Speaker 1: If you're like me and suffer from insomnia, you know what,
Speaker 1: that's not fun. You know I tried everything I couldn't
Speaker 1: get a good night's sleep. And this is neither drug
Speaker 1: nor alcohol induced. That's right. It is my pillow. Mike
Speaker 1: Lindell invented it and he fitted me for my first
Speaker 1: my pillow, and it's changed my life. I fall asleep faster,
Speaker 1: stay asleep longer, and the good news you can too.
Speaker 1: Lease go to my pillow dot com promo code Sean
Speaker 1: and take advantage of one of Mike Glendell's best offers,
Speaker 1: his Special four pack. You get fifty percent off to
Speaker 1: my Pillow Premium Pillows to Go Anywhere Pillows. My Pillows
Speaker 1: made in the USA, has a sixty day unconditional money
Speaker 1: back guaranteed no risk to you, and attend you warranty.
Speaker 1: You don't want to spend more sleepless nights on a
Speaker 1: pillow tossing interney that's not working for you. Just go
Speaker 1: to my pillow dot com right now, use the promo
Speaker 1: code Sean and you get Mike Glendell's special four pack.
Speaker 1: You get to my Pillow Premium Pillows to Go Anywhere
Speaker 1: Pillows fifty percent off, and you'll start getting the kind
Speaker 1: of peaceful and RESTful and comfortable and deep, peeling and
Speaker 1: recrupative sleep you've been craving and deserve. My Pillow dot
Speaker 1: Com promo coach sewn. Hey, everybody, Happy Friday. This is
Speaker 1: Greg Jared in for Sean Hannity. This is the Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Show, and I'm happy to be with you. Sean
Speaker 1: certainly deserves a day off after the incredible work he
Speaker 1: did in London and Helsinki with Lynda in the Whole Gang,
Speaker 1: and so I'm filling in for him today. And it
Speaker 1: is perhaps a propitious time for me to be here
Speaker 1: because my book The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to
Speaker 1: clear Hillary Clinton and Framed Donald Trump, comes out on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: July of the next week, so I want to talk
Speaker 1: about it today. For those of you who don't know
Speaker 1: who I am, I am a Fox News legal analyst,
Speaker 1: but I spent fifteen years as a Fox News anchor.
Speaker 1: Before that, Court TV, MSNBC, I was a lawyer, a
Speaker 1: defense attorney, a trial attorney back in the nineteen eight d's. Uh, yes,
Speaker 1: I'm a lawyer. Don't hold it against me because everybody sins.
Speaker 1: Remember that. So that's my background. And if you want
Speaker 1: to follow me, my Twitter handle is at greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: but that's two g s on the end of Greg
Speaker 1: Jerry gg dot or no, just Jarrett at and then
Speaker 1: that's Twitter. UM. You can also buy my book in
Speaker 1: advance of Tuesday. All you have to do is go
Speaker 1: to Amazon, um dot com obviously Barnes and Noble dot com,
Speaker 1: or make it easy on yourself and go to Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com and you can read about me. You can
Speaker 1: read about my book. You can buy the book in advance,
Speaker 1: and I think it's worth your while. Yes, I wrote it,
Speaker 1: but let me give you a little bit of a backstory.
Speaker 1: So I I have spent the last three or four
Speaker 1: years writing columns, and many of them about how Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton broke the law and yet she was clear beard
Speaker 1: by James Comey Andrew McKay, Peter Struck Lisa Page at
Speaker 1: the FBI, end people at the Department of Justice. And
Speaker 1: on the very same day that Comby announced he was
Speaker 1: clearing Hillary Clinton, his FBI was meeting secretly in London
Speaker 1: with the author of the fictitious phony anti Trump dossier,
Speaker 1: which was funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and
Speaker 1: that document, together with many other unfounded accusations, would be
Speaker 1: exploited in a malicious attempt to frame Donald Trump for
Speaker 1: unidentified crimes that he never committed, and that was the
Speaker 1: beginning of the Russia host July two thousand sixteen. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: James Comey doesn't remember the moment that he decided that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton had committed crimes, and that was one of
Speaker 1: the more stunning revelations contained in the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: recent report by the Inspector. Generally, it's worth reading, and
Speaker 1: if you want to shortcut, just go to roughly page
Speaker 1: one eight seven of the i G report and read
Speaker 1: the next ten pages, because here's what you're going to learn.
Speaker 1: On May second, two thousand sixteen, Comey, then, the FBI Director,
Speaker 1: sits down at his personal computer and he composes a
Speaker 1: statement summarizing all of Hillary Clinton's illegality, her mishandling of
Speaker 1: classified documents, and he concludes in his writing that she
Speaker 1: was quote unquote grossly negligent. And he wrote it down
Speaker 1: not once, but he wrote it down twice. Now those
Speaker 1: words have meaning. They are pivotal words in the law.
Speaker 1: They are drawn directly from a federal statute eighteen USC.
Speaker 1: Seven ninety three, making it a felony to handle classified
Speaker 1: documents in a grossly negligent manner. And so based on
Speaker 1: that finding by Comey, Clinton should have faced a multiple
Speaker 1: count criminal indictment that day, since the FBI had discovered
Speaker 1: that she had stored not one or two, or ten
Speaker 1: or twelve, but a hundred and twenty hundred and ten
Speaker 1: classified emails on her unauthorized private computer service. And if
Speaker 1: you don't think Russia has those hundred and ten classified
Speaker 1: documents after we now know they also hack the d
Speaker 1: n C server, then you're smoking something. The Russians have it,
Speaker 1: the Chinese have it, everybody has it. Because her unauthorized
Speaker 1: server was available for all to obtain. It was unprotected,
Speaker 1: and that's why it's against the law for her to
Speaker 1: have done that. Other people have been prosecuted for similar conduct.
Speaker 1: The jeopardized national security in violation of the law. And
Speaker 1: I devote several pages going through each and every one
Speaker 1: of those individuals in my book, The Russia Hoax comes
Speaker 1: out on Tuesday. You can order it right now. But
Speaker 1: why is it that those people were prosecuted and Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton wasn't Comey saw to it that no charges would
Speaker 1: ever be brought against Hillary Clinton. And he had his
Speaker 1: minions who were on board, Peter Struck, Lisa Page, Andrew
Speaker 1: mcab the whole gang over at the FBI. So here's
Speaker 1: what happened. The Inspector General questions Comey about his conduct,
Speaker 1: and Comey admits to the i G that, yeah, I
Speaker 1: wrote that may second statement. I penned every word of
Speaker 1: it myself. But then he offers the most implausible claim
Speaker 1: I think I've ever heard. And here's a quote from
Speaker 1: the i G. Comy did not recall that his original
Speaker 1: draft use the term gross negligence, and he doesn't recall
Speaker 1: any discussions about that issue. End of quote. James, how
Speaker 1: perfectly convenient of you. You suffered a complete memory lapse. Now,
Speaker 1: of course you and I know that Comey's amnesia is
Speaker 1: utterly preposterous. His perfecty is no surprise. The man is unscrupulous.
Speaker 1: Look up that word and Comey's picture should be next
Speaker 1: to it. Comey would have us believe that, as FBI director,
Speaker 1: he memorialized in print on his computer his conclusion that
Speaker 1: the leading candidate for president United States committed crimes. And yet, oh, gee,
Speaker 1: you know I I don't recall that I don't recall
Speaker 1: writing the incriminating words. I don't recall talking about it
Speaker 1: with my staff. Yeah, right, James, guess what there are notes.
Speaker 1: The truth is that Comy does remember what he wrote
Speaker 1: that Clinton was guilty of crimes, because he participated in
Speaker 1: subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton's
Speaker 1: gross negligence and her crimes. Several meetings were held on
Speaker 1: the subject. Contemporaneous notes proved that Comey was in attendance.
Speaker 1: Comy participated in those discussions. Those records show that, yes,
Speaker 1: Comey was convinced that Clinton broke the law, but he
Speaker 1: was determined that he was going to clear her anyway
Speaker 1: now in order to achieve that legal somersault, that convicting
Speaker 1: terminology grow negligence that would have to be stricken from
Speaker 1: his statement, how else do you absorb, absolve the the
Speaker 1: soon to be Democratic nominee for President United States. You've
Speaker 1: got to clear her path to the White House. So
Speaker 1: this is what happened. June six, the FBI lead investigator
Speaker 1: on the case, a guy with the name of Peter
Speaker 1: Struck we all now know him, sits down at his
Speaker 1: office computer to cleanse the statement of gross negligence. And
Speaker 1: guess who's there leaning over his shoulder is FBI lawyer
Speaker 1: Lisa Page. With of course, he's been having an extramarital affair.
Speaker 1: So the two of them together decide to substitute the
Speaker 1: words extremely careless to make it appear less criminally culpable.
Speaker 1: Lisa Page actually told the inspector general quote to use
Speaker 1: a term that actually has a legal definition would be confusing. Hey,
Speaker 1: guess what, Lisa Shirley would I mean, how do you
Speaker 1: clear Clinton by using a phrase that has a legal
Speaker 1: meaning under the law. So, in other words, this was
Speaker 1: all just a clever legal charade conjured up by Comey
Speaker 1: and Struck and Lisa Page to exculpaid Hillary Clinton. And
Speaker 1: you know there's more to this story. I mean Struck
Speaker 1: in Page also expunge from Comey's statement his reference to
Speaker 1: another statute that Clinton had plainly violated. So, with the
Speaker 1: director's consent, his encouragement, they sanitized his findings of fact,
Speaker 1: his contortions of of law, and Clinton was free and clear.
Speaker 1: While the FBI did not even interview her at this stage,
Speaker 1: how in the world do they know her intent? It
Speaker 1: was a pre conceived sham, a predetermined outcome. There really
Speaker 1: was no investigation. It was all a charade, and Comey's
Speaker 1: machinations are all over the place. He offers to the
Speaker 1: i G. Another absurd explanation. He says, and this is
Speaker 1: a quote from the IG report, It was his understanding,
Speaker 1: based on the statutes legislative history, the Congress intended there
Speaker 1: to be some level of willfulness under the gross negligence statute. Really,
Speaker 1: I got news for you, James. You never read the
Speaker 1: legislative history I did. It's not there. Your statement of
Speaker 1: the i G is demonstrably untrue because Congress amended the
Speaker 1: Espionage Act to create this new category called gross negligence,
Speaker 1: and they specifically decided to eliminate in intent or wilfulness.
Speaker 1: So Comy just invented this excuse as a ruse to
Speaker 1: try to avoid charging Clinton. You know, amnesia is clearly
Speaker 1: contagious over the FBI. Peter Struck during his congressional testimony,
Speaker 1: pretended he didn't remember making the change on his computer.
Speaker 1: But guess what he did implicate Comey. Here's a quote. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: he Comy made the decision to change the wording. A
Speaker 1: wait a minute, how could Comey order a changing words?
Speaker 1: He doesn't remember writing. Look, their stories don't match absence
Speaker 1: some serious dementia, these overt lies or evidence of a
Speaker 1: conspicuous cover up, And that is just part of the
Speaker 1: Russia hoax. That was the beginning. And then they get
Speaker 1: their hands on that anti Trump, phony, fabricated dossier, and
Speaker 1: the FBI is off to the races. Peter Struck signs
Speaker 1: the documents launching the Trump Russia collusion probe without necessary
Speaker 1: facts to justify the probe. They were a never There
Speaker 1: was never evidence of any crimes to justify a criminal investigation.
Speaker 1: There was never any intelligence to justify a counter intelligence investigation.
Speaker 1: They made it up. And then they went to Affis
Speaker 1: a judge and using this phony dossier, which they knew
Speaker 1: was fake. Comey later admitted it was unverified. They nevertheless
Speaker 1: deceived the court. They hid the evidence that Hillary had
Speaker 1: paid for it, and they obtained a warm rent to
Speaker 1: spy on the Trump campaign. Well that's just part of
Speaker 1: the story, and we're gonna be talking a lot about
Speaker 1: it today because my book comes out on Tuesday. The
Speaker 1: Russia Hoax, the elicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton in
Speaker 1: frame Donald Trump. You can order it on Barnes and
Speaker 1: Noble dot com, Amazon dot com, Hannity dot com. I'm
Speaker 1: Greg jarreted in for Sean Hannity. Will pause, take a
Speaker 1: quick break. We'll be right back with the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show on Greg Jared
Speaker 1: filling in for Sean Today. My book comes out Tuesday,
Speaker 1: entitled The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton in frame Donald Trump. You can get it in
Speaker 1: advance on Amazon dot com, Barnes and Noble dot com,
Speaker 1: or wait till Tuesday and buy it at the stores.
Speaker 1: Check it out on Hannity dot com. My Twitter handle
Speaker 1: is at Greg Jarrett. And by the way, we want
Speaker 1: to hear from you during this hour, so give us
Speaker 1: a call. I'll talk to you and or your questions.
Speaker 1: Explains some things, Explain things if you if you don't
Speaker 1: understand something. Our number is eight hundred nine four one seven,
Speaker 1: three to six. That's eight hundred nine for one Sean uh.
Speaker 1: This book is not a defensive Donald Trump. It is
Speaker 1: a defense of the rule of law, which I believe
Speaker 1: came under sustained attack by high government officials like Comey
Speaker 1: and McCabe and Struck and page who abuse their positions
Speaker 1: of power to subvert our system of justice and undermine
Speaker 1: the democratic process. And Sean encouraged me to write this
Speaker 1: book because he'd been reading my columns. He was having
Speaker 1: me on his show, and he realized, and I think
Speaker 1: he shared with me how angry we were becoming over
Speaker 1: the top officials at the FBI and the d o
Speaker 1: J who were deliberately abusing their offices. They not only
Speaker 1: absolved Hillary Clinton violating felony statutes as we were talking
Speaker 1: about moments ago, but these people weaponized the law and
Speaker 1: regulations to investigate Trump without legal justification why they were
Speaker 1: trying to destroy him. And as they did that, they
Speaker 1: compromised essential principles and they damaged the nation's trust. And
Speaker 1: this is the story of my book, The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: And we want to hear from you, So give us
Speaker 1: a call eight hundred nine for one, seven three two
Speaker 1: six Again, that's eight hundred nine for one Sean. I'm
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett. You can order the book ahead of time
Speaker 1: Barnes and Noble dot com, Amazon dot com, go to
Speaker 1: Hannity dot com. Um, we're gonna pause, take a quick break.
Speaker 1: Your phone calls on the other side that you can't
Speaker 1: always believe what the other side claims. That's why there's
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Show. And welcome back to the Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Showing. Greg Jared filling in for Sean Hannity. We're
Speaker 1: gonna take your calls in just a moment. We've been
Speaker 1: talking about the Russia hoax and that that is actually
Speaker 1: the title of my book that comes out on Tuesday
Speaker 1: of next week, July. The subtitle is The Illicit Scheme
Speaker 1: to Clear Hillary Clinton in frame Donald Trump. You can
Speaker 1: order it on Barnes and Noble dot com, Amazon dot com,
Speaker 1: just go to Hannity dot com. The hoax itself is this,
Speaker 1: there was never any plausible evidence that Donald Trump or
Speaker 1: anybody in his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency. Zero.
Speaker 1: There have been a bunch of indictments by Robert Mueller.
Speaker 1: How many of them, I ask you involve Trump Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: Let me help you with the answer. The answer, you
Speaker 1: know it is zero to launch that investigation against the president.
Speaker 1: Facts were invented or exaggerated, the laws were perverted or ignored,
Speaker 1: and guess what, the law enforcers became the law breakers
Speaker 1: and James Comey scheme to trigger the appointment of his
Speaker 1: longtime friend ally and colleague, Robert Muller is special counsel.
Speaker 1: That was a devious maneuver by what I think is
Speaker 1: an unscrewed ulis man. Comey's insinuation when he testified that
Speaker 1: the president obstructed justice. That was another myth, another canard
Speaker 1: designed to inflame the liberal mainstream media, and sure enough
Speaker 1: they became winning accessories. They were only happy to do it.
Speaker 1: The Russia hoax, the illicit scheme to clare Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: in frame Donald Trump. Let's go to our callers right now.
Speaker 1: Attila joins this from Kawani, Wisconsin. Hi Attila, Hi, so
Speaker 1: glad to be on the show, and thank you for
Speaker 1: having me my pleasure. What what do you think of
Speaker 1: this whole thing. It's a It's a great honor to
Speaker 1: talk to you. And I'm going to rush out and
Speaker 1: get your book in our library. Have convinced them to
Speaker 1: order your book too. But we're already seeing Gregory the
Speaker 1: dual system of justice which um Podesta gets immunity of
Speaker 1: now by Mueller right and and um and we have
Speaker 1: a UM Trump's campaign manager under lock and key for
Speaker 1: twenty three hours a day that that should tell us
Speaker 1: all what we need to know about the the corruption
Speaker 1: that's going on. And now they're trying to go after
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's and and get rid of Deva Nunez h
Speaker 1: what there, it's a it's a head hunting list. You know,
Speaker 1: I've been a lawyer for forty years or so. I'd
Speaker 1: have to actually sit down and count them. I passed
Speaker 1: the bar exam and became a lawyer. In that my
Speaker 1: numbers are off. I apologize, but um, I have never
Speaker 1: seen a case in which a prosecutor gives five immunity
Speaker 1: deals to the associates of the target of an investigation
Speaker 1: and that prosecutor gets nothing in return. This was the
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton case. Oli her pals who were in on it,
Speaker 1: the mishandling of classified documents, the destruction of documents, UH,
Speaker 1: the defiance of lawful subpoenas. They all get immunity. Do
Speaker 1: they testify against Hillary? No, and James Comey. Let two
Speaker 1: of them actually sit in on Hillary Clinton's FBI interview
Speaker 1: with Peter Struck and a few other hacks. And you know,
Speaker 1: she said, I don't recall roughly forty times. The only
Speaker 1: thing that Hillary Clinton could remember was her name and
Speaker 1: date of birth, and she probably fudged on the ladder.
Speaker 1: I mean it was a total charade. And so you know,
Speaker 1: talk about prosecutorial misconduct and abusive office. That is the
Speaker 1: prime example. And then those same people conjured out of
Speaker 1: thin air fake evidence to go after Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: my book has seven foot notes. It was originally five pages.
Speaker 1: We cut it down to about three inter pages. I
Speaker 1: wrote every page, every word myself. I spent seven hours
Speaker 1: a day, seven days a week for four months, and
Speaker 1: then a month worth of revisions and additions. So five
Speaker 1: months writing this day in and day out, night and
Speaker 1: day uh. And I'm actually very proud of the result
Speaker 1: because I think I lay out the meticulous evidence of
Speaker 1: how our system of justice was abused by people in
Speaker 1: high positions of power. Until thanks for your call. Let
Speaker 1: me go to the next caller, lou Is danny By
Speaker 1: in Connecticut. U, thank you very much for taking the cause.
Speaker 1: Just to preface my question, which I know you're aware of,
Speaker 1: I been biting at the bridle. This whole thing has
Speaker 1: just been a maddening experience to watch from afar, especially
Speaker 1: having been in law enforcement, to watch the abuses to
Speaker 1: have worked in the federal Task Force to work in
Speaker 1: the state task Force. I've done with a lot of
Speaker 1: law enforcement personnel, and I don't know any of them
Speaker 1: who would have done what the FBI did. My question
Speaker 1: is this, we have probable cause if we had a
Speaker 1: real a G, a real deputy a G that uh,
Speaker 1: these FBI agents, UH, some management uh, even some of
Speaker 1: the people on Mueller's side, uh, permitted crimes to take place.
Speaker 1: Destruction of evidence, uh, whether it's uh witness testimony or
Speaker 1: hard physical evidence with immunity deals. Yeah, and I know
Speaker 1: where you're going. And and yeah, for obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, an FBI agent can obstruct his own investigation,
Speaker 1: it's substruction of justice. The FBI director did that, in
Speaker 1: my judgment, and he's also guilty of a variety of
Speaker 1: other felony statues, including abuse of power. UH and uh
Speaker 1: perhaps perjury and Comy himself may well have violated the
Speaker 1: same Espionage Act UH laws that Hillary Clinton did. I mean,
Speaker 1: he gave seven presidential memos that he stole from the
Speaker 1: federal government. He gave at least four of them to
Speaker 1: somebody who was not authorized to have them, and according
Speaker 1: to UH, the FBI uh, some of that information was classified.
Speaker 1: They had to go into the individual's office and to
Speaker 1: uh to sanitize the office and gather the evidence and
Speaker 1: documents so that nobody else got their hands on them.
Speaker 1: What does that tell you? So all of these people
Speaker 1: could be prosecuted, including James Comey, but you've got to
Speaker 1: have a an attorney general who has the will and
Speaker 1: the knowledge to do it, and you don't have that
Speaker 1: in Jeff Sessions, probably the worst attorney general in modern history.
Speaker 1: And you've got Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, who
Speaker 1: is really running the Department of Justice. And this is
Speaker 1: a guy who is doing nothing but obstructing the congressional
Speaker 1: investigations and defining congressional lawful subpoenas. So with those two
Speaker 1: guys at the top, nothing's going to happen. Let's go
Speaker 1: to our next caller. Susie joins this from San Antonio, Texas. Susy, Hey,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for taking my call. Greg Um.
Speaker 1: I appreciate all that you do and the work that
Speaker 1: you do. You you certainly are a warrior. My question
Speaker 1: is this, I uh, I did seventeen years as a
Speaker 1: federal agent, and it just stuns me that somebody like
Speaker 1: call me, can stand up and list off this tick off,
Speaker 1: this list of all the laws that she broke and
Speaker 1: all the things that she did, but no reasonable prosecutor
Speaker 1: would take her to take this case. How does that
Speaker 1: just stop it? How does James call me? Because then
Speaker 1: even trade Gaudy says, well, you know, um, no reasonable
Speaker 1: prosecutor will take this case. Why oh that you know
Speaker 1: that was just a lie? And Comey thought if I
Speaker 1: say it, you know, people will believe it. Because Comey
Speaker 1: believes his own press clippings. Uh. You know, Comy thought
Speaker 1: he was godlike and that he could do anything he
Speaker 1: wanted and that he knew better than the American citizen ry.
Speaker 1: And so he didn't want Trump to be president. He
Speaker 1: wanted Hillary be president. So he was going to save
Speaker 1: the nation by exonerating Clinton so she could be president
Speaker 1: and destroy Donald Trump. That that seems to me to
Speaker 1: be the story of James Comy. And I think he's
Speaker 1: nothing more than an arrogant, pompous, pretentious fraud. And but listen,
Speaker 1: when you're the head of the FBI, uh, you have
Speaker 1: immense power. And he abused that power to clear Clinton
Speaker 1: and go after Donald Trump. And I'm so glad you
Speaker 1: brought up the fact that, you know Comy's ridiculous deception.
Speaker 1: No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. I got
Speaker 1: news for him. Prosecutors all over America would have loved
Speaker 1: to have brought that case against Hillary. And it was
Speaker 1: a slam dunk. It was right there on her server,
Speaker 1: hundred and ten classified documents. That's a crime, even you know.
Speaker 1: Comy himself said in his nonsensical statement that he originally
Speaker 1: wrote the sheer volume of information that was properly classified
Speaker 1: as secret at the time it was discussed on emails,
Speaker 1: supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in
Speaker 1: their handling of that information. That's a quote from James Comy.
Speaker 1: But because he wanted to clear Hillary Clinton, he struck
Speaker 1: that from his computer statement, and he probably thought nobody
Speaker 1: would ever find out. Clinton will become president and it'll
Speaker 1: be a great secret. Well guess what, she didn't become
Speaker 1: president and end metadata and computers record everything and maintain everything.
Speaker 1: And that's part of the evidence against Clinton and against
Speaker 1: James Comey. Let's go to our next caller, who is
Speaker 1: Ron from Chicago, Illinois. Hi, Iron, Hi, how are you interesting? Programs,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Why can't Mueller be fired? He can,
Speaker 1: I understand he can. But why isn't he being fired? Well,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you why because two reasons. I think. I
Speaker 1: think Donald Trump believes that he'll be cleared in the
Speaker 1: end because he knows he never colluded with Russia. So,
Speaker 1: you know, one can understand why am I going to
Speaker 1: fire a guy who, in the end cannot possibly come
Speaker 1: up with any incriminating evidence because it doesn't exist. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you talk to Donald Trump, he was like, I
Speaker 1: never talked to anywhere Hillary Clinton was talking with Russians.
Speaker 1: But he'll say, I never talked to any Russians and
Speaker 1: I didn't know if anybody in my campaign was talking
Speaker 1: to Russians. So I didn't colude. Why should I fire
Speaker 1: a guy? Uh? If I'm completely and utterly innocent. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, I think that the president realizes that
Speaker 1: Mueller's out to get him. I mean, the day before
Speaker 1: Muller was appointed by Rosenstein's special counsel, Mueller was in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office begging for the job to replace James Comey,
Speaker 1: is FBI director, to get his old job back, and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump didn't want him. There's a conflict of interest
Speaker 1: that demands recusal. You get turned down for a job
Speaker 1: by the president, and you take a job the next
Speaker 1: day to investigate the president, the guy who rejected you
Speaker 1: and turned you down for a job. Not to mention
Speaker 1: the fact that Mueller is close friends, allies, former colleagues
Speaker 1: with the key witness in the case, James Comey, And
Speaker 1: if you look up a code of professional responsibility, not
Speaker 1: to mention the Department of Justice regulations, it's mandatory. You've
Speaker 1: got to recuse yourself. You can't prosecute a case when
Speaker 1: the key witness has a close relationship to you. That's
Speaker 1: literally word for word, almost word for word, out of
Speaker 1: the regulations. Uh. So Mueller deserves to be fired. But
Speaker 1: I think the president probably correctly realizes that within minutes
Speaker 1: of firing Mueller he'd be accused of being Richard Nixon
Speaker 1: and Watergate all over, and the firing of Archibald Cox,
Speaker 1: which eventually unraveled and led to the uh what were
Speaker 1: articles of impeachment for Nixon and prompted his resignation. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, the political fallout would be severe. So I
Speaker 1: think that's the reason why this is Greg Jared filling
Speaker 1: in for Shawn Hannity on The Sean Hannity Show. We're
Speaker 1: taking your calls. We're talking about my book, The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: The Illicit Scheme to clare Hillary Clinton and framed Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It comes out next Tuesday in your local bookstore, but
Speaker 1: you can order it online Barnes and Noble dot com,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com, or just go to Hannity dot com
Speaker 1: and check out my Twitter handle at Greg jareded. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the Shawn Hannity Shawn. Greg Jarrett filling in
Speaker 1: for Shawn. In just a few minutes, We're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking to former U S Attorney and former Independent Council
Speaker 1: Joe Digeneva, one of the finest lawyers in America. I
Speaker 1: interviewed him for my book and he is quoted in
Speaker 1: several places. The book comes out Tuesday, The Russia Hoax
Speaker 1: Barnes and Noble. Amazon will be back in a flash
Speaker 1: The Sean Hannity Show. Welcome back to the Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: Show on Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity. Um,
Speaker 1: we are talking a lot about the book that I wrote,
Speaker 1: which comes out on Tuesday, called The Russia Hoax, The
Speaker 1: Illicit Scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It can be ordered pre ordered on Amazon or borns
Speaker 1: at Noble dot com, or just go to Hannity dot
Speaker 1: com and there's a link there, and you know, you
Speaker 1: can read what's in it. But frankly, the title tells
Speaker 1: the story, but the dirty, disgusting details are on the inside,
Speaker 1: complete with seven hundred footnotes. So I didn't just make
Speaker 1: it up like Michael Wolfe. So um. One of the
Speaker 1: people who was actually quite helpful in UH in my
Speaker 1: writing the book was, Um, Joe did Jennifer because he
Speaker 1: granted me an interview, and so uh, several of his
Speaker 1: comments about the Russia hoax are contained within the book. Now,
Speaker 1: Joe Digeneva is one of the finest lawyers in all
Speaker 1: of America, former U S Attorney. He was also and
Speaker 1: this is what's important, he was also an independent Council,
Speaker 1: which is the equivalent these days of the Special Council
Speaker 1: because the Independent Council law was not renewed by Congress,
Speaker 1: and now Robert Muller under a Special Council regulation, UH
Speaker 1: is playing that role, though there are very meaningful differences.
Speaker 1: But let me get Joe on the phone. Now, Joe,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today and and
Speaker 1: once again thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for
Speaker 1: the book, because I think your comments were an important
Speaker 1: contribution to the book. Well, Greig, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: And and first of all, let me congratulate you on
Speaker 1: the publication of the book. As you know, I've read
Speaker 1: most of it pre publication. Uh it's a fantastic read.
Speaker 1: May I tell your your listeners and Sean's listeners, Uh,
Speaker 1: please get it you you just won't be able to
Speaker 1: put it down. Well, that's very very kind of you,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate it immensely. Um, before we talk about
Speaker 1: some of the things that are in the book, I
Speaker 1: do want to ask you about some of the latest
Speaker 1: information that we're now getting. There's a growing number of
Speaker 1: Democrats who were asking that the interpreter during the Trump
Speaker 1: Putin meeting. Her name is Marina Gross. They are demanding
Speaker 1: that she behauled before co Congressional Committee to reveal what
Speaker 1: was discussed and what she heard during this one on
Speaker 1: one meeting between two world leaders. And they're also demanding
Speaker 1: that she turned over to Congress any notes that she
Speaker 1: took during the Monday to our meeting in Helsinki. Again
Speaker 1: between Trump and putin your thoughts. Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: of the Democrats do not control either House of Congress,
Speaker 1: so their request is a legal mulity. It is nothing
Speaker 1: more than a request that does not have the force
Speaker 1: of law. Um. She does not have to respond. The
Speaker 1: President does not have to respond. No one has to respond.
Speaker 1: That said, Um. One thing is also clear that if
Speaker 1: the president needed to, he could invoke executive privilege. Let's say,
Speaker 1: if the Democrats controlled one of both houses of Congress.
Speaker 1: But an interpreter is never going to be called to testify.
Speaker 1: I can assure you that the Democrats ultimately, uh no,
Speaker 1: they're never going to get her, and so this is
Speaker 1: just a game because if they thought they would get her,
Speaker 1: it is quite conceivable that Mr Schumer, no matter how
Speaker 1: obnoxious he is from time to time, would realize that
Speaker 1: a future Democratic president would not want this to happen,
Speaker 1: and so it wouldn't happen. But this is grandstanding Allah,
Speaker 1: all of the Democrats, this is what they do. They've
Speaker 1: become a very very bad joke. Well, Um, the liberal
Speaker 1: media and Democrats, um had you know, there was hair
Speaker 1: on fire hysteria after the you know, the Putin Trump
Speaker 1: meeting in the news conference accusing Trump of being soft
Speaker 1: on Russia and in Putin's pocket. You know, frankly, you know, Jill,
Speaker 1: that is belied by the facts. This president increased sanctions
Speaker 1: against Russia fivefold when after their energy sector, the defense industry,
Speaker 1: Putin's inner circle, and that most recent set of sanctions
Speaker 1: three months ago in April that the president's side. He
Speaker 1: issued a statement saying this is in direct punishment for
Speaker 1: Russia's meddling in the election. You know, as I see
Speaker 1: a Trump has taken more punitive action against Russia in
Speaker 1: eighteen months than Obama did in eight years. What do
Speaker 1: you think. I don't think there's any doubt that the
Speaker 1: President's conduct, whether it's giving defensive assole systems to Eastern
Speaker 1: European countries which are now part of the Western Bloc,
Speaker 1: whether it's giving arms to Ukraine, whatever it may be,
Speaker 1: the sanctions expelling sixty two Russian quote unquote diplomats who
Speaker 1: were intelligence people as a result of the poisoning of
Speaker 1: the former Russian spy in London. The President has been fantastic.
Speaker 1: His messaging has been a little off from time to time,
Speaker 1: but in terms of the real activities to punish the Russians.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely true that compared to uh the abysmal
Speaker 1: record of President Obama, he has been a superb defender
Speaker 1: of American interests. And I must say, over the last
Speaker 1: few days, I've always it's been fairly obvious that John Brennan,
Speaker 1: the former CIA director under Obama, is a very sick,
Speaker 1: sick man, a man so partisan, so viciously corrupted by
Speaker 1: his bias is that he looks like a madman when
Speaker 1: he's on television, his fiery face. He can barely stay
Speaker 1: within his skin. But the person who disappointed me even
Speaker 1: more the other day by suggesting that the Russians might
Speaker 1: have something on the president was Lehan Panetta. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a guy who, while Secretary of Defense during Benghazi,
Speaker 1: did absolutely nothing to save an American ambassador and three
Speaker 1: other brave Americans. Um. Leon Panetta should be ashamed of himself.
Speaker 1: And I can't imagine what possessed him to say something
Speaker 1: as stupid and as uninformed as he did about the
Speaker 1: current president of the United States. But this is where
Speaker 1: the Democrats are. They're cowardly. Panetta, by the way, is
Speaker 1: one of those guys who, for all of his experience
Speaker 1: as a member of Congress, Secretary of Defense. He I directed,
Speaker 1: he is really a weak, weak person. It's fascinating how
Speaker 1: he counted out to Hillary Clinton, quite remarkable. You know,
Speaker 1: a couple of hours after John Brennan, former CIA director,
Speaker 1: a Hillary Clinton Lackey and uh, you know, a hyperpartisan uh,
Speaker 1: tweeted out that the President committed treason. I tweeted a response,
Speaker 1: and my response was, every time that John Brennan opens
Speaker 1: his mouth or tweets something, he removes all doubt about
Speaker 1: his ignorance. And the reason I said that is because
Speaker 1: the treason laws, as you well know, are very specific
Speaker 1: in the United States, not only in Article three of
Speaker 1: the Constitution, but under the Statute of Treason you have
Speaker 1: to be at war with another country for treason to apply.
Speaker 1: And the most the most obvious example was Ethel and
Speaker 1: Julius Rosenberg in the nineties and fifties. They were never
Speaker 1: charged with trees and even though they gave nuclear secrets
Speaker 1: to the Soviets, they were charged and convicted and put
Speaker 1: to death for espionage. But but you know, Brennan and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, all of the others who hauled off and
Speaker 1: said this is treason are absolutely ignorant. People that they are.
Speaker 1: And and the other thing that's very clear about Brennan
Speaker 1: when you watch him, Uh, it's very Shakespearean in the
Speaker 1: sense that he does protest too much because he is
Speaker 1: well aware of the central role that he played in
Speaker 1: creating the hoax about Russian collusion, in allowing the improper
Speaker 1: UH searching of FISA information by the n s A.
Speaker 1: He is at the core of spreading the false dossier
Speaker 1: around the government in an effort to get it published.
Speaker 1: He is at the core of the unmasking process with
Speaker 1: Susan Rice and others. He's at the core of the
Speaker 1: leaking of all of that information in violation of federal
Speaker 1: law to the American media. John Brennan is among that
Speaker 1: homeless Clapper is of course another one. But he's so
Speaker 1: stupid and and inarticulate that he probably has a defense
Speaker 1: of being just not quite dumb enough to know how
Speaker 1: to properly lie. But but, but Brennan is at the
Speaker 1: center of the entire conspiracy against Trump and and the
Speaker 1: the the thing about it that makes him so obviously
Speaker 1: a part of the conspiracy is the the vitriol that
Speaker 1: he has cloaked himself in to go after a sitting
Speaker 1: president and the damage that he has done to the
Speaker 1: c I a personnel who work out there today. They
Speaker 1: are I speak to people at the agency all the time.
Speaker 1: They are embarrassed by John Brennan. They are mortally, mortally
Speaker 1: embarrassed by him. Well, he's a he's a mean and
Speaker 1: malevolent person. And and don't just take my word for it.
Speaker 1: That's what Samantha Power, the Obama United Nations Ambassador said,
Speaker 1: rather cryptically when and I'll quote her, not a good
Speaker 1: idea to piss off John Brennan. That's in my book.
Speaker 1: And in fact, as you know, because you've read much
Speaker 1: of the book, Joe uh my book entitle of the
Speaker 1: Russia Hoax, Chapter six, the title of that chapter is
Speaker 1: the fabricated dossier used against Trump. And I opened it
Speaker 1: with salvos against John Brennan as the instigator of the
Speaker 1: dirty dossier. And in fact, I quote House Intelligence senior
Speaker 1: aid House Intelligence Committee senior aide who said, quote John
Speaker 1: Brennan did more than anyone to promulgate the dirty dossier.
Speaker 1: He politicized and effectively weaponized what was false intelligence against Trump.
Speaker 1: And then I lay out all the facts and the
Speaker 1: evidence that prove it. Yes, and I couldn't agree with
Speaker 1: you more. I think that that particular chapter is one
Speaker 1: of the most sterling parts of the book, and I
Speaker 1: heartily commended to people who want to understand how UH,
Speaker 1: an outgoing administration during a transition period between an election
Speaker 1: and an inauguration could engage in such perfidy during that
Speaker 1: time in an effort to undermine a president, a president
Speaker 1: duly elected by the people of the United States. I
Speaker 1: don't you know. I think the American people have figured
Speaker 1: out without any question that the Russian collusion thing is
Speaker 1: idiotic and a hoax, except the most part of Democrats,
Speaker 1: who will believe anything because they hate the president. But
Speaker 1: what what people are not aware of is how criminal,
Speaker 1: and I underscore criminal the activity was that led to
Speaker 1: the to the attempt to frame Donald Trump. They will
Speaker 1: not succeed, the president will not be framed, but they
Speaker 1: have done a terrible thing to the American people into
Speaker 1: a new president. They've stolen eighteen months of his presidency
Speaker 1: to deal with this nonsense. And at the core of
Speaker 1: that were the people, the senior people in intelligence of
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, who I believe engaged in completely criminal
Speaker 1: activity that should be investigated I'm I am regretted. I
Speaker 1: regret to say that Jeff Sessions as Attorney General will
Speaker 1: never permit the type of in depth criminal investigation that
Speaker 1: needs to I agree with the Joe Geneva. You're gonna
Speaker 1: stick around for just a moment because we're gonna squeeze
Speaker 1: in a quick break. I have many more questions for you,
Speaker 1: the great attorney Joe di Jenova, who is in the
Speaker 1: book The Russia Hoax. You can buy it on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: I'll be right back. This is Greg Jarrett filling in
Speaker 1: for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show. Back Now
Speaker 1: with the Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in
Speaker 1: for Sean Hannity. You can follow me on Twitter, Greg
Speaker 1: Jarrett Um at Greg Jarrett and by the way to
Speaker 1: G's on the end of Greg not to be confused
Speaker 1: without other Greg Jarrett Um. I've been talking with Jojo Jeneva,
Speaker 1: terrific lawyer in Washington, d C. Former U S Attorney,
Speaker 1: former Independent Council. He was interviewed for my book. He
Speaker 1: has quoted in it. The name of the book is
Speaker 1: The Russia Hoax, The illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: And framed Donald Trump, available in bookstores beginning on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: or you can order it Barnes and Noble dot com.
Speaker 1: But Joe, one of the arguments I make, uh, this
Speaker 1: is in I believe chapter six, is that you know,
Speaker 1: collusion is not a crime in a political campaign. Collusions
Speaker 1: crime and anti trust law and so forth. Um, Now,
Speaker 1: if you pay a foreign national for information in a
Speaker 1: political campaign, that would be a crime. And isn't that
Speaker 1: what Hillary Clinton and Democrats did? Well, Gregg, the answer
Speaker 1: to that is, of course yes, what they did was
Speaker 1: definitely pay a foreign national for information in the campaign.
Speaker 1: And the question is whether or not that type of
Speaker 1: activity uh is covered by federal criminal one should be investigated.
Speaker 1: But here's here's the problem with all of this, and
Speaker 1: the problem with the Muller investigation, which was created by
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein because he was so furious about the fact
Speaker 1: that he thought the President of the United States had
Speaker 1: embarrassed him by telling Lester Holt that it would have
Speaker 1: fired James Comy no matter what, no matter what Rosenstein
Speaker 1: had recommended. Rosenstein is just a coward. And the the
Speaker 1: problem that exists now is if it is true that
Speaker 1: Bob Mullard has immunized Tony Podesta as part of the
Speaker 1: prosecution of Paul Manafort. We will have reached the point
Speaker 1: in this ridiculous Muller investigation of complete perfidy, complete untrustworthiness.
Speaker 1: Can just just put your but just put your head
Speaker 1: on straight for a second and think about what that means.
Speaker 1: That means that every Democrat who has been investigated by
Speaker 1: the Comy Justice Department, Comy FBI has gotten either immunity
Speaker 1: or a no prosecution decision. Can in the middle of
Speaker 1: the Maniford case, They're going to immunize Tony Podesta, who
Speaker 1: committed many of the same crimes that that that that
Speaker 1: Manafort is alleged to have done. It is. It is
Speaker 1: so mind boggling and shocking that I'm apoplectic about Joe
Speaker 1: di Jeneva. Many thanks. Let's do it again sometime soon,
Speaker 1: one of the great attorneys in America. Talking about my book,
Speaker 1: The Russia Hoax, which comes out on Tuesday. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show. I'm
Speaker 1: Greg Jared filling in for Sean Hannity. We've been talking
Speaker 1: a lot about my book, The Russia Hoax, The illicit
Speaker 1: scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and framed Donald Trump. It
Speaker 1: comes out this coming Tuesday, July, but you can, you know,
Speaker 1: order it ahead of time on Barnes and Noble dot com,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com, or just go to Hannity dot com.
Speaker 1: But the you know, look, the title tells this story.
Speaker 1: The whole Russia Trump Russia collusion was nothing but a hoax.
Speaker 1: There was never any evidence of it. It was a
Speaker 1: legally unjustified investigation of the president after Comy and Company
Speaker 1: cleared Hillary Clinton purely for political reasons, because she obviously
Speaker 1: violated the criminal statutes and should have been indicted and prosecuted.
Speaker 1: But that, of course is not what the FBI and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and the Obama administration wanted, and
Speaker 1: the President himself, in a April two thousand sixteen interview
Speaker 1: on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Um basically directed
Speaker 1: the FBI to clip Hillary Clinton. Uh. He told Chris
Speaker 1: Wallace that she didn't intend to violate the law or
Speaker 1: jeopardize national security, and that she was merely careless. And
Speaker 1: you know, within six weeks they changed Comey's statement from
Speaker 1: gross negligence, which is a clear violation under the Felony
Speaker 1: Statute to Obama's word carelessness. So the president all but
Speaker 1: instructed them. He did it through the media to clear
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. Did anybody accuse Barack Obama of obstruction of justice?
Speaker 1: Of course not, but the president exercises his constitutional right
Speaker 1: to fire James Comey in My Lord Its obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: Joining us now to talk about the book and other things,
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter, Fox News contributor and intrepid investigative reporter and
Speaker 1: one of my favorite people to be on with. And
Speaker 1: David Shown, who is a terrific lawyer of civil liberties attorney.
Speaker 1: Uh and I always learned something when I tune into
Speaker 1: David when he's on or talked to him. So thank
Speaker 1: you both for being with us. And let me ask
Speaker 1: you about the most recent news that came out today.
Speaker 1: This is going to of course change the immediate news
Speaker 1: cycle yet again, that Michael Cohen taped his conversation with
Speaker 1: President Trump regarding a potential future payment to Karen McDougall,
Speaker 1: who is a playboy playmate who allegedly had an affair
Speaker 1: with Trump many years ago. And apparently, you know, she
Speaker 1: wanted to get her greedy hands on a few green backs,
Speaker 1: and there was a discussion that took place. David, since
Speaker 1: you're the lawyer, let me go to you. Is there
Speaker 1: any anything illegal or criminal about paying somebody to go away?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not, And as you well know, Greg, it happens
Speaker 1: every day and settlements across the country and all kinds
Speaker 1: of civil cases. I think the greatest importance this revelation
Speaker 1: has probably gives uh more entertainment value at the checkout
Speaker 1: counter and the grocery store. Now, I sort of put
Speaker 1: it in the Kardashian Paris Hilton category of news. The
Speaker 1: only issue they try to make a potentially one can
Speaker 1: see is that this was somehow a payment to affect
Speaker 1: the election. He was paying hush money or authorizing the
Speaker 1: payment of hush money to the person who had bad
Speaker 1: news it might impact on the election. It's absolute nonsense enough.
Speaker 1: It's not just nonsense. It's offensive to the American voters
Speaker 1: to suggest that the voters in this country based their
Speaker 1: sacred vote for president on either Russian propaganda or a
Speaker 1: calculus as to whether the president for potential president had
Speaker 1: an affair or didn't have an affair. And we know,
Speaker 1: I mean from history, that those facts only go so far.
Speaker 1: We don't have to look any further than President Clinton
Speaker 1: and his popularity when you know that's the proven fact
Speaker 1: about the fear. But it's really offensive to American people,
Speaker 1: and as offensive American people to keep spending money chasing
Speaker 1: these things down. I understand it's a sexy story. Um.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the story itself, of course raises
Speaker 1: so many issues about why it was taped. What that
Speaker 1: does is professional standing, Um, all of these kind of
Speaker 1: who leaked it, what agent seized it. Of course, the
Speaker 1: d o j U regulations prohibit an agent involved an
Speaker 1: investigation from seizing items from a lawyer's office supposed to
Speaker 1: be a tape team going in. So there are all
Speaker 1: kinds of issues. But yeah, anyway, that's a lot of
Speaker 1: it is covered by attorney client privilege. That privilege, by
Speaker 1: the way, is not held by Michael Cohen, but by
Speaker 1: the client, which would have been Donald Trump. Only he
Speaker 1: can waive the privilege. I suspect. I mean, the information
Speaker 1: we're getting is that Cohen's lawyers, coming through files, saw
Speaker 1: this conversation. They alerted the president's legal team and they
Speaker 1: probably said, you know what, there's no they're they're uh, no,
Speaker 1: need to hide it. It'll be leaked by the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice anyway, so we might as well get ahead
Speaker 1: of the story and reported ourselves and and tell the
Speaker 1: truth about it. Sarah Carter, you know, this whole business
Speaker 1: about you know, affairs and payments and so forth, and
Speaker 1: that was largely baked into the media narrative before the
Speaker 1: election anyway, they were. And this is about character assassination, right,
Speaker 1: and disinformation campaigns that we've seen with the Russia alleged
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. Now we have this, this, this this is
Speaker 1: part of a character assassination campaign against President Trump. And
Speaker 1: if we looked through history, as you know David shown
Speaker 1: so rightly put it, we've seen this over and over again.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is a sexy story people wanted out there.
Speaker 1: I think my concern Greg was looking at the fact
Speaker 1: of you know, attorney clients privilege, wondering how many more
Speaker 1: recordings you know, Michael Cohen has or other clients that
Speaker 1: he may have recorded um and also how did it
Speaker 1: leak when you mentioned to the Department of Justice. Of
Speaker 1: course there are guidelines that must be followed, and you think, well,
Speaker 1: then who in the d J had access to this,
Speaker 1: leak to this where their copies made? Could this have
Speaker 1: been a separate copy of the Michael coentide. Could it
Speaker 1: have come from somebody else that would have been interesting
Speaker 1: as well. So there's a lot of questions here, a
Speaker 1: lot of questions that need to be answered, and likely
Speaker 1: more than likely this has nothing. I mean, there's nothing
Speaker 1: criminal here, there's no issues here of that nature. It
Speaker 1: certainly will uh drive home for the mainstream media this
Speaker 1: continues push to go after President Trump, and of course
Speaker 1: people are going to look at it. It's important. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a story, it's out there. Um. And now it's
Speaker 1: going to be up to the White House and up
Speaker 1: to the administration to decide how they are going to
Speaker 1: handle this and how they're going to move forward with this,
Speaker 1: because it's certainly something that's going to take up a
Speaker 1: lot of air time, you know. Um, And go ahead, David,
Speaker 1: go ahead. I just want to jump in two things.
Speaker 1: And Sarah's absolutely right, She's hit all the issues as always.
Speaker 1: I think I sort of wish that Mr Giuliani would
Speaker 1: stop commenting substantively about this tape or anything else. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he knows what he's doing, etcetera. I don't want
Speaker 1: there to be somebody claiming an issue of waver, etcetera.
Speaker 1: He doesn't speak for the president's pres you said, if
Speaker 1: the president's bably just number one, but number two. As
Speaker 1: you know, Greg and Sarah, in these tape cases, what
Speaker 1: can be the most vitally important evidence, if there is
Speaker 1: any issue at all, is what wasn't taped? What conversations
Speaker 1: went on that weren't tape Because remember, Michael Cohen or
Speaker 1: whoever it is doing the taping, controls what to tape
Speaker 1: and when to tape it and when to turn it off.
Speaker 1: So if the president, for example, said I won't be
Speaker 1: a part of any kind of hush money thing. I
Speaker 1: don't want this to look like it's hush money, and
Speaker 1: that wasn't taped, that's obviously the key bit of evidence.
Speaker 1: And all people hear what thus on the tape. Let
Speaker 1: me turn to another story that's coming out here, Sarah.
Speaker 1: Judicial Watch Today expects the Department of Justice release some
Speaker 1: redacted documents about the infamous FISA warrant to spy on
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. Uh and and how it was hidden
Speaker 1: in footnotes that the unverified dossier was actually paid for
Speaker 1: by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. What
Speaker 1: do you know, Well, it's yeah, this is what they've
Speaker 1: been waiting for Without judicial watch, Gregg, I think that
Speaker 1: a lot of us would be left blinded. I mean,
Speaker 1: they really have had the power to fight back the
Speaker 1: federal government in court. This is the this Foreign Intelligence
Speaker 1: Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Carter Page. The fact
Speaker 1: that they did hide that in the footnote it was
Speaker 1: not overtly obvious to the court, was something that was
Speaker 1: deeply concerning. In fact, they didn't lay out they just
Speaker 1: said opposition. I mean, it was very it was very small.
Speaker 1: It wasn't the footnote. It didn't lay out that it
Speaker 1: was Hillary Clinton, it didn't detail the campaign. So it
Speaker 1: is very court and it's vital. It's vital that those
Speaker 1: documents be released so that the public can see what
Speaker 1: was going on. Secondly, I think it's also vital and
Speaker 1: very important that the nineteen pages of the last vice,
Speaker 1: the warrant that was taken out on Carter Page, that
Speaker 1: would be the one that was signed by Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: that those documents also be turned over to the public.
Speaker 1: Remember their nineteen pages. Now, the House Intelligence Committee, some
Speaker 1: members there have actually viewed these documents. They believe that
Speaker 1: it's important for the public to view these documents. But
Speaker 1: what's happened is the Department of Justice has basically put
Speaker 1: a news around their neck not allowing them to release
Speaker 1: any of these documents. The President would be the only
Speaker 1: person right now that could authorize that release. You know,
Speaker 1: we did get some of the visa documents through the
Speaker 1: release b Congress House Intelligence Committee and some memos from
Speaker 1: the Senate side, and in fact, David in my book
Speaker 1: on page one fifty nine. Uh. My book, by the way,
Speaker 1: is called The Russia Hoax. It's out on Tuesday, or
Speaker 1: you can preorder it on Barnes and Noble and Amazon
Speaker 1: dot com. But on page one nine, I recite verbatim, uh,
Speaker 1: footnote number eight, in which the government, the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: and the FBI absolutely disguised and buried who paid for
Speaker 1: the anti tromphony dossier. We now know it was Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's campaign and the Democrats, And so I recite that
Speaker 1: entire footnote on page one nine. And not long ago,
Speaker 1: my wife read the book for the first time and
Speaker 1: she got to that page and she read that footnote
Speaker 1: and she turned to me. We're on a plane, and
Speaker 1: she said, are you kidding me? No one in their
Speaker 1: right mind could discern from that footnote that at the
Speaker 1: sourcing for the dossier came from the Clinton campaign and Democrats.
Speaker 1: And it's true, isn't it, David? Yes, it is. And
Speaker 1: anyone in the right mind better read your book from
Speaker 1: cover to cover and not just that page if they
Speaker 1: honestly want to know what happened here, because you folks
Speaker 1: have been reporting on this stuff in detail that nobody
Speaker 1: else has reported on. And if you're interested in the facts,
Speaker 1: read the book and get effects and listen in every day. Um, listen,
Speaker 1: you know, back to the documents. Remember, as you reported
Speaker 1: on this show. Uh, the FISA Court presiding judge herself
Speaker 1: said in alan to Congress, there is no bar to
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice turning over these application documents. We
Speaker 1: suggest you go to the Department of Justice and get
Speaker 1: it from them, and of the the American people deserve it. Yes, absolutely, Um,
Speaker 1: all right, we're with Sarah Carter, the terrific Fox News contributor,
Speaker 1: investigative reporter. David Shown, one of the best lawyers in America,
Speaker 1: civil liberties attorney. These are two of the people that
Speaker 1: I think know a great deal about the Russia hoax.
Speaker 1: The title of my book, The Illicit Scheme to clear
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump. UM, you guys are
Speaker 1: good enough to stick around for after the break, We're
Speaker 1: gonna squeeze one in right here. Uh. This is Greg Jared.
Speaker 1: I'm filling in for Sean Hannity on The Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Follow me on Twitter, Greg Jared at Greg Jarrett two
Speaker 1: g's on the end of Greg Uh. And you can
Speaker 1: buy my book in advance Barnes and Noble dot com,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com, or just go to Hennity dot com.
Speaker 1: It's called The Russia Hoax. I think it'll be worth
Speaker 1: your while. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Shown. Greg Jared in for Shawn Today. We've
Speaker 1: been talking about my book comes out Tuesday, called The
Speaker 1: Russia Hoax. Get it on Barnes and Noble or Amazon
Speaker 1: dot com. Final thoughts now with Sarah Carter and David Showing.
Speaker 1: Sarah Well, I we've got to keep our eyes on
Speaker 1: the price. I'm very excited about your book, Greg, I
Speaker 1: can't wait to read through the whole thing. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: waiting for a two time to my home. But as
Speaker 1: part of this investigation is considered, I think the most
Speaker 1: important thing we need to be looking for is if
Speaker 1: and when Congress moves forward with this investigation, will those
Speaker 1: documents be exposed, will we see what actually took place?
Speaker 1: And I think more importantly, will the president decide eventually
Speaker 1: to release those documents? Can be classify some of the
Speaker 1: documents that Congress has been requesting so that the public
Speaker 1: can know the truth. All right, Sarah, your book, by
Speaker 1: the way, arrives fed X tomorrow morning. Beyond the lookout, David,
Speaker 1: I've got to shoot one off to you FedEx. But
Speaker 1: your final thoughts okay, I can't wait to get the book. Look.
Speaker 1: My final thoughts are, let's not let's this coin sillationous
Speaker 1: incident and uh Helsinki derail the focus from Stroke and
Speaker 1: Page and Mueller st two of the larger just disgraces
Speaker 1: our government has had in many recent years. Maybe an
Speaker 1: equal disgrace to the performance of the Democrats on both committees.
Speaker 1: Who should have been outraged, who should have not taken
Speaker 1: the position The end justifies the means. But who's Jackson,
Speaker 1: Lee and Nadler speak out of government misconduct, but not
Speaker 1: when President Trump is the victim of it. Shameful them.
Speaker 1: Let's get back to focusing on what damage was done
Speaker 1: by this horrible misconduct and what damage is still being done. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter, Uh, David show and thank you both. And
Speaker 1: you know, Sarah, your books arriving tomorrow. David, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: put one in the mail. I'm gonna put one in
Speaker 1: the mail to you today. Thank you both for being
Speaker 1: with us today. The book is called The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: The Illicit Scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I spent four months writing it, another month worth of revisions.
Speaker 1: It is very, very detailed, complete with roughly seven footnotes. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I think you'll learn a lot that hasn't been
Speaker 1: revealed or those things that were buried are brought to light.
Speaker 1: I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity. This is
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Show. We'll be right back. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to the Sean Hannity Show. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in
Speaker 1: for Sean Hannity, who richly deserves the day off after
Speaker 1: all of his hard work and UH exemplary coverage abroad
Speaker 1: the Helsinki meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin UM
Speaker 1: and it gives me an opportunity to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about the book that I wrote, The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: which comes out next Tuesday. The Russia Hoax, The Illicit
Speaker 1: Scheme to clear Hillary Clinton in Framed Donald Trump in
Speaker 1: bookstores Tuesday, but you can buy it on Amazon dot
Speaker 1: com or Barnes and Noble dot com or go to
Speaker 1: uh Hannity dot com. There's a link there as well.
Speaker 1: You can follow me on Twitter at Greg Jarrett. One
Speaker 1: of the people who has really been instrumental in uncovering
Speaker 1: the Russia Hoax and the machinations of the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice and the FBI there abuse of power, uh, subverting
Speaker 1: the rule of law and attempting to undermine democracy in
Speaker 1: an election. Is one of the best members of Congress. Uh,
Speaker 1: he's a good editorial candidate. In Florida Freedom Caucus Member
Speaker 1: Congressman Ronds Santis of Florida joins us in Congressman, thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us today, Thanks for having me, and
Speaker 1: congrats on the book. I know it'll do very well
Speaker 1: down here. Well, I sent you one, and uh, I
Speaker 1: think you will get it either today or tomorrow or
Speaker 1: you know, maybe Monday, and I hope you'll read it. Um.
Speaker 1: There is a lot in there about not just how
Speaker 1: James Comey and company wrongfully and I think illegally cleared
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. But then how they conjured a case against
Speaker 1: Donald Trump for Trump Russian collusion without any evidence, without
Speaker 1: any facts, in violation of what's called the diogue, which
Speaker 1: is basically the handbook that guides the conduct of the FBI,
Speaker 1: not to mention the Department of Justice regulations that guide
Speaker 1: them as well. There was never any evidence to justify
Speaker 1: a criminal investigation. There was never any intelligence, as Devon
Speaker 1: Noons of the House Intelligence Committee found to justify a
Speaker 1: counter intelligence probe. And nevertheless, Comey and others launched this
Speaker 1: dilating investigation of the president, I believe in order to uh,
Speaker 1: first of all, defeat him as a candidate, and when
Speaker 1: that failed to destroy him as president of the United States,
Speaker 1: How concerned are you about the corrupt behavior of top
Speaker 1: officials of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Well,
Speaker 1: just think about the timeline here. Uh, Donald Trump wins
Speaker 1: the Indiana primary in the spring of what does Peter
Speaker 1: Strap text to his lover Lisa Page. He says, now
Speaker 1: the pressure really builds for us to finish midyear exam,
Speaker 1: which was the Clinton investigation. Why would Trump's victory build
Speaker 1: pressure to finish that. I mean, if if you were
Speaker 1: if she was guilty, and then you would need to
Speaker 1: take that. But he basically was instrumental in helping bring
Speaker 1: that to a conclusion where Hillary face no charges. He
Speaker 1: was edited the COMY statement months before they interviewed Hillary,
Speaker 1: so he was involved in that whole show. Lisa Page
Speaker 1: is obviously texting him saying, Hey, don't go in there
Speaker 1: with Hillary with guns blaze. She's going to be the
Speaker 1: next president. Remember, So at every step in that investigation
Speaker 1: they bent over backwards not to make a case against there.
Speaker 1: Then what happened They Comy does the press conference, the
Speaker 1: infamous press conference. By the end of that same month,
Speaker 1: in July, Peter Struck is the one opening up what
Speaker 1: was called crossfire Hurricane, the Trump Russia collusion case, based
Speaker 1: on what, as you said, Greg, no foreign intelligence and
Speaker 1: they've not been willing to give us the documents to
Speaker 1: substantiate why they did it. I think the reason they
Speaker 1: did it was because of Papadopoulos making this comment that
Speaker 1: that the Russian ted dirt on Hillary. Alexander Downer provided
Speaker 1: that info to the Obama State Department, and I think
Speaker 1: the information came from State Department. Even Alexander Downer, though
Speaker 1: says he never mentioned anything about email. So Struck's view,
Speaker 1: I think is, hey, we heard that Trump's campaign man
Speaker 1: inside knowledge about hacking Hillary's emails. Therefore we opened this
Speaker 1: and that's not true. There was no facts to do it.
Speaker 1: So what does he do after he opens the case.
Speaker 1: Eight days later, he's texting Lisa Page saying, no, Trump
Speaker 1: won't be president because we will stop it. We'll stop
Speaker 1: it at the FBI, And of course we know. A
Speaker 1: week after that was the infamous insurance Policy tech where
Speaker 1: he said that we can't take the risk of a
Speaker 1: Trump presidency. And the thing that I think was interesting
Speaker 1: and we got this when we had Struck come in,
Speaker 1: is you know, when Mueller was appointed, he texted Lisa
Speaker 1: Paid saying he was really concerned that there was no
Speaker 1: there there in the investigation. And you think you're accusing
Speaker 1: the guy of colluding with a foreign power, and you're
Speaker 1: concerned there's no there there, you should be happy there's
Speaker 1: no there there. He wanted, they wanted to go after
Speaker 1: him from day one, and that's what they did. And
Speaker 1: I think it was an abuse of the counterintelligence powers
Speaker 1: of the federal government. And I think that that's going
Speaker 1: to cause Congress to have to go back and look
Speaker 1: at how some of this is handled against people who
Speaker 1: are US citizens domestically. You know. Peter Struck when he testified,
Speaker 1: UM said, well, those text messages didn't really mean what
Speaker 1: they say. We're getting some reporting now from fairly reliable
Speaker 1: sources that Lisa Page and here behind closed doors deposition.
Speaker 1: Uh said, no, some of those messages meant exactly what
Speaker 1: they said. What do you think, Yeah, No, I think
Speaker 1: I think Lisa Page was much more honest about it.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing with Struck. He gave the same
Speaker 1: explanations to the i G that he gave to Congress publicly,
Speaker 1: and the i G said his explanations weren't credible. David Horowitz,
Speaker 1: who's not a not a Republican, Michael Horritz, Sorry, he's
Speaker 1: not a Republican, and uh, they didn't find it credible.
Speaker 1: Americans didn't find it credible. I mean, think about it. Greg,
Speaker 1: She's saying Trump can't be president, right right right? He responds, no, no,
Speaker 1: he can't, will stop him and structs explanation for that is, well,
Speaker 1: I meant the American people to vote, would stop him,
Speaker 1: and that just defies credulity. I mean, he was saying,
Speaker 1: we at the FBI will stop him. Same thing with
Speaker 1: the insurance policy text. It's obvious. And I think Page
Speaker 1: was smart enough to not try to lie about that
Speaker 1: and then just beyond it. Of course, you know, I
Speaker 1: think she was obviously very biased against Trump. But but uh,
Speaker 1: Struck was really in a position to use his bias
Speaker 1: in ways that Page probably wasn't. So I think she
Speaker 1: probably has less exposure than been Struck does. But man,
Speaker 1: his explanations, I don't think people viewed those as worth
Speaker 1: worth worth anything. And I think he really hurt himself
Speaker 1: with his performance in front of the Congress. You know,
Speaker 1: he seems to have suffered from acute amnesia. He doesn't
Speaker 1: really remember changing Comey's statement of Clinton's conduct from gross
Speaker 1: negligence to extremely careless, even though the meta data on
Speaker 1: his computer shows he made the change. And then he
Speaker 1: also said, well, I don't really remember writing that text
Speaker 1: message that we're gonna stop Trump, and then he went
Speaker 1: on to explain what it meant even though he didn't
Speaker 1: remember it. Uh. And and you know what also struck
Speaker 1: me is that he said, and I'm I'm looking at Oh,
Speaker 1: here it is. He had the audacity. This is Peter
Speaker 1: Struck to say, quote, I do not have bias. He
Speaker 1: later then testified those text messages are not indicative of bias,
Speaker 1: you know, which must mean the earth is flat and
Speaker 1: picks can fly. I mean, nobody with an ounce of
Speaker 1: intelligence congressman could possibly buy the self serving rubbish that
Speaker 1: Peter Struck was peddling in that, by the way, includes
Speaker 1: the Inspector General, who, after his investigation wrote, I think
Speaker 1: it's page my memory serves me correctly or thereabouts. He said,
Speaker 1: quote the struct page communications are not only indicative of
Speaker 1: a biased state of mind, but imply a willingness to
Speaker 1: take action to impact a presidential candidates electoral process. Is
Speaker 1: there any doubt in your mind that they did use
Speaker 1: their positions of power to take official action to try
Speaker 1: to alter the events. No. In fact, in Horwits even
Speaker 1: admitted when I questioned him, if you look at what
Speaker 1: happened after Struck opens the counter intelligence investigation, we then
Speaker 1: have the surfacing of the Anthony Weener emails in September
Speaker 1: of so right in the home stretch of the election,
Speaker 1: and Struck he refused to really pursue that because he
Speaker 1: was so worried about this collusion investigation that he had concocted.
Speaker 1: And Horowitz said that structs explanation for his conduct was
Speaker 1: not credible and that the most reasonable inference was that
Speaker 1: it was his bias that was causing him to slow
Speaker 1: walk the Hillary stuff and focus on Trump. And I
Speaker 1: think it dovetails. I think his actions throughout both investigations
Speaker 1: really dovetail with his bias. And yes, how absurd is
Speaker 1: it to say that you're not biased with stuff like that?
Speaker 1: He tried to say, Look, we're allowed to have political opinion.
Speaker 1: I mean, Greg, it's like if you were and I
Speaker 1: were in the FBI and you and I debated like
Speaker 1: the merits of a tax reform proposal. Uh, he's trying
Speaker 1: to say what he was saying as a kin to that,
Speaker 1: I can give me a break. That was not just
Speaker 1: a political opinion. That was a deep seated animus that
Speaker 1: he had towards Donald Trump. And look, it would be
Speaker 1: one thing if there was evidence. Obvious evidence is why
Speaker 1: you should start investigation. But makes it so troubling is
Speaker 1: even after us asking all this time, why did you
Speaker 1: do it? You know what we're left with is Papadopolis
Speaker 1: and a and a Steel dossier that was funded by Hillary. Uh.
Speaker 1: That's just not acceptable in the United States of America. Well,
Speaker 1: the great irony is that the Hillary Clinton campaign and
Speaker 1: the Democratic National Committee paid money to a foreign national,
Speaker 1: which I view as a violation of the Federal Campaign
Speaker 1: Election Act. Uh. And yet there's no investigation of her
Speaker 1: for that. Uh, there's no potential prosecution of her for that. Uh.
Speaker 1: And an associate, juxtaposed this, an associated Donald Trump uh
Speaker 1: and his son uh, you know, meet with a Russian lawyer.
Speaker 1: No money has exchanged, no information ended up being handed over,
Speaker 1: But somehow talking to a Russian is a crime. And
Speaker 1: by the way, if you look up on the website,
Speaker 1: the Federal Luck Commission Election Commission's website, they say foreign
Speaker 1: nationals are permitted to participate in American political campaigns. They
Speaker 1: can attend meeting, provide information, you know, they can talk
Speaker 1: as long as money is an exchange. But the media
Speaker 1: and Democrats have that as a crime. But it's not
Speaker 1: criminal for Hillary Clinton to pay money to a foreign
Speaker 1: national to trash Donald Trump. And also, I mean, what
Speaker 1: are they that whatever information steal got that he got
Speaker 1: for free? I mean, Christopher Steele almost assuredly had to
Speaker 1: pay some of that money to some of these Russians
Speaker 1: that he was getting information from it, Like it wasn't
Speaker 1: credible information, but he was getting it from somewhere. He
Speaker 1: was getting this innuendo. So I think the money that
Speaker 1: Hillary paid to Perkins Coohee, who then paid Fusion and
Speaker 1: then paid Steel, I think some of that money ultimately
Speaker 1: ended up in the hands of some Russians. And so yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's absolutely ridiculous they were paying for for opposition research.
Speaker 1: If some Russian national had just come to their campaign
Speaker 1: and said they had dirt on Trump, they would have
Speaker 1: taken the meeting in a minute. We all know that.
Speaker 1: So it's just, uh, it's hypocrisy. But the media, I
Speaker 1: think with all this Russia stuff, you know, this is
Speaker 1: the horse they want to ride, and they've been riding
Speaker 1: it for a year and a half now and they're
Speaker 1: continuing to do it, and they're going to try to
Speaker 1: blow anything they can out of proportion so it fits
Speaker 1: their narrative. We're talking with Congressman Ron de sandis also
Speaker 1: a good editorial candidate in Florida. Um, he's gonna stick
Speaker 1: around for just a minute. We're gonna squeeze in a
Speaker 1: quick break and we're gonna continue talking about what's in
Speaker 1: my book. And we've been doing that. The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: The Elicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton in Frame Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: available in bookstores on Tuesday. You can buy it now
Speaker 1: on Amazon dot com and Barnes and Noble dot com,
Speaker 1: or go to Hannity dot com. There's a link there
Speaker 1: as well. I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
Speaker 1: We'll be back. Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Showing.
Speaker 1: Greg jareded filling in for Sean Hannity and our guest
Speaker 1: today talking about my book. Uh, it's called The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: The Elicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Framed Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It's out next Tuesday. You can get it at your
Speaker 1: local bookstore, order it on Barnes and Noble dot com
Speaker 1: or Amazon dot com, or go to Hannity dot com
Speaker 1: and follow me on Twitter at Greg jarted. But we've
Speaker 1: been talking about it with Congressman Ron de Santis of Florida.
Speaker 1: He's running for governor down there. He's a member of
Speaker 1: the Freedom Caucus and he has been instrumental in attempting
Speaker 1: to uncover the wrong full as by many people at
Speaker 1: the FBI and the Department of Justice and Congressman All
Speaker 1: along the way, the FBI and the d o J,
Speaker 1: and in particular Rod Rosenstein have been resisting and obstructing
Speaker 1: and defining lawful subpoenas. So where are you in all
Speaker 1: of that? Look, Greg, we have to set a sanction
Speaker 1: for non compliance, and basically we've gone back and forth.
Speaker 1: I think what you do is when you have a deadline,
Speaker 1: you say the next day will be a contempt of
Speaker 1: congress hearing if you don't produce what we need to produce.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is step that we're clearly entitled to.
Speaker 1: I we we're conducting oversight over potential abuse of the
Speaker 1: government's counterintelligence powers. That is, if that's not right for
Speaker 1: congressional oversight, I don't know what is. And I think
Speaker 1: that Rosenstein has has stone walled, and I think they
Speaker 1: are trying to run the clock out, as Devin Nuna said.
Speaker 1: So it's something we got to do this soon, though,
Speaker 1: and I think we've waited too long. So I'm in
Speaker 1: favor of imposing some penalties here so that we can
Speaker 1: finally get them to comply. I mean, we're looking specifically
Speaker 1: to the two things we need, I think right now
Speaker 1: are the information about why struck open the counter intelligence
Speaker 1: investigation against Trump's campaign, what was underlying reason the different
Speaker 1: any documents that were produced with that, And then any
Speaker 1: documents involving any other contact between any type of FBI
Speaker 1: informant and the Trump campaign proceeding July thirty one. And
Speaker 1: we know there was some contact, so someone likes to
Speaker 1: find howper potentially others, what did the FBI do, if anything,
Speaker 1: to initiate contact. Alright, Rhonda Santa's congressman from Florida, giveatorial
Speaker 1: candidate there. Thank you very much for being with us today.
Speaker 1: I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity on the
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show. My book comes out Tuesday, The Russia Hoax.
Speaker 1: I hope you'll buy it and read it. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to the Sean Hannity Show on Greg Jared filling in
Speaker 1: for Sean today. Uh, my book comes out, The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: The Illicit Scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: This coming Tuesday, July four. I started writing this in December, uh,
Speaker 1: and I wrote seven hours a day, seven days a
Speaker 1: week until I finished in late April, then spent the
Speaker 1: month of May rewriting, adding things because so much was
Speaker 1: happening while I was writing the book, so additions and
Speaker 1: revisions had to be made. It went to print the
Speaker 1: first week of June, and it's already out at the
Speaker 1: bookstores at Barnes and Noble and Costco and Target and
Speaker 1: Sam's Club and you know all the places you want
Speaker 1: to pick up a book, or you can just order
Speaker 1: it Amazon dot com, Barnes and Noble dot com, go
Speaker 1: to Hannity dot com. There's a link there, and you
Speaker 1: don't even have to leave the comfort of your home.
Speaker 1: It will be delivered to your doorstep. And then you
Speaker 1: can sit down and read the three hundred pages of
Speaker 1: the Russia Hoax. And so what does it tell you? Well,
Speaker 1: I reveal that those within the FBI and Barack Obama's
Speaker 1: Department of Justice worked not just improperly, but I believe
Speaker 1: illegally to support the election of Hillary Clinton and defeat
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in the two thousand sixteen presidential election. And
Speaker 1: it failed. So those same people, undeterred by the law,
Speaker 1: decided to contrive an investigation of President Trump. The so
Speaker 1: called collusion in an attempt to undo the election results
Speaker 1: and remove him as president. Why because these people were
Speaker 1: so arrogant that they believe that the American public, that's you,
Speaker 1: the listeners, didn't know enough, didn't know any better. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, you're deplorable, and you couldn't possibly think with
Speaker 1: that brain of yours to make a proper decision as
Speaker 1: to who should be the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: And when you chose Donald Trump, guys like James Comey
Speaker 1: and Peter Strock and Andrew McCabe and the whole gang
Speaker 1: over the FBI and others like Bruce Lore at the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, with the help of the money of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, win after Donald Trump with a vengeance to
Speaker 1: destroy him. And the evidence is compelling that these part
Speaker 1: Wison's within the FBI and the Department of Justice, driven
Speaker 1: by you know, this personal animus and a misplaced sense
Speaker 1: of political righteousness, covertly surreptitiously acted to subvert electoral democracy
Speaker 1: in our country. And I am absolutely convinced, and the
Speaker 1: evidence in my book I believe will persuade you that
Speaker 1: this is the biggest political scandal and the greatest hoax
Speaker 1: ever perpetrated on Americans in modern history and maybe in
Speaker 1: all of history. We're taking your phone calls, and I
Speaker 1: appreciate your support on this book. People have been buying it.
Speaker 1: We've been doing well on the pre orders on Amazon
Speaker 1: dot com and Barnes and Noble dot com. And I
Speaker 1: appreciate your support. You've been very kind people sending me
Speaker 1: messages encouraging me through the process of writing the book.
Speaker 1: And now when it's about to come out next Tuesday,
Speaker 1: let's go to a Doug in Michigan who's been holding
Speaker 1: and standing by. And Doug, thanks for your patients. What
Speaker 1: do you think? Hi? Greg? Um, I really appreciate talking
Speaker 1: to you. Your true warrior is some that said earlier,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate you standing up for truth justice in
Speaker 1: the American way. UM. My thought is you are really
Speaker 1: good at explaining things for late people. And what I'm
Speaker 1: worried about and wonder about is why Devin Newness and
Speaker 1: the Oversight Committee don't just charge these people in the
Speaker 1: d o J and FBI with contempted instruction and yet
Speaker 1: a warrant or whatever with maybe federal marshals or whoever
Speaker 1: they would have and pull a Muller and go in
Speaker 1: and grab the documentation they need and put an end
Speaker 1: to this forever drama that's been going on. Is there
Speaker 1: some rule or law or stipulations that they can't just
Speaker 1: go ahead and do that? There is. You know, while
Speaker 1: Congress does how of the power of contempt under the law,
Speaker 1: they do not have the power to enforce contempt with punishment.
Speaker 1: They instead have to go to another branch of government,
Speaker 1: the judiciary, and they would have to go since their
Speaker 1: Congress is in Washington, d C. They would have to
Speaker 1: go to a federal judge in that jurisdiction UH and
Speaker 1: seek enforcement of their contempt citation. Now, look in a
Speaker 1: lot of jurisdictions where I used to practice law back
Speaker 1: in the eighties in California. You know, if you defied
Speaker 1: a lawful subpoena and there there'd be a bench warrant
Speaker 1: issued by a judge without a hearing for your arrest,
Speaker 1: and thereafter there'd be a here what's called a show
Speaker 1: cause hearing, the show cause why you should not be
Speaker 1: held in contempt. And there are very few excuses for
Speaker 1: defining a subpoena. I used to issue subpoenas as a
Speaker 1: lawyer in the cases in which I was handling, and
Speaker 1: people rarely defied a subpoena, but when they did, I
Speaker 1: went to a judge, it was enforced, and that individual
Speaker 1: invariably ended up in the hoost goal without a toothbrush.
Speaker 1: And unfortunately, in Washington, d C. The courts, the federal
Speaker 1: courts are populated by a bunch of bleeding heart, whiny
Speaker 1: liberals and oh, you know, can't we work this out.
Speaker 1: I don't want to throw anybody in jail. Kumbayah. And
Speaker 1: that's the kind of response you get there. And so
Speaker 1: you know, we can all feel the pain of members
Speaker 1: of Congress. They have two steps. They have to first
Speaker 1: vote for contempt, which would you know, be a majority
Speaker 1: in the House of Representatives. Then they got to go
Speaker 1: and enforce the contempt citation, one of the other things
Speaker 1: they could do. And they, you know, they've drawn up
Speaker 1: some articles of impeachment for folks like Rod Rosenstein. But
Speaker 1: the trouble is, you've gotta you gotta get the House
Speaker 1: to vote by a majority for impeachment, and then the
Speaker 1: trial for impeachment is in the Senate. You've got to
Speaker 1: get two thirds and with Democrats there, you just not
Speaker 1: gonna get it done. So their only avenue. Their only
Speaker 1: recourse is to go to a federal judge. And good
Speaker 1: luck in in Washington, d C. So these folks are
Speaker 1: handcuffed in really trying to pursue the defiance of the
Speaker 1: law by Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Ray and others. But
Speaker 1: great question, Doug, Thanks very much. Let's go to Mike
Speaker 1: in Virginia has been standing by, and Mike, thank you
Speaker 1: for being with us. No problem, Greg, and I think
Speaker 1: so much for taking my call today. I listen to
Speaker 1: Sean Show pretty much every day during the week. That's
Speaker 1: like I do with Russian limba Um. I'm a disabled veteran,
Speaker 1: and I wanted to focus primarily on the upcoming election
Speaker 1: in November, and I've been't I've been voting Republicans since
Speaker 1: I was eighteen years old, that's thirty years ago this year,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna be voting republic Can across the word.
Speaker 1: I also heard your discussion there with Congressman to Santus
Speaker 1: in Florida, and best of luck to him and his
Speaker 1: governor campaign down there. But the Democrats, obviously they have
Speaker 1: no clue, they have no plan. All they want to
Speaker 1: do is chirp and complain like crazy. That President Trump
Speaker 1: had you know, has done this and has done that wrong.
Speaker 1: And this hoax you've been talking about, that's all it is.
Speaker 1: I'm convinced one the percented as a hoax. And and
Speaker 1: also to everything that he's done to the veterans. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't say enough about it. And of course I've
Speaker 1: been retired for the last eight years myself, and uh,
Speaker 1: and I'm almost very proud to be a Republican and
Speaker 1: I will always vote that way. I'll be doing again
Speaker 1: here in Virginia this November, and I'll be voting some
Speaker 1: Democrats because I get, like the congressman said there in
Speaker 1: your interview with him, they are nothing but first class. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I listen, I agree with you, and God bless you. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, we are so appreciative to you. Thank
Speaker 1: you for your service in our military. UM. And I
Speaker 1: think you you raise a really great point. UM. I
Speaker 1: think there's gonna be a red wave in November. And
Speaker 1: here's why Democrats are moving more and more and more
Speaker 1: to the left. Prime example, the young woman twenty eight
Speaker 1: years old in New York who won the you know,
Speaker 1: Democratic primary for a House seat, so she's a shoe
Speaker 1: in to be a member of Congress. Her name is
Speaker 1: Alexandro CaCO Cortez. She is the new fresh face of
Speaker 1: the increasingly progressive Liberal Democratic Party, and in fact, she's
Speaker 1: out campaigning with Bernie Sanders today. God bless them, the
Speaker 1: two socialists together. And you know, if this continues, this
Speaker 1: will be an early Christmas gift to Republicans. You know,
Speaker 1: thanks to innumerable television appearances, Democrats are now being asked about,
Speaker 1: you know, their new their new star in the party, okay,
Speaker 1: Ceo Cortez. And what they're finding is that she is
Speaker 1: profoundly ignorant of basic facts of both history and current events.
Speaker 1: Her full throated embrace of socialism that's troubling enough for Democrats,
Speaker 1: but her tortured explanation of what America is all about
Speaker 1: is now branding all Democrats as obtuse. And now it's
Speaker 1: a debate over capitalism versus socialism at a time when
Speaker 1: the capitalism markets, market economies are booming. The socialist experience
Speaker 1: is nothing more than a model for failure. In history
Speaker 1: tells us capitalism equals prosperity. We're seeing that now. But
Speaker 1: of course all of that is lost in the likes
Speaker 1: of Okasio Cortez. And Bernie Sanders, and you know, the
Speaker 1: whole the whole gang of progressive you know, the warrant.
Speaker 1: Senator Warren is also one of them. And these are
Speaker 1: the leaders of the Democratic Party. Let me give you
Speaker 1: an example of the stupidity of Ocasio Cortez. She said
Speaker 1: the other day, and this is a quote. Capitalism is
Speaker 1: not always existed in the world. End of quote. Hello,
Speaker 1: that's wrong. Capitalism has been around since people were living
Speaker 1: in caves engaging in primitive trade. Okasio Cortez then said, quote,
Speaker 1: when this country started, we did not operate on a
Speaker 1: capitalist economy. Really did Did you ever go to Civics
Speaker 1: class in high school? We didn't have a capitalist economy
Speaker 1: when the nation began them what was it? Let me
Speaker 1: tell you something. Capitalism came to America on board ships.
Speaker 1: The Quakers, the Puritans, the Virginians, they all extolled market economies.
Speaker 1: They came to America because it had an abundance of
Speaker 1: land which they settled and they developed. It was largely
Speaker 1: an agrarian form of capitalism. Crops were, you know, planted
Speaker 1: and harvested and traded and sold. There were competitive markets
Speaker 1: supplying demand, wages, abundant trade. These are all harror marks
Speaker 1: of capitalism, and it thrived and grew. The initial stages
Speaker 1: of the Industrial Revolution took place shortly after the Constitutional
Speaker 1: Convention and the inauguration of President George Washington. You know,
Speaker 1: to Ocasio Martin Cortez, I would say, read a book,
Speaker 1: for God's sakes, and I'd be happy to loan you
Speaker 1: the wonderful book by Ron Cher, now entitled Washington. It's
Speaker 1: about George Washington, the beginning of our nation, the Revolutionary War,
Speaker 1: what Americans fought and died for freedom and a capitalist
Speaker 1: market economy of their own and not just purely British,
Speaker 1: and the Constitutional Convention are esteemed Constitution and the Bill
Speaker 1: of Rights, his eight years George Washington as President of
Speaker 1: the United States. I don't think Ocasio Cortes has ever
Speaker 1: read a book about American history, because she exhibits nothing
Speaker 1: but conspicuous ignorance about it. Here's another example. She said again,
Speaker 1: this is Alexandria okay is deo Cortez, you know, who
Speaker 1: won the House Democratic primary in New York. She said, quote,
Speaker 1: unemployment is low because people have two jobs. Really, are
Speaker 1: you that obtuse? The Labor Department calculates the unemployment figure
Speaker 1: Alexandra by taking in the number of those without jobs
Speaker 1: and they divided by the labor force total. Here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Ocasio Cortez represents the need for an intelligence test before
Speaker 1: somebody has ever allowed to run and hold public office.
Speaker 1: She would surely funk a basic high school civics examination.
Speaker 1: For now, Democrats are stuck with their falling star and
Speaker 1: Republicans maybe the benefici arays, whatever your calls on the
Speaker 1: other side. I'm Greg Jared filling in for Sean Hannity.
Speaker 1: This is the Sean Hannity Show. Welcome back to the
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Showing. Greg Jared filling in for Sean Hannity.
Speaker 1: And it has been a stupendous three hours filling in
Speaker 1: for Sean today. We spent most of it talking about
Speaker 1: my book, which comes out next Tuesday, the Russia hoax,
Speaker 1: the illicit scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And I want to thank all the people who have
Speaker 1: sent me messages of encouragement and support. Our callers today,
Speaker 1: our guests today, Joe Degenevis, Sarah Carter, David Sean, uh
Speaker 1: Congressman Rond De sant As, You've all been terrific. I
Speaker 1: hope you'll go out and buy my book Barnes and
Speaker 1: Noble dot com, Amazon dot com, or go to Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com. Please buy the book. I think you'll enjoy it.
Speaker 1: Have a great weekend everyone,