Speaker 1: All right, Glass, you know, um, there's a part of
Speaker 1: me that is highly entertained, and I know that it's
Speaker 1: frustrating to many of you that are watching the breathless
Speaker 1: hysteria reporting that is now going on this nine minute
Speaker 1: press conference by Robert Muller. First of all, he's full
Speaker 1: of crap. I mean, it's it's laughable on the surface
Speaker 1: what he is saying. And do one thing. You've got
Speaker 1: to understand if Muller and his merry band of Democratic donors,
Speaker 1: including Hillary Clinton's former attorney for the Clinton Foundation, Andrew Weissman,
Speaker 1: his pit bull, the guy that literally lost tens and
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of jobs in the Enron accounting case
Speaker 1: and was overturned nine zero in the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: in Sydney Powell's book, she describes how he had withheld
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence in the past, no ethics there, sent four
Speaker 1: Meryl executives to jail for a year until the Fifth
Speaker 1: Circuit overturned that disaster of his. I promise you they
Speaker 1: would have spelled it out so clearly, with zero ambiguity,
Speaker 1: and there would be absolute certainty that Donald Trump had
Speaker 1: committed some crime. They did not even come close to that.
Speaker 1: The interesting thing is to watch all of this noise
Speaker 1: begin again, because it's going to die down again because
Speaker 1: there's no meat on the bone. There's no substance here
Speaker 1: for any of them. And yeah, Muller's playing a political
Speaker 1: game at this point, but it's a little more sinister
Speaker 1: and a lot deeper than I think most people are
Speaker 1: picking up on. The Real message from Muller today was
Speaker 1: don't talk to me ever again. I'm done. You guys,
Speaker 1: go play politics. I gave you, I'm giving you a little,
Speaker 1: you know, political bone to chew on here, but no,
Speaker 1: we didn't have what you wanted. And I know you're
Speaker 1: all disappointed, and I know you all hate the fact
Speaker 1: that the Independent Council statute was changed after the Clinton case,
Speaker 1: and this is actually the Attorney General's decision. The interesting
Speaker 1: part is he's contradicted himself numerous times as it relates
Speaker 1: to this very issue, and I don't even think he's
Speaker 1: aware of it. And you know, all this is innuendo. Now,
Speaker 1: the way this criminal justice system in America works, if
Speaker 1: you don't have the evidence, you don't say we don't
Speaker 1: have the evidence. You don't say we can't convict, You're
Speaker 1: just gonna try. You don't bring charges, and the case
Speaker 1: is closed. If we have a justice system where the
Speaker 1: likes of Mueller or any prosecutor for that matter, And
Speaker 1: I do think there are a lot of prosecutors that
Speaker 1: become zealots and they lose all human proportionality in perspective.
Speaker 1: And unfortunately, again, some are great. Some do their job,
Speaker 1: they follow the law and they don't deviate, they don't
Speaker 1: have agendas. But others it becomes like their game. It
Speaker 1: becomes how many convictions can I get, how many I'm
Speaker 1: gonna take this guy down. I'm going to do this,
Speaker 1: And that's where a lack of ethics occasionally comes in.
Speaker 1: And now, so none of this as it relates to
Speaker 1: the Mueller Report has changed the thing. Now, you got
Speaker 1: to under stand here, there is nothing legally at all
Speaker 1: that rises to the level of anything that would resemble
Speaker 1: an indictment. It's not there. And what Mueller's kind of
Speaker 1: skillfully tried to do today. And I was watching Gerald
Speaker 1: Nadler after and I mean Mueller looked like, you know,
Speaker 1: a wreck today it was. And I think what's happening
Speaker 1: is he's showing up at his DC potties and he's
Speaker 1: probably getting a lot of crap for the fact that
Speaker 1: he didn't do what the what the left wing in
Speaker 1: the DC Sewer and swam wanted him to do, and
Speaker 1: he just basically washed his hands today. I'm never gonna
Speaker 1: talk again. This is my last. I'm never It speaks
Speaker 1: for itself. Okay, If it speaks for itself, then you've
Speaker 1: got a problem because there's no underlying crime based on
Speaker 1: your own words, Donald Trump. You know Trey Gaudy infamously
Speaker 1: he says, well, if you're innocent, act like it. Quote
Speaker 1: damn it, that's what he said, not mean quoting well,
Speaker 1: how do innocent people act? Well, I know, if I'm
Speaker 1: going to be accused of something that I'm innocent of,
Speaker 1: I will loudly proclaim my innocence and with all the
Speaker 1: noise that Well, Donald Trump vented because two years of
Speaker 1: his presidency, probably fifty percent of his time was spent
Speaker 1: on what he knew was a witch hunt and knew
Speaker 1: that he did not do, which Muller confirmed that they
Speaker 1: had no evidence. Again today, he's pissed at times when
Speaker 1: you want to do your job and you've got to
Speaker 1: sit with a group of lawyers and you gotta go
Speaker 1: over strategy again and again and again on the same topic.
Speaker 1: It gets a little bit old. But what Muller doesn't
Speaker 1: want to do, it's not that he does doesn't want
Speaker 1: to explain to the Jerry Nadler's of the world. If
Speaker 1: he gets called before Congress, Robert Muller is going to
Speaker 1: get destroyed with really hard questions. When did you know
Speaker 1: that there was no collusion of any kind? When did
Speaker 1: you How is it that your mandate that said you
Speaker 1: could pretty much go anywhere, which originally was about interference
Speaker 1: Trump Russia, collusion, conspiracy, whatever, you had time to go
Speaker 1: into FARA violations, which are like ridiculous, you know, it
Speaker 1: is so insignificant. And did you do that after you
Speaker 1: already knew that there was no collusion conspiracy of any type.
Speaker 1: How did you have time to dig into taxi medallion issues?
Speaker 1: How did you have time to dig into loan application issues?
Speaker 1: How did you have time to dig into all of
Speaker 1: these other tack says and all these other insignificant things.
Speaker 1: But you ignored the dirty Russian dossier that was paid
Speaker 1: for by the other candidate in the very race. If
Speaker 1: you're talking about election interference that we know was selectively
Speaker 1: leaked to members of the media, the Washington Post and
Speaker 1: hacks like David Corn and Michael Izakoff. How did you ignore?
Speaker 1: Even The New York Times is suggesting now that the
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier was from
Speaker 1: the get go Russian disinformation designed to impact the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election. That's far closer to his mandate than taxi medallions,
Speaker 1: FARA violations, and loan applications. Why didn't you have time
Speaker 1: ask just a few questions on that? That's a I
Speaker 1: don't think he has an easy answer there, and then
Speaker 1: the specific follow ups that would occur thereafter. Mueller doesn't
Speaker 1: want to go before Jim Jordan. Now Nadler's in a
Speaker 1: pickle because Nadler got the message today. I'll give you
Speaker 1: this bone, but don't call me before Congress. And the
Speaker 1: reason really that Muller doesn't want to go because Republicans
Speaker 1: are going to ask the questions that he can't really answer.
Speaker 1: You know, how about the Steel dossier? That's a foreign agent?
Speaker 1: I thought foreign agents we're not supposed to impact our elections.
Speaker 1: How is how did that become the basis for the
Speaker 1: fines applications? How did that get leaked information that was
Speaker 1: unverified that we now knowah's unverifiable because Christopher Steele doesn't
Speaker 1: stand by his own dossier and he says, here has
Speaker 1: no idea if it's true. How did you ignore all
Speaker 1: of that what turned out to be Russian disinformation Russian
Speaker 1: wise bought and paid for by one candidate and used
Speaker 1: to bludgeon the other candidate and even people you hire
Speaker 1: like Struck in page No. Thanks to Muller, we found
Speaker 1: their text messages. That was because of Michael Horowitz, the
Speaker 1: Inspector General. How is it possible you missed all this
Speaker 1: if that was what you were supposed to be investigating.
Speaker 1: I don't see the answer that would ever make any
Speaker 1: sense for him. And remember you know this whole issue
Speaker 1: the Attorney General. So we used to have the Independent
Speaker 1: Council Statute that was up in to the Clinton years.
Speaker 1: Remember the Star Report. There were eleven specific crimes that
Speaker 1: can Star outlined as it relates to crimes of Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton committed. And by the way, Bill Clinton, you know
Speaker 1: he did all of these things, I mean these you
Speaker 1: go back. It was pretty serious and that Ken Starr said,
Speaker 1: there's substantial credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds
Speaker 1: for impeachment. One Clinton lied under oath in a civil
Speaker 1: case when he denied a fair sexual relationship or relations
Speaker 1: with Monica Lewinsky. Two the President lied under oath to
Speaker 1: the grand jury about his sexual relationship. Three in a
Speaker 1: civil deposition to support his false statement about the sexual relationship,
Speaker 1: President Clinton lied under oath about being alone with miss
Speaker 1: Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between miss Lewinsky
Speaker 1: and him. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil
Speaker 1: deposition about his discussions between miss Lewinsky concerning her involvement
Speaker 1: in the Jones case. And the President obstructed justice, had
Speaker 1: an understanding with miss Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth
Speaker 1: about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Paula Jones attorneys.
Speaker 1: And it goes on from there, and we ended up
Speaker 1: paying nearly a million dollars to Paula Jones, he lost
Speaker 1: his law license, and he was impeached. But they're very specific,
Speaker 1: and the reason we're now out of the Independent Council
Speaker 1: Statute is because of people like Jerry Nadler. Jerry Nadler
Speaker 1: at the time didn't want the Star report published. Well,
Speaker 1: now he even wants grand jury information and the Muller
Speaker 1: report published. This is not about facts, This is not
Speaker 1: about truth, This is not about anything other than up.
Speaker 1: We get another round of conspiracy theories until it dies again.
Speaker 1: And the reason we know it's dead is because the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, under the Special Council Statute that replaced the
Speaker 1: Independent Council Statute, is the final arbiter. Now, the report
Speaker 1: was handed over to the Attorney General, and the Attorney
Speaker 1: General and the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the
Speaker 1: Office Illegal Counsel without They said at the time they
Speaker 1: gave no consideration to Justice Department policy as it relates
Speaker 1: to whether or not a sitting president can be united
Speaker 1: And based on the findings of the Mueller Report, after
Speaker 1: Muller didn't decide was no obstruction. Now, if all these
Speaker 1: people cared about obstruction, why have none of them ever
Speaker 1: brought up what we discuss Hillary Clinton, The evidence is overwhelming, incontrovertible.
Speaker 1: She violated the Espionage Act, had top secret classified information
Speaker 1: on a private server in a mom and pop bashop
Speaker 1: bathroom closet. Then she had intention, which is a very
Speaker 1: big part of any obstruction charge. What was the intent, Well,
Speaker 1: she had subpoenaed emails, thirty three thousand of them, and
Speaker 1: she erased them. And then her hard drive. They used
Speaker 1: acid wash known as bleach bit to wipe it clean
Speaker 1: if there was any forensic materials that could have otherwise
Speaker 1: been recovered, and then an aid busted up blackberries and
Speaker 1: iPhones with hammers, and then simcards were removed. Now, what
Speaker 1: was the intent to destroy the evidence of the underlying crime. Well,
Speaker 1: there is no underlying crime in this case. And the
Speaker 1: fact that the president, under Article two of our Constitution,
Speaker 1: at full complete authority to get rid of mull or
Speaker 1: anytime he wanted for conflicts of interest, but he didn't
Speaker 1: do it anyway, means that this is nothing but another
Speaker 1: round of lying, another round of conspiracy theories, another round
Speaker 1: of breathless hysteria, the creation of false hope and the
Speaker 1: left in this country that they're gonna get Trump anyway,
Speaker 1: and they're not going to. And what everybody's forgotten I'll
Speaker 1: get to as this hour unfolds. We already have the answer.
Speaker 1: The Mueller report is done, dead and finished. Anything you
Speaker 1: hear about it from now on is noise. If the
Speaker 1: Democrats want to try and impeach. They will guarantee a
Speaker 1: thousand percent the reelection of Donald Trump. My advice to
Speaker 1: them is go for it. I think that's good for them,
Speaker 1: that the Green New Deal, and never focus on helping
Speaker 1: the American people live in a safer, more secure, more
Speaker 1: prosperous country. And then we'll compare the record. Are we
Speaker 1: better off than we were four years ago? And Donald
Speaker 1: Trump could probably win by a landslide. Oh, there's a
Speaker 1: brutal takedown by Alan Dershowitz just came out from the
Speaker 1: Hill and the headline is shame on Robert Mueller for
Speaker 1: exceeding his role. And what he says about the statement
Speaker 1: that if we had confidence the president clearly did not
Speaker 1: commit a crime, we would have said so, he writes,
Speaker 1: is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director
Speaker 1: Komey regarding Hillary Clinton during the twenty sixteen presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: When Coomy declared regarding that in July at twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton
Speaker 1: or colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of
Speaker 1: classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless
Speaker 1: in their handling of very sensitive, highly classed information, but
Speaker 1: remember Comey was involved in taking out the legal standard
Speaker 1: gross negligence. More on the other side. All right, twenty
Speaker 1: five now till the top of the hour, eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine point one sewn toll free telephone number. All right,
Speaker 1: I want to take I want to go back. In
Speaker 1: one sense, there's a very entertaining side of what's unfolding
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party. And it's simple they don't know
Speaker 1: what to do because Nancy Pelosi, she kind of instinctively
Speaker 1: knows this is a really bad political idea to move
Speaker 1: forward with impeachment on an obstruction case with no intent,
Speaker 1: because there's no underlying crime. And even Mueller's statements today
Speaker 1: are no different than what was in the report. And
Speaker 1: just because the left gets jazzed and re energized with
Speaker 1: their conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's smart politics. And you know,
Speaker 1: you even Natalie looked like he was so unsure of
Speaker 1: himself today and then you got the cowardly shift, you know,
Speaker 1: bubble and fizzing like alka seltzer and water all day
Speaker 1: about Mueller's nine minute statement this morning. Nancy Pelosi is
Speaker 1: the one that now finds herself at odds with the
Speaker 1: lunatic base of the Democratic Party, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of them, the New Green Deal crazies. And so after
Speaker 1: Muller spoke this morning, Pelosi then continued her call for
Speaker 1: Congress to move forward with investigations into the president. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've had four separate investigations. They have all concluded the
Speaker 1: same thing. The FBI nine month investigation even struck in
Speaker 1: page admit there was no there there and they had nothing.
Speaker 1: And that was before the appointment of Mueller nine straight months.
Speaker 1: Then we had the House Intel Committee, nothing, the Bipartisan
Speaker 1: Senate Committee, nothing, even Muller reiterating today, nothing. So you know,
Speaker 1: for her to say, you know, holding firm that in
Speaker 1: not advocating impeachment and the and the crazy and appeasing
Speaker 1: the crazy base of the party, that would it would
Speaker 1: guarantee two things, would guarantee the reelection of Trump and
Speaker 1: guarantee that they are marginalized as a party for years
Speaker 1: to come, maybe to a point where that they can
Speaker 1: never recover that the only Democrats that will be elected
Speaker 1: are the crazy Democrats. So you know, she can say
Speaker 1: all she wants that they hold this you know, sacred
Speaker 1: constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the president account they're
Speaker 1: nothing but words. Let's go back. Remember Muller decided not
Speaker 1: to decide, and so that then again we got rid
Speaker 1: of the Independent Council Statute. We now have the Special
Speaker 1: Council Statute. Under the Special Council Statute, it is the
Speaker 1: Attorney General that makes these decisions. The Attorney General is
Speaker 1: now a man by the name of Bill Barr. The
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General has just resigned or left is Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: along with the Office of Legal Counsel, all concluding in
Speaker 1: very short order, without any consideration of quote Justice Department
Speaker 1: policy as to whether you can or cannot indict a
Speaker 1: sitting president, all said the same thing. No indictment, no evidence,
Speaker 1: doesn't rise to any level, not even close, and of
Speaker 1: course no underlying crime. But you know, Democrats only care
Speaker 1: about obstruction if it's Trump. They only care about collusion
Speaker 1: with Russia if it's Trump. Let's just ignore the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton bought and paid for Russian lies that were spread
Speaker 1: to the American people and used as a weapon to
Speaker 1: get a backdoor to spy on the Trump campaign and
Speaker 1: then the Trump transition team and then the president. But
Speaker 1: this line of questioning, Lindsay Graham, the Attorney General bar
Speaker 1: says it all. And this holds today in spite of
Speaker 1: noise that it's over. Muller is over. It's done. The
Speaker 1: curtain has closed on Act one. And then you listen
Speaker 1: to what the Attorney General is is now investigating, and
Speaker 1: you understand that the curtain is rising on the deep state,
Speaker 1: and that will and with the declassification last week, guarantee
Speaker 1: that the American people will discover all of the things
Speaker 1: that I've been telling you about the abuse of power,
Speaker 1: about a rigged investigation to the favored candidate that should
Speaker 1: win one hundred million to zero, that will go to
Speaker 1: the heart of real Russian disinformation used to impact the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election, that power abused with the FISA courts
Speaker 1: and FISA Court judges lied to by omission not telling
Speaker 1: them that Hillary paid for this document put together by
Speaker 1: a foreign national that doesn't stand by the document, which
Speaker 1: renders that document that unverifiable because Christopher still I don't
Speaker 1: know if any of this is true, and then used
Speaker 1: to bludgeon as an insurance policy a duly elected president.
Speaker 1: That curtain is just rising. The lights are now going down,
Speaker 1: The curtain is about to go up, and all of
Speaker 1: its coming and with the declassification order last week, that
Speaker 1: means we're gonna get it all. It's not a matter
Speaker 1: of if anymore, it's a matter of when we get
Speaker 1: it all. And this is this is the definitive statement
Speaker 1: on this all being over except for a few zealot
Speaker 1: extreme radical democratic socialists that just wake up every second, minute,
Speaker 1: hour of every day, like the media mob, just hating
Speaker 1: all things Donald Trump. Do you share my concerns about
Speaker 1: the FISA warrant process? Yes? Do you share my concerns
Speaker 1: about the counterintelligence investigation, how it was opened and why
Speaker 1: it was opened? Yes? Do you share my concerns at
Speaker 1: the professional lack of professionalism and the Clinton email investigations
Speaker 1: something we should all look at. Yes. Do you expect
Speaker 1: to change your mind about the bottom line conclusions of
Speaker 1: the Muller Report? No? Do you know Bob Muller? Yes?
Speaker 1: Do you trust him? Yes? How long have you known him?
Speaker 1: Thirty years roughly. Do you think he had time he needed? Yes?
Speaker 1: You think he had the money he needed? Yes? You
Speaker 1: think he had the resources he needed? Yes. Do you
Speaker 1: think he did a thorough job? Yes? And I think
Speaker 1: he feels he did a thorough job and had adequate
Speaker 1: evidence to make the calls. Do you think the president's
Speaker 1: campaign in twenty sixteen was thoroughly looked at in terms
Speaker 1: of whether or not they colluded with the Russians? Yes,
Speaker 1: and the answer is no. According to Bob Muller, that's right,
Speaker 1: he couldn't decide about obstruction. You did, Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That's right. You feel good about your decision. Absolutely, that's
Speaker 1: the reality. Legally speaking, the Attorney General, under the new
Speaker 1: Special Council Statute, not the old Independent Council Statute, makes
Speaker 1: the final determination, and in this case it was made
Speaker 1: rather quickly, and in this case it was made in
Speaker 1: full agreement with the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein and
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel. Now, what Alan Dershowitz is
Speaker 1: arguing is very it is just dead on accurate. Now
Speaker 1: politically speaking, that's very different from anything from a legal perspective.
Speaker 1: The legal perspective as it relates to Muller and the
Speaker 1: President is dead, it's done, it's over, it's finished. And
Speaker 1: you know, you've got to understand that there is zero
Speaker 1: reason for what Mueller did today. Accept Mueller, I could
Speaker 1: tell is scared to death if he ever got before
Speaker 1: the committee, which now puts, you know, pressure, and puts
Speaker 1: Nadler and company in a bit of a quandary because
Speaker 1: what we have in all of this is a rogue
Speaker 1: prosecutor who picked an abusively unfair, biased team and they
Speaker 1: still couldn't get the president. And you know, now he
Speaker 1: can't answer questions about very specific issues about his decision
Speaker 1: making in this process, who he hired, what he chose
Speaker 1: to investigate. His mandate was so broad. How do you
Speaker 1: ignore the Russian dossier? How do you ignore all of
Speaker 1: these things? And you know, it's it's to the point
Speaker 1: where you know, he I could tell you he's in
Speaker 1: a pretzel because he's not being treated well at the
Speaker 1: Washington elite parties. He's not as accepted and as a
Speaker 1: steep aimed as he once was, you know, and we
Speaker 1: saw all of this throughout this whole process. Now, what
Speaker 1: Dersha had said about it, which I think is really important,
Speaker 1: is that if we had confidence that the president did
Speaker 1: not commit a crime, we would have said that, Okay,
Speaker 1: do you have evidence he did? Do you have does
Speaker 1: you have the evidence that is indictable that could lead
Speaker 1: to a conviction. Well, the opinion has been rendered there too.
Speaker 1: And again if you can use the Clinton standard, which
Speaker 1: the media will never make, the comparison, which is warranted
Speaker 1: and justified and appropriate. Well, go back to when James
Speaker 1: Comey did his July fifth, twenty sixteen press conference and said, well,
Speaker 1: we did find didn't find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton
Speaker 1: or colleagues intended to violate the laws intended keyword governing
Speaker 1: the handling of classified information. There is evidence that they
Speaker 1: were extremely careless. The first draft in May of twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen had gross negligent. Now why did they change the words?
Speaker 1: Because that is the legal standard. So they did it.
Speaker 1: They designed it to protect Hillary Clinton, and so that
Speaker 1: that was their way of doing so. And what Dershowitz
Speaker 1: is pointing out is what Komi did you know, was
Speaker 1: universally criticized for going beyond what his responsibility is in
Speaker 1: terms of stating whether or not they're sufficient evidence to indict.
Speaker 1: In this particular case Clinton, I think the evidence was
Speaker 1: so overwhelming and incontrovertible, such a clear cut case of
Speaker 1: eighteen USC. Seven ninety three, and certainly meeting the standard
Speaker 1: of intent. Subpoin at emails deleted, acid washed, and devices
Speaker 1: busted up, and simcards were moved anyway but Comy did
Speaker 1: that and everybody criticized him. Muller does this today, going
Speaker 1: beyond the conclusion of his report, to try and give
Speaker 1: throw a bone on the way out the door, probably
Speaker 1: so he won't be called to testify, because I think
Speaker 1: Muller is afraid of having to testify. I want Muller
Speaker 1: to go testify. I think Muller under oath will be
Speaker 1: a disaster for Robert Muller, and I think deep down
Speaker 1: he knows it. He now has to justify the team
Speaker 1: he appointed. He now has to justify why he would
Speaker 1: have prioritized, you know, loan applications and taxi medallions and
Speaker 1: FARA violations over a dirty Russian dossier that The New
Speaker 1: York Times is suggesting was in fact Russian disinformation paid
Speaker 1: for by the one candidate that we know was saved
Speaker 1: by rogue upper echelon people in the FBI, because she should,
Speaker 1: after all, win one hundred million to zero, and Trump
Speaker 1: is lonesome, and you know, if he wins, he can't win.
Speaker 1: But we have to have an insurance policy. He knows
Speaker 1: all of that comes into play. And Dershowitz said, until today,
Speaker 1: I defended Mueller against the accusation that he's partisan. I
Speaker 1: didn't believe he personally favored the Democrats or Republicans. I
Speaker 1: think one look I like professional Dershowitz. I think it
Speaker 1: was a little naive here, and I saw you can't
Speaker 1: appoint only Democratic donors and Hillary's attorney and a guy
Speaker 1: like Weissman and not have a partisan agenda. He just can't.
Speaker 1: But he said by putting his thumb, indeed his elbow,
Speaker 1: on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based
Speaker 1: on obstruction, I'll add without an underlying crime, Muller has
Speaker 1: revealed his partisan bias. It's clear he hates Donald Trump, okay,
Speaker 1: but he does have respect for bar bar has been
Speaker 1: respectful to him, and he was trying to be respectful
Speaker 1: towards the Attorney General. But in any normal case, a
Speaker 1: prosecutor never goes beyond publicly disclosing that there's insufficient evidence
Speaker 1: to indict and Dershowitz's words, no responsible prosecutor would ever
Speaker 1: suggest that the subject of his investigation might be guilty,
Speaker 1: even if there is insufficient evidence or other reasons not
Speaker 1: to indict. So it is beyond unethical what Robert Muller
Speaker 1: did today. And I think what he's going to get
Speaker 1: in return is probably a pass for testifying, because if
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan gets a hold of him and Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: gets ahold of them, and he has to answer under
Speaker 1: oath a lot of serious questions about his decision making
Speaker 1: and about when he knew that there was no collusion.
Speaker 1: I think Robert Mueller's story is going to collapse under
Speaker 1: its own weight. And why did he hire this his team?
Speaker 1: So you know, no prosecutor would ever do this, And
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter that it's a political statement that he made.
Speaker 1: You know, federal investigations by prosecutors, including a special counsel,
Speaker 1: you know, by their very nature, or one sided because
Speaker 1: they only hear the evidence of one side, not the
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence. Witnesses are not subject to any counter you know,
Speaker 1: it cost examination and evidence has taken in secret, behind
Speaker 1: closed doors of a grand jurian. And that's why prosecutors
Speaker 1: can only conclude whether or not they have the evidence
Speaker 1: to commence a prosecution, which he did not conclude, And
Speaker 1: he contradicted his own statements in terms of what he
Speaker 1: had communicated to bar that that was not a factor,
Speaker 1: meaning the laws or the policies that would govern whether
Speaker 1: a sitting president and be indicted or not. This is
Speaker 1: a travesty of justice. This is the witch hunt on steroids.
Speaker 1: But it's none of it matters. It's all noise. And
Speaker 1: if the Democrats go down the impeachment route, I say
Speaker 1: more power to them, because they will garantee the election
Speaker 1: re election of Donald Trump. That will be an act
Speaker 1: of political suicide the likes of which we've never seen
Speaker 1: in our life. The Special Council's Office is part of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, and by regulation it was bound
Speaker 1: by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime
Speaker 1: was therefore not an option we could consider. And beyond
Speaker 1: department policy, were regarded by principles of fairness. It would
Speaker 1: be unfair to potentially it would be unfair to potentially
Speaker 1: accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no
Speaker 1: court resolution of the actual charge. So that was Justice
Speaker 1: Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated,
Speaker 1: and from them we concluded that we would would not
Speaker 1: reach a determination one way or the other about whether
Speaker 1: the president committed a crime. That is the offices. That
Speaker 1: is the officer's final position, and we will not comment
Speaker 1: on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. All right,
Speaker 1: our two Sean Hannity Show, glad you are with us.
Speaker 1: Right down our toll free telephone number. It's eight hundred
Speaker 1: and nine four one, Sean. If you want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program, understand what's happening here. Understand
Speaker 1: that this is exactly the opposite of how justice in
Speaker 1: America works. And all this was was the Special Council
Speaker 1: literally just giving just dropping little nuggets, innuendo hits. When
Speaker 1: under our system of justice in America, if you don't
Speaker 1: have the evidence, you don't say we can't convict, you
Speaker 1: just don't charge. It's really that simple. And what Mueller
Speaker 1: did here is nothing but pure politics. If they had
Speaker 1: the evidence at all in any way, shape, matter, or
Speaker 1: form to prove any crime, be a collusion, conspiracy, whatever,
Speaker 1: so on and so forth, they would have brought those
Speaker 1: charges forward and they would have made it clear. And
Speaker 1: what has happened here is it is just gone in
Speaker 1: the opposite direction for them. So it is, you know,
Speaker 1: how do you defend against a never ending cloud of
Speaker 1: innuendo over your head? And one of the long term
Speaker 1: ramifications about us, now, look, the effort to unseat a
Speaker 1: duly elected president continues, it's never gonna stop. You know,
Speaker 1: if Donald Trump cured cancer, if Donald Trump gave every
Speaker 1: American ten million dollars and he adopted even the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal, in every left wing policy that exists, they'd
Speaker 1: still hate him. And nor does it in any way
Speaker 1: deflect from all that we now know is coming with
Speaker 1: the declassification. That means the FISA warrant applications will come out.
Speaker 1: That means the three O two's will come out. That
Speaker 1: means the exculpatory evidence that was hidden will come out.
Speaker 1: That means that all the closed or testament, it's all
Speaker 1: coming out. There's a second act to this, and it
Speaker 1: is going to be devastating to all of these deep
Speaker 1: state collaborators. Those you know how Robert Muller had time
Speaker 1: to look into let's see loan applications, taxes going back
Speaker 1: to the eighties, Farah violations, taxi medallions, but ignored what
Speaker 1: The New York Times was now suggesting was a Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton bought and paid for, put together by a foreign agent,
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation that was used for the very specific reason
Speaker 1: of creating interference and even outcome of the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: In favor of Hillary. To ignore it all is unconscionable. Now,
Speaker 1: all of that is coming into the fray. As I said,
Speaker 1: you know, go back to when Lindsay Graham interviewed the
Speaker 1: Attorney General Barr. Barr said there was no consideration given
Speaker 1: when he made the decision along with the Deputy Attorney
Speaker 1: General Rod Rosenstein, with input from the Office of Legal Counsel.
Speaker 1: That this whole Justice Department policy issue of whether you
Speaker 1: can or cannot indict a sitting president never came into play.
Speaker 1: And what Robert Mueller said is dead wrong. If Robert
Speaker 1: Muller wanted to come out and say this is what
Speaker 1: we found, he wouldn't have punted it to the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. Anyway. We got full analysis, a lot of
Speaker 1: different angles to get to today. Andy McCarthy, the Great Attorney.
Speaker 1: He is formerly of the Southern District of New York
Speaker 1: and of course number one best selling author, legal analyst,
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett the Russia Hoax, and David Shown criminal and
Speaker 1: Civil Liberties defense attorney. How are you all? Welcome to
Speaker 1: the program. Greg, Why don't we start with you today
Speaker 1: and your thoughts overall as we begin our analysis of this, well,
Speaker 1: once again, as he did. In his report, the Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Robert Mueller seems to have reversed the burden of
Speaker 1: proof and inverted the presumption of innocence. You know, once
Speaker 1: again he is saying, we cannot prove the president did
Speaker 1: not commit a crime. Think about what that really means.
Speaker 1: It's a double negative. Mueller was contending he can't prove
Speaker 1: something that didn't happen. You know what if that's the
Speaker 1: standard for all investigations. Let's say you deposited your paycheck
Speaker 1: at a bank on Monday, the same day it's robbed,
Speaker 1: and then the prosecutor makes a public announcement he can't
Speaker 1: prove you didn't rob the bank, So you're neither criminally
Speaker 1: accused nor exonerated. The burden of proof has been shifted
Speaker 1: to you to disprove the negative. That's not the way
Speaker 1: our system of justice operates. But Mueller maligned Trump with
Speaker 1: a taintive criminality and depriving him of the presumption of innocence.
Speaker 1: And he did it once again today. You're take David
Speaker 1: Chelm several points real quickly. Why did Muller never say
Speaker 1: this before, that the sitting president couldn't be indicted? This
Speaker 1: was the subject of discussion day after day by the
Speaker 1: president's lawyers. How outrageous this was. Number Two, if there
Speaker 1: never could be a criminal prosecution of the president, and
Speaker 1: Muller understood that, why was six hundred point one of
Speaker 1: the regulations triggered that requires a criminal finding that there's
Speaker 1: a criminal prosecution or investigation of a personal matter that
Speaker 1: justice had a conflict with Under six hundred point two.
Speaker 1: There were alternatives to this, including just an initial investigation.
Speaker 1: As Greg said, innuendo is tougher than a specific charge
Speaker 1: to defend against. You can't defend against it, and they
Speaker 1: make it worse by saying if there were no crime
Speaker 1: than they would have made that clear. Last thing is,
Speaker 1: you can bet your bottom dollar that if they had
Speaker 1: evidence of a crime here with people like Andrew Weissman,
Speaker 1: Robert Muller on this committee in Special Counsel's Office, they
Speaker 1: would have laid that out. They would have said what
Speaker 1: the crimes were. They would have said, their evidence, but
Speaker 1: we can't charge them because he's a sitting president. Well,
Speaker 1: and your take, Andy McCarthy, I mean, if you decided
Speaker 1: when you work for the Southern District of New York
Speaker 1: not to indite somebody, you decided not to indite them.
Speaker 1: Do you go out there and say, well, do you
Speaker 1: leave a cloud of suspicion? Well, we think we might
Speaker 1: have been there, but we weren't there. And how do
Speaker 1: you reconcile all the varying statements. I mean, if Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: office illegal Counsel, the Attorney General in made what was
Speaker 1: a pretty clear, quick decision that had no basis or
Speaker 1: even considering this question of Justice Department policy about indicting
Speaker 1: a president of the United States while in office, he
Speaker 1: was clear that was not a consideration. Well, Sean, I
Speaker 1: think now we have to really look at the timeline
Speaker 1: of that, because what happened here it looks to me
Speaker 1: like is Muller met with Barr on March fifth. That's
Speaker 1: when they say they had their first conversation. According to
Speaker 1: Barr's testimony, and as I understand it, it it was at
Speaker 1: that meeting that Muller repeatedly told Barr I think Barr
Speaker 1: said three times, and he was emphatic about it, that
Speaker 1: the OLC guidance was not the reason why Muller had
Speaker 1: decided not to make a decision about obstruct And then
Speaker 1: Barr asked him, well, what is your reasoning and Mueller said,
Speaker 1: we're still formulating that. And then by two and a
Speaker 1: half weeks later, on March twenty second, when Mueller delivers
Speaker 1: the report, he has this whole section in the beginning
Speaker 1: of the obstruction part of the report that really lays
Speaker 1: it at the feet of the OLC guidance. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that's probably what happened. That's probably why the
Speaker 1: Attorney General said what he said. And you know, it
Speaker 1: seems to me that Mueller. The one thing that Mueller
Speaker 1: decided was he wasn't going to decide. He didn't want
Speaker 1: to be the one to pull the trigger, and he
Speaker 1: couldn't come up with a coherent reason for not making
Speaker 1: the only decision that he was really arguably needed to make.
Speaker 1: I didn't think there should be a special counsel at all.
Speaker 1: And then at the last minute he obviously decided, well,
Speaker 1: we'll lay it at the feet of the OLC guidance. Well,
Speaker 1: but Muller, everybody knew about Justice Department policy anyway, correct, Well,
Speaker 1: they did, Sean. But you know, look, there's a big difference.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the things that really bothers
Speaker 1: me about Muller. There is a big difference between the
Speaker 1: role of the prosecutor who was investigating the case and
Speaker 1: the Justice Department that has to enforce Justice Department policy.
Speaker 1: It was none of Mueller's concern that there's OLC guidance
Speaker 1: that says you can't indict a sitting president. The only
Speaker 1: thing Mueller needed to do, as the prosecutor who was
Speaker 1: handling the case was tell the Justice Department, yes, there's
Speaker 1: enough evidence to charge, or no, there's not enough evidence
Speaker 1: to charge. And if he thought there was enough evidence
Speaker 1: to charge, then you tell the Justice Department that. And
Speaker 1: if the Attorney General at that point wants to invoke
Speaker 1: the policy that says a sitting president can't be indicted,
Speaker 1: then the Attorney General can invoke it. But there was
Speaker 1: no reason for the prosecutors working on the case to
Speaker 1: worry about that. And he's one hundred percent right, And
Speaker 1: that decision, by the way by the Attorney General would
Speaker 1: be made, should have been made on the front end.
Speaker 1: And that's the first point he made that the Special
Speaker 1: Council never should have been appointed the Attorney General, the
Speaker 1: assistant Attorney General and this point, at this point, Rosenstein
Speaker 1: well knew OLC policy and knew that there wouldn't be
Speaker 1: a criminal prosecution of the president under that policy. What
Speaker 1: Mueller told us today, what we knew he has cost
Speaker 1: to taxpayers millions of dollars and paralyze the presidency for
Speaker 1: two years for nothing. Well, John, could I say, what
Speaker 1: could do one other thing? Something that's got to be
Speaker 1: decided now that I think Barr was trying to sidestep.
Speaker 1: There's clearly a difference between Barr and Muller about what
Speaker 1: the legal requirements are for obstruction, and I think Barr
Speaker 1: tries to sidestep that by saying, even if we apply
Speaker 1: Mueller's looser standard on the facts of the case here,
Speaker 1: the government would not be able to prove obstruction beyond
Speaker 1: a reasonable dab. Now, I think with Mueller's report out there,
Speaker 1: and with Mueller saying I can't say that this isn't
Speaker 1: a crime, it's really incumbent on the Justice Department and
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel at this point to step
Speaker 1: in and tell us what is the Justice Department's position
Speaker 1: on what obstruction law says. Is it Muller's position or
Speaker 1: is it some other position. You know. One of the
Speaker 1: interesting things, Greg Jarrett, is, you know Mueller takes this
Speaker 1: position today, but if we look at the whole case.
Speaker 1: Nobody was charged. He didn't even return one charge because
Speaker 1: there was no evidence as it relates to any of
Speaker 1: these issues. And you know, and then we get to
Speaker 1: the whole issue, Well, what does the law mandate? I mean,
Speaker 1: then we get to the double standard issue, because okay,
Speaker 1: if there was no underlying crime, you never believed there
Speaker 1: was an underlying crime. You believed in your innocence. You
Speaker 1: proclaimed your innocence, as the president did every single day.
Speaker 1: And while you know, Don mcgane could say that he
Speaker 1: might have suggested firing Muller, well somebody else would have
Speaker 1: replaced Mueller because of a conflict of interest that would
Speaker 1: be within the president's power is under article too. But
Speaker 1: the president never fired Mueller, never fired Rod Rosenstein, let
Speaker 1: the investigation go forward. He encouraged everybody in the White
Speaker 1: House publicly and privately to testify. They all did one
Speaker 1: point five million documents handed over in the process of
Speaker 1: all this. And saying that this is a witch hunt,
Speaker 1: hardly is obstruction. Where is the obstruction, Well, there is none.
Speaker 1: First of all, there are two US Supreme Court decisions
Speaker 1: that say general statutes don't apply to a president who's
Speaker 1: exercising his constitutional authority unless those statutes say so. If
Speaker 1: you look at all of the obstruction statutes, they do
Speaker 1: not expressly apply as president. So is a constitutional matter
Speaker 1: in things like firing James Comey and the words allegedly
Speaker 1: uttered about Michael Flynn, those as a constitutional proposition to
Speaker 1: not qualify under obstruction of statute. But even if you
Speaker 1: accept some sort of expansive, elastic interpretation of obstruction as
Speaker 1: it applies to the president, for every allegedly incriminating finding
Speaker 1: in Mueller's report, there is a corresponding exculpatory explanation. So
Speaker 1: even there, there's no corrupt intent or improper purpose as
Speaker 1: obstruction requires. So on all fours obstruction has no application
Speaker 1: to the president. What concerns me here is that Mueller's
Speaker 1: peddling two different stories. He you know, he says to
Speaker 1: the public that the OLC opinion that he can't charge
Speaker 1: a sitting president prevented him from doing his job, and yet,
Speaker 1: according to Bill Barr's testimony and his statement to the media,
Speaker 1: he was specifically told by Mueller on three occasions that
Speaker 1: the OLC opinion has nothing to do with his decision.
Speaker 1: So somebody, you know, somebody's not telling the truth here,
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't know who it is, but
Speaker 1: I'll tell you this much. Mueller's story doesn't really stand up,
Speaker 1: and I want to pick up on that point when
Speaker 1: we get back Greg Jarrett, Andy McCarthy, David Shone with
Speaker 1: US eight hundred and nine f one. Shawn told free
Speaker 1: telephone number. We'll get Bill O'Reilly's take at the top
Speaker 1: of the next hour. Conducted an independent criminal investigation and
Speaker 1: reported the results to the Attorney General as required by
Speaker 1: Department regulations. Now, I hope and expect this to be
Speaker 1: the only time that I will speak to you in
Speaker 1: this matter. I am making that decision myself. No one
Speaker 1: has told me whether I can or should testify or
Speaker 1: speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about
Speaker 1: an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would
Speaker 1: not go beyond our report. It pains our findings and
Speaker 1: analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We
Speaker 1: chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself,
Speaker 1: and the report is my testimony. I would not provide
Speaker 1: information beyond that which is already public in any appearance
Speaker 1: before Congress. Yeah, but I'd love to get answers to questions,
Speaker 1: when did he know there was no collusion. I'd like
Speaker 1: to know, Well, if you had time for taxi medallions,
Speaker 1: loan applications, taxes, and Pharaoh violations, why didn't you have
Speaker 1: time for a foreign put together phony Russian dossier that
Speaker 1: was used as the basis of a Faizo warrant before
Speaker 1: the election and after the election, paid for by the
Speaker 1: opposition party? Was that not? Is the New York Times
Speaker 1: right in their description that it was very likely Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's a little bit more important than taxi medallions
Speaker 1: and a little bit more important than Pharao violations. I
Speaker 1: don't think Mueller wanted to answer any of these questions.
Speaker 1: So Democrats are doing what they do, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: of course, as Nadler out there, of course peach and
Speaker 1: peachment is on the table. Muller found substantial evidence of
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. No, he did not point out to
Speaker 1: me where that evidence is. Mueller could not charge Trump
Speaker 1: because of Justice Department rules. That's not even what he's saying.
Speaker 1: And the Attorney General, which again people like Nadler never wanted.
Speaker 1: The Star report with eleven specific charges that Congress should
Speaker 1: look into. With Bill Clinton, he didn't want that public
Speaker 1: and the former law was changed into the current law,
Speaker 1: which was you know, we used to have, you know,
Speaker 1: very different way of handling all of this, and we've
Speaker 1: gone over in detail. So okay, what does this all mean? Anyway,
Speaker 1: we continue with Andy McCarthy, David Shoon and Greg Jarrett,
Speaker 1: where it looks to me like Muller just made a
Speaker 1: quick political statement with no substance in fact, when in fact,
Speaker 1: the current law as it is written, the call was
Speaker 1: to be made by the Attorney General if he decided
Speaker 1: not to make one. Greg Jarrett absolutely, and you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I understand the whole point of Muller's
Speaker 1: statement today that lasted about ten minutes. Not going to
Speaker 1: take any questions, I'm not going to testify, which by
Speaker 1: the way, he has no choice of doing if he
Speaker 1: receives his subpoena. He's not above the law. But so
Speaker 1: you know, this strikes me as yet another effort by
Speaker 1: Muller to smear the president with a taint of criminality,
Speaker 1: when in fact, to his report, if you really dig
Speaker 1: through it, as I have three times, demonstrate that there's
Speaker 1: no obstruction of justice. And let me make one other point,
Speaker 1: about the Office of Legal Counsel opinion. Go back and
Speaker 1: look at bars testimony before the Senate. He said that
Speaker 1: told him that there might be a case in which
Speaker 1: president can be charged while sitting in office, and that
Speaker 1: the OLC opinion can be quote unquote abandoned. So, you know,
Speaker 1: this whole thing strikes me as a bit of a
Speaker 1: charade by Mueller again to smear Trump and Andy McCarthy.
Speaker 1: Your take on that part, well, Sean, I thought it
Speaker 1: was pretty presumptuous of him to say that, you know,
Speaker 1: my testimony is the report, so I wouldn't have anything
Speaker 1: else to say. Can you mention a lawyer telling the
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals when they ask you at a legal
Speaker 1: argument some questions about the position you've taken in your
Speaker 1: brief and you're are you going to tell them? Sorry,
Speaker 1: your honor, I've already said everything I had to say
Speaker 1: in the brief, and you know, how dare you ask
Speaker 1: me any more questions? Of course, if he gets subpoened,
Speaker 1: he's going to have to come in and he's going
Speaker 1: to have to answer questions, and he's going to have
Speaker 1: to answer questions about his investigative decisions, which include I
Speaker 1: think the Act that he probably knew that there was
Speaker 1: no collusion case as early as I'd say probably September
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, when they didn't go back to the FISA
Speaker 1: court and ask for another warrant on Carter page. So
Speaker 1: there's a pretty important question here about especially if they're
Speaker 1: going to try to push a lot of obstructive obstructive
Speaker 1: conduct that happened after that point, according to Muller's own report,
Speaker 1: Why wasn't the president and why wasn't the country told
Speaker 1: that there was no collusion case against the president. I
Speaker 1: think I think things would have gone a lot differently
Speaker 1: if that had happened. Yeah, and David, what were you
Speaker 1: going to say? Two things? I think, First of all,
Speaker 1: Mueller owed if this is his position, He owed that
Speaker 1: to the American public almost two years ago when the
Speaker 1: president's lawyers were saying it that about the OLC policy.
Speaker 1: But think about this other angle that what Mueller said today.
Speaker 1: He said, first of all, that Barr made more of
Speaker 1: the report public than he had to, and that he
Speaker 1: Mueller appreciated that, and that he Mueller would not go
Speaker 1: beyond any testimony, give any testimony beyond what's been made
Speaker 1: public in the report. Now, when mister Barr took that position,
Speaker 1: Nadler and Schiff called them essentially a traitor. He's going
Speaker 1: to be thrown out of office. Etat. Let's see what
Speaker 1: they say about mister Muller taking that same position, because
Speaker 1: he's been their hero for quite a while. So basically,
Speaker 1: we're dealing with politics, not the law, Greg That is
Speaker 1: the way I'm hearing this. Oh absolutely. And you know, again,
Speaker 1: if you read the Special Counsel report, it's four hundred
Speaker 1: and forty eight pages of politics and not so much
Speaker 1: the law. And it's almost as if you can tell
Speaker 1: that that Muller and his team of partisans knew that
Speaker 1: there was no legal basis for an obstruction case against
Speaker 1: the president, and so they sort of twisted the facts
Speaker 1: and tried to contort the law to create the suggestion
Speaker 1: to imply that it might be possible. But but you know,
Speaker 1: trust me, if if they had evidence of a case
Speaker 1: against the president, Muller would have said so explicitly, and
Speaker 1: he would have moved to as he told Bar abandoned
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that you can't charge
Speaker 1: a sitting precedent. That's an advisory opinion. It is not binding.
Speaker 1: It is not mandatory, you know it is. This is
Speaker 1: our opinion, But according to Muller, he is free to
Speaker 1: abandon it in a case where there's solid evidence. Well,
Speaker 1: it seems to me that any investigation if this is
Speaker 1: the practice, and Andy, I mean, you've run some very
Speaker 1: high profile cases, the blind Shake among them in the
Speaker 1: First World Trade Center issues. If that's the case, then
Speaker 1: basically prosecutors can leave a cloud hanging over anybody any time,
Speaker 1: even though there is not evidence that rises to the
Speaker 1: level of an indictment. And that is a troublesome I
Speaker 1: think precedent for the country either you've got it or
Speaker 1: you don't. And we know that there's no hidden indictment,
Speaker 1: and we know that the Attorney General's decision did not
Speaker 1: even factor into any consideration Justice Department policy. But based
Speaker 1: on the facts is presented in the report, it did
Speaker 1: not rise to any level of any crime. Yeah. Well, Sean,
Speaker 1: That's why I think you really have to now get
Speaker 1: straightened out what the Justice Department's position is on obstruction,
Speaker 1: because I don't think Muller's position on the legal elements
Speaker 1: of obstruction is the same as the Attorney generals And
Speaker 1: I think that has to be straightened out. But as
Speaker 1: to your other point, you know, look, it's the rule
Speaker 1: of the road in the Justice Department that the government
Speaker 1: speaks in court. You speak when you are ready to
Speaker 1: formally charge someone, because it's at that point in our
Speaker 1: system that an accused is given all of the rights
Speaker 1: that are guaranteed under the Constitution to confront a government's charge.
Speaker 1: So at that point it's a fair fight. What prosecutors
Speaker 1: are not supposed to do is collect information for the
Speaker 1: sake of collecting it and then publicize it in a
Speaker 1: way that taints and convict someone in the court of
Speaker 1: a public opinion. That's that's simply not supposed to happen.
Speaker 1: And you know, I would point out that Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: who ran this investigation in the sense of supervising it
Speaker 1: for a very long time, fired Jim Comey as the
Speaker 1: FBI director for speaking about the evidence in the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton case because Missus Clinton hadn't been charged. That was
Speaker 1: the whole rationale for removing comy. So, you know, to
Speaker 1: take that position and then to see this happen here
Speaker 1: is really it's difficult to square. All right, quick break
Speaker 1: more with Andy McCarthy, Greg Jarrett and David Shone on
Speaker 1: the other side, and Bill O'Reilly at the top of
Speaker 1: the hours. All right, as we continue with David shown,
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, Andy McCarthy, let's go back to Barr's testimony
Speaker 1: and an exchange that he had with Lindsey Graham, because
Speaker 1: from this day forward, once the Attorney General Deputy Attorney General,
Speaker 1: once they made their decision after the Mueller report came in,
Speaker 1: it was made quickly that they were not moving forward
Speaker 1: with any prosecution in any way. Whether with all the
Speaker 1: noise that we'll hear from Congress in the media, mob
Speaker 1: Mueller is still a dead issue, but all of these
Speaker 1: other issues are very much alive, and we know the
Speaker 1: Inspector General awaits Hubert Awaits, We now have Durham investigating
Speaker 1: on his side, and we have the Attorney General promising
Speaker 1: full investigations into all of this. Do you share my
Speaker 1: concerns about the FISA warrant process. Yes? Do you share
Speaker 1: my concerns about the counter intelligence investigation, how it was
Speaker 1: opened and why it was opened? Yes? Do you share
Speaker 1: my concerns at the professional lack of professionalism in the
Speaker 1: Clinton email investigations, something we should all look at. Yes.
Speaker 1: Do you expect to change your mind about the bottom
Speaker 1: line conclusions of the Muller report. No. Do you know
Speaker 1: Bob Mueller? Yes? Do you trust him? Yes? How long
Speaker 1: have you known him? Thirty years roughly. Do you think
Speaker 1: he had time he needed yes? You think he had
Speaker 1: the money he needed? Yes? You think he had the
Speaker 1: resources he needed? Yes. Do you think he did a
Speaker 1: thorough job. Yes, and I think he feels he did
Speaker 1: a thorough job and had adequate evidence to make the calls.
Speaker 1: Do you think the president's campaign in twenty sixteen was
Speaker 1: thoroughly looked at in terms of whether or not they
Speaker 1: colluded with the Russians? Yes, and the answer is no
Speaker 1: according to Bob Muller, that's right. He couldn't decide about obstruction.
Speaker 1: You did, Is that correct? That's right? You feel good
Speaker 1: about your decision? Absolutely so andy to me. I hear
Speaker 1: that the Attorney general, I mean, they'd love to smear him,
Speaker 1: But the bottom line is he had the final say
Speaker 1: on this. It's still over. Well, it's over as far
Speaker 1: as a prosecution matter is concerned. You know the problem here, Sean,
Speaker 1: is that what Mueller essentially said today was and this
Speaker 1: is exactly the political signaling that I think my fellow
Speaker 1: panelists are pointing to what Muller said was if I
Speaker 1: could have said there was no obstruction, I would have.
Speaker 1: I didn't say that. I didn't say there was obstruction.
Speaker 1: But that's because there's Office of Legal Counsel guidance that
Speaker 1: prevented me from saying that. And by the way, in
Speaker 1: this system, it's for Congress, not federal prosecutors, to discipline
Speaker 1: a president who has been accused of committing misconduct. So
Speaker 1: it seems to me that what he has basically done
Speaker 1: for the Democrats is to signal to them, Hey, look, guys,
Speaker 1: you know I could have found felonies here, and the
Speaker 1: only thing that stopped me was the Office of Legal
Speaker 1: Counsel guidance. And you guys don't even need felonies. So
Speaker 1: here you go, and the constitution says it's on you
Speaker 1: to take or the president you don't have at it.
Speaker 1: And you know, it just seems to me that that
Speaker 1: is the that's the argument that got made today, which
Speaker 1: is why as far as people who are pushing for
Speaker 1: impeachment or concerned, I think they got you know, they
Speaker 1: got a turbo charge today. Yeah. Well, again, that's a
Speaker 1: political process, and that's very different Greg We have spoken
Speaker 1: at length with the declassification last week, and now the
Speaker 1: Attorney General having access to everything, I would assume the
Speaker 1: big five buckets we always talk about will become public.
Speaker 1: And when that happens, as I've been saying, well, the
Speaker 1: curtain is now rising in the second act of this
Speaker 1: entire saga, and it is going to be brutal in
Speaker 1: terms of what people are going to learn. That was
Speaker 1: done to in the twenty sixteen election, What was done
Speaker 1: to save a failed candidate that should have been indicted,
Speaker 1: What was done with real Russian this information paid for
Speaker 1: and leaked to the media to impact the twenty sixteen elections,
Speaker 1: and so on and so forth. I think the Russian
Speaker 1: hoax is about to unravel, and we will, I think,
Speaker 1: learn the details and it'll come to us not only
Speaker 1: through these declassifications that you refer to, but the Inspector
Speaker 1: General's report as well. I mean, I think there is
Speaker 1: a lot of evidence of corrupt acts, improper acts by
Speaker 1: officials at the FBI and to some extent, the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice that they were putting their thumb on the
Speaker 1: scales in a presidential election. So much discussion about Russian
Speaker 1: interference in the election. How about FBI and Department of
Speaker 1: Justice interference in the election by using opposition research paid
Speaker 1: for by Hillary Clinton and Russian disinformation in order to
Speaker 1: damage a presidential candidate, and thereafter, upon his election, to
Speaker 1: try to frame him for something he didn't do. And
Speaker 1: I think Americans will be surprised by this, and I
Speaker 1: think they'll probably be some criminal referrals and evidence will likely,
Speaker 1: I think, be presented to a grand jury if William
Speaker 1: barges in that direction. All right, I want to thank
Speaker 1: you all for the time today, Greg Jarrett, David Shone,
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy, three of the smartest attorneys I know, well
Speaker 1: of a lot more in Hannity tonight. Thank you all
Speaker 1: for joining us. We did, not, however, make a determination
Speaker 1: as to whether the president did commit a crime. The
Speaker 1: introduction to the Volume two of our report explains that decision.
Speaker 1: It explains that, under longstanding Department policy, as president cannot
Speaker 1: be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.
Speaker 1: That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under
Speaker 1: sealed and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited.
Speaker 1: The Special Council Office, as part of the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: and by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy
Speaker 1: charging the president with a crime was therefore not an
Speaker 1: option we could consider. Special Counsel Mola today repeated three
Speaker 1: central points which are critical for the American people. One,
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel did not exonerate the President of the
Speaker 1: United States of obstruction of justice. Two, obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: of which Special Counsel Mola found substantial evidence, is a
Speaker 1: serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system. Three,
Speaker 1: the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold
Speaker 1: the president accountable where his misconduct. Unfortunately, Special Counsel Moulla
Speaker 1: was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President because
Speaker 1: Department of Justice policy prevents a sitting president from being prosecuted.
Speaker 1: That policy, in my opinion, is wrong, but it prevented
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel from pursuing justice to the fullest extent possible. Therefore,
Speaker 1: as Mueller again highlighted this morning, it falls to Congress
Speaker 1: to respond to the crimes, lies, and other wrongdoing of
Speaker 1: President Trump. We will do so. Make no mistake. No one,
Speaker 1: not even the President of the United States, is above
Speaker 1: the law. Okay, so what's the evidence, Because we've all
Speaker 1: read the Mueller report. He says that is his testimony.
Speaker 1: We know that we know that the Attorney General that
Speaker 1: would be Barr, and we know the Deputy Attorney General
Speaker 1: that would be Rod Rosenstein, and the Office Illegal Counsel
Speaker 1: all said there's nothing here that rises to the level
Speaker 1: of obstruction, and Bill Barr could not be any more
Speaker 1: clear that it's over. You know, Barr's testimony before the
Speaker 1: statement was well. Mueller stated three times to us in
Speaker 1: a meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically
Speaker 1: was not saying that but for the Office of Legal
Speaker 1: Council opinion, he would have found obstruction. So not saying
Speaker 1: any of these things. But in the end that decision
Speaker 1: was given. Now that we you know, we have a
Speaker 1: new special Council law because people like Jerry Nadler didn't
Speaker 1: like the old law that was used under Clinton that
Speaker 1: had eleven specific felonies listed by Ken Starr And in fact,
Speaker 1: you can't infer it is now the decision of the
Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States, but it was made
Speaker 1: along with the Deputy Attorney General, with the input of
Speaker 1: the Office of Legal Counsel, and Barr said there were
Speaker 1: several people in that meeting that confirm all this, joining
Speaker 1: us now with all things. O'Reilly bill, O'Reilly dot com
Speaker 1: is with us? How are you, sir? Busy? Just like you?
Speaker 1: We're always busy? Yeah, I am alis so you. We're
Speaker 1: too busy irish guys, which is good because we weren't busy,
Speaker 1: we'd be getting into trouble, which we don't want to do.
Speaker 1: I have a few observations. I want to run by
Speaker 1: you and see if you agree. Okay, let's do one
Speaker 1: at a time, That's what I'll answer. Yeah, I'll do
Speaker 1: one at a time, like the lightning round. Okay, O'Riley
Speaker 1: lightning round. Upon his appearance today, in body language and inflection,
Speaker 1: tone of voice, I think Muller despises Donald Trump, Okay,
Speaker 1: but he likes apparently Attorney General Barr respects him, Bob,
Speaker 1: but don't know like would be the right word. Respects
Speaker 1: him all right. But he took no cheap shots and
Speaker 1: made no snide remarks, and in the end basically said
Speaker 1: he didn't have a problem with anything Bars said or done. Correct. Okay,
Speaker 1: So he loathes Trump, he likes Bar or respects Bar.
Speaker 1: So that's almost incompatible because Bar basically looked at his
Speaker 1: report and deep brief Muller, as you just pointed out
Speaker 1: in person, and came to the conclusion that after two years,
Speaker 1: Mueller had no evidence that would rise to an indictment. Ever,
Speaker 1: not during a president's term or after he leaves office. Correct, correct,
Speaker 1: so far, you're on your game, mister O'Riley, keep going.
Speaker 1: So then why are we going through this exercise? That's
Speaker 1: the next question the American people, those with open minds,
Speaker 1: Why why are we doing this? Why is a special
Speaker 1: counsel implying that maybe there was a crime, Because that's
Speaker 1: not what a prosecutor does or an investigator. Basically, they
Speaker 1: come to a conclusion. And if they don't have enough evidence,
Speaker 1: that in itself is a conclusion in our system of justice.
Speaker 1: If you don't have enough to charge, the person is
Speaker 1: completely not guilty. That is the most important statement that
Speaker 1: you have now made. And that is this the way
Speaker 1: American justice works if you don't have the evidence. And
Speaker 1: remember he said, and Barr said, when he and Rosenstein
Speaker 1: and the Office of the Legal Counsel made their decision,
Speaker 1: Justice Department policy about whether you can or cannot indict
Speaker 1: a sitting president was never factored into their decision. Doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: It doesn't because Muller is not barred from doing what
Speaker 1: ken Store did. That is saying in his report we
Speaker 1: found this, this, and this to be felonious. He can
Speaker 1: absolutely say that it'd state that, backing it up with
Speaker 1: whatever they found. Now, let's advance the story a little bit. Well,
Speaker 1: let me ask you one question and then we'll go back.
Speaker 1: We'll go back to your lightning round. Do you also believe,
Speaker 1: as I do, if they had the evidence that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump had committed any crime. Now, the fact that you're saying, well,
Speaker 1: I can't exonerate somebody does not make you guilty, nor
Speaker 1: does it rise to the level of an indictment, which
Speaker 1: was very important. But do you doubt the team that
Speaker 1: Muller put together only Democratic donors, somebody with one of
Speaker 1: the most atrocious track records in terms of unethical behavior.
Speaker 1: Andrew Weissman, Genie Ray, Clinton's former attorney at the Clinton Foundation,
Speaker 1: do you have any doubt they would have been clear
Speaker 1: that they thought the president committed a crime. No, but
Speaker 1: let's take politics out of it. Let's advance the story
Speaker 1: into the legal realm. If Robert Mueller had evidence Donald
Speaker 1: Trump committed a crime and didn't state that evidence in
Speaker 1: his report. Then Robert Muller himself is guilty of obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice. That's a good point. Robert Mueller could be
Speaker 1: prosecuted himself if he has it in there was a
Speaker 1: crime committed and did not state that evidence under his mandate,
Speaker 1: under the charge he was given, you could bring him
Speaker 1: in and charge him with a felony. That's how absurd
Speaker 1: this whole thing was today. It even gets worse. And
Speaker 1: I'll tell you one of the things. And it's interesting.
Speaker 1: Nadler seems to now be in protective mode of Mueller
Speaker 1: because they can compel him to testify. You know, they
Speaker 1: could hold him in contempt. Now, Mueller's that going to
Speaker 1: say anything you didn't say today? Well, but here's the bill,
Speaker 1: here's the problem. You also have guys like Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: and Mark Meadows. He would have to answer, when did
Speaker 1: you know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: and Russia? He would have to answer, well, hang on
Speaker 1: those whatever he wanted to site did a total waste
Speaker 1: of time. Okay, But the next question, I don't think
Speaker 1: he can go back to the report. How is it
Speaker 1: you had time for insignificant Farah violations and taxi medallions?
Speaker 1: Loan applications and taxes. And your main mandate was Russian interference.
Speaker 1: And you never looked at the dirty Russian dossier that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton pay for. He could just wipe that out
Speaker 1: of the park. It was that, and we were on
Speaker 1: this court. The mandate gave him clearance to go in
Speaker 1: any direction he needed to go. But he's got He's
Speaker 1: gonna say our guidelines were this, we did this. I mean,
Speaker 1: it would be stupefying not to say that neither. It
Speaker 1: won't call him, but Mueller covered himself on that. Realm
Speaker 1: Muller will stay within his eight minute statement. He will.
Speaker 1: And I don't even think that's important. You know what
Speaker 1: I think is important that is that the American people
Speaker 1: understand the bigger picture that's going on here. Number One,
Speaker 1: the president of the United States is being denied due
Speaker 1: priests unto the law. I mean, that's pretty outrageous itself,
Speaker 1: all right. Number Two, the obstruction that Nadler's talking about
Speaker 1: coming to If you read the report, there are just
Speaker 1: two things that Muller cited that could rise. The firing
Speaker 1: of James Comey and the order to the counselor McCann.
Speaker 1: The President's counselor to get rid of X, Y and
Speaker 1: Z or do something to sen which was never, of
Speaker 1: course carried out. Because you and I know Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and events. He vents as most people do, by the way,
Speaker 1: most innocent people, and in this case, the president saying
Speaker 1: loudly every day, I never did this, that's right, and
Speaker 1: you can imagine his frustration on certain days and he's
Speaker 1: we gotta get rid of this one, or we got
Speaker 1: to do this. That's not obstruction of justice. There must
Speaker 1: be an act now if you're going to pin a case,
Speaker 1: a felonious case, on the firing of James Coomy. Here's
Speaker 1: Mueller's big problem. Here's why he couldn't have that in
Speaker 1: his report, because it's more than likely that William Barr
Speaker 1: is going to release an Inspector General's report that says
Speaker 1: Coomy broke the law that's coming. Muller could not be
Speaker 1: on Komy's side and could not cite Coomy as part
Speaker 1: of an obstructive situation. Because Komy, I firmly believe, is
Speaker 1: going to be indicted himself, and you know you and
Speaker 1: I have talked about this. This is the time for
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to get that Inspector General's report out tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I don't know why. Let the Nadlers of the world
Speaker 1: right Donald Trump in the court of public opinion. So
Speaker 1: get it out. It's done, release it all right, quick,
Speaker 1: break up. We'll come back more with Bill O'Reilly on
Speaker 1: the other side, Bill O'Reilly dot com for all things
Speaker 1: O'Reilly world. All right, as we continue, Bill O'Reilly is
Speaker 1: with us, going over the news Robert Mueller's press conference
Speaker 1: from earlier today. You know, we both covered on Fox
Speaker 1: at the same time the whole Clinton impeachment saga. The
Speaker 1: day Bill Clinton did get impeached. Now, remember when you
Speaker 1: go back to the old Independent Council statute and versus.
Speaker 1: You know, people like Nadler didn't want the Star report out.
Speaker 1: There were eleven specific crimes laid out in that report
Speaker 1: by Ken Starr specific and the day that Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: was impeached, and he also had to pay nearly a
Speaker 1: million dollars to Paul Jones, and he lost his law license,
Speaker 1: he had suborned perjury. He had a seventy three percent
Speaker 1: approval rating. The next day, Bill, I say, let the
Speaker 1: Democrats do this politically and they will guarantee the reelection
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump. Well, nattle shaky. Say did you see him?
Speaker 1: Did he was he didn't know what to do? Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was really shaky. And Muller looked tense, real tense.
Speaker 1: Muller was not confident. There, no, all right, So they
Speaker 1: understand that if you're going to put the nation through
Speaker 1: two years of maybe could a, shoulda, would a, but
Speaker 1: we really don't have it. But it might have happened,
Speaker 1: you know. Number One, fair minded people are going to
Speaker 1: say this is unfair and what Muller I want to reiterate,
Speaker 1: what Muller did today was unfair, okay. And number two,
Speaker 1: the Independence which will decide the election twenty twenty, I
Speaker 1: think are going to shift over and say, you know,
Speaker 1: we may not like Donald Trump as a person, but
Speaker 1: the machine up against him is corrupt and we're not
Speaker 1: going to vote for a corrupt machine. And that's what
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi knows. That you put up Biden or anybody,
Speaker 1: any of these people, and if that machine is perceived
Speaker 1: to be a corrupt one, you're gonna lose. You know.
Speaker 1: It's very interesting, Bill, because there's something that's called overreach
Speaker 1: here and the Democratic Party. I really believe that it's
Speaker 1: like a Donald Trump lives in the brains of every
Speaker 1: Democrat on Capitol Hill, but also in the media mob
Speaker 1: separate and apart, but also important to me, And they
Speaker 1: cannot at this point even help themselves from the compulsion
Speaker 1: that that waits for them the moment their eyes open
Speaker 1: every day. Which is what am I going to hate
Speaker 1: this guy about today? That? I mean, it is that bad.
Speaker 1: It is. We've gotten to a point where this rage psychosis.
Speaker 1: It is they cannot believe they didn't get what they
Speaker 1: wanted from Muller, and they can't believe the guy became president.
Speaker 1: But they're still hopeful. See, the hardcore cadre on the
Speaker 1: progressive left is still hopeful that something will emerge to
Speaker 1: destroy Donald Trump. So they want to keep this thing going.
Speaker 1: And of course they don't want to make a mistake.
Speaker 1: I mean, they don't want to admit it. So the
Speaker 1: New York Times, how many articles did they convict Donald
Speaker 1: Trump of the most heinous things you could convict them of?
Speaker 1: How many times have they done it? New York Times
Speaker 1: is going to turn around and go, ah, you know, well,
Speaker 1: we might have been wrong on that. Never never, And
Speaker 1: you know what is really fascinating to watch entities like CNN,
Speaker 1: go down and down and down and still do it. Bill,
Speaker 1: putting a baseball team on the field and you do.
Speaker 1: You have nine guys, none of them can hit, and
Speaker 1: you keep them on the field every single day and
Speaker 1: you never win a right starting, you have a few
Speaker 1: more minutes that you got work to do, because I
Speaker 1: want to hold you through the break. No, I mean
Speaker 1: this is fun. I like doing this. Hang on, Bill
Speaker 1: O'Reilly's with us, Bill o'reiley dot com. He's got his
Speaker 1: trump coming out in the fall. If you go to
Speaker 1: his website you'll see it all right. Twenty five now
Speaker 1: till the top of the hour. Eight hundred and nine
Speaker 1: for one seawn is our number. If you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program, we'll get to a
Speaker 1: few calls in a minute. Just a couple and more minutes.
Speaker 1: Two more questions with Bill O'Reilly and his website, Bill
Speaker 1: oreilly dot com. You know, look, you have spent your
Speaker 1: entire career in media, and I've had enough you know,
Speaker 1: private conversations with you that I can literally say when
Speaker 1: it comes to television audiences, ratings. Um, Look, there's a
Speaker 1: reason you were number one in cable for all those years.
Speaker 1: By the way. You're welcome to take it back from
Speaker 1: me anytime you want, because you can have all the
Speaker 1: fire and incoming that I get every day since you left.
Speaker 1: Thanks a lot, appreciate it. Yeah, let me tell gives
Speaker 1: me as a human shield. Well, you know what you're doing,
Speaker 1: there's definite benefits and being number two, you know, because
Speaker 1: just go after the top guy, leave me alone. I understand.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm kind of glad I'm out of it now.
Speaker 1: Every day of my life I had to deal with it.
Speaker 1: But what you're saying is that I understand the audience.
Speaker 1: You understand television. Okay, So here's what my question. How
Speaker 1: do these so called news networks get away with what
Speaker 1: turns out to be outright lying for two years, nothing
Speaker 1: but a web of conspiracy theories that they peddled, mostly
Speaker 1: with anonymous sources, hype and hyper ventilation any moment they
Speaker 1: think they've got this president on the ropes because the
Speaker 1: management condones it and at one point thought it was
Speaker 1: going to make money off of it. So MSNBC was nothing,
Speaker 1: nothing for seventeen years. All right, So all of these
Speaker 1: networks that say that they are news and they peddle
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories lies for two plus years and then I'm
Speaker 1: gonna get to a second part of the question after
Speaker 1: but how do they ever recover or do they never recover?
Speaker 1: They don't recover. It's like Time magazine, Newsweek, Magazine, now
Speaker 1: Sports Illustrated just got sold. Once the consumer believes that
Speaker 1: he or she is not getting a fair presentation, then
Speaker 1: most will leave and not buy or watch or whatever
Speaker 1: it may be. The zealots will stay. So if you're
Speaker 1: a far left media concern, that far left will watch you.
Speaker 1: So Rachel Maddow is the best example of this. On
Speaker 1: a hot day where the left thinks they've got a
Speaker 1: new surround President Trump's neck, her ratings go up. But
Speaker 1: on an ordinary day when that doesn't exist, she doesn't
Speaker 1: do very well. So it's all her whole constituency is
Speaker 1: based on can we get rid of Donald Trump? That's
Speaker 1: not the recipe for success long term. And the reason
Speaker 1: at Fox News Channel, I can say whatever they want
Speaker 1: about Fox News Channel, but I was one for sixteen
Speaker 1: consecutive years is because I was perceived to be. By
Speaker 1: the way, I'm only number one for three years and
Speaker 1: I'm not. There's no I mean, but let me tell
Speaker 1: you something. I have no plans to stay that long
Speaker 1: to break your record. I'm just telling everybody now, yeah,
Speaker 1: well I hope you do. Yeah, I really do. I mean,
Speaker 1: but I'm gonna play golf. Go ahead. You base your
Speaker 1: analysis on facts, yes, and that is the difference, not
Speaker 1: a hatred, not emotion, not I wanted a socialist government.
Speaker 1: You basically see the world the way you see it.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows what that is. But then when you present thing,
Speaker 1: it's fact based. That's a key to success. Bill. Ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent of the news media in this country went
Speaker 1: in one direction. You know, there have been times in
Speaker 1: my career and your career as well, both of us,
Speaker 1: we come at something from an entirely different angle. When
Speaker 1: I vetted Obama the last two years, we've been up
Speaker 1: peeling this onion. And with the declassification last week, it's
Speaker 1: not a matter of if anymore America is going to
Speaker 1: see the FISA applications. America is gonna see the three
Speaker 1: O two's, the Gang of eight, the exculpatory evidence. It's
Speaker 1: all coming. But here's my big problem, and I want
Speaker 1: you to really dig into this now. If these people
Speaker 1: on the left, in the media, democrats, if they cared about,
Speaker 1: let's say, obstruction of justice. How did they all ignore
Speaker 1: Hillary's behavior an underlying crime the Espionage Act, and then
Speaker 1: when she deletes thirty three thousand subpoenat emails, bleached, bit
Speaker 1: hammers and simcards removed. If they care about Russian interference,
Speaker 1: how do you ignore the dirty dossier? Even the New
Speaker 1: York Times is suggesting that Christopher Steele will put this
Speaker 1: together paid by Hillary, that it was Russian disinformation, but
Speaker 1: then it's used in a FISA warrant application to spy
Speaker 1: on the opposition party candidate to influence an election, and
Speaker 1: also spreading it out to media members so it would
Speaker 1: impact the twenty sixteen election. How do you ignore? You know,
Speaker 1: how do you say I'm a believer when you talk
Speaker 1: about Justice Kavanaugh in high school? But there's no eye
Speaker 1: believers when it comes to the Lieutenant governor of the
Speaker 1: Commonwealth of Virginia, who is has credible allegations of rape
Speaker 1: and violent sexual assault. Not you don't hear a peep
Speaker 1: out of them. Where is some desire in here to
Speaker 1: get to the truth rather than just being a total
Speaker 1: hack for a Democratic party socialist agenda? Zealots do not
Speaker 1: seek the truth? If you are a political zealot, and
Speaker 1: you could be one on the right as well as
Speaker 1: the left. You are not interested in what really happens,
Speaker 1: or what's fair or what's good for the entire country.
Speaker 1: The only thing you are interested in is imposing your
Speaker 1: view of the world on everybody else. So that's the
Speaker 1: answer to your question. If you're not a rational person,
Speaker 1: you're not sitting down as examining evidence. No, you want socialism,
Speaker 1: So anyone who doesn't, you're going to try to destroy them.
Speaker 1: You don't care how because the end justifies the means,
Speaker 1: and that, unfortunately has taken root in about twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five percent of the American population. That's pretty scary, you know,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. In the reason, for example,
Speaker 1: what do I do for a living? If somebody asked me,
Speaker 1: I'll say, I'm a talk show host. Well, you're not
Speaker 1: a journalist. No, I'm a talk show host. You're a
Speaker 1: well maybe you're an opinion journalist. I said, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: part of being a talk show host. Bill. I can produce,
Speaker 1: as you can, hundreds of hours of straight reporting whatever
Speaker 1: it maybe a war, God forbid, or maybe a natural disaster,
Speaker 1: and there's no opinion We've done investigative work the last
Speaker 1: two years on the deep state or vetting Obama two examples.
Speaker 1: We give opinion, but we're honest about the opinions and
Speaker 1: why I am a conservative because conservatism works, i e.
Speaker 1: The economy under Trump after tax cuts and ending burdens
Speaker 1: and regulation. We also talk sports and culture and everything
Speaker 1: in between. In other words, I view what I do
Speaker 1: as the entire newspaper. They're supposed to be objective. They're not.
Speaker 1: Can you think of anybody on cable today that you
Speaker 1: would say, meaning a host in primetime that is objective.
Speaker 1: I think Bridge Hume is pretty fair well, but and
Speaker 1: I think a guy like that is who you want
Speaker 1: to put up. He's a thinker, leans a little bit conservative,
Speaker 1: but doesn't allow doesn't let that influences a reportage. But
Speaker 1: there are very few of them because they take order sannity.
Speaker 1: I mean, guys like me and you. We're lucky in
Speaker 1: the sense that we started this business and we didn't
Speaker 1: get interference. I mean I never got interference view Riley Facker.
Speaker 1: I don't think you got interference with sanity and calms
Speaker 1: when you started, No, none at all. Okay, so we
Speaker 1: didn't have corporate masters telling us what to do. Again.
Speaker 1: I'll go back. If you're in a reporter for the
Speaker 1: New York Times and you are seen on the street
Speaker 1: in your off hours wearing a mega hat, you're through
Speaker 1: that done. By the way, the mega hat is now
Speaker 1: the new trigger of the left in American's hilarious. I know,
Speaker 1: but there wasn't that culture when we started the Fox. Okay,
Speaker 1: But but you work for like I knew PE, you're Jennings.
Speaker 1: I worked for Jennings, right, and I worked for rather okay,
Speaker 1: and I knew in both organizations, CBS much more than
Speaker 1: ABC UM. But they and once in a while they
Speaker 1: crossed the line with me and they got pushedback. I didn't.
Speaker 1: I didn't brook it, but most of the reporters did,
Speaker 1: most of the reporters working over there, if they got
Speaker 1: told by management, this is how you skew the story.
Speaker 1: They did it, and now all of them do it
Speaker 1: on cable and that's what you're seeing. It's fascinating, though,
Speaker 1: because I got to know Jennings and Brokaw and Tim Russer.
Speaker 1: Tim Russer he moderated m a debate between me and
Speaker 1: James Carvill, but more importantly, I would interview him. I
Speaker 1: just happened to love his two books that he wrote,
Speaker 1: Big Us. He was a fair guy. But those But
Speaker 1: but Bill Peter Jennings came in my radio studio highlighting
Speaker 1: every page of the book that I had recently written.
Speaker 1: Tim Russ would seek my opinion as a conservative to
Speaker 1: understand it. Tom Brokaw, he was great until now he's
Speaker 1: in a mode where he has to protect the MSNBC
Speaker 1: for some reason. But I don't think he was a
Speaker 1: rigid radical ideologue. Although I think they all slant and left. Well,
Speaker 1: for Brokaw, it was a social thing, I have to say,
Speaker 1: because I know them all. Rather was a committed liberal, right, Okay,
Speaker 1: Sam Donaldson, same thing. Right. Brokaw is a social liberal.
Speaker 1: Love the parties, love the salons. Jenny's didn't like any
Speaker 1: of that. Jenny, you know, he went out and he
Speaker 1: schmoozed around. But he was real suspect of all of that,
Speaker 1: and so he was the least ideological of all of them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's just we're never going. I don't
Speaker 1: think there's a path back. No, there isn't, because corporate
Speaker 1: America controls it. Now. It's a big money maker. Now
Speaker 1: it's not a news uh calling. It's not like, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're here for the people. We want to give the
Speaker 1: people the truth. That's not what's happening. It's like, we
Speaker 1: want to make as much money as we can make,
Speaker 1: and along the way, I want to have friends that
Speaker 1: will invite me to all the parties in the Hampton's,
Speaker 1: Manhattan and Hollywood. So I'm going to be liberal. But
Speaker 1: what they but what they're gonna do Bill, just from
Speaker 1: a just like looking at it from a business model perspective,
Speaker 1: is they're gonna kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Speaker 1: It's already dead. It's already dead, and it's already dead.
Speaker 1: Well here's the thing though, I mean, in many ways,
Speaker 1: I think we'll look at the golden age of cable
Speaker 1: and even broadcast news. But I will tell you what
Speaker 1: they The biggest shock for all of them is the
Speaker 1: day that Donald Trump leaves office, which is going to
Speaker 1: be no, no, it's over. They nobody will watch him.
Speaker 1: If Joe Biden never gets elected president, cable ratings are
Speaker 1: going to call fall fifty. I won't be on the air,
Speaker 1: so it won't matter. I don't care. I mean, you're
Speaker 1: never gonna see him. Has anybody seen him since May seventeenth,
Speaker 1: he made as an asser for president. It's gone ten
Speaker 1: days in a row. He must have been tired from
Speaker 1: that one appearance in Philly. You know, look, he didn't
Speaker 1: have to campaign. I've said that from the jump. You're
Speaker 1: not going to see him in a diner. He's gonna
Speaker 1: do name recognition. And I'm Obama. You know, I'm the
Speaker 1: return of Obama. Vote for me. That's all he's gonna do.
Speaker 1: Not gonna work bill, not in this day and age,
Speaker 1: No way. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us
Speaker 1: to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation, and we
Speaker 1: conducted that investigation, and we kept the Office of the
Speaker 1: Acting Attorney General apprized of the progress of our work,
Speaker 1: and as a fourth in the report. After that investigation,
Speaker 1: if we had had confidence that the president clearly did
Speaker 1: not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did, not, however,
Speaker 1: make a determination as to whether the President did commit
Speaker 1: a crime. The introduction to the Volume two of our
Speaker 1: report explains that decision. It explains that, under longstanding Department policy,
Speaker 1: as president cannot be charged with a federal crime while
Speaker 1: he is in office that is unconstitutional. Even if the
Speaker 1: charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view,
Speaker 1: that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel's Office is part
Speaker 1: of the Department of Justice, and by regulation it was
Speaker 1: bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a
Speaker 1: crime was therefore not an option we could consider. All right,
Speaker 1: So we're gonna have so much more on this debacle
Speaker 1: today and the news and information that you really need
Speaker 1: to know about, and all the noise is not and
Speaker 1: will not be what you think it is, and where
Speaker 1: this is all really heady. That's tonight at nine on
Speaker 1: Hannity on the Fox News Channel. I hope you join us.
Speaker 1: We've got a great lineup tonight as well as usual,
Speaker 1: and we will be joined tonight, yes, the great one,
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, Jay Sekulo, the President's Attorney, Alan Dershowitz, Gregan
Speaker 1: Sarah and John Solomon, Jim Jordan, and Mike Huckabee. That's
Speaker 1: all ninety Eastern tonight, Hannity, Fox. See you then, thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us. Back here tomorrow