Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity radio show podcast, Right Glad you with us?
Speaker 1: And right, has anybody heard anything about me in the
Speaker 1: last twenty four hours? Names you know, at some point
Speaker 1: when you really think about the obsessive coverage of all
Speaker 1: things Hannity lately, I mean, and a lot of it
Speaker 1: just a typical fake news, you know. I love the
Speaker 1: fact I really would like equal treatment under the journalist ethics,
Speaker 1: And uh, maybe we ought to start looking into Anderson
Speaker 1: Cooper's uh different financial holdings or everybody else on on
Speaker 1: TV considering, Uh, everybody's so interested in what they think
Speaker 1: they know or don't know about mine. He stood up
Speaker 1: and he said the name Sean Hannity. How did he
Speaker 1: say it? Was it like Hannity Han, Sean Hannity, Shaan Hannity,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, John Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity, John Hannity, Hannity, Is, Hannity Kennedy,
Speaker 1: Johnny John Hannity's hand Hannity, Hannity shown Hannity, Sean Hannity,
Speaker 1: Shaun Hannity, John Hannity, Hay Hannity, Hannity shown, Hannity, John Hannity,
Speaker 1: Hayjohn Hannity, Shohn Hannity, Hannity, Hannity, Hannity, Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity,
Speaker 1: Hanny Shot Hannity, Sean Hannity, Shawn Hannity shown, Hannity, Shaun
Speaker 1: Hannity shown, Hay, Shaun Handy, John Hanny, Hay, Sean Hannity,
Speaker 1: Shawn Hannity, Han Hannity. Hi, this is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Oh man, here is a true statement one Shawn. The
Speaker 1: media is wait, wait, I'm sorry, what was your name again?
Speaker 1: My name is Sean Hannon. What's the name of the show,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity Show. Is that a capital H? All right?
Speaker 1: Will you stop, uh think about this? When we were
Speaker 1: out there, like we usually really are hanging up at
Speaker 1: the top of a tree, out on a skinny branch,
Speaker 1: hanging onto a twig and a leaf on the twig,
Speaker 1: um vetting Barack Obama, they're there. They so hate anybody
Speaker 1: that supports the president or the fact that we have
Speaker 1: done such a big deep dive into the deep state
Speaker 1: and we have exposed what we now know to be
Speaker 1: the biggest abuse of power and corruption scandal in history.
Speaker 1: Um now, they just think they're vetting, And Linda, tell
Speaker 1: me if you disagree, they're vetting me more than they
Speaker 1: did Obama for president. I mean, I can remember you
Speaker 1: talking to George Stefanopolis when he was getting ready to
Speaker 1: interview him and saying to him, Hey, George, do you
Speaker 1: know about this? Hey George, do you know about that?
Speaker 1: And he knew nothing that he had never heard of
Speaker 1: Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dorn. There are two questions that
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is going to be on your
Speaker 1: list tomorrow. One is his the only time he's ever
Speaker 1: been asked about his association with Bill Airs, the unrepentant
Speaker 1: terrorists uh from the Weather Underground, who on nine eleven
Speaker 1: of all days in the New York Times was saying,
Speaker 1: I don't regret setting bombs. I don't think we did enough.
Speaker 1: When asked about it by the Political David Axelrod said
Speaker 1: they have a friendly relationship and that they had done
Speaker 1: a number of speeches together and that they sat on
Speaker 1: a board together. Is that a question you might ask, well,
Speaker 1: I'm right now. September eleven, two thousand, one of all days,
Speaker 1: there was an article in the New York Times and
Speaker 1: there are a number of quotes about Bill Ayres and
Speaker 1: the Politico had in there the comments about from David Axelrod.
Speaker 1: I think that's an interesting question that nobody in the
Speaker 1: media has really brought up. We've we've highlighted a little
Speaker 1: bit more here on this program. But let me see
Speaker 1: if I can help you. You want any more questions?
Speaker 1: Keep going. The Chicago Reader talked about and commented has
Speaker 1: comments of Barack Obama why he attended the million man
Speaker 1: March that most people don't know that. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's pretty Didn't he write about that in his book.
Speaker 1: I don't remember that but picular, but I know that
Speaker 1: he was quoted extensively in The Chicago Reader December eighth.
Speaker 1: I forget the year, going back a couple of years,
Speaker 1: by the way, but he had never heard about it
Speaker 1: until I told him. You see, it's a very simple
Speaker 1: answer to all questions. If people would just call you,
Speaker 1: they would get the information they need. Well, you see,
Speaker 1: all right, really everybody having a good time. Ever, No,
Speaker 1: I'm sick of my own name. Do listen. If they
Speaker 1: want to have some fun with it, so can we.
Speaker 1: But the fun is the funny part is as I
Speaker 1: think they're vetting me more than they did Avanna Obama.
Speaker 1: And I also think I'm getting a little sick and
Speaker 1: tired of I've been looking at the TV all day
Speaker 1: and there I am on every channel all day long.
Speaker 1: I could have sworn you were prime time, but today
Speaker 1: you're all time. I don't know what's going on. Well,
Speaker 1: it's been the same for the last four weeks. I
Speaker 1: mean when they ran out of the courtroom, Alway's Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen's third quite Oh well, we explained that tell no cases,
Speaker 1: no billing, no retainer. I think three questions on real estate,
Speaker 1: but I said, let's I want this attorney client gave
Speaker 1: him ten or twenty bucks. That was it, And I
Speaker 1: think they're disappointed and so anyway, so now that but
Speaker 1: I I I think I want to get paid. I
Speaker 1: think CNN owes me a paycheck. I think NBC owes
Speaker 1: me a paycheck. ABC Conspiracy TV owes me a pa.
Speaker 1: I think they want to start paying me because they've
Speaker 1: run the by show every day and talk about me
Speaker 1: every day at this point, I'm figuring we ought to
Speaker 1: get paid back anyway, Enough about me, Um, all right,
Speaker 1: we now my sources. What do you mean you have sources?
Speaker 1: The funny part on that is, you know people are
Speaker 1: writing bizarre conspiracies about Sean Hannity. Oh, he is the
Speaker 1: shadow chief of staff and he talks to the president
Speaker 1: in the morning, and he talks to the president at night,
Speaker 1: and he talks to him all the time. And he's
Speaker 1: like this, and it's he should have a desk in
Speaker 1: the White House. And then when I contradict something that
Speaker 1: I knew wasn't true in the New York Times and
Speaker 1: their anonymous source, what does he know what he's talking about?
Speaker 1: He has no no clue what he's talking about. But
Speaker 1: I do have sources now. Mayor Julianni today in another
Speaker 1: sign that Kim Jong gun is sincere and his pledge
Speaker 1: to give up nuclear weapons if it wasn't enough for
Speaker 1: people in the media because they'd rather talk about stormy
Speaker 1: Um that he walked across the d MZ into the
Speaker 1: arms of the South Korean president and history was made. Um.
Speaker 1: Mayor Julianni mentioned that we've got Kim Jong gun impressed
Speaker 1: enough to be releasing three prisoners today. Um, and while
Speaker 1: it hasn't been confirmed, we are pretty clear. Um, my
Speaker 1: sources are telling me that's absolutely true, that that is
Speaker 1: in fact. Now. The interesting thing about that is, how's
Speaker 1: the media gonna react to that? Uh, this is how
Speaker 1: it will be on TV. Oh, three hostages were released,
Speaker 1: but Stormy Daniels, but Russia, Russia, Russia's how corrupt the
Speaker 1: media is here and as of late Wednesday, US officially
Speaker 1: done the confirmation. Apparently you know we're hearing. Sarah Sanders
Speaker 1: wouldn't confirm it. Um, but the bottom line is it
Speaker 1: sounds like really good news is coming. Thank God for
Speaker 1: these hostages and let them get home safely to their
Speaker 1: families as quickly as possible before I get into my
Speaker 1: interview with Mayor Julianni last night. Um, something else you're
Speaker 1: not gonna hear. And I kind of feel it's my
Speaker 1: obligation to put out information because the media won't do
Speaker 1: their job. The fake news gang out there wants you
Speaker 1: to think that the fate of the world hangs on
Speaker 1: a hundred and thirty thousand dollars that was paid to
Speaker 1: a point star that claims to have had sex twelve
Speaker 1: years ago, um and who paid who and who knew what,
Speaker 1: when and where? But new applications for US jobless benefits
Speaker 1: now increased less than expected that last week, and the
Speaker 1: umber of Americans now receiving unemployment aid fell to its
Speaker 1: lowest level is since nineteen seventy three, which points to
Speaker 1: a tightening labor market, which is good for people that
Speaker 1: are in the workforce because that means that you have
Speaker 1: employee ers that are going to be fighting for employees.
Speaker 1: Initial claims rose two thousand AD just seasonally adjusted, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But you know this is all good news. Fourteen states
Speaker 1: now have record low unemployment numbers, record low unemployment numbers
Speaker 1: for women in the workforce, record record lows for Hispanics
Speaker 1: in the workforce, and African Americans and the workforce. It's
Speaker 1: all phenomenal. Um. Now, I want to start with where
Speaker 1: I probably shouldn't, but I will, because you know, I
Speaker 1: looked at everything I look. I was there for this
Speaker 1: interview with Rudy Giulietti last I know he's done some
Speaker 1: other interviews since and and I didn't catch it right
Speaker 1: away because the quiet and I was asking was different
Speaker 1: than the one that he originally answered. And then later
Speaker 1: in the interview. I went back to it because I
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure that I had gotten it right,
Speaker 1: because I'm thorough and I want to do a good job. Um,
Speaker 1: And that was his comments. You know, the media is
Speaker 1: ignoring that he said Robert Mueller's questions are intended to
Speaker 1: be a perjury trap for the president. They're not talking
Speaker 1: about that. They're not talking about why Trump fired Comey
Speaker 1: in the long discussion we had about that. They're not
Speaker 1: talking about Mayor Julianni saying Comey is a disgraceful liar
Speaker 1: and the Mueller probe is tainted. They're not talking about
Speaker 1: when he looked in the camera. Sorry, Hillary, you're a criminal,
Speaker 1: and Comy fixed the whole case, and and Comey's perverted.
Speaker 1: You know, they're not talking about. Uh, my biggest regret
Speaker 1: is I should have taken the attorney general job. Uh,
Speaker 1: the country would turn on Mueller and if if, in fact,
Speaker 1: he went after the First family, and that he didn't understand.
Speaker 1: Now that you know, none of these revelations are really
Speaker 1: They basically have recycled out of a forty minute interview
Speaker 1: one thought because the others would be too damning to
Speaker 1: the deep state, and it all is part of their obsession.
Speaker 1: They didn't they never played the tapers, and there's no
Speaker 1: Russian collusion. That's over. It's absolutely done and finished. Now,
Speaker 1: with all the news that came out of this interview,
Speaker 1: what is the media, folking focusing on here? You know,
Speaker 1: not any revelations about the negotiations with Mueller, which are
Speaker 1: very important and what constitutionally Mueller has a right to do.
Speaker 1: Or when I asked him about the abusively biased team
Speaker 1: of Mueller, he's they're not talking about Julianni's blistering assessment
Speaker 1: of James Comey, not Julianne's stunning conclusion that the only
Speaker 1: crimes that have been committed so far well have been
Speaker 1: committed not by President Trump, by the deep state, by
Speaker 1: the government, and he said it numerous times, meaning the
Speaker 1: Obama Justice Department, you know, people way up high in
Speaker 1: the Obama FBI and the Obama White House. All they
Speaker 1: have fixated on and focused on and zeroed in on
Speaker 1: his Stormy Daniels and the mayor's revelation. The President Trump
Speaker 1: reimbursed reimbursed his lawyer, Michael Cohen for a hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty thousand dollars that Michael Kohn said he didn't ask
Speaker 1: permission for and used his own money, And this morning
Speaker 1: the fake news brigade was having a collective meltdown that
Speaker 1: Julianni's statement means Trump lied when he said he didn't
Speaker 1: know about the Stormy Daniel's payment when he was asked
Speaker 1: about it an Air Force one and when Trump issued
Speaker 1: the one word denial, no, Well, I took it to
Speaker 1: me that he didn't know in advanced that a payment
Speaker 1: was being made, which is true because Michael Cohn has
Speaker 1: said that and stuck with that story, and that he
Speaker 1: did it on his own and that he viewed it,
Speaker 1: I assume as part of his job. And it's not
Speaker 1: surprising if you work for a billionaire at a billionaire's
Speaker 1: company that that you're gonna handle things like that. But
Speaker 1: as a matter of everyday business, it sounds horrible. But
Speaker 1: that's in other words, true or not. I'm not even
Speaker 1: talking about veracity here. I'm talking about problem issues that
Speaker 1: come up that need to be dealt with. And in
Speaker 1: that sense, it's Michael Cohen, in his position as a
Speaker 1: a General Council vice president at the Trump Organization, to
Speaker 1: jump on a grenade if he sees a problem for
Speaker 1: the company and his boss, which it sounds like he did.
Speaker 1: And um. But by the time the press asked Trump
Speaker 1: whether he knew about the payment in April, of course
Speaker 1: Trump knew about that. By that time. Everybody knew it
Speaker 1: had been in the newspapers for weeks. His no answer
Speaker 1: obviously referred to some point prior to Wall Street Journal's
Speaker 1: first report on the Comb payment in January of when
Speaker 1: he said no, it was in April of and time matters.
Speaker 1: I'll explain more on the other side of the spreak here,
Speaker 1: and then we're gonna go over what I think we're
Speaker 1: the more relevant points of the interview that were missed.
Speaker 1: And I thought the mayor laid out a devastating case
Speaker 1: against many individuals right as we roll along Sean Hannity Show,
Speaker 1: so much that you know, the fake news brigade out
Speaker 1: there having a mount. Julianni's statement me, is it Trump
Speaker 1: lied when he was on Air Force one and he
Speaker 1: said no when he was asked about you know, did
Speaker 1: he know about Stormy Daniel's payment. Well, when Trump issued
Speaker 1: that one word initial denial, it was on April five.
Speaker 1: Now it was obvious what he was saying is that
Speaker 1: he took it to me. I didn't know in advance
Speaker 1: that the payment was made. There's no Hillary gets all
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, well, she deleted the
Speaker 1: subpoena emails, national washed the hard drive, and you know,
Speaker 1: foreign agency's picked up on our emails. And yeah, she
Speaker 1: put it in a mom and pop shop closet where
Speaker 1: it became vulnerable and even classified top secret Special Access
Speaker 1: Program information. She gets a pass on everything. Donald Trump said,
Speaker 1: did you know about the payment? No? In other words,
Speaker 1: he didn't know about it in advance. That's consistent with
Speaker 1: everything Michael Cone has said. In other words, the Michael
Speaker 1: Khne took it upon himself, which would be part of
Speaker 1: his job. I assume working in the Trump organization and
Speaker 1: jump on grenades, and that's what he did. It's problem
Speaker 1: arises his job. They call him the fixer. Oh, he's
Speaker 1: a he's handed, he's fixed. No, he's not Hannity's fixer.
Speaker 1: You know, he's never done any case for me, never
Speaker 1: involved with any third party with me. So anyway, Um,
Speaker 1: but by the time the press asked the President if
Speaker 1: he knew about the payment, of course he knew. He
Speaker 1: knew because it was talked about night and day twenty
Speaker 1: four seven, it was everywhere. So it is no answer
Speaker 1: referred to. You know, at some point prior to the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal's first report on comb Uh, he didn't know.
Speaker 1: It's a simple answer, but it's deep and it's profound,
Speaker 1: and it shows how corrupt the news media in this
Speaker 1: country is. On February, Michael Cohen said, neither the Trump
Speaker 1: organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the
Speaker 1: transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment,
Speaker 1: either directly or indirectly. What Cone didn't deny in the
Speaker 1: statement was the possibility that the president had reimbursed him
Speaker 1: out of his own personal funds, as Mayor Juliani said,
Speaker 1: which would be perfectly legal. Alright, thank you, Scott Channon.
Speaker 1: Glad you with us right down our toll free number.
Speaker 1: It's eight nine one, Shawn, if you want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program. I don't want to belabor this.
Speaker 1: April fifth, the question of Trump was did you know
Speaker 1: about out the hundred and thirty thou dollar payment? Did
Speaker 1: you know? Past tense? The question was not when did
Speaker 1: you know it? Was did you know that Michael Cone
Speaker 1: had paid it? And he said no, and that's consistent
Speaker 1: with what Michael Cone said. That is a percent consistent.
Speaker 1: And these idiots in the news media are just dumb.
Speaker 1: They're dumb and their sheep, and they're overpaid, and they're lazy.
Speaker 1: You know, they're lazy because they have to run my
Speaker 1: tapes all day long because they can't do their own work.
Speaker 1: And part of the reason is because they're obsessed with
Speaker 1: anything that's about destroying and delegitimizing the president, not about
Speaker 1: doing real honest reporting about deep state corruption. They'll leave
Speaker 1: that to me. They'll leave the vetting of Obama to me.
Speaker 1: They'll laugh at oh hand, any things Trump cann't win
Speaker 1: and they think it's funny he's the chief of staff.
Speaker 1: Then the next day he doesn't know a thing. These
Speaker 1: people are pathetic. So if Trump found out about the
Speaker 1: payment after the journal, after the Wall Street Journal broke
Speaker 1: the story on January, and the question was did you
Speaker 1: know about the payment, and he says no, he's telling
Speaker 1: the truth. That is consistent with what Michael Cohen said.
Speaker 1: So everybody, all this analysis is just backwards, asked backwards
Speaker 1: and wrong as usual. In fact, Trump still didn't lie.
Speaker 1: If he found out about the payment at any point
Speaker 1: after Cone made it, which was I guess what at
Speaker 1: some point in October, Because the question was clearly intended
Speaker 1: to find out if Trump had four knowledge of that payment,
Speaker 1: whether he ordered Cone to make that payment. Cohn says no,
Speaker 1: The President says no. And if he didn't know about
Speaker 1: the payment before Cohne met it made it, then the
Speaker 1: President didn't lie. Unbelievable alright. Eight one. Now we have
Speaker 1: a report out today and it looks like the illegal
Speaker 1: surveillance of President Trump's associates might have continued up to
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago. NBC News is reporting that Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller wire tapped phone calls between Trump and his personal attorney,
Speaker 1: Michael Cone. Look, I I don't know what kind of
Speaker 1: justification did they have for this. Maybe they used the
Speaker 1: bulk of the information in the docier, just like they
Speaker 1: did to obtain the fiz awarrants. Who knows what they used.
Speaker 1: You know, they've offered nothing whatsoever that would justify this
Speaker 1: kind of egregious violation of attorney client privilege. Let it
Speaker 1: loan every American's basic right to privacy. You know, that's
Speaker 1: the whole issue with with illegal surveillance. And I'm masking
Speaker 1: and no minimization. And you know, then leaking raw intellig
Speaker 1: and Samantha Power is unmasking at a rate of one
Speaker 1: a day. You know, we still have to get back
Speaker 1: into that scandal. You know, I don't care if a
Speaker 1: Democratic judge signed off on on this. There has to
Speaker 1: be a justification just cause otherwise it's unconstitutional. Otherwise we're
Speaker 1: back to the same tactics that appeared to be used
Speaker 1: in the case of lying to the FISA court judges
Speaker 1: in their application and subsequent renewal applications. Just by on
Speaker 1: Carter page, a Trump campaign associates the bulk of information
Speaker 1: was provided by a docier that Hillary Clinton paid for
Speaker 1: that was unverified and uncorroborated. Well, I'm telling you that
Speaker 1: we are living in really dangerous times here. You know,
Speaker 1: this gets really serious. If you believe in the rule
Speaker 1: of law, equal justice under the law, if you believe
Speaker 1: in equal applications of the law, if you believe in
Speaker 1: the constitution of your against unreasonable search and seizure. Anyway,
Speaker 1: federal investigators of wire tapped the phone lines of Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: longtime personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, under investigation for
Speaker 1: a payment he made etcetera, etcetera. It all goes back
Speaker 1: to their obsession over the porn star. You know, it's
Speaker 1: unclear whether what incriminating information, but they also are saying
Speaker 1: that one of the calls was to the White House. Wow.
Speaker 1: Now he represented Trump and the Trump organization and its
Speaker 1: business dealings I think for about two decades before Trump
Speaker 1: was president. You know, Robert Muller is interested in information
Speaker 1: that federal investigators in New York would pick up. You know,
Speaker 1: if if that was the case, you know, was the
Speaker 1: was the government made aware of it? Two sources according
Speaker 1: to the U. S. Attorney's Office and FBI, they declined comment.
Speaker 1: Two sources close to Rudy Juliani say he learned that
Speaker 1: day's after the raid, the President had made a call
Speaker 1: to Michael own. I know why he made a call
Speaker 1: to Michael Cohnan's obvious because he's worked with him for
Speaker 1: all these years, and he feels bad for somebody he
Speaker 1: considered a friend and probably likely Um As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, I know every one of his lawyers said
Speaker 1: don't do it, but he did it anyway because he
Speaker 1: wanted to support his friend and he wasn't gonna abandon
Speaker 1: him in a time of need, which is what I
Speaker 1: think good people should do. Anyway, the former U S
Speaker 1: Attorney Chuck Rosenberg and NBC analysts said that there's a
Speaker 1: high bar for having a wire tap approved. This is
Speaker 1: an acting This is an exacting process where the government
Speaker 1: must demonstrate to a federal judge that there is an
Speaker 1: ongoing crime. That's a high bar. Except the FISA Court,
Speaker 1: they have a high bar to the highest bar. They
Speaker 1: approved the surveillance warrant on a Trump associate and the
Speaker 1: lead up to a campaign which extended to the entire
Speaker 1: Trump transition team later on the basis and then the
Speaker 1: residency later on the basis of the political hallucination that
Speaker 1: was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and company.
Speaker 1: So if it's a high bar, I can't wait to
Speaker 1: get to details of what actually happened here, which we
Speaker 1: will eventually will get to. May take us a year.
Speaker 1: Took us a long time to find out Hillary paid
Speaker 1: for that phony dossier and what happened with that DOSSI
Speaker 1: March eighth of seventeen, Sarah Carter and John Solomon on
Speaker 1: This program broke the story that there had been a
Speaker 1: fiser warrant issued with Trump Tower in relation to the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, nobody paid attention to it. And then slowly
Speaker 1: but surely, look at all we learned in a year
Speaker 1: and how all of this has now come out. We
Speaker 1: have some other interesting stuff in all of this. Judicial
Speaker 1: Watch is now suing the d o J. For fiser
Speaker 1: hearing transcripts that are tied to the Clinton d n
Speaker 1: C dossier. By the way, I think the American people
Speaker 1: need to see these applications and these renewal applications, and
Speaker 1: there were original application they need to see who signed them,
Speaker 1: like Rob Rosenstein signed off on one, which would render him,
Speaker 1: you know, somebody that is conflicted out of all of this.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a this motion that is now pending
Speaker 1: before the FISA Court by some journalists. You know, there
Speaker 1: is a specific rule of procedure in the FISA Court
Speaker 1: law that requires the government to correct any material misstatement
Speaker 1: of omission from an application immediately. Well, we now know
Speaker 1: that through the Grassly Grand Memo, the bulk of information
Speaker 1: presented to the FISA Court was the Clinton bought and
Speaker 1: paid for foreign national Christopher Steele Russian propaganda and lie document.
Speaker 1: All has the correction been made on the record. I'd
Speaker 1: love to interview the the judges that were lied to
Speaker 1: and manipulated. Here, Oh, a little asterisk may have a
Speaker 1: slight political tape. Yeah, Hillary paid for the whole thing,
Speaker 1: opposition party research. You know, there's a lot of questions
Speaker 1: that that I'm telling you all of these guys are
Speaker 1: eventually going to have to answer. You know, look at
Speaker 1: the story that has been out there about you know,
Speaker 1: all these rich Democrats, you know, continuing to pay Christopher
Speaker 1: steel On hiring Fusion GPS, still looking to corroborate the cookers,
Speaker 1: uring on urinating on the bed story. At this point,
Speaker 1: you might as well assume it never happened. Like a
Speaker 1: lot of the information and there's outright lies and propaganda.
Speaker 1: By the way, Hillary was paying for and Fusion GPS
Speaker 1: is feeding to the media. That's called manipulating the American people.
Speaker 1: And the lead up to an election. Not exactly surprising
Speaker 1: because that Republicans, conservatives are always maligned before elections, you know,
Speaker 1: Julianne he's saying last night, the Mueller probe is total,
Speaker 1: totally garbage. The investigation, you know, calls James Comey a
Speaker 1: disgraceful liar and he's a perverted man. When he said
Speaker 1: about Hillary Oh, she respects the rule of law, Julianni
Speaker 1: saying Mueller's questions reveal a desperate attempt to trap President
Speaker 1: Trump into perjury. The Special Council would like to interview
Speaker 1: the president. There's no secret about that. Every lawyer in
Speaker 1: America thinks he shouldn't be. We meeting myself and j.
Speaker 1: S Ecalo and the Raskins and all the people involved
Speaker 1: in the investigation, and now our new colleague, uh Emmett Uh,
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to decide. Probably fallsmore on us because
Speaker 1: he's on the government side, whether the president should granted interview.
Speaker 1: Here's what it's all about. It's real simple. American people
Speaker 1: can follow this along with me. Are they objective? Are
Speaker 1: they well? Right now? A lot of things point in
Speaker 1: the in the direction of they made up their mind.
Speaker 1: The Comey's own the truth and not the president. When
Speaker 1: you look at those questions about what does the president think,
Speaker 1: what does the president feel, what does the president really desire?
Speaker 1: Those are all questions intended to trap him in some
Speaker 1: way in contradictoring what is in fact a very very
Speaker 1: uh solid explanation of what happened. And then with the
Speaker 1: Washington Post News, this week that in fact, Robert Mueller
Speaker 1: has talked about a subpoena of the president, you know,
Speaker 1: as Dershowitz and others point, that doesn't leave the president
Speaker 1: without any options. You know, he could bring a challenge
Speaker 1: to court on any subpoena that Mulla brings and can
Speaker 1: go to a federal district court, the Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: the U. S. Supreme Court that you can subpoena president
Speaker 1: in a criminal case in front of a grand jury,
Speaker 1: and he probably lose the broad issue. But then he
Speaker 1: can argue, you can't ask a president why he engaged
Speaker 1: in acts that are authorized under Article two of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: That is an easy argument to win, in my opinion.
Speaker 1: And then they can argue they get they can't ask
Speaker 1: him questions that go beyond the scope of the special
Speaker 1: counsel's authority, namely, you know, to any business dealings of
Speaker 1: the president or what he thinks of people, as if
Speaker 1: thinking is somehow, in some way a crime, you know.
Speaker 1: And then they could challenge Rod Rosenstein's position to a
Speaker 1: point in the first place, considering he signed off on
Speaker 1: one of the FISA warrants and he himself would be
Speaker 1: a you know, witness a in the case, and there's
Speaker 1: so much to get to all of this that is
Speaker 1: just unbelievable. Now. The President um responded to the the
Speaker 1: Cone part of this on Twitter today. As a Mr Cohne,
Speaker 1: an attorney received a monthly retainer not from the campaign,
Speaker 1: having nothing to do with the campaign from which he
Speaker 1: entered into through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties,
Speaker 1: known as a non disclosure agreement or n d A.
Speaker 1: These agreements are very com and amongst celebrities and people
Speaker 1: of wealth. In this case it is full force and
Speaker 1: effect will be used in arbitration for damages against Ms
Speaker 1: Clifford Daniels. The agreement was used to stop the false
Speaker 1: and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair, despite
Speaker 1: already having signed a detailed letter admitting there was no
Speaker 1: affair prior to its violation by Miss Clifford and her attorney.
Speaker 1: This was a private agreement. Money from the campaign or
Speaker 1: campaign contributions played no role in this transaction. Oh, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think you know? The timeline fits perfectly into
Speaker 1: Donald Trump not knowing and in his answers, Um, you know,
Speaker 1: he actually quoted John Dowd, who was one of visitors
Speaker 1: to This isn't some game. You know, you're screwing with
Speaker 1: the work of the president of the United States of America,
Speaker 1: and with North Korea and China and the Middle East
Speaker 1: and so much more. There's not much time to be
Speaker 1: thinking about this, especially when there was no Russia collusion
Speaker 1: and the President's right, you know, a rigged system, you know,
Speaker 1: look at look at how their stonewalling Devin Newnesses Committee
Speaker 1: and Trey Gowdy's committee and Bob Goodlad's committee. They don't
Speaker 1: want to turn over documents. The President tweeted out to Congress,
Speaker 1: what are they are afraid of? And we know what
Speaker 1: they're afraid of. We know they're gonna get exposed. You know,
Speaker 1: why so much redacting? Why why such unequal justice? At
Speaker 1: some point I will have no choice but to use
Speaker 1: the powers granted to the presidency and get involved. I
Speaker 1: can see that day coming, I really can. You know,
Speaker 1: the questions are an intrusion into the president's Article two
Speaker 1: powers under the Constitution that he has the right to
Speaker 1: fire any executive branch employee. What the president was was
Speaker 1: what what the president thinking is outrageous while he was
Speaker 1: thinking this, but he didn't do it. He's thinking that,
Speaker 1: but he didn't do it. It's we're gonna hold people
Speaker 1: responsible for thought crimes. Now, this is all insanity, and
Speaker 1: this is a mass media left wing Democratic Party psychosis
Speaker 1: that has taken over and it started at the moment
Speaker 1: it became apparent that Donald Trump was winning the presidency
Speaker 1: and their beloved Hillary lost. Now it's the insurance policy
Speaker 1: time of struck Page and McCabe. This is all the
Speaker 1: insurance policy. Al Right, So what happens if, in fact
Speaker 1: Robert Muller's subpoenas the president before a grand jury? What?
Speaker 1: We have three great lawyers gonna join us for the
Speaker 1: full We're gonna go over everything the interview last night
Speaker 1: with Rudy. Uh, David Shona is coming in, Greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: and Jay Christian Adams. We're gonna analyze every aspect of
Speaker 1: that interview. What the president's options are, Uh, is there
Speaker 1: any legal jeopardy? And how would you deal with Robert
Speaker 1: Muller and his very band of democratic donors and unethical lawyers.
Speaker 1: Is that's basically who we appointed. I love Brudy's answer
Speaker 1: on that last night. Alright, quick break eight nine for
Speaker 1: one seawn are toll free telephone number and later in
Speaker 1: the program, will check in with Byron york A much
Speaker 1: more right as we continue our to Sean Hannity's show,
Speaker 1: complete legal analysis of all the issues that I discussed
Speaker 1: with the President's attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Speaker 1: But NBC is now reporting that Michael Cohen, the attorney
Speaker 1: for the Trump organization, UH, that apparently we what we
Speaker 1: know is federal investigators pursuing to a lawful court order warrant,
Speaker 1: we're able to wire tap the phone lines of Trump
Speaker 1: personal attorney Michael Cone. That is a wire tap that
Speaker 1: occurred several weeks before the now public search warrant that
Speaker 1: was executed New York several weeks ago. And they went
Speaker 1: on to say at least one phone call between Cone
Speaker 1: and the White House was recorded, and Trump, of course
Speaker 1: at the time, railed against the raid, as did Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani last night. UM. Anyway, let's get our panel in here.
Speaker 1: We have David Shown with US Criminal and Civil Liberties Attorney.
Speaker 1: We have j. Christian Adams is the President of the
Speaker 1: Public Interest of the Legal found Legal Foundation, editor of
Speaker 1: PJ Media, Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analysts, UH, and
Speaker 1: author of the upcoming book, The Russian Hoax, The illicit
Speaker 1: scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and framed Donald Trump. Welcome
Speaker 1: all of you back to the program. David Shone will
Speaker 1: begin with you. Well, I assume, or have to assume,
Speaker 1: or should I even assume in light of what what
Speaker 1: what happened in the lead up to the FISA warrants
Speaker 1: where in fact FISA judges were lied to UH and
Speaker 1: information was purposely omitted. But I have to assume that
Speaker 1: the Fed's got a legal wire tap against Michael Cone here.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, we can make that assumption, but
Speaker 1: in every single case, and especially this one, those applications
Speaker 1: have to be examined carefully. Um, we know now from
Speaker 1: the history that there's a history of misstatement and omission,
Speaker 1: both which in the FISA court are particularly troubling. It
Speaker 1: would be troubling for any surveillance application. And again this
Speaker 1: is the most intrusive kind titles for the application listening
Speaker 1: in on phone conversations and the phone conversations of an attorney.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice has a special set of regulations
Speaker 1: for this kind of thing. So we have to make
Speaker 1: sure every eye was doubted, every he was crossed, and
Speaker 1: that the underlying information was reliable. Um, so many things
Speaker 1: to check, Greg Jarrett, your initial thoughts on this, and
Speaker 1: apparently there was one call to the White House. Now
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani had made the comment earlier today that in
Speaker 1: fact the President would have been would have had to
Speaker 1: have been given a heads up if in fact it
Speaker 1: was him or or at any point. But I guess
Speaker 1: it could have been anybody at the White House, right
Speaker 1: he it It's hard to know. Look, this is completely
Speaker 1: separate from the FAI s acchord. This, the d o
Speaker 1: J would have had to have gone to a federal
Speaker 1: district court judge. And under the Fourth Amendment, a surveillance
Speaker 1: wire tap as a searching seas or you have to
Speaker 1: have probable cause, which is you know, it's an important
Speaker 1: standard and there are, as David pointing out guidelines in
Speaker 1: the d o J Guideline book. Let's say this is
Speaker 1: what this is the burden you have to sustain. And
Speaker 1: assuming they followed that, then a judge would have signed
Speaker 1: off on it. Uh my my senses, the president knows
Speaker 1: that when he has conversations that that they can be
Speaker 1: listened in on and uh, you know, he wouldn't have
Speaker 1: said anything. I suspect that would have been incriminating. He
Speaker 1: probably spent the time just saying this is outrageous that
Speaker 1: they rated your office. In his conversation with Michael Cone, well,
Speaker 1: I've gotta why would I think that the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, more than anybody, should have the most
Speaker 1: secure line of anyone. Well, I mean, they actually record
Speaker 1: some of their conversations that go through the switchboard. Uh.
Speaker 1: And you know when you go through the switchboard, they
Speaker 1: notify you that some some conversations are recorded. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the president is very guarded. Um, and I
Speaker 1: doubt that he would have said anything knowing that they're
Speaker 1: a rat had taking place. I mean, look, he's a
Speaker 1: smart guy. If they had just rated Michael Cohen's office,
Speaker 1: he probably knew somebody's listening in on this. What is
Speaker 1: your too quick? Too quick? Two quick points, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I just want to jump in two very specific technical points.
Speaker 1: Number One, there is a minimization requirements under Title three
Speaker 1: in this case. That is, once they see that the
Speaker 1: conversation doesn't relate to the purpose of its investigation, they
Speaker 1: must stop listening to that conversation. That's going to be
Speaker 1: interesting to see the follow here. Well, but but hang on, David,
Speaker 1: we know because we dealt with the surveillance issue a lot,
Speaker 1: and we dealt with wired Uh. The for example, when
Speaker 1: you have surveillance, you're supposed to Yes, if it's an
Speaker 1: American citizen, you're supposed to minimize. But not only did
Speaker 1: they not minimize, then they leaked raw intelligence and one
Speaker 1: victim of that was General Flynn. Because that intelligence was leaked.
Speaker 1: You know, remember unmasking took place at a level of
Speaker 1: one a day by Samantha Power, who was in fact
Speaker 1: the UN ambassador. Why would the UN ambassador be unmasking
Speaker 1: one American a day? Yep. The second point doesn't any
Speaker 1: aggrieved person meaning anyone picked up on this tap as
Speaker 1: standing to challenge it and because their privacy was invaded too? Sorry, Jay,
Speaker 1: Christian Adams want to get your thoughts. That's laughable. I
Speaker 1: thought a tease cross guidelines all that's that's obsolete talk, Sean.
Speaker 1: We now have a Justice department that doesn't care about guidelines.
Speaker 1: They've been unmasking private citizens. You're right, they did it
Speaker 1: to Mike Flynn. They they they suck in conversations. Uh,
Speaker 1: the people have with targets like Michael Cohene and his
Speaker 1: former client, the president. That's what this was all about.
Speaker 1: This is about a muscular, aggressive anti Trump FBI and
Speaker 1: Justice Department doing what it can to undermine the presidency.
Speaker 1: You mean you think that they went to Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: so they can listen in on his conversations with the president.
Speaker 1: I think that they went to Michael Cohen because they
Speaker 1: have disregard, disregard for the boundaries that used to constrain
Speaker 1: the department in the FBI, this is a political witch
Speaker 1: hunt against the President and anybody who supported the president.
Speaker 1: It's designed to bankrupt them like it is doing to
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn and others. This is an all out war
Speaker 1: by the left using the institution of government to undermine
Speaker 1: them by criminalizing political differences. Well, that's what Alan Dershowitz
Speaker 1: has been saying. You know, it's it's amazing what the
Speaker 1: media only has wanted to pick up on, which I
Speaker 1: find pretty fascinating, and that is is Rudy Giuliani's comments
Speaker 1: about the issue involving well the president paying back or
Speaker 1: keeping Michael Cohen on a retainer. Uh. Meanwhile, he talked
Speaker 1: about Mueller's questions are intended to trap Trump. Meanwhile, he
Speaker 1: talked about Comey being a disgraceful liar. Meanwhile he mentioned
Speaker 1: Hillary as a criminal. Meanwhile he said Comey should be
Speaker 1: prosecuted for leaking confidential FBI information. And uh. He also
Speaker 1: goes on to say, you know about Robert Mueller and
Speaker 1: this whole thing, that it needs to go away, and
Speaker 1: that Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein need to make it
Speaker 1: go away. And um, and all of these things have
Speaker 1: been ignored. You know, we'll go to cut ten here. Um.
Speaker 1: I was actually in the beginning, I was asking the mayor.
Speaker 1: I was asking the in the capacity of the attorney
Speaker 1: for the President about Perkins Cooey in that particular case
Speaker 1: where money was funneled. And then he brought up the
Speaker 1: issue of the repayment to Michael Cohen, are you concerned
Speaker 1: in the process of this, we did discover that a
Speaker 1: foreign national, Christopher Steele, was paid through Fusion GPS, used
Speaker 1: Russian sources that not only weren't verified with debunked. Are
Speaker 1: you concerned that that was paid for to manipulate the
Speaker 1: American people in the lead up to an election. Isn't
Speaker 1: that closer to the mandate than Michael Cohen? Why isn't
Speaker 1: that having that, sir, having having having something to do
Speaker 1: with paying some Stormy Daniels woman a hundred and thirties thousand,
Speaker 1: I mean, which is going to turn out to be
Speaker 1: perfectly legal. That that money was not campaign money. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know.
Speaker 1: It's not campaign money, no campaign finance violation. So they
Speaker 1: funneled it through the law firm, funnel through m and
Speaker 1: the President repaid it. Oh, I didn't know he did.
Speaker 1: There's no campaign finance law zero. So the press, like
Speaker 1: every sean, so with this decision was made by everybody,
Speaker 1: everybody was nervous about this from the very beginning. I
Speaker 1: wasn't I knew how much money Donald Trump put into
Speaker 1: that campaign. I said, a hundred thirty thousand, But they're
Speaker 1: gonna you're gonna do a couple of checks for a hundred.
Speaker 1: When I heard Cohen's retainer of thirty five thousand, when
Speaker 1: he was doing no work for the president, I said,
Speaker 1: that's how he's repaying that's how how how he's repaying
Speaker 1: it with a little profit and a little margin fit
Speaker 1: paying taxes for Michael the president. Do you know the
Speaker 1: President didn't know about this? Uh? I believe that he
Speaker 1: didn't know about the specifics of it as far as
Speaker 1: I know, but he didn't know about the general arrangement
Speaker 1: that Michael would take care of things like this, like
Speaker 1: I take care of things like this for my clients.
Speaker 1: I don't burden them with every single thing that comes along. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a busy people. And then he went on to
Speaker 1: say that he had a retainer. Now, at no time
Speaker 1: everyone saying in the press that what he contradicted him.
Speaker 1: He's saying he paid him on a retainer and that yeah,
Speaker 1: that would be compensation for the job that he did
Speaker 1: here and pay back for it. Um. But I remember
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen saying Greg Jarrett that he didn't inform him
Speaker 1: the president and he originally did use his own money.
Speaker 1: And I mean, everyone's trying to break Rodeo over the coals,
Speaker 1: but I don't see anything inconsistent in their stories. There
Speaker 1: isn't Trump paid Cone a certain amount of money each month,
Speaker 1: both his compensation and to take care of business. Cohen
Speaker 1: made a hundred and thirty thousand dollar payment over time.
Speaker 1: He then reimbursed himself from his monthly retainer. It is
Speaker 1: perfectly legal. It is also perfectly legal to pay somebody
Speaker 1: for them to stay quiet and go waste done every
Speaker 1: day in contracts. If it can be shown, as Giuliani
Speaker 1: states that Trump reimbursed Cohen, that eliminates any campaign finance problem.
Speaker 1: Was it an in kind contribution? No, as long as
Speaker 1: there was another purpose, of personal purpose. So this should
Speaker 1: actually exculpate both Trump and Cone, it seems because that
Speaker 1: was not the question I was asking that that was
Speaker 1: something that he wanted to say. J Christian Adams, Right,
Speaker 1: only the most radical and zealous campaign finance UH law
Speaker 1: interpretation would make this a campaign finance violation. All Sean,
Speaker 1: there are people who won the federal government to have
Speaker 1: that much power, but right now it doesn't. So it
Speaker 1: is not a campaign finance violation because it's not a
Speaker 1: campaign expense. It's that simple. It was an unrelated event.
Speaker 1: If that was a campaign finance violation, Bill Clinton would
Speaker 1: probably have been prosecuted how many times by now because
Speaker 1: of all the money that was throwing around to protect
Speaker 1: his history. So this is not a campaign finance violation.
Speaker 1: What's your take, David Show, I don't agree that the
Speaker 1: question is resolved based on whether campaign funds were used,
Speaker 1: as was suggested last night. But the whole idea that
Speaker 1: this is a campaign contribution, in k contribution, unreported contribution
Speaker 1: is absolute nonsense. It's not just that people do this
Speaker 1: all the time. And that's a very good point, is
Speaker 1: that Mr Trump has done it in the past without
Speaker 1: any regard to any election. Ever, it's a private matter
Speaker 1: Mr Trump wanted to keep private. Listen, all kinds of
Speaker 1: cases are settled on confidential terms every day of the week,
Speaker 1: not just this kind of nondisclosure agreement. But this is
Speaker 1: particularly personal. Um. So you know, this is the most
Speaker 1: radical take, as Mr Adams said, and that's to take.
Speaker 1: I'm afraid Mr Mueller is going to try to put
Speaker 1: on it. But that's a tough case to make. Doesn't
Speaker 1: past the last time, And as we continue, we're gonna
Speaker 1: do this for the hour because there's so much to
Speaker 1: get into here. UM. From the interview with Rudy Julianni
Speaker 1: tonight and as subsequent interviews that he did after our
Speaker 1: show last night, David shown criminal and civil rights attorney,
Speaker 1: civil liberties attorney J. Christian Adams as the president of
Speaker 1: the Public Interest Legal Foundation, Editor PJ Media, Greg jareded
Speaker 1: Fox News legal analysts. UM let me get to the
Speaker 1: question of what he said about James Comey. He called
Speaker 1: him a disgraceful liar, and then I asked him specific Now, Greg,
Speaker 1: you've chronicled exactly the wrong things that call Mey has done. Um,
Speaker 1: where are the lies that he's talking about that he
Speaker 1: said should actually he should be prosecutor for leaking? Well, Um,
Speaker 1: he appeared to have exonerated Hillary Clinton for political purposes.
Speaker 1: That would be a felony. It's a crime to steal
Speaker 1: government documents. That's a felony. Um. If any of the
Speaker 1: presidential memos he took home included classified documents, which is
Speaker 1: what the FBI now says, that is also a felony.
Speaker 1: And then there's potentially lying to Congress. He testified that
Speaker 1: he made the decision to clear Clinton after she was interviewed.
Speaker 1: Documents prove otherwise. Also, was there a lie by omission
Speaker 1: when he only admitted to giving the documents to one
Speaker 1: person but it turned out to be three. That would
Speaker 1: be a false and misleading statement. Eighteen USC. One thousand
Speaker 1: and one. Yes, if you omit a material fact under
Speaker 1: the statute that's relevant to the inquiry, you're guilty of
Speaker 1: that felony. David yeah, but I gotta say this, the
Speaker 1: bigger pictured thing to me, that interview was absolutely amazing,
Speaker 1: just that to have Rudy Giuliani like them or hate him.
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani is known for one thing in the world
Speaker 1: besides being mayor, and that's for being a prosecutor, a
Speaker 1: hard nosed prosecutor who fought to get every single case
Speaker 1: he could get credit for it, et cetera. To put
Speaker 1: everybody away forever. For Rudy Giuliani to say, Comey is
Speaker 1: a liar and the investigation is garbage, you may say, well,
Speaker 1: he's Trump's lawyer. Now. One thing Rudy Giuliani isn't doing
Speaker 1: is selling out his credentials as a prosecutor. To hear
Speaker 1: it from him, the same reason that people want to hear,
Speaker 1: you know, the civil liberties issues from Dirty with I suppose,
Speaker 1: but to hear from Giuliani Comey, who he knows very well, Mueller,
Speaker 1: who he knows very well, old ends. For him to
Speaker 1: use that kind of language on National TV on your
Speaker 1: show is a major coup. We'll pick it up there.
Speaker 1: We'll pick up with Jake Christian Adams and David Shown
Speaker 1: and Greg Jarrett eight hundred nine for one. Shawn is
Speaker 1: a toll free telephone number if you want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program. We have Daniel McLachlin Jonathan
Speaker 1: Gilham also coming up a much more in incredible Hannity
Speaker 1: tonight at nine quick Break. Right back, we'll continue. Commy
Speaker 1: should be prosecuted for leaking UH confidential FBI information when
Speaker 1: he leaked his report intended to develop a special prosecutor
Speaker 1: for the President of the United States. I have never
Speaker 1: ever turned over a doctor. You know me, Sean, you
Speaker 1: know me, want s attorney UH A lot of allegations
Speaker 1: to mother mob. Never leaked a damn thing. I would
Speaker 1: have considered resigning if I ever did that, or if
Speaker 1: one of my assistants did. Did the FBI League, did
Speaker 1: the SEC League? I'm sorry, guys, you did all right?
Speaker 1: That was really Juliani and the exclusive interview that I
Speaker 1: had with him last night. We continue with our legal panel.
Speaker 1: We have Civil Liberties Attorney, Criminal Um Criminal defense attorney
Speaker 1: David Shown J. Christian Adams, President of the Public Interest
Speaker 1: Legal Foundation, Editor of PJ Media, Greg Jarrett, fact Fox
Speaker 1: News legal analyst, author of the upcoming book The Russia Hoax,
Speaker 1: The Illicit Scheme to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump. Uh,
Speaker 1: let me go to you, J Christian Adams, and and
Speaker 1: let's go to those specific comments. Comey is a disgraceful liar.
Speaker 1: Comey should be prosecuted for leaking. Well, Rudy's right because
Speaker 1: not only is he even leaking, he's been profiting from it.
Speaker 1: But Rudy talked about something else very important, and that
Speaker 1: is McCabe. Don't forget Andrew McCabe, number two guy at
Speaker 1: the FBI, working closely with Comey. The two of them
Speaker 1: were a pair of liars. McCabe violated eighteen USC one
Speaker 1: zero zero one, which has put plenty of people in
Speaker 1: jail multiple times. He did it an inspector general interview
Speaker 1: under oath. He did it in front of FBI agent
Speaker 1: thunder oath. I mean, Sean, he should have been hauled
Speaker 1: in front of the grand jury and indicted a week ago.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not in hard case to prove. So
Speaker 1: what's going on with Jesse lou the U S attorney
Speaker 1: in d C or Rod Rosenstein. What's going on? Why
Speaker 1: isn't this happening? Well, I think that's why it was
Speaker 1: so important. Greg jareded that when I asked Rudy Julianni,
Speaker 1: do we have a dual justice system? He said yes,
Speaker 1: and that was the best line of the night. There
Speaker 1: there's actually three systems. There's there's the system for Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: in which everything she does is okay. There's the system
Speaker 1: for the rest of the United States, you and me
Speaker 1: and everybody else, in which we have to abide by
Speaker 1: the law. And then there's the third system of justice,
Speaker 1: which is the Trump system. If he so much as sneezes,
Speaker 1: it's a crime, according to East top officials at the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice in FBI and David Shone, you agree
Speaker 1: with that too. I mean, look, I talked about it,
Speaker 1: and I'm not wasn't really even in Jess last night
Speaker 1: because if they want to interview the president, okay, well,
Speaker 1: you know, the questions are a little absurd, and and
Speaker 1: we've all pointed out, well, what do you think of
Speaker 1: comys Tessa? Who cares what he thinks? What do you
Speaker 1: think about Sessions were accusal? Who cares what he thinks
Speaker 1: or what he thinks about Robert Muller. It's irrelevant to
Speaker 1: anything in this case. But there are things that are
Speaker 1: relevant in this case, and that is, do we have
Speaker 1: a dual justice system. Was Hillary Clinton, did she violate
Speaker 1: the law at a high level and was she given
Speaker 1: a rigged investigation? Because if that's the case, we don't
Speaker 1: have equal justice under the law in America. Right right
Speaker 1: there there, there's a basis for the expression of the
Speaker 1: government of laws, not of men or women. Um, and
Speaker 1: that's what we're seeing here. Unfortunately, we're seeing personalities and
Speaker 1: personal agendas take over the justice system. I don't like
Speaker 1: to talk in sort of tripe phrases, but we heard
Speaker 1: about drain the swamp. If ever that would be applied
Speaker 1: in this situation, it's got to be with the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: D Rosen has to be out. We have to start
Speaker 1: fresh here. We have to take a whole new look
Speaker 1: at this special council. Special counsel investigations take on a
Speaker 1: life of their own under the best of circumstances. But
Speaker 1: here there's a definite agenda, a political agenda, and this
Speaker 1: that has infected the process and has become a government
Speaker 1: of men. It cannot be I don't think we've suscratched
Speaker 1: the surface yet. Potentially, with Mr Rosenstein's conflicts of interest,
Speaker 1: sessions should have been off of this case. Then certainly
Speaker 1: wait a minute, we know, we know enough that he'd
Speaker 1: be a witness in the case against Comey. Would he not?
Speaker 1: How about how about the finds the applications that he
Speaker 1: would which isn't the heart of all of this. If
Speaker 1: he signed off on it, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: questions to answer, including the date. If he signed off
Speaker 1: on it during, for example, an extension and a second application,
Speaker 1: third application during the Trump administration, he didn't have the
Speaker 1: authority to do that on his own. By the way,
Speaker 1: under four UM, he's sort of a default person only
Speaker 1: if the president certifies that Rosenstein can sign it, but
Speaker 1: the main person to sign it is a National security advisor. Um.
Speaker 1: What happened in that case? The status specifically spelled that
Speaker 1: got to be certified by the Assistant to the President
Speaker 1: for National Security Affairs or some other executive branch officer,
Speaker 1: only the deputy director of the ATI if the President
Speaker 1: designates him as a certifying officer. Did the president designate him?
Speaker 1: Did he get somebody else's approval also? And if he
Speaker 1: did sign on this, Rod Rosenstein, he's got to be
Speaker 1: out of this thing. He can't be calling the shots
Speaker 1: on Muller's investigation. I think that's Well said, and I
Speaker 1: think that's what the Freedom Caucus has been arguing, and
Speaker 1: we've been arguing here on in this program. Let me
Speaker 1: go to a legal question and I think needs to
Speaker 1: be answered, and we got into this in some detail
Speaker 1: last night with Mayor Juliani, and that is Mueller raising
Speaker 1: the possibility of a subpoena of the president. At what
Speaker 1: would happen under that case? And for example, if he
Speaker 1: issues the issue a subpoena, he refuses, are they going
Speaker 1: to hold them in contempt next? And how do they
Speaker 1: enforce contempt on the president? I cannot enforce contempt on
Speaker 1: the president. An inferior unelected officer, which is Mueller cannot
Speaker 1: hold the pret have or move to hold the president
Speaker 1: and contempt for violating the subpoena UH and removing the
Speaker 1: president from his discharge of his duties. That's unconstitutional. US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has said, so it's in the writings of
Speaker 1: the Framers. So if I were the president, I would
Speaker 1: simply ignore the subpoena and let Mueller try. Good luck
Speaker 1: with that. What do you think, j Christian Well, Sean,
Speaker 1: this is indicative of something you mentioned, and that is
Speaker 1: the politicization of how people view the law law enforcement.
Speaker 1: I was at the Justice Department under Holder when he
Speaker 1: first came to office, and I will remember distinctly that
Speaker 1: if you wanted to go after somebody like they're doing
Speaker 1: to the President, you create the most outlandish, radical, far
Speaker 1: left wing legal theory. But if you're on the other side,
Speaker 1: like like they we're with with Obamber Holder, you create
Speaker 1: the most outlandish defense of Holder. It's it's a question
Speaker 1: that the law is no longer more reasonable, agreeable standards.
Speaker 1: The left has destroyed that. And that's what you're watching
Speaker 1: play out now because all of these lawyers of the
Speaker 1: Justice Department working for Muller, these Democrat lawyers, don't think
Speaker 1: they're doing anything wrong. This is just how they behave
Speaker 1: in the post Eric Holder world. All right. So let's
Speaker 1: walk through this a little bit more closely here, because
Speaker 1: Alan Dersho Dersher which would say, well, is a danger
Speaker 1: here because if he took the fifth, they'll give him
Speaker 1: immunity in the fifth doesn't apply, and that sets him
Speaker 1: up for yet another perjury trap if he says something
Speaker 1: that contradicts somebody else in a situation where he has
Speaker 1: to answer, well, right, And that's exactly what he's trying
Speaker 1: to do is set up a perjury trap because one
Speaker 1: zero zero one, which is lying to federal agent or
Speaker 1: official or frankly employee, is very easy to prove. And
Speaker 1: you know, Donald Trump has some very colorful ways of
Speaker 1: expressing things, and you can be sure the left wing
Speaker 1: lawyers working for Muller will look for anything that they
Speaker 1: think is colorably false. They probably think everything he says
Speaker 1: as false already because they're left wing lawyers working for Muller,
Speaker 1: so they will use anything he says against him. And
Speaker 1: it would be insane for Trump to appear to even
Speaker 1: do a voluntary interview, all right, So then no circumstances,
Speaker 1: and this was discussed last night. Under no circumstances. Should
Speaker 1: the president, if any interview to Muller, Should he give
Speaker 1: a written Crawford? Would Muller agree to that? Because apparently
Speaker 1: Mueller already has threatened to use the power of subpoena
Speaker 1: and bring him before a grand jury. Well, the president,
Speaker 1: as I said, should simply ignore subpoena. This is an
Speaker 1: idle threat. It cannot be exercised. UH. You cannot force
Speaker 1: a president from office with a contempt citation. UH for
Speaker 1: his failure to respond to a subpoena to appear. It's
Speaker 1: just it's as simple as that. Now, if I were
Speaker 1: the president, I would uh have my lawyers make an
Speaker 1: offer to respond to a limited number of questions in writing.
Speaker 1: Apparently that offer has been declined, declined by Mueller. Declined
Speaker 1: by Mueller. That's what the mayor said last night, been
Speaker 1: let Mueller pursue a subpoena if he wants, and and
Speaker 1: he's Mueller willing to take the country, drag this country,
Speaker 1: the United States of America, through the mud like this. Now,
Speaker 1: I I have always said, based on the team that
Speaker 1: he's appointed, led by his pit bull, according to The
Speaker 1: New York Times Andrew Weissman, that this they were out
Speaker 1: to get the president? Have I been right the whole time?
Speaker 1: In your opinion, David shone right every single time you've
Speaker 1: said it. Look, I wish I were as uh as
Speaker 1: um confident about the process as Greg is. You know,
Speaker 1: this kind of has been attention about this issue since
Speaker 1: at least the earliest edition cases Thomas Cooper, then the
Speaker 1: case of Aaron Burr, et cetera. Such a clear question.
Speaker 1: They certainly can't force him out of office, but there
Speaker 1: are other contempt remedies. Look, what has to be done,
Speaker 1: in my view is starts from the top. This is
Speaker 1: why Rod Rosenstein goes Now, before we deal with this
Speaker 1: kind of battle. I'd like to think a judge would
Speaker 1: have enough judgment not to force this kind of situation
Speaker 1: on the country, to say enough of this nonsense. There
Speaker 1: is a political witch hunt, an agenda. But start from
Speaker 1: the top, there is authority over this special council. Don't
Speaker 1: be intigated anymore by this stuff. People elected President Trump
Speaker 1: as a man of action. Take the action, deal with
Speaker 1: the Justice Department, and rain in this Mueller invest football
Speaker 1: investigations from the top before we deal with things that
Speaker 1: make a mockery of our justice system. But if if
Speaker 1: Mueller doesn't have the authority, as Greg is saying, you know,
Speaker 1: to to force this issue, which by the way, Alan
Speaker 1: Dershwoodz thinks he does have the ability, does he has
Speaker 1: the absolute ability to force the issue? He files most
Speaker 1: of the contempt and it is up to the judge
Speaker 1: at that point what to do. And you know, I
Speaker 1: wrote a memo on this issue, all right, So so
Speaker 1: all right, if the judge, if he wants to push
Speaker 1: it all the way and the judge in the case
Speaker 1: is a liberal judge. Um, how do you enforce the
Speaker 1: contempt the president? And if he complies and takes the
Speaker 1: fifth and they'll give him immunity, wouldn't they? Yes, they would,
Speaker 1: And then what would happen? How do you enforce contempt?
Speaker 1: There's no It raises the specter of completely appropriate conduct
Speaker 1: to think of anything. Contempt can be enforced by a fine,
Speaker 1: a daily fine. As the president, if you don't here,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna find you X number of dollars a day. Um,
Speaker 1: there are other remedies. However, Greg's ultimate point is right,
Speaker 1: he can't be forced from office. So what is the teeth?
Speaker 1: And it never put the country through this battle. And
Speaker 1: as I said yesterday, by the way, someone Thomas Jefferson said,
Speaker 1: never put the country through this battle. He ignored the
Speaker 1: pen on the president. He turned over some documents, but
Speaker 1: he said, I'm the president. Don't try to haul me
Speaker 1: into court for something like this. And by the way,
Speaker 1: we're not talking here about a criminal defendant exercising his
Speaker 1: fifth and sixth Amendment rights to bring a witness forward.
Speaker 1: This is a special counsel on political agenda trying to
Speaker 1: turn the country upside down by hauling the president to court.
Speaker 1: We'll take a quick break. We'll come back more with
Speaker 1: our legal panel, David shown, Greg, Jared, j Christian Adams
Speaker 1: and your calls coming up later in the program, News
Speaker 1: round Up, Information overload at the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: Quick break, right back, we'll continue, And as we continue
Speaker 1: with David Shone, Jake, Christian Adams, and Greg Jarrett Shawns
Speaker 1: on number Jake Christian Adams, I haven't given you a
Speaker 1: chance yet, Mulla raising the possibility, the threat of a
Speaker 1: subpoena with Trump's legal team. How do you take that? Well, look, Sean,
Speaker 1: he can do that, and I'm sure there's plenty of
Speaker 1: people on the far left who hate the president, and
Speaker 1: we all know who those people are. We read about
Speaker 1: him every day. Did want this to become a crisis,
Speaker 1: that want the President to have to either take the
Speaker 1: fifth or just ignore a subpoena so they can they
Speaker 1: can go to the streets. I mean, look, make no
Speaker 1: mistake about it. This is an integrated attack on the
Speaker 1: teen election by the far radical, often Sorrows funded left,
Speaker 1: whether it's Perkins Cooey who gets gobs of Sorrows money
Speaker 1: to represent both Hillary in the in the left. This
Speaker 1: is in that for to destabilize the presidency. It's nothing
Speaker 1: short of that. Don't lose sight of it. And so
Speaker 1: it would surprise me that Mulla would do that because
Speaker 1: probably the attorney's working for him believe in doing that.
Speaker 1: That's the problem. And I can tell you that Rod
Speaker 1: Rosenstein's deputies, due to one of Rosenstein's deputies, a d
Speaker 1: o j A, a principal assistant deputy turn in general,
Speaker 1: was a sorrows fellow. I wrote about him at PJ Media.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, I'm I'm guessing from
Speaker 1: all of this that now this has headed down a
Speaker 1: road that's going to go on for a very long
Speaker 1: period of time. Predictions Greg Jarrett, Well, I don't. I
Speaker 1: think Mueller realizes that he has reached an impass with
Speaker 1: his demands to interview the president, and I think they
Speaker 1: will negotiate aggressively a resolution of it, because I think
Speaker 1: Mueller realizes that as an inferior unelected officer, he cannot
Speaker 1: force the President UH to comply with the subpoena. Everybody says, oh, well,
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton did. That was a civil case. The subpoena
Speaker 1: was withdraw on by mutual consent and President Clinton did
Speaker 1: agree to be interviewed privately. Show that's different. Uh, this
Speaker 1: is a criminal case. The president cannot be removed from
Speaker 1: office by Mueller. What do you think, David shown again,
Speaker 1: I wish I were confident. I know Rugi Guliani said
Speaker 1: he was going to bring it to a close. I
Speaker 1: don't see any incentive from Mueller or team to close
Speaker 1: this thing. They're not going to be embarrassed. Whatever they
Speaker 1: come up with, that's not incentive. They have an agenda.
Speaker 1: He's got a whole team with an agenda. It has
Speaker 1: to be stopped. Now. There is no constitutional crisis in
Speaker 1: stopping this investigation. Now, it's the constitution working. It's the
Speaker 1: president exercising his article to power through attorney. You think
Speaker 1: he should pile You think he should fire Muller and Rosenstein. Politically,
Speaker 1: I think Rosenstein you want to continue an investigation and
Speaker 1: have it controlled by someone who has the country's in
Speaker 1: Just remember one of the criteria under the Special Counsel
Speaker 1: Act is it has to be finding it's in the
Speaker 1: public interest to go forward. It's not in the public
Speaker 1: just to take one political partisan position to attack another
Speaker 1: person and pervert the system. By using a special counsel
Speaker 1: to do it. Start with Rosenstein, let him rein in
Speaker 1: this investigate. With the next replacement rein in, the investigation
Speaker 1: gets focused. We still don't know, by the way, what
Speaker 1: the full mission statement that's required under the Special Council
Speaker 1: regulations provided for the breath of this investigation. The interesting analysis.
Speaker 1: Last word, Jay Christian, President of the Power to fire
Speaker 1: subordinate officials, that includes Mueller, includes Rosenstein, uh and includes
Speaker 1: even ross Stein's deputy Suji Rahman, who was a Soros
Speaker 1: fellow that has been giving Muller cover in this investigation.
Speaker 1: All right, thank you all for being with us. Eight
Speaker 1: hundred nine one Seawan toll free telephone number. We'll have
Speaker 1: more of our coverage walls. Have your calls coming up.
Speaker 1: We had a lot of ground yet to cover today.
Speaker 1: Byron York will join us. Also, we'll check in with
Speaker 1: Jonathan Gillham and our friend Danielle McLaughlin. A much more
Speaker 1: straight ahead stay right here for our final news round
Speaker 1: up and information overload. Secretary Clinton is someone deeply in
Speaker 1: meshed and meshed in the rule of law, respect for institutions,
Speaker 1: a lawyer. There is evidence that they were extremely careless
Speaker 1: in their handling a very sensitive, highly classified information. For example,
Speaker 1: seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the
Speaker 1: top secret Special Access Program at the time they were
Speaker 1: sent and received. Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending
Speaker 1: emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters.
Speaker 1: There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable
Speaker 1: person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of
Speaker 1: those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should
Speaker 1: have known that an unclassified system was no place for
Speaker 1: that conversation. Mr Mayor war Laws broken. Let's start with Hillary.
Speaker 1: Did she have I've been on Well, we go back
Speaker 1: three years with this John when I produced my chart
Speaker 1: crime she committed and we got up to about eighteen.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Hillary, I know you're very disappointed to win
Speaker 1: that you're a criminal. Equal justice would mean you should
Speaker 1: go to jail. Uh. I do not know why the
Speaker 1: Justice Department is not investigating you. Did James come name
Speaker 1: told me fixed the whole case and it was rigged. Well,
Speaker 1: you can't read that stupid report that he wrote, which
Speaker 1: is at the beginning of his destruction, in which he says,
Speaker 1: we're not going to prosecute no reasonable prosecutor would indict her. No, honest,
Speaker 1: reasonable prosecutor wouldn't indict her. He said today or yesterday
Speaker 1: called me. He said, Hillary deeply respects the rule of law.
Speaker 1: Cally said that, Wow, well this is this is a
Speaker 1: very perverted man. I feel so sorry. Do we have
Speaker 1: a two tier justice system in America? Yeah? We have
Speaker 1: one for Hillary and and and uh and all all
Speaker 1: those all those Democrats, Bill Clinton. All right, News round
Speaker 1: up in Information Overload hour here on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Nine Poll one, Shawn, if you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program as we are joined by Jonathan Gilham,
Speaker 1: author of the best selling book Sheep No More, Danielle McLaughlin,
Speaker 1: and a turn constitutional expert or UH from the Federalist Society.
Speaker 1: She wrote how conservatives took the law back from liberals.
Speaker 1: Welcome both of you to the program. You know, Danielle,
Speaker 1: I know it's a question you don't like. I know
Speaker 1: it's a question that needs to be answered. We heard
Speaker 1: Rudy Giulianni last night. Um, you have tried to duck
Speaker 1: and dodge a very simple question about Hillary Clinton, and
Speaker 1: I want a real serious answer today. Is that if
Speaker 1: if in fact what James Comey described that they were
Speaker 1: marked classified at the time, and in fact Special Access Program,
Speaker 1: which is the top level of classification, was in fact
Speaker 1: on that computer in that mom and pop shop bathroom closet,
Speaker 1: and we're told five or more foreign entities services, we're
Speaker 1: able to hack into that system and get that intelligence
Speaker 1: which talks about sources and methods and people's lives are
Speaker 1: at risk. And then she tries to delete what is subpoenaed.
Speaker 1: There d three emails, acid washed the hard drive, beat
Speaker 1: up her devices. Are you gonna make the case to
Speaker 1: this audience that she didn't violate the Espionage Act, that
Speaker 1: she didn't violate obstruction of justice laws in this country?
Speaker 1: Are you saying that any other American could act in
Speaker 1: that way and not get penalized by the law for that?
Speaker 1: In a very serious manner, Hi shan, great to be
Speaker 1: with you as always. Look, I understand the concerns around.
Speaker 1: Did I ask about the concern I want to listen.
Speaker 1: You do this every time you say Hi, Sean. You
Speaker 1: you always sound nice and and you are You're a
Speaker 1: wonderful person. Alright, I agree, al right, we agree you're
Speaker 1: a wonderful person. But here's the problem eighteen USC SEVENE
Speaker 1: says it's a felony if you mishandle classified top secret
Speaker 1: special access programming information. James Comey admitted she did it,
Speaker 1: and then when it was subpoenaed, she acid washed the
Speaker 1: hard drive, the deleting thirty three thousand emails, and then
Speaker 1: beating up her devices. And my questions are simple, did
Speaker 1: she commit felonies? Did she obstruct justice? Let me start
Speaker 1: with a slightly easier one first, if you don't mind it.
Speaker 1: That's the thirty thousand or thirty three emails that were deleted.
Speaker 1: They were personal emails to the Clinton cow whoa, whoa?
Speaker 1: How would you know that? Because she said they were
Speaker 1: about yoga, a one wedding, one funeral, and emails with
Speaker 1: her husband. But her husband does an email. So you're
Speaker 1: saying she deleted thirty three thousand emails about yoga, a wedding,
Speaker 1: and a funeral, and you buy that she's telling you
Speaker 1: the truth. So actually, James Comey said this, When I
Speaker 1: looked into the deletions, he said in that big long
Speaker 1: press confidence that they found no evidence that the deletions
Speaker 1: were done with any problematic And wait a minute, he
Speaker 1: said under way, he said under oath before the committee.
Speaker 1: When he was under oath, he went on to say
Speaker 1: that they weren't in individually looked at by the attorneys
Speaker 1: as Hillary said. Hillary lied when she said she sent
Speaker 1: emails to her husband. Uh, there's no way any one
Speaker 1: person can write thirty three thousand emails about yoga, one wedding,
Speaker 1: and one funeral. It is impossible, right, So this I
Speaker 1: want to clear this up. The subpoena was directed to
Speaker 1: the big Ghazi emails and so everything that was not responsive,
Speaker 1: and the Clinton campaign determined by law you can determine
Speaker 1: as your own defense counsel. I I do this. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter why it was subpoena and she was pulled
Speaker 1: to preserve her email records, and she and her lawyers
Speaker 1: or whoever works for her decided not to agree with
Speaker 1: the subpoena, not to follow the law. I understand the
Speaker 1: order was given to deplete the emails before the subpoena
Speaker 1: was served. That is not true, standing, that is not true.
Speaker 1: The timeline I had the timeline that her campaign or
Speaker 1: her lawyers said to the people at Platt River who
Speaker 1: were the service, which I will completely admit, with a
Speaker 1: terrible decision and a bad decision to use a private
Speaker 1: email serve. You will never find me defending that decision,
Speaker 1: just like I don't want the president, not even Hillary's
Speaker 1: team is trying to thread the needle the way you are.
Speaker 1: The bottom line is you just heard James comey. This
Speaker 1: is the day he exonerated her, after he excoriated her
Speaker 1: and admitted lies were told and that subpoena records were destroyed. Look,
Speaker 1: he used the term extremely careless. He made the decision
Speaker 1: that he didn't have. He didn't have a prosecution. Prosecutors
Speaker 1: do this all the time. I'll be very honest. I
Speaker 1: supported her. I liked your policies. I can understand your
Speaker 1: frustration with me and your frustration with her because you're
Speaker 1: duck in the question I asked you, did she obstruct
Speaker 1: justice when she deleted, acid washed and busted up devices
Speaker 1: with hammers? Yes? Or no? You need to know the intent, Okay,
Speaker 1: like you need to well, what other what other intent
Speaker 1: would there be to then to obstruct an investigation and justice?
Speaker 1: If you acid wash your hard drive, beat up your
Speaker 1: devices with a hammer, and delete the emails that were subpoenaed,
Speaker 1: maybe you don't want your personal emails to make it
Speaker 1: into the public eye. I don't know, but I will
Speaker 1: say this is my frustration with Danielle. It is it
Speaker 1: is obvious she violated multiple laws here and committed felonies.
Speaker 1: And that is that that then leads to the outrage
Speaker 1: of exonerating her without investigating her. Danielle, Daniel, Daniel once again,
Speaker 1: are gonna have to I'm gonna have to give you
Speaker 1: I'm good and I'm just great to have to be
Speaker 1: talking with you. I'm going to have to give you
Speaker 1: another teaching lesson from from the government worker perspective. Here.
Speaker 1: You know, first of all, your great attorney, and you're
Speaker 1: proven that because when Sean asked you one simple question,
Speaker 1: which is yes or no answer. I mean it truly
Speaker 1: is yes or no answer. Um, you dive into this
Speaker 1: long time rade of of all these good things about
Speaker 1: the other emails, and they may have been private, and
Speaker 1: that maybe why they did it. And then you say
Speaker 1: things because I've been through whatever the defense to tuning,
Speaker 1: but Hurricane was perfectly legally able to decide what was
Speaker 1: responsive to that subpoena and what wasn't. And I do it.
Speaker 1: I do it everybody subpoena here, Here's where we're getting
Speaker 1: into the nuts and both of this. When we talked
Speaker 1: about the sailor a while back, you said this was
Speaker 1: maybe a bad decision on Hillary's part, and we don't
Speaker 1: look at this sailor a while back he took pictures
Speaker 1: on a submarine five pictures, um, and he spent a
Speaker 1: year in jail for that. That was one bad decision.
Speaker 1: I think he deserved the penalty that he got for that,
Speaker 1: because everybody knows it's a top secret environment. You don't
Speaker 1: take picture. He got what he deserved, probably a little
Speaker 1: less because he got you know, he got pardoned for that.
Speaker 1: But overall, that was one incident. If we look at
Speaker 1: Charles Manson and we say he made a bad decision
Speaker 1: with Sharon Tate, um, if you look at all the
Speaker 1: rest of the things that happened, we know through the
Speaker 1: again I say this every week, the totality of circumstances,
Speaker 1: what happened with Sharon Tate and Charles Manson had falling
Speaker 1: was not a bad decision. That was a calculated decision
Speaker 1: that fell in line with a number of things that
Speaker 1: they did that were evil. When you look at what
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, James Comey, uh, Bob Mueller, the Deputy Director uhum,
Speaker 1: and all the rest of the people that have been
Speaker 1: involved with this, Rod Rosenstein, all these people, McKay, that
Speaker 1: was the word I'm looking for her page instruct All
Speaker 1: these people have done things that are calculated, not one off,
Speaker 1: not one bad decision. It was calculated. And here's the
Speaker 1: gift of this whole thing. Even if when we when
Speaker 1: we're just talking about the destruction of the phones and
Speaker 1: the emails, even if that was done to hide personal emails,
Speaker 1: it's still illegal. And then when it's wrapped up in
Speaker 1: a case like this, it will be considered obstruction because
Speaker 1: even if they're trying to hide personal emails, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: They were sending and receiving them on a government piece
Speaker 1: of property. So that indicates where they have to follow
Speaker 1: the law. I can tell you what happens when a
Speaker 1: client destroys emails, for example, they get a it's called
Speaker 1: spoliation of evidence when they are found to have done
Speaker 1: it on purpose, and the court, you know, when they
Speaker 1: get to trial or wherever it is that they're being adjudicated,
Speaker 1: a jury or a judge is allowed to take the
Speaker 1: inference that what they destroyed was bad for them. So
Speaker 1: that's what you're talking about that kind of evidence. It's
Speaker 1: not it's not obstruction of justice. You talk about government
Speaker 1: are you talking about private entity? I'm talking about a
Speaker 1: private entity. There's the difference right there. Who government entity?
Speaker 1: This is government property. And when you violate the law
Speaker 1: with government property that that government the youth a topic
Speaker 1: equipment and government equipment, you are in violation of the
Speaker 1: law when you when you use that for personal means,
Speaker 1: when you go outside of the office, touches, putting this
Speaker 1: stuff in your home, uh, destroying the blackberries without the
Speaker 1: proper chain, you are, in fact, whether or not your
Speaker 1: intent was to obstruct, you are obstructing justice when it
Speaker 1: comes to investigation, and you are destroying government property, which
Speaker 1: is a violation of the law. And anybody else that
Speaker 1: would have done this tape your sailor we spent a
Speaker 1: year in jail for taking five pictures. Had he taken
Speaker 1: five pictures of that, had he gone and then done
Speaker 1: gone into some kind of a nuclear facility and taking pictures,
Speaker 1: we would see is that based on the totalitious circumstances,
Speaker 1: it was not a bad decision, and in fact, there
Speaker 1: was a motivation there. And that's what we're looking at
Speaker 1: when we look at this circumstances, Hillary Clinton and the
Speaker 1: rest of this gime. I know you're always trying to
Speaker 1: get me to say here is that you know she's
Speaker 1: a criminal, she was wrong, she should be thrown in jail.
Speaker 1: And all I'm trying to say is, these things are
Speaker 1: processes where prosecutors have the discretion and you don't have
Speaker 1: to say that. You don't have to say that. I
Speaker 1: don't mean I'm not trying to get you to say that.
Speaker 1: The fact is, this is the government property and government
Speaker 1: stuff it is. You don't even have to say that
Speaker 1: she obstructed, that she did this. You can simply say
Speaker 1: the actions that were performed were an obsessive justice and
Speaker 1: they were against the law in the way that the
Speaker 1: law governs the use of government equipment and top secret information.
Speaker 1: All Right, I gotta take a break, right there will
Speaker 1: continue Jonathan Gilham and Danielle McLaughlin Byron York at the
Speaker 1: bottom of the hour. And as we continue, Danielle McLaughlin
Speaker 1: and of course Jonathan Gilham, eight hundred nine for one,
Speaker 1: Shawn is our number. You want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. Uh. I want you to finish your point, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: because you're directly challenging in a way. But you know
Speaker 1: what I think Danielle is really good at, and that's
Speaker 1: being a criminal defense attorney. But when you the direct question,
Speaker 1: did Hillary commit crimes that you have struck just as
Speaker 1: the answer is obviously yes, it's obviously yes. And what
Speaker 1: I what I want daniel and the rest of people
Speaker 1: that that don't want to they say they don't want
Speaker 1: to get into the weeds of saying Hillary is guilty
Speaker 1: or not. Um, look at the crime, look at the
Speaker 1: actions that we're taken, and ask and answer the question,
Speaker 1: are those actions according to the law and the governance
Speaker 1: of top secret information and government equipment? Are without even
Speaker 1: talking about instruction, are is that against the law? Then
Speaker 1: ask if this stuff was involved in investigation? And you
Speaker 1: get it, Debbie Washerman Schulton did the same thing with
Speaker 1: our computer and uh and the Awen brothers. If people
Speaker 1: are maneuvering to destroy things when there is an investigation
Speaker 1: in process, whether it's the high personal information or not,
Speaker 1: is that obstruction of justice? And the answer is yes
Speaker 1: there as well. Well, I Well, all I'm gonna say
Speaker 1: is what what called me see it as the head
Speaker 1: of this investigation when he decided not to prosecute her.
Speaker 1: And that was those thirty three thousand emails that I'm
Speaker 1: sorry st I'm repeating myself. They were ordered deleted before
Speaker 1: the Benghazi subpoena. They had no belief from all the
Speaker 1: investigation that they did there was intent to obstruct justice
Speaker 1: or to get rid of those in events they were
Speaker 1: able to, as you know, from fragments of thousands of
Speaker 1: emails and from other emails that weren't produced came from
Speaker 1: other people who sort of gather a much broader and
Speaker 1: though we don't we have never confirmed that we've gotten
Speaker 1: those thirty three thousand emails back. No, no, I'm not
Speaker 1: all those stalks that there were some fragments left in
Speaker 1: the server and they did what they could. I gotta
Speaker 1: let it go here, though, But I thank you both
Speaker 1: for being with us. Eight nine one, Shawn are toll
Speaker 1: free telephone number A right. More on the North Korean hostages,
Speaker 1: and also the latest on obviously my interview with Rudy
Speaker 1: Giulianni last night, which appears they will be you know,
Speaker 1: I want to start getting money from NBC, ABC, CBS
Speaker 1: and CNN because all they do is run my stuff
Speaker 1: seven I mean, and they've been doing it for weeks
Speaker 1: and weeks and weeks, and we get no residuals. We want,
Speaker 1: we deserve to get paid. We'll continue. Secretary Clinton is
Speaker 1: someone deeply enmeshed, enmeshed in the rule of law, respect
Speaker 1: for institutions, a lawyer. There is evidence that they were
Speaker 1: extremely careless in their handling a very sensitive, highly classified information.
Speaker 1: For example, seven email chains concerned matters that were classified
Speaker 1: at the top secret Special Access Program at the time
Speaker 1: they were sent and received. Those chains involved Secretary Clinton
Speaker 1: both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about
Speaker 1: those same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion
Speaker 1: that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in
Speaker 1: the position of those with whom she was corresponding about
Speaker 1: those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was
Speaker 1: no place for that conversation. All Right, she is a
Speaker 1: woman that has deep respect for the law. All Right,
Speaker 1: you've got to be kidding me, right, Um? Anyway, that
Speaker 1: was James comey then and now um, going back to
Speaker 1: the exoneration letters and and and varying drafts before the
Speaker 1: investigation ever took place in that case. Eight nine one.
Speaker 1: Shawn is a toll free telephone number byron Yorke is here.
Speaker 1: He is the chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: Fox News contributor, author of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
Speaker 1: How are you, sir? Doing well? Sean? Thanks for having me. Uh,
Speaker 1: It's always good to have you. Um. Let's start with
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and and respecting the rule of law, because
Speaker 1: if she had such a deep respect, I would assume
Speaker 1: she would not have deleted thirty three thousand emails, acid
Speaker 1: washed the hard drive, and then have the devices beaten
Speaker 1: up with a hammer. Well, you know, the key word
Speaker 1: in that is unilaterally deleted all of those emails. She
Speaker 1: is the one who decided what investigators could see or
Speaker 1: could not and that's that is really perhaps the most
Speaker 1: egregious act in all of that. And I do think
Speaker 1: in a lot of everything that's happening now with President Trump,
Speaker 1: I think the Clinton example of how she was treated
Speaker 1: by the FBI, that is how the the exoneration memo
Speaker 1: was begun in in May, how the decision was made
Speaker 1: before not just Hillary Clinton, but maybe more than a
Speaker 1: dozen key witnesses wherever interviewed, the fact that immunity was
Speaker 1: handed out sort of like candy. UM and also the
Speaker 1: fact that if you remember, it was kind of a
Speaker 1: big deals on the July fourth weekend, July second, a
Speaker 1: Saturday in s she was interviewed for several hours, and
Speaker 1: then there was he was interviewed by Peter Struck. Wasn't
Speaker 1: she exactly? He was one of them, And there was
Speaker 1: Sunday and Monday was part of the holiday, and then
Speaker 1: Tuesday was the first business day back. And Tuesday, July
Speaker 1: five was the day that James Comey came out and
Speaker 1: said all of the reasons that she should be charged
Speaker 1: and then concluded by saying, well, we're not going to
Speaker 1: charge her with anything. Uh. And you you almost wonder
Speaker 1: if over that holiday weekend the FBI had enough time
Speaker 1: to go over a three hour interview with a fine
Speaker 1: tooth comb looking to make sure that she said the
Speaker 1: truth in every single sentence, because they have sure been
Speaker 1: concerned about that in current investigations. So, Uh, there's just
Speaker 1: a heck of a contrast between between the way that
Speaker 1: one was handled in the way this one is being
Speaker 1: handled now. It's such a compare and contrast the whole thing.
Speaker 1: I know that the media focused on only basically one
Speaker 1: part of my interview last Night with Rudy Julianni. I
Speaker 1: want to play what he said about Hillary Clinton because
Speaker 1: he didn't mince words and he was very forthcoming about
Speaker 1: saying Hillary is a criminal. Mr Mayor war laws broken.
Speaker 1: Let's start with Hillary. Did she ask I've been on
Speaker 1: we go back three years with this show. When I
Speaker 1: produced my chart, I remember thirteen crimes she committed, and
Speaker 1: we got up to about eighteen. I'm sorry, Hillary, I
Speaker 1: know you're very disappointed. You to win that you're a criminal.
Speaker 1: Equal justice would mean you should go to jail. Uh.
Speaker 1: I do not know why the Justice Department is not
Speaker 1: investigating you. That James Comey told me fixed the whole
Speaker 1: case and it was rigged. Well, you can't read that
Speaker 1: stupid report that he wrote, which is at the beginning
Speaker 1: of his destruction, in which he says, we're not going
Speaker 1: to prosecute. No reasonable prosecutor would indict her. No honest
Speaker 1: reasonable prosecutor wouldn't indict her. He said today or yesterday
Speaker 1: called me. He said Hillary deeply respects the rule of law.
Speaker 1: Comey said that, wow, well that this is this is
Speaker 1: a very perverted man. I feel so sorry. Do we
Speaker 1: have a two tier justice system in America. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: have one for Hillary and and and uh and all
Speaker 1: all those all those Democrats, Bill Clinton. I mean I
Speaker 1: thought that was one of maybe you know, a dozen
Speaker 1: or more moments that were incredible that the meat you
Speaker 1: just dismissed and didn't even report on. Well, by the way,
Speaker 1: thank you for that interview last night. It was it
Speaker 1: was tremendously newsworthy on a whole bunch of levels. I
Speaker 1: agree with you, there was just I learned a lot
Speaker 1: about what julianni was thinking about the current state of
Speaker 1: the Mueller investigation and the president's inclination or not inclination
Speaker 1: to interview with Mueller. I just I learned a lot
Speaker 1: out of that interview. So um, so thank you for it.
Speaker 1: But you know, looking back on um, you know, we
Speaker 1: had a situation in which both major party candidates were
Speaker 1: under investigation by the FBI, And I mean, maybe you
Speaker 1: could make the argument that we had two sketchy candidates,
Speaker 1: or maybe you could make the argument that the FBI
Speaker 1: was too involved in politics, and um, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: exactly how the Clinton's situation should have been handled. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is just a huge, huge step to indict one
Speaker 1: of the two candidates for president in the midst of
Speaker 1: the campaign, as it would have been in July. But um,
Speaker 1: but I just have to think and everything we've seen
Speaker 1: lately that the FBI has just gotten way too involved
Speaker 1: in our political system. And um is maybe exhibit A,
Speaker 1: B and C for that. Let me I keep bringing
Speaker 1: it up. But I actually raised this with the mayor
Speaker 1: last night, and who is now the president's attorney. I
Speaker 1: said to me, it's very simple, is that Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: violated the Espionage Ack eighteen USC. Seven ninety three, miss
Speaker 1: handling classified information destroying such information. James Comey admitted in
Speaker 1: that press conference, you're right after the you know, just
Speaker 1: two days after they met with her, because he was
Speaker 1: writing the exoneration with Peter Struck that was being written
Speaker 1: in May. I've never heard of an exoneration being written
Speaker 1: so far in advance of of interviewing the main people,
Speaker 1: seventeen other people and herself. But on top of that,
Speaker 1: then she was obstructing justice by deleting the emails, acid
Speaker 1: washing the drive and and beating up blackberries with hammers
Speaker 1: or having aids to it. And then you've got the
Speaker 1: whole LEFTBI cover up of this thing. And I do
Speaker 1: believe they rigged an investigation. I think the crimes were obvious.
Speaker 1: I don't think any American would get away with the
Speaker 1: type of behavior that she pulled off there, And I
Speaker 1: think they aided and abetted her, and that would be
Speaker 1: obstructing justice in their own way. And I think it's
Speaker 1: corrupt what they did the highest levels of the FBI,
Speaker 1: and then if they went forward, I mean the whole
Speaker 1: idea that they're looking into collusion with Russia and foreign
Speaker 1: nationals aren't post influence our elections. Nobody had a problem
Speaker 1: with Obama trying to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu in his
Speaker 1: last election. But more importantly, she hired an outside a
Speaker 1: foreign agent, you know, somebody outside the country named Christopher Steele.
Speaker 1: He was funneled money through Perkins Cooeye, which funneled it
Speaker 1: through Fusion GPS, and he used uncorroborated, unverified Russian sources
Speaker 1: to manip relate the American people. And then on top
Speaker 1: of that, it gets worse because the bulk of that information,
Speaker 1: according to the Grassly Grand MAMMO, was then used to
Speaker 1: obtain a fizal warrant to spy on an American citizen.
Speaker 1: Former Trump campaign associate, and they never told the judge
Speaker 1: that nobody verified the information, nobody corroborated the information, and
Speaker 1: that Hillary paid for it, and an asterisk that said
Speaker 1: it might be might have a political taint to it
Speaker 1: is not the truth to me. That's lying by omission.
Speaker 1: And the thing that's absolutely jaw dropping in what you
Speaker 1: were just talking about is that you do have this
Speaker 1: retired foreign spy gathering second, third, fourth hand information about
Speaker 1: one of the candidates working for the Clinton campaign. And
Speaker 1: the jaw dropping part is he brings it to the FBI,
Speaker 1: and the FBI wants to hire him to keep doing
Speaker 1: that work during the campaign and afterwards the deal falls through.
Speaker 1: But the FBI's UH reaction to this was too higher
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele and have him do his work for the FBI.
Speaker 1: And my guess is if that had actually gone into effect,
Speaker 1: Steele would have been collecting paychecks from the Clinton campaign
Speaker 1: and the FBI. At the same time, let's talk more
Speaker 1: about your general thoughts about last night's interview and what
Speaker 1: you got out of it in terms of the president
Speaker 1: with Rudy Giuliani and Emmett Flood and Jay Seculo and
Speaker 1: really a new team of attorneys now that he's put
Speaker 1: together I think some of the best in the country.
Speaker 1: And what you think this says and where you think
Speaker 1: this is going. Yeah, My my impression after watching your
Speaker 1: interview was that we've just had a massive turning point
Speaker 1: in this investigation. Um. And the twenty four or thirty
Speaker 1: six hours between the leak of the Mueller questions and
Speaker 1: then Rudy Giuliani's appearance on your program, I think really
Speaker 1: shows this massive change because we had had a situation
Speaker 1: in the White House in which um ty Cobb and
Speaker 1: um oh gosh, the other lawyer who has left, John Doubt, Yes,
Speaker 1: John Dowd, Ty Cobb and John Doubt had basically been
Speaker 1: UH counseling cooperation with the Mueller UM Mueller investigation. Remember
Speaker 1: back in the in the Clinton years, there were all
Speaker 1: these fights over executive privilege and Clinton didn't want to
Speaker 1: give anything to the Independent Council. He even invented things
Speaker 1: like protective function privilege, like like a secret service agents
Speaker 1: had some sort of privilege that we haven't had these
Speaker 1: privilege fights in this because Dowd and Cobb were co
Speaker 1: operating cooperation and the idea was UM that if if
Speaker 1: the White House did cooperate, then that could bring the
Speaker 1: Muller investigation to a quicker close. And I think anybody
Speaker 1: you know with two eyes is seeing that that didn't happen.
Speaker 1: And I think what we saw here again with the
Speaker 1: leak of the questions and then Juliani's appearance on your show,
Speaker 1: I think we saw the White House taken completely different
Speaker 1: turn towards a much more confrontational approach. They've obviously got
Speaker 1: to make a decision about whether to talk to Mueller
Speaker 1: and if not, how to handle it. But I think
Speaker 1: that they are they are realizing that as far as
Speaker 1: the president is concerned, and I know you've gone over
Speaker 1: with your listeners this question whether a sitting president can
Speaker 1: be indicted or not, I'm one of those who believes
Speaker 1: he cannot. That impeachment is the proper remedy if if
Speaker 1: there's the belief that the president has broken the law.
Speaker 1: I think the White House has realized that that could
Speaker 1: be where they're heading, depending on the results in November,
Speaker 1: and they have to get out in front of this
Speaker 1: and fight it in a different way. So I think
Speaker 1: that's basically the biggest message from from your show last night,
Speaker 1: isn't It also probably going to dovetail into a referendum
Speaker 1: come the mid terms. You know, it's a great question
Speaker 1: because I think back to two thousand six. It was
Speaker 1: George Bush's second term, so that's different from today. But um,
Speaker 1: the Iraq War was going terribly. George Bush's UM approval
Speaker 1: ratings were in the mid thirties and the Real Clear
Speaker 1: Politics average of polls, in other words, they were five
Speaker 1: to eight points lower than Donald Trump's art today. And
Speaker 1: there was a there was part of the Democratic base
Speaker 1: that wanted to impeach Bush if Democrats won the House
Speaker 1: in two thousand and six. And the problem was maybe
Speaker 1: forty something percent of Democrats supported impeachment for George W. Bush,
Speaker 1: far far smaller numbers among independents and certainly among Republicans.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, who stood to become the Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House if they won, was worried about this, worried that
Speaker 1: it was would turn off voters if the Democratic election.
Speaker 1: Democratic campaign was, you know, elect us and will impeach
Speaker 1: the president. So she came out in May of two
Speaker 1: thousand six, about this time of year, and said impeachment
Speaker 1: is off the table. Uh. And they went on to win,
Speaker 1: and impeachment was indeed off the table. Different situation now
Speaker 1: Nacy Pelosi still wants to be speaker, although that may
Speaker 1: not happen. Um. But about in the most recent poll
Speaker 1: we've seen from Quinnepiac, se of Democrats want to see
Speaker 1: the impeachment of the president. If Democrats when the House,
Speaker 1: now that is going to be that's a big number
Speaker 1: and it's gonna put a lot of pressure on Democrats.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure they can get away with the old
Speaker 1: impeachment is off the table line from from Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: which means, uh, since the overall electorate, the overall public
Speaker 1: is opposed to impeachment, I think that gives Republicans a
Speaker 1: political argument to say, look, look at these Democrats. Our
Speaker 1: economy is going well, America is showing strength in the world.
Speaker 1: The president is enacting a whole list of conservative of
Speaker 1: agenda items. And if you elect Democrats, what do they
Speaker 1: want to do? They want to impeach the president. That
Speaker 1: is certainly going to be one of the arguments we're
Speaker 1: gonna hear a we're running out of time completely Byron York.
Speaker 1: As always, you've been doing phenomenal work, uh, writing for
Speaker 1: the Washington Examiner, and it's always better when I get
Speaker 1: a direct link uh from you or cut and paste
Speaker 1: uh and uh. I applaud anybody making those changes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: We hear your complaints and we're listening to you. Okay,
Speaker 1: alright Byron York. Thank you, Shawn and tone free telephone number.
Speaker 1: That's gonna wrap things up to today. We have an
Speaker 1: amazing Hannity tonight nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel
Speaker 1: as the Great One, Mark Levin, Joe to Jenneva, David Limbaugh,
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, Dan Bongino, Sebastian Gorka, and much more.
Speaker 1: That's all Happening ninety eastern. Analyze everything in our interview
Speaker 1: with Rudy Giulianni and the media meltdown that followed. That's
Speaker 1: all happening tonight at ninth. Thanks for being with us,
Speaker 1: See you tonight at I'm back here tomorrow