that everybody in Washington, d C. Knows if
Speaker 1: you don't want to be honest about it. That's on you,
Speaker 1: all right. So now maybe Mud doesn't have those, but
Speaker 1: it's funny that he didn't answer the guy's question. Now
Speaker 1: we know from this new book that wait a minute,
Speaker 1: this is an industry that none of us really knew about. That.
Speaker 1: You know, if I guess if what's his name, coll
Speaker 1: Me can go work for what Lockheed Martin and makes
Speaker 1: six million dollars according to this book Compromised, How money
Speaker 1: in politics drive FBI corruption and Mueller at the time
Speaker 1: as the FBI Director. I mean, okay, now one of
Speaker 1: their old friends. I mean, it's so incestuous. That's the problem.
Speaker 1: That is what's wrong here. Anyway, let's get to our busy. Well,
Speaker 1: one of the things do we have to tape of
Speaker 1: Florida Democrats are old and peach friend Alsie Hastings trying to,
Speaker 1: you know, quote joke about Trump drowning in the Potomac.
Speaker 1: I will tell you all one joke that I learned
Speaker 1: from Ari silver Or, whose following is a falling state
Speaker 1: legislator and is a robot Barry Silva. But are he
Speaker 1: asked the audience. So the night in falm Beach County,
Speaker 1: he said, do you know the difference between a crisis
Speaker 1: and a catastrophe, and no one will tell their hands.
Speaker 1: So are he answered for us? He says, a crisis
Speaker 1: is if Donald Trump falls into the Potomac River and
Speaker 1: can't swell, and he said at a catest if he
Speaker 1: has anybody says, is that the president drowning in the Potomac?
Speaker 1: Really getting those lines going there, getting a crowd revd up. No, No, Well,
Speaker 1: the next thing we're gonna hear is in peach forty
Speaker 1: five again proclaiming my time in peacht get you know,
Speaker 1: let's go. Can I say, keep going? Democrats? This is
Speaker 1: what you want to run on in how many short
Speaker 1: days do we have? Seventy eight days? If that's what
Speaker 1: you're gonna run on, good luck to you. We're gonna
Speaker 1: hit this very hard right after Labor Day. This is
Speaker 1: the most important mid term in your life. And I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you right now you want all progress to stop,
Speaker 1: if you want investigations galore, then stay home. If you
Speaker 1: want the President's agenda literally is stop in its tracks,
Speaker 1: then stay home. Because that's what the Democrats plan, That's
Speaker 1: what they will do, and they will try and use
Speaker 1: that to stop and sty me all the good that
Speaker 1: we've now seen in the last you know, twenty months
Speaker 1: or so. All right, Cindy is in Michigan. Cindy, Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you. We're glad you called. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show. Hi, Sean, I hope you're well. I
Speaker 1: am calling today about the term fake news. I think
Speaker 1: it really is yellow journalism, and it's a language of
Speaker 1: half truth, innuendos, and outright lies. And I can't imagine
Speaker 1: how thick President Trump's skin must be to listen to
Speaker 1: what he must hear all day long. And I just
Speaker 1: don't think that people have the right who have access
Speaker 1: to the press, CNN, John Brennan, all these people that
Speaker 1: they have the right to say or print lies that
Speaker 1: black and a person's name and cause pain. And I
Speaker 1: think that's what they do. And I people that support
Speaker 1: and the what what I was hearing with John Brennan
Speaker 1: just infuriates me. And I wonder do people just derive
Speaker 1: pleasure from the pain it might cause somebody else, especially
Speaker 1: President Trump? And do they listen to it, support it
Speaker 1: because it's not happening to them? Said, You've got to
Speaker 1: understand something that's very profound here they hate this president.
Speaker 1: They think they did everything they could do to stop
Speaker 1: this president. They never thought this president would win. They
Speaker 1: did things that were frankly untoward and illegal, and some
Speaker 1: of them are in legal jeopardy. And look, I I
Speaker 1: don't know, I've never seen a media so complicit involved
Speaker 1: in a cover up of monumental proportions. We have the evidence.
Speaker 1: These people have been fired, these people have resigned, these
Speaker 1: people have been demoted, and it's all over the place.
Speaker 1: And in the meantime, then then we're learning that not
Speaker 1: only did the president his attorney's hand over one point
Speaker 1: for million separate documents to Muller and his merry band
Speaker 1: of witch hunters, but then they even allowed the White
Speaker 1: House Council, which is unprecedented, to talk to this guy
Speaker 1: for thirty hours. That's it. Case closed. Nobody lets their
Speaker 1: attorney Clinton, nobody would let their attorney speak to the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel like this. So now they want to bring
Speaker 1: the as it him. Why because he may contradict one
Speaker 1: or two things that that was said by his attorney,
Speaker 1: the White House Counsel, And they can say, and this
Speaker 1: is what Rudy was trying to say, The truth is
Speaker 1: not the truth what he's saying in that statement, and
Speaker 1: it sounds to the average person like a dumb thing
Speaker 1: to say. What he's really saying is the people that
Speaker 1: get to determine if you have two different bits of testimony,
Speaker 1: it will be the special counsel that decides what is
Speaker 1: the truth, even if they may be wrong. That's that
Speaker 1: was the essence of his stay. Maybe an inarticulate a
Speaker 1: little bit more of I would say special counsel legal jargon,
Speaker 1: uh that most lawyers would understand. But it's going to
Speaker 1: be them that decide. And yeah, you can indict a
Speaker 1: ham sandwich. It's kind of scary. Um. Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Cindy Michael and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, w f l A.
Speaker 1: What's going on? God, God blessed Sean honor to speak
Speaker 1: to you because you seek the truth. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to roll the sound about Struck. Who's I think you'll
Speaker 1: find it directly linked to Brennan. But how does somebody
Speaker 1: raise four hundred thousand dollars in twenty four hours when
Speaker 1: Molly Tibbots with National News took three weeks to raise
Speaker 1: that kind of money. That go fund me page was
Speaker 1: set up inside the fifty four square mills of insanity
Speaker 1: surrounded by reality. And somebody is paying that guy off,
Speaker 1: and and and you'll see that those names are anonymous,
Speaker 1: and they should be investigated. Who gave him money? And
Speaker 1: I think people are trying to pay struck off because
Speaker 1: he knows where everything is buried. I don't know, you
Speaker 1: mean with the high amount of money that's going into
Speaker 1: his defense money, I don't know. I'd have to look
Speaker 1: at the people that are putting it in there. I
Speaker 1: just assume there are enough Trump painting liberals out there
Speaker 1: that would pay any amount of money, because remember, their
Speaker 1: agenda is about destroying Trump. And that's gonna wrap things
Speaker 1: up to today. All right, we have breaking news tonight.
Speaker 1: Also Sarah and Greg will join us on the breaking news.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's Alan Dershowitz, why did McGann testify for thirty hours?
Speaker 1: George Papadopoulos, his wife wants her husband to withdraw the
Speaker 1: flea And we are watching all the breaking news on
Speaker 1: every other issue. All right, we got a big show.
Speaker 1: Tune in tonight, Tell your friends ninety Eastern Hannity, Fox News.
Speaker 1: We'll see then we'll be back here tomorrow