Speaker 1: All right, glad you with us right down our toll
Speaker 1: free telephone number. You want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program. Oh, we have so much. Democrats are beginning
Speaker 1: to see this is a disaster. And I'm gonna explain
Speaker 1: why we know, and how we know, and how bad
Speaker 1: this is going to get for them. I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: you something. I am extraordinarily pissed off at what we
Speaker 1: now have to live through now going into a third
Speaker 1: year of never ending, NonStop impeachment madness. These people on
Speaker 1: the left, these Democrats, they have not lifted a finger
Speaker 1: and I have not done a single solitary thing to
Speaker 1: help make this country safer, better, more secure, to create jobs,
Speaker 1: to create opportunities, to create a better America. This is now.
Speaker 1: You know, you have to be really psychotic and sick
Speaker 1: now to be where they are here. And I'm telling
Speaker 1: you it's hurting the country after this shift show we
Speaker 1: had yesterday, And that's exactly what it was, and that's
Speaker 1: exactly what you're thinking, and it is it is a
Speaker 1: It is hurting the country at this point. We now
Speaker 1: are in three hundred and fifty five days away from
Speaker 1: an election, and they're still pursuing this insanity and this madness.
Speaker 1: You know, because they've never accepted that Donald Trump won.
Speaker 1: They tried every sneaky, dirty trick they could pull. You know,
Speaker 1: they rigged an investigation to keep this one candidate healthy,
Speaker 1: the favored candidate. They act like. You know, you have
Speaker 1: to bifur kate your brain. This is how sick, ugly, psychotic,
Speaker 1: rage filled twisted your mindset has to be. If you're
Speaker 1: a member of the medium mob or you're a part
Speaker 1: of this Democratic Party, you literally have to compartmentalize, bifur
Speaker 1: kate your brain. You have to abandon all reason, all
Speaker 1: kinds and sense, all intellectual honesty, and frankly, all intelligence,
Speaker 1: and you have to be willing to absorb and become
Speaker 1: the biggest moost transparent hypocrite on the face of the earth.
Speaker 1: To get where these people are today, you have to say, well,
Speaker 1: we knew to not have foreign Russian election interference, for
Speaker 1: examinations into it, no evidence of Trump. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: you ignored the Clinton bought and paid for dirty Russian
Speaker 1: dossier that was used to influence the American voters in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, and now we also know was used to
Speaker 1: get a FISA warrant that the night an American citizens
Speaker 1: constitutional rights, but more importantly, an opportunity to spy on
Speaker 1: all things Trump campaign, transition and even the President of
Speaker 1: the United States. You got us start realize this is
Speaker 1: now hurting the country on every deep level, beyond the
Speaker 1: fact that if they ever win, we got what a
Speaker 1: ninety four trillion dollar new Green deal, medicare for all
Speaker 1: fifty two trillion, no private insurance, no cars, no gas,
Speaker 1: no oil, no cows, no planes, and everything's free. It's insanity.
Speaker 1: But then you got to bifurcate your brain and shut
Speaker 1: it off again, and you absorbed that you're a hypocrite
Speaker 1: because you're gonna go, all right, well, we didn't get
Speaker 1: Russia collusion, not even from Muller. We didn't get the
Speaker 1: election results we wanted. Oh we're mad. Now they've never
Speaker 1: gotten over that part. And then trying to undo the
Speaker 1: presidency a duly elected president from the get go. Then
Speaker 1: they get into this phony. You know, way do we
Speaker 1: get to the end? One day? Maybe we'll get there,
Speaker 1: maybe we'll get to the origins of the Russia investigation.
Speaker 1: But I mean, seriously, we now have to be a
Speaker 1: Democrat or a member of the mob. You've got to
Speaker 1: ignore the rigged investigation into Hillary because I think all
Speaker 1: of you and me, yeah, we'd go to jail if
Speaker 1: we did what she did, if we literally put top
Speaker 1: secret classified information on either bring it home like other
Speaker 1: people did, are on a server, or that you would
Speaker 1: destroy subpoena evidence. I think Sean Hannity goes to jail,
Speaker 1: you know. Or if an investigation determined Sean Hannity lacked
Speaker 1: candor being interviewed by the FBI, I'd go to jail.
Speaker 1: If I committed premeditative fraud on a FISA court, I'd
Speaker 1: go to jail. The evidence is overwhelming in these cases,
Speaker 1: is incontrovertible in these cases. If I illegally surveiled on
Speaker 1: masked leak raw intelligence, I'd go to jail. If I
Speaker 1: conspired to outsource spying activities on my fellow Americans, I
Speaker 1: think I'd go to jail. I'm involved in a counterintelligence
Speaker 1: effort that abuses the powerful tools of intelligence that are
Speaker 1: designed to protect us and used it against political adversaries.
Speaker 1: I'd go to jail. If I bribed a foreign country
Speaker 1: with a billion US tax dollars to force them to
Speaker 1: take an official action and fire a prosecutor who they
Speaker 1: were who? Because my son was being a investigated by
Speaker 1: the guy. You get a billion if you fire him.
Speaker 1: You don't fire him, you don't get a billion. You
Speaker 1: got six hours for zero experience hunter to keep getting
Speaker 1: paid millions. I think I'd go to jail for that.
Speaker 1: Now we're starting out, and I started this on Twitter
Speaker 1: today because I am this pissed off, and to be honest,
Speaker 1: Senator Cornyn of Texas is the one that kind of
Speaker 1: put me in this mindset because I'm reading his comments about, oh,
Speaker 1: we don't think we have the fifty one votes to
Speaker 1: cut the case off before the evidences presented. He said, okay,
Speaker 1: well if that's true, Senator Cornyn. By the way, only
Speaker 1: one senator so far as responded, we're calling their offices.
Speaker 1: I want to know the answer to simple questions. Are
Speaker 1: you going to allow the shift sham show in the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives where hearsay evidence from so and so's
Speaker 1: somebody's brother's sister's grandfather's cousin's wife, nephew niece adopted da
Speaker 1: da da da. That's not evidence. This idiot yesterday Quigly,
Speaker 1: oh wait, talking about there's many cases where Hearsay evidence
Speaker 1: is so much better than direct evidence. You dope, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean? How dumb do you have to be?
Speaker 1: Countless people? I don't want to hear it. I've done
Speaker 1: in a mood, you know. But here's my question of
Speaker 1: Cornin and every other Republican senator? Are you going to
Speaker 1: allow an impeachment trial to go forward with hearsay evidence?
Speaker 1: I want an answer to that question. I want every
Speaker 1: senator to answer it. Are you going to allow this
Speaker 1: shift show in the House into the US Senate? Are
Speaker 1: you really going to let that happen, assuming these people
Speaker 1: are so stupid that they let this continue. Are you
Speaker 1: going to allow an impeachment trial where the accuser, as
Speaker 1: I hearsay, not by any legal definition, whistleblower, non whistleblower. Really,
Speaker 1: are you gonna set a precedent where the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, in a trial in the Senate would
Speaker 1: not have the right to confront their accuser. Because I
Speaker 1: want answers to these questions. I want to know what's
Speaker 1: coming if these people are as stupid as I think
Speaker 1: they're capable of being stupid. Now, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: anecdotal evidence that this is bombed for them, not the
Speaker 1: least of which are television ratings. Look, you had all
Speaker 1: three networks, ABC, NBC, CBS. They went wall to wall
Speaker 1: ten to four yesterday with the Shift Show, and guess
Speaker 1: what it was a ratings disaster for all three of them.
Speaker 1: Put it this way, the Fox News Channel cable news,
Speaker 1: not broadcast, literally crushed all three broadcast networks, all three
Speaker 1: of them. In the case of NBC versus the Fox
Speaker 1: News Channel more than doubled or close to doubled. Their
Speaker 1: number was million more households than ABC and CBS. This
Speaker 1: is a disaster now for TV. I told you this
Speaker 1: was going to be yesterday what this would turn into.
Speaker 1: And as far as as as news ratings, yeah, Trump
Speaker 1: supporters were pissed off and rightly so last night because
Speaker 1: they see this as a never ending, non stop which hunt.
Speaker 1: You know what a visual yesterday the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, No, I didn't have time to watch it
Speaker 1: because he's with the president of Turkey, President Urduan, who
Speaker 1: I am not a big fan of, And I don't
Speaker 1: think it's been a great ally at all to the
Speaker 1: US dealing with serious issues involving Syria that region of
Speaker 1: the world. The NATO Alliance they've not been there when
Speaker 1: we've needed them, etc. Etc. And there is you know,
Speaker 1: I'm just it is really frustrating that they do nothing
Speaker 1: for the American people. They do nothing for the for
Speaker 1: the forgotten men and women. They destroyed the lives, thirteen
Speaker 1: million more Americans on food stamps, eight million more in poverty,
Speaker 1: the lowest labor participation rate since the seventies, you know,
Speaker 1: and the worst recovery since the forties. Lowest home ownership
Speaker 1: rate in fifty one years. That's when we got Biden. Obama.
Speaker 1: Trump comes in. We have the best employment situations in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty nine. The guy checks off the list. Tax
Speaker 1: cuts done, biggest in history, deregulation biggest in history. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll do the border wall this way because they're not
Speaker 1: gonna help me, even though they sounded like me in
Speaker 1: the second term of Obama. Check new trade deals Japan
Speaker 1: and Mexico and Canada and our European allies, and now
Speaker 1: a half a deal with China, energy independence and what
Speaker 1: they want to get power so they can ram the
Speaker 1: new Green Deal down our throats, Medicare for all, down
Speaker 1: our throats. Washington Post today in a you know, literally,
Speaker 1: which was pretty interesting even for them. You have a
Speaker 1: quote where screwed literally in front of the television cameras.
Speaker 1: House Democrats. They hope to paint a clear picture of
Speaker 1: a president who sought to bribe, e storic condition or
Speaker 1: coercive foreign government to improperly interfere in our elections by
Speaker 1: investigating his political rival. A Democratic aide told reporters privately,
Speaker 1: Democrats are confessing that they're made for TV. Moment never materialized.
Speaker 1: Where screwed? This week? On hearings, a Democratic aide telling
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, no bombshells, no revelations. The onus was
Speaker 1: on us to wow some people. This week. Other Democrats
Speaker 1: quoted bright Part, it was a total disaster for us.
Speaker 1: One senior House Democratic aide telling bright Part news too complicated.
Speaker 1: Another Democrat, this won't make sense to regular It doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense. None of this makes sense because they're the
Speaker 1: same I gotta slow down here, because they're the same
Speaker 1: people that have been lying to you for three years
Speaker 1: about Trump Russia collusion, the same people They were fine
Speaker 1: that they rigged an investigation to save their favorite candidate.
Speaker 1: They care about Trump Russia collusion, except they'll ignore the
Speaker 1: dirty dossier of Hillary Clinton. I mean, what a bunch
Speaker 1: of hypocrites they care about foreign election interference. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's look at Ukraine, because we know DNC operatives met
Speaker 1: at the Ukrainian embassy. Just read Politico Ken Vogel nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, two and seventeen and it says, yeah, they
Speaker 1: met at the Ukrainian embassy at DNC contractor, and yeah
Speaker 1: they were colluding to get dirt on Donald trumpet associates.
Speaker 1: And yeah they were effective because they got Paul Manifort
Speaker 1: in that way and hurt the Trump campaign. You would think, oh,
Speaker 1: they don't care about that either. Everything is just to
Speaker 1: destroy Trump. And you know here they're saying, whoa quid?
Speaker 1: Pro quos are terrible. You can't bribe, you can't extort,
Speaker 1: you can't shake down. Well, what is Joe Biden doing
Speaker 1: on tape when he brags about we're not giving you
Speaker 1: the money. No, you fired that prosecutor. Yeah, I'll give
Speaker 1: you the money. Fire the prosecutor, get a billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Don't fire me. You don't get a billion the prosecutor.
Speaker 1: He's told by everybody's investigating his son. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: we'd go to jail if we did that. And We've
Speaker 1: identified those crimes repeatedly to people, and this is what
Speaker 1: it means, do nothing for the American people, never ending
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories and lies and one hoax after another, the
Speaker 1: sham show trials that they're putting up there with a compromised, corrupt, coward,
Speaker 1: congenital liar, a fact witness by the name of Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff in the case you're gonna now, it's all hearsay.
Speaker 1: There's no direct evidence, neither one of these idiots. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: I've ever talked to the president or anybody close to
Speaker 1: the president. Well, I think my aid might have heard
Speaker 1: a no conversation. Well, the person that supposedly heard the
Speaker 1: conversation said, yeah, the President said directly, I don't want
Speaker 1: to quit pro quo. Oh okay, Well, I guess that
Speaker 1: doesn't work either. And I am saying that this is her,
Speaker 1: the country, and at some point this has got to stop,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess the only way we're gonna stop
Speaker 1: this is in three hundred and fifty five days, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to suck it up. We're gonna have to
Speaker 1: suck up more smears, more lies, more conspiracy theories, more
Speaker 1: abusively biased coverage, We're gonna have to suck up the smearing,
Speaker 1: the besmirchment, the slander, the libel, the absolute psychosis that
Speaker 1: is the Democratic Party and their friends, their allies, the
Speaker 1: mob in the media. But I'll tell you, if you
Speaker 1: love the country, you can't love watching this this shift
Speaker 1: show every day on fold. It's hurting the country. And
Speaker 1: I want to hear from us senators today. It's all
Speaker 1: on Twitter and we're calling your offices, and I want
Speaker 1: to know if you're gonna allow hearsay, if if you're
Speaker 1: gonna allow hearsay to be presented as quote evidence, if
Speaker 1: this ever gets to you, I want to know if
Speaker 1: you're gonna allow a trial without somebody having the right
Speaker 1: to face their accuser. Simple questions, John Cornyn, I'd like answered.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Senator Burr and Frankly, Senator McConnell,
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham's the only one that answered. He said, Nope,
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I agree. We're not going to change
Speaker 1: what has served this country for all of these years,
Speaker 1: a constitution and a rule of law, just because we
Speaker 1: don't want to be disliked by a corrupt media mob.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats will say bad things about us. Get
Speaker 1: over yourselves, all right? As we roll along Agia. While
Speaker 1: I'm trying to call sources, I'm trying to get information done.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's too much to ask that
Speaker 1: these Republicans in the Senate now stand up for what
Speaker 1: has worked for this country and our rule of law
Speaker 1: for a long time. That is the right to confront
Speaker 1: your accuser. That means inadmissible hearsay evidence. Mitt Romney, are
Speaker 1: you going to support that? Because if you are, maybe
Speaker 1: one day that boomerang's back on you because they have
Speaker 1: so political as sized and criminalized. Now what are basic
Speaker 1: political differences here? But I am telling you, if that's
Speaker 1: the case, just it's over. It's done. The United States
Speaker 1: as we love it and know it and believe in
Speaker 1: it is finished. You know. Now another delay with the
Speaker 1: inspector General reportment. I mean, this is not even it's
Speaker 1: just pathetic. At this point. I gotta get Harrowitz's number.
Speaker 1: I dot it'll take my call. I mean, how many
Speaker 1: people do you need? How many people does it take
Speaker 1: to turn to put in a light switch or put
Speaker 1: in a light bulb? Not that many? Probably? You know
Speaker 1: you have six hundred employees. You think you'd be done
Speaker 1: now because the case is slam dunk. Ready, we'll continue,
Speaker 1: all right, twenty five now till the top of the hour,
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine four one Sean, if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the problem. Wow, look at this.
Speaker 1: James just brings this into me. Wow. All right, So
Speaker 1: now we have we we're now asking the Senate. We
Speaker 1: we know it's a shift show. You got to compromise corrupt,
Speaker 1: congenital liar running the shift show with no due process,
Speaker 1: and they tried to make the appearance of it, but
Speaker 1: none of it's true. It turns into a disaster yesterday
Speaker 1: for them by every single solitary measure, a disaster. And
Speaker 1: I don't know what these networks are going to do.
Speaker 1: They can't stay on the air with numbers this pathetically
Speaker 1: low in terms of ratings. Nobody wanted to see their crap.
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you now, I'm asking us senators very
Speaker 1: simple fundamental questions. Are you going to allow the shift
Speaker 1: show to move over to your body or are you
Speaker 1: going to protect the rule of law, the constitution, due process,
Speaker 1: equal justice, equal application, or are you going to allow
Speaker 1: what they're doing over there to take over in the
Speaker 1: US Senate I'm by the way, I'm addressing you, Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: I'm addressing you John Cornyn, and I'm addressing you Senator
Speaker 1: burn North Carolina in particularly as you guys seem just
Speaker 1: hell bent. Don't allowing them. We've got to have this trouble.
Speaker 1: What do you mean you got okay if you're gonna
Speaker 1: have a trial if it gets to you, are you
Speaker 1: going to allow the shift show to continue over there?
Speaker 1: In other words, I want answers to simple questions. Are
Speaker 1: you going to allow hearsay and conjecture to be admissible
Speaker 1: evidence in the United States Senate? I want a yes
Speaker 1: or no answer. Are you going to allow an impeachment
Speaker 1: trial to continue where the main accuser gets to be anonymous?
Speaker 1: That isn't, by law a whistleblower, only a hearsay whistle blower,
Speaker 1: a non whistle blower whistle blower. And in other words,
Speaker 1: are you going to set a precedent in the US Senate?
Speaker 1: And are you going to allow a president and his
Speaker 1: attorneys the right to confront the accuser because that's not
Speaker 1: happening in the US House of Representatives, because the compromise,
Speaker 1: the corrupt, the coward, congenital liar is in charge of everything.
Speaker 1: He makes every decision possible, and all due process that
Speaker 1: we have come to expect in this country has been
Speaker 1: thrown out the window. Republicans can call witnesses and left
Speaker 1: Shift approves it. Republican. He's even coaching the witnesses yesterday
Speaker 1: for crying out loud. I mean, that's how bad this gets. So,
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham of South Carolina answers me questions. No. Absolutely
Speaker 1: not dead on a rival without the right to confront
Speaker 1: your accuser. Dead on a rival, he says, as it
Speaker 1: relates to hearsay evidence being allowed as evidence and reducing
Speaker 1: a standard that nobody's ever accepted. Now we have North
Speaker 1: Carolina Senator Tom Tillis has contacted us and responded. I'll
Speaker 1: give you his full response. He said, he's just actually
Speaker 1: talked to Capitol Hill reporters about the very point that
Speaker 1: Sean is making. He strongly believes the President Trump should
Speaker 1: be able to face his accusers and the President's legal
Speaker 1: team should be able to question the so called whistleblower
Speaker 1: before the Senate, especially since the House is refusing to
Speaker 1: provide the president with these basic due process rights. Wow.
Speaker 1: Republican Senator Tom Tilla says he would he would not
Speaker 1: vote to support an impeachment trial process that shields the
Speaker 1: whistleblower from being called to testify publicly. And he says
Speaker 1: the whistleblower is the original accuser and should have to testify.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator Tillis. Thank you, Lindsey Graham. Senator Wicker
Speaker 1: has now responded to us from Mississippi. Senator Wicker has
Speaker 1: called out the House Inquiry repeatedly for lack of due process.
Speaker 1: Here is the press release that he issued on the
Speaker 1: day of the House formalized their procedures where there's no
Speaker 1: due process. Wow, good for you, Senator, Thank you for
Speaker 1: sending that. We appreciate your answer. Look at this. Senator
Speaker 1: Ben Sasser not mcdactly been getting along lately. Senator Ben
Speaker 1: Sass office has responded for month. Senator SaaS has said
Speaker 1: that Adam Schiff is running a clown show in the House.
Speaker 1: Now we are going to have to get specific answers.
Speaker 1: But thank you Senator SaaS and Nebraska for answering and
Speaker 1: standing for the real rule of law. You know, don't
Speaker 1: we tell me. You don't even tell your kids not
Speaker 1: to gossip. Let me tell your kids. Um, yeah, if
Speaker 1: you can't have hearsay if an evidence is inadmissible, is
Speaker 1: idiot yesterday? You know, Oh, sometimes hearsay is better than
Speaker 1: direct evidence. You dope, Nope, that never is that the
Speaker 1: case ever under any circumstances. But it's inadmissible in a court,
Speaker 1: you idiot. What is wrong with these people? You know,
Speaker 1: we got Democrats now in the House impeaching the president
Speaker 1: based off of gossip, based off of hearsay, from hearsay
Speaker 1: to hearsay to five hearsays, you know, removed. None of
Speaker 1: these people ever spoke to the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: The one guy that did was the guy that actually
Speaker 1: said the President was very very clear, this is uh.
Speaker 1: The The European Union ambassador sonlod confirming the confirmed numerous
Speaker 1: times in his testimony that the President clearly stated I
Speaker 1: want no quid pro quo. And these guys yesterday are
Speaker 1: quoting Sonlon as their source for all of this madness.
Speaker 1: And I'm watching these guys, I'm like, well, the level
Speaker 1: of self importance is a little obnoxious. Frankly, I mean,
Speaker 1: these guys, with all due respect, I mean I never
Speaker 1: really thought much about what ambassadors do. It's kind of ridiculous.
Speaker 1: That they think they're that mighty and that powerful. That's why,
Speaker 1: you know, when this this this lady Maria what was
Speaker 1: her name, I have to look it up. Ivanovic started saying, well,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity was smearing me, but the Mike Pompeo called
Speaker 1: Sean Hanny. No, Mike Pompeo never called Sean Hannity. Nobody
Speaker 1: from the State Department called Sean Hannity. And she's saying,
Speaker 1: she's saying all these things about me, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: I don't even I know nothing about this woman. I
Speaker 1: know nothing about Ukraine. I've never talked to anybody in
Speaker 1: Ukraine ever in my life. It's not the only issue
Speaker 1: I cared about. What Ukraine was Joe Biden bragging, you know,
Speaker 1: and leveraging our money billion dollars. Fire the prosecutor. You're
Speaker 1: not getting the money if you don't fire him. Okay,
Speaker 1: why because the prosecutor was investigating his son, because his
Speaker 1: son had zero experience. It was being paid millions and
Speaker 1: millions and millions of dollars. Yeah, that I cared about
Speaker 1: because you know, if it was Donald Trump vice president,
Speaker 1: it would be a very different story. And this is
Speaker 1: now where we are. By the way Ted cruz office
Speaker 1: just said no comment at this time. Called Ted Cruz's
Speaker 1: office back. That's not an acceptable answer, but it called out,
Speaker 1: I'm serious, called him back right now. I don't believe Ted.
Speaker 1: I do not believe Ted Cruz at would would ever
Speaker 1: say that at all. Anyway, then you have vulgar testify
Speaker 1: he didn't get any indication of any quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: Then you've got, of course, yeah, you actually have the Ukrainians. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: the president Zelinski told these two guys whoever the hell
Speaker 1: self important people yesterday, told them the day after, and
Speaker 1: in two subsequent meetings. Oh no, that went great with
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. That went really, really well.
Speaker 1: By the way, we got new comments in from the
Speaker 1: Ukraine's foreign minister that demolish the Democrats quid pro quo claim. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, they never took any action in other words,
Speaker 1: as it relates to either the election interference, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, the president is faithfully executing the laws that
Speaker 1: Democrats told us for three years they cared about foreign
Speaker 1: election interference. We actually have real evidence there that a
Speaker 1: DNC contractor went to the Ukrainian embassy. It's in Politico
Speaker 1: and met with Ukrainian officials for the purpose of collusion
Speaker 1: to help Hillary Clinton and dig up dirt on Trump
Speaker 1: and his associates. Anyway, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, I don't
Speaker 1: know how to say any of these guys names, Vadeem Price, Tako,
Speaker 1: I guess or something like that, said Thursday that the
Speaker 1: US ambassador, you, Gordon Sonlin, did not link financial military
Speaker 1: assistance to request for Ukraine to open up an investigation
Speaker 1: in a Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Ambassador Sonlin
Speaker 1: did not tell us and certainly did not tell me
Speaker 1: about a connection between the assistants and the investigation. That's
Speaker 1: the other thing, you know, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the money got to them. They never did a President
Speaker 1: Zelinski did nothing, said nothing publicly on any of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's this is why this is so destructive.
Speaker 1: This is you know, this is not funny anymore. This
Speaker 1: is now almost three straight years of this garbage. In
Speaker 1: this crap. You know my timeline, and we put together
Speaker 1: two days after the president's elected in Peach, all through
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, in Peach, twenty eighteen, in Peach twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: in Peach, are you kidding me? You know, Zolenski never
Speaker 1: knew that AID was held up. He's a new president.
Speaker 1: There's a hell of a lot of corruption that goes
Speaker 1: on in this country. You know. Never in that phone
Speaker 1: call with the president was AID ever ever mentioned. Not
Speaker 1: one time did it ever come up, Not a single time.
Speaker 1: And the President saying that if crimes are committed, you
Speaker 1: we have an agreement that we would help in criminal matters.
Speaker 1: We want you to look into election interference, and wow,
Speaker 1: that Biden thing. Yeah, we've identified four separate well three
Speaker 1: separate laws, but four statutes, as we've stated on this program,
Speaker 1: that are applicable. But they don't care. Obviously, they don't
Speaker 1: care that they do nothing for the country that they had.
Speaker 1: They live in this world of slime, smear, slander, besmirchment, attack, attack, attack, destroy, impeach, impeach,
Speaker 1: impeach because they lost an election and Muller didn't work
Speaker 1: out the way they wanted. So now we go through
Speaker 1: what Now now we're beginning year four of this madness,
Speaker 1: this raged, this psychosis. You know, all the lyne that
Speaker 1: went on that they had more than circumstantial evidence of
Speaker 1: Russia collusion or the fabrications of Trump Russia collusion. Oh,
Speaker 1: and the Steel dossier, it was gospel until when the
Speaker 1: FBI finally looks at it. Yeah, they disproved over ninety
Speaker 1: percent of it, which should have been done before Komey
Speaker 1: he was warned not to used it as the bulk
Speaker 1: of information, signing off on three of the four fives
Speaker 1: A warrants. You know, forget about them leaking a story
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump Junior that he colluded with Wiki leaks
Speaker 1: to get the you know, all the lies, all the deception,
Speaker 1: all the conspiracy theories, and the hoaxes that have been
Speaker 1: now perpetrated and rammed down the throats of every American.
Speaker 1: We should all be pissed off at the point, at
Speaker 1: some point, the American people have had it with this crap.
Speaker 1: And if you want to get to the root of
Speaker 1: why a disruptor and a non politician one in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: this is a big part of the reason and the
Speaker 1: fact that you can't get every Republican senator to state affirmatively, yeah,
Speaker 1: the president would have must have the right to confront
Speaker 1: their accuser and yeah, hearsay evidence is not going to
Speaker 1: fly in the US Senate. I shouldn't have to pull
Speaker 1: teeth to get answers to these questions. You know, they
Speaker 1: vowed publicly impeachment requires bipartisan support. They have no bipartisan support.
Speaker 1: You have nothing. They literally did a test run audition
Speaker 1: behind closed doors. And those are the two idiots that
Speaker 1: they picked out of a hat to represent them. And
Speaker 1: tomorrow you got the lady that accused me of well
Speaker 1: we mentioned they're like four times and claiming that, you know,
Speaker 1: I was told that Mike Pompeo called shown had no No, lady,
Speaker 1: I didn't even know who you were. Now I know
Speaker 1: who you are. Now I know a lot about you,
Speaker 1: John Slom and who's going to join us? Yeah, he
Speaker 1: found a speech where weren't into Geneva convention. You're not
Speaker 1: supposed to get involved in politics. And John Solomon did
Speaker 1: interview the general prosecutor whoever hell his name is in
Speaker 1: Ukraine and that guy said you gave him a list
Speaker 1: of names not to be prosecuted. Now I know in
Speaker 1: Ukrainian newspaper disputed that. But John Solomon he said he
Speaker 1: went back and asked the guy, so no, I never no,
Speaker 1: I'm standing by that and all of this. They are
Speaker 1: just dumping on the American people. You know this is
Speaker 1: not how this country ought to be run. These are
Speaker 1: not leaders. This is not good for the country. They
Speaker 1: don't seem to give a flying rip about what's good
Speaker 1: or bad for the country. All they care about is
Speaker 1: herning Trump and winning an election back so they can
Speaker 1: then impose their new Green Deal madness ninety four trillion
Speaker 1: dollars in medicare for all. Wow, I can't wait for
Speaker 1: that to all happen. You know, you're gonna have closed
Speaker 1: door audition processes and then you'll bring out the people
Speaker 1: that only suit your point of view. And you're not
Speaker 1: gonna put Adam Schiff in the chair when he lied
Speaker 1: repeatedly about his office and the contact that they had
Speaker 1: with the so called whistleblower. Are we not going to
Speaker 1: bring Schiff's staff in? Are we not going to bring
Speaker 1: the non whistleblower in? Are we not going to put
Speaker 1: the Bidens in the chair? You know, how do you
Speaker 1: buy for Kate your brain that you really it's so
Speaker 1: horrible to to have American leaders use taxpayer money as
Speaker 1: a leverage. Well, what did Joe Biden admit to on tape?
Speaker 1: There's your real quid pro quo Joe to save his
Speaker 1: son oh election interference matters, except when a DNC contractor
Speaker 1: meets with the Ukrainian officials to get dirt and coluded
Speaker 1: to get dirt on Trump to tel Pillory win an election.
Speaker 1: All of this is happening, and at some point is
Speaker 1: this is going to give. But we've got to wait
Speaker 1: for the fires of a report. We got to wait
Speaker 1: for the Durham report. All I know is if I
Speaker 1: did any of this crap, or any of you listening
Speaker 1: to this show, I promise you your asses would be
Speaker 1: in jail and in seconds flat, there'd be no time,
Speaker 1: no time to pass go and collect two hundred bucks either,
Speaker 1: you know, you go? When do we put the country first? Here?
Speaker 1: You got an election in three hundred and fifty five days,
Speaker 1: you know. And that's probably the only the only saving
Speaker 1: grace in this, although you gotta worry if they'll cheat,
Speaker 1: of course, But the only saving grace in this is
Speaker 1: that the American people now see this, and I am
Speaker 1: I am more convinced than I've ever been. They are
Speaker 1: not going to reward this behavioral nor should they. Every
Speaker 1: American should be pissed off at what they are doing
Speaker 1: to this country, at what they won't do to help
Speaker 1: the country be safer, more secure, more prosperous, with more
Speaker 1: jobs and more opportunities, better schools, and safer streets. None
Speaker 1: of that ever gets done by them. And even the Republicans,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump is carrying most of them on their
Speaker 1: on his back because they're too pathetically weak, with the
Speaker 1: exceptions of the Freedom Caucus and a few senators. A
Speaker 1: Master Taylor recalls that mister Morrison told him, Master Taylor
Speaker 1: that I told mister Morrison that I conveyed this message
Speaker 1: to mister Yarmock on September first, twenty nineteen, and connects
Speaker 1: so a Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a
Speaker 1: meeting with President Zelensky. We got six people having four
Speaker 1: conversations in one sentence, and you just told me, this
Speaker 1: is where you got your clear understanding. Even though you
Speaker 1: had three opportunities with President Zelenski for him to tell you,
Speaker 1: you know what, we're gonna do these investigations to get
Speaker 1: the aid. Didn't tell you three different times, never makes
Speaker 1: an announce but never tweets about it, never doesn't see
Speaker 1: an interview Massor you weren't on the call, were you
Speaker 1: the president? You didn't listen to President Trump's call and
Speaker 1: Presidentlyssi's call. Did you've never talked with Chief of Staff Baulvaney?
Speaker 1: You never met the president? Had three meetings again was Zelenskin.
Speaker 1: It didn't come up, and two of those day they
Speaker 1: never heard about as far as I know. And you're
Speaker 1: their star witness, you're their first witness. You're the guy.
Speaker 1: You're the guy based on this, based on I mean,
Speaker 1: I've seen I've seen church prayer change that are a
Speaker 1: geezer to understand than this. Master Taylor recalls that mister
Speaker 1: Morrison told him, Masertaylor that I told mister Morrison, I
Speaker 1: conveyed this message mister yarmacolm September one, twenty. This all happens,
Speaker 1: by the way, This all happens, by the way, in Warsaw,
Speaker 1: Vice President Pence meets with President's Lensky and guess what,
Speaker 1: they didn't talk about any linkage either. Unbelievable. This is
Speaker 1: what this madness is now devolved into. This is hurting
Speaker 1: the country. You have to not care about a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo. You're not getting the billion. Wire the prosecutor.
Speaker 1: You get a billion, you don't fire the prosecutor. You're
Speaker 1: not getting the billion. Dollars. Yeah, that would be a
Speaker 1: quid pro quo because the prosecutor that he is demanding
Speaker 1: to be fired in six hours is investigating his son,
Speaker 1: who has zero experience in Ukraine energy, oil or gas.
Speaker 1: Millions and millions of dollars. Yeah, I think that would
Speaker 1: be probably a big deal if it was Donald Trump. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Senator Lindsay Graham joins us he has been amazing. I'm
Speaker 1: not even sure if it gets to the Senate at
Speaker 1: this point. Let's assume for a second it does. Senator,
Speaker 1: I know you saw my tweets go out today, and
Speaker 1: I've got to thank you because apparently you have answered
Speaker 1: that you will not support any impeachment trial where there
Speaker 1: is a with hearsay evidence, a hearsay whistle blower, and
Speaker 1: without any opportunity for the president in this case to
Speaker 1: confront their accuser. Good for you, Thank you for responding. Well,
Speaker 1: what I'm trying to do is let the country know
Speaker 1: that if it does come to the Senate, we're not
Speaker 1: going to change the rules just to get Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: All I'm asking the Senate to do is make sure
Speaker 1: that hearsay evidence is included consistent with the federal rules
Speaker 1: of criminal procedure banning hearsay unless there's a valid exception.
Speaker 1: I am not going to allow trial to go forward
Speaker 1: in the Senate with my vote that legitimizes the whistleblower
Speaker 1: as an anonymous source to start impeachment, even though the
Speaker 1: whistleblower is talking about hearsay. They're the ones that started this.
Speaker 1: And here's my question, Sean. Does whistleblore have a political
Speaker 1: bias against the president? Does he come from the CIA?
Speaker 1: Does she come from the CIA? Did they work for Biden?
Speaker 1: Were they involved at all in trying to stop the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden's gas company. That's why you
Speaker 1: need to know who this person is. You know, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you my patience is run out here, Senator, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to push and get an answer from the senators.
Speaker 1: I did not like the comments will be very blunt
Speaker 1: of Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and Senator Burn North Carolina,
Speaker 1: because this is simple, basic fundamental justice under our constitution.
Speaker 1: We're talking about it. It is right, and you have
Speaker 1: been saying this and articulating this, but they're saying that, well,
Speaker 1: there's definitely I think we'll have to have a trial.
Speaker 1: What with hearsay. Witnesses no right to confront your accuser.
Speaker 1: Are you kidding me? See that's the difference. Okay. I
Speaker 1: don't know how long the trial is going to last,
Speaker 1: but I know how it should be conducted. Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: did a marvelous job of explaining that mister Taylor, who
Speaker 1: is a professional State Department person, his disagreements with administration,
Speaker 1: is being weaponized by Adam Shift. So the State Department
Speaker 1: Professional Corps may be a victim of Adam Shift's desire
Speaker 1: to destroy Trump. But when you look at what mister
Speaker 1: Taylor said, it would not be admissible in a court
Speaker 1: of law. Mister Taylor has no direct evidence of a
Speaker 1: quit pro quo coming from the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: and the intended victim here the President of the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: denied any such thing happened. So I want to trial
Speaker 1: where the rules are set early on to make sure
Speaker 1: that information like we heard from mister Taylor never makes
Speaker 1: it to the Senate floor, because if you allow that
Speaker 1: to happen, you're legitimizing the process that becomes a threat
Speaker 1: to the presidency itself. I this is that serious, Senator.
Speaker 1: We have for three years now been living under conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories hoax. Oh, you know, I'll be honest, I'm really
Speaker 1: pissed off. And I wrote this to somebody earlier today,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to read it to you because I
Speaker 1: think it is that important in terms of the country,
Speaker 1: because if we don't start getting some certain things right here,
Speaker 1: we are as a country in deep trouble. You know,
Speaker 1: a very simple Lindsey Graham, as good a lawyer as
Speaker 1: you are. If I had top secret information classified information
Speaker 1: at my home or on a server, I go to jail.
Speaker 1: If I destroyed a pen of evidence, I would go
Speaker 1: to jail. If I lacked candor Jim Comey in an
Speaker 1: interview with FBI agents, I would go to jail. If
Speaker 1: I committed premeditated fraud on a fiser court, to spy
Speaker 1: on a candidate, a transition team, and president, I go
Speaker 1: to jail. The evidence is overwhelming. If I illegally surveiled
Speaker 1: a mass field, I'll go to jail. If I outsource
Speaker 1: spying to other people, I go to jail. Well, I
Speaker 1: think your point is, here's the point the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: technique shoes to get a Fiser warrant. If I'm an
Speaker 1: FBI agent and I lie to the court, I'm in trouble?
Speaker 1: Did they lie to the court? Will anybody be in
Speaker 1: trouble if I open up a counterintelligence investigation against a
Speaker 1: presidential campaign without any real reason? Am I in trouble?
Speaker 1: And if you're not in trouble, why wouldn't you do
Speaker 1: it again? So there's three things we need to get
Speaker 1: right in this country. We need to make sure that
Speaker 1: what happened in twenty sixteen never happens again. We never
Speaker 1: defraud de Fis the court with a political document. That's
Speaker 1: a bunch of garbage to this day, that we don't
Speaker 1: open up counterintelligence investigations against political people without a solid
Speaker 1: foundation with checks and balances, And we don't. We don't
Speaker 1: have a trial in the House that ignores all of
Speaker 1: the due process requirements of being an American and legitimize
Speaker 1: that in a trial in the Senate. Those are my
Speaker 1: three goals. And when you're asking my Republican colleagues, will
Speaker 1: you support a trial that allows hearsay upon hearsay? I
Speaker 1: hope the answer is no, because if we do, then
Speaker 1: that's damning to the future of the presidency and really
Speaker 1: to the rule of laws, a concept, you know, I
Speaker 1: gotta give you a lot of credit, as you have
Speaker 1: been pushing and pushing and pushing. I do not understand
Speaker 1: there's a certain timidity here. Is there any reason why
Speaker 1: the Senate can't subpoena Let's see Adam Shift, Adam Shift's staff,
Speaker 1: the non whistle blower, whistle blower, hearsay whistle blower Joe,
Speaker 1: and the hunter Biden. Is there any reason why we
Speaker 1: can't be doing that now? As far as an oversight function,
Speaker 1: we're not going to call House members, and I wouldn't
Speaker 1: go to the House as part of their oversight function.
Speaker 1: But let's say there as a trial. Of course, if
Speaker 1: you can show that Adam Schiff is in fact a
Speaker 1: fact witness, it doesn't matter if he's a House member,
Speaker 1: he's subject to being called as a witness. So the
Speaker 1: point I'm trying to make is what I would like
Speaker 1: Republican Senators to do is to reassure the country that
Speaker 1: the trial in the Senate is going to have due
Speaker 1: process that's lacking in the House, and to let the
Speaker 1: House Democrats know that your case is built on concepts
Speaker 1: that are not allowed in any other court in the land,
Speaker 1: and they will not be allowed in the Senate. I
Speaker 1: wish every Republican would tell every Senate Democrat and House Democrat,
Speaker 1: we're not going to do a trial based on testimony
Speaker 1: of mister Taylor calls his triple laired hearsay, and we're
Speaker 1: not going to let the president be impeached based on
Speaker 1: an anonymous allegation. That's not too much to ask, that's
Speaker 1: just basic due process. Well, it seems to me that
Speaker 1: this ought to be fundamental. This should not even be
Speaker 1: an issue of debate. Is it that? Let me be blunt?
Speaker 1: Do you think that some of your colleagues in the
Speaker 1: Senate are just too afraid? I mean, you know, I
Speaker 1: just they don't know what the role I see. We've
Speaker 1: never had a situation where you try to basically tell
Speaker 1: the House what you're doing is unfair and unjust. Most
Speaker 1: of the time, impeachment, every time we've had it is
Speaker 1: being conducted by an outside entity apart from politics, not
Speaker 1: driven by an Adam Shift type. You had ken Star
Speaker 1: investigate Clinton, you had the Watergate prosecutors investigate Nixon. You
Speaker 1: had Muller investigate Trump and he found nothing. This is
Speaker 1: the first time impeachment has been led by partisan politicians,
Speaker 1: And I want it to be the last time, because
Speaker 1: it is incredibly dangerous. Adam is doing is rewriting all
Speaker 1: the rules to the benefit of the impeachment to the
Speaker 1: deatman or the president. He's denying the president the basic
Speaker 1: concept the due process. You couldn't issue a parking ticket
Speaker 1: based on the concept in the House. So we're in
Speaker 1: uncharted territory. What I want Senate Republicans to say to
Speaker 1: the House, We're not going to legitimize. You had your
Speaker 1: shot with Mueller, nothing happened. Let it go. Have an
Speaker 1: election less than a year from now. Well it's less.
Speaker 1: I'll give you the exact number of days, three hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty five days in counting. All right, quick break
Speaker 1: more with Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina on the other side.
Speaker 1: Right as we continue with Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina.
Speaker 1: I know this may be somewhat anecdotal. I got the
Speaker 1: ratings from yesterday's hearings, right, and I gotta tell you something, Senator,
Speaker 1: Fox News Channel blew everybody out of the water. They
Speaker 1: beat every major network. Do you realize Fox News Channel
Speaker 1: had more view more viewers than NBC. He is a
Speaker 1: network a million more than a cable station that's correct
Speaker 1: more than a network by double Really, you know when
Speaker 1: that kiss me, Republicans are really pissed, it tells me.
Speaker 1: And by the way, why shouldn't they be. They've they've
Speaker 1: been dragged through this b as now for three years.
Speaker 1: It's never ending, and this is now run by a compromised,
Speaker 1: corrupt congenital liar Adam Schifflight again yesterday, change the story again,
Speaker 1: good question. If he can show me that he actually
Speaker 1: did meet with the whistle blower, then then then he
Speaker 1: becomes a fact witness subject to being examined. But the
Speaker 1: point I'm trying to make is, no matter how much
Speaker 1: you hate Donald Trump, you should love the country, and
Speaker 1: what they're doing to this president will set a president
Speaker 1: every president hereafter. We'll get impeached if we legitimize this,
Speaker 1: because all it takes is a partisan person to say
Speaker 1: I hate the guy. If I were going to impeach
Speaker 1: somebody because the troubled me, Obama wouldn't last a month.
Speaker 1: I was troubled by a lot of things Obama did,
Speaker 1: but I did not want to use the impeachment powers
Speaker 1: to basically settle a political score. And that's what's happening here.
Speaker 1: I think that this is the thing we are now
Speaker 1: weaponizing political differences. Does that's hit right there? I can't
Speaker 1: say any better. Criminalizing impeachment Sean was conducted by outside people.
Speaker 1: You had outside entities investigating the pros the United States.
Speaker 1: In this case, you've got partisan politicians running an impeachment
Speaker 1: effort whatever you want to call it, that denies basic
Speaker 1: fundamental due process and is using an anonymous allegation. If
Speaker 1: we legitimize that, God help future presents. Why aren't there
Speaker 1: more people in the United States Senate with all there is?
Speaker 1: And by the way, your colleague and our mutual friend,
Speaker 1: Tim Scott, he comes on the radio show regularly. He
Speaker 1: doesn't like to do TV a lot, but you know what,
Speaker 1: and he does a great job whenever he's on them
Speaker 1: on this program. I know you're good friends with them.
Speaker 1: There's not a lot of senators that want to come
Speaker 1: on TV and radio and bring their case to the
Speaker 1: American people. Now. I know that there are some people
Speaker 1: that criticize you, and frankly, my god, I mean CNN's
Speaker 1: twenty four hours a day. What happened to Lenda's Graham.
Speaker 1: I'm the same guy that believe Mueller should have his
Speaker 1: space to investigate all things Russia and Trump. I gave
Speaker 1: Muther the space because he was outside of politics. The
Speaker 1: reports in the case is closed, but it never ends.
Speaker 1: I am not going to legitimize thisps in the House.
Speaker 1: To every Republican and Democrat, you should be very concerned
Speaker 1: about what's going on in the House. This process can
Speaker 1: destroy the presidency. And what would you do as a
Speaker 1: senator if a who's the blower made an allegation about you?
Speaker 1: You don't know who the person is, and all the
Speaker 1: information against you was hearsay upon hearsay, how would you feel, Senator?
Speaker 1: This is about two things for the Democrats. They never
Speaker 1: saw Donald from under any circumstance win. And by the way,
Speaker 1: and now we know there's a lot of nefarious activities
Speaker 1: going on behind the scenes, don't we uh? And by
Speaker 1: the way, when aren't we ever gonna get the reports?
Speaker 1: Just stay tuned, Stay tuned, you'll find here for months. Stay.
Speaker 1: Do I seem like a patient person that you can
Speaker 1: tell me? I think it's one of your greatest virtues
Speaker 1: is your patience? No, I'm not that. I'm now my
Speaker 1: patience has run out when it comes to the fights
Speaker 1: a report. There's no more patients left in me. It's over. Well,
Speaker 1: here's here's my point. I want the report to come
Speaker 1: out as transparent as possible, as much declassified as possible.
Speaker 1: I want to people naming the report chance to defend themselves,
Speaker 1: and it will come before my committee in the light
Speaker 1: of day. You will never see Harwood's testify in the House,
Speaker 1: but you will see him testify in the Senate. It'll
Speaker 1: be it'll be relatively soon here and we're going to
Speaker 1: have a report about what happened in twenty sixteen by
Speaker 1: the Inspector General, who's a nonpartisan, and we'll see what
Speaker 1: he finds. And we're going to do it right in
Speaker 1: the Senate. But back to the issue at hand. I
Speaker 1: think about thirty seconds, yea, every Probagance should stand up
Speaker 1: and object to any trial based on hearsay, and then no,
Speaker 1: it's the president right to confront his accuser. All right,
Speaker 1: A senator, appreciate all you're doing, and I mean that
Speaker 1: you've been amazing in this by the way, you're the
Speaker 1: first person to respond. We really appreciate it. Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. Um that you got to have due process,
Speaker 1: that you gotta have the ability. You can you can't.
Speaker 1: You can't run an impeachment trial on hearsay. That's a
Speaker 1: Those rules are fair. Those are the that's simple, one
Speaker 1: on one. And you have the right to address your
Speaker 1: accuse her. That's fair too. And I want every Senator
Speaker 1: to answer my tweets and my phone calls, because we
Speaker 1: were calling every one of them. It is true that
Speaker 1: I had some difficult personal relationship with a miss ambassador,
Speaker 1: unfortunate from the first meeting with the US ambassador in
Speaker 1: Bruce Miss ambassador people whom we should not prosecute. All right.
Speaker 1: That was an interview that John Solomon did, by the way,
Speaker 1: Gladia with us our two Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety four one. Sean, you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. Um, So this former ambassador person,
Speaker 1: Maria whatever her name is, I don't even remember Ivanovich
Speaker 1: is her name, makes this big deal about the fact that, oh,
Speaker 1: John Solomon was reporting on me and uh and Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity was attacking me in the in the State Department.
Speaker 1: I was told that Mike Pompeo or somebody from the
Speaker 1: State Department was gonna call Sean Hannity and tell them
Speaker 1: to knock it off, and I'm like, I don't even
Speaker 1: know who this lady is. We go back in our
Speaker 1: transcripts on Hannity and we're like, her name came up
Speaker 1: like four times and in passing for the most part,
Speaker 1: except for the issue that what you just heard is
Speaker 1: the prosecutor General. John Solomon had the videotape of it
Speaker 1: and a video interview of it, saying that, excuse me, yeah,
Speaker 1: she gave me a list of names of people that
Speaker 1: we don't want to have prosecuted. Now, the media there
Speaker 1: has been a report saying that this guy that said
Speaker 1: that the prosecutor general has recanted that. We're gonna ask
Speaker 1: John Solomon in a second. Otherwise, there is a story
Speaker 1: that John put out today, and I didn't pay that
Speaker 1: much attention to him, because to me, the Ukraine story
Speaker 1: always was about quid pro quote Joe, and that is,
Speaker 1: if you fire the prosecutor investigating my son, I'll give
Speaker 1: you a billion. If you don't fire him, you're not
Speaker 1: getting the billion. You have six hours to fire the guy.
Speaker 1: Why did he want the prosecutor fired because the guy's
Speaker 1: investigating his son. He was tipped off by the New
Speaker 1: York Times and by others. There's your real quid pro quote,
Speaker 1: there's your real corruption here. And what about Hunter Biden?
Speaker 1: He doesn't interviewed. I have any experience with Ukraine? No
Speaker 1: experienced oil gas energy? No, do you have any experience whatsoever? No?
Speaker 1: Why do you think you got the millions of dollars?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Do you think maybe it's because your
Speaker 1: dad is running point for the whole country, the United
Speaker 1: States on Ukraine, the second highest elected official in America. Yeah, probably, Okay,
Speaker 1: quid pro quo Joe gets the prosecutor fired. Anyway, so
Speaker 1: this woman will testify tomorrow is like talking about me.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, I never got a call from Pompeio
Speaker 1: or anybody else at the State Department. I don't even
Speaker 1: know who this lady is. And anyway, John has a
Speaker 1: column out today that links to a speech that apparently
Speaker 1: this ambassador gave in March of twenty well nineteen, I
Speaker 1: think it was. And in this thing, I mean, if
Speaker 1: you're an ambassador, one of the rules, this is sort
Speaker 1: of one oh one Geneva Convention stuff, is you don't
Speaker 1: get involved in that country's politics or their elections. Apparently
Speaker 1: that was in the case, and I'm going to tell
Speaker 1: you if I'm light about again, I'm just warning these
Speaker 1: people stop lying about me. I'm not going to accept
Speaker 1: your lies anyway. John Solomon, Fox News contributor investigative reporter
Speaker 1: is here with Moore. We've barely ever mentioned are On
Speaker 1: Hannity we found four instance. She was a few paragraphs
Speaker 1: in one of my stories. Absolutely that was it. But
Speaker 1: she is the embodiment for Ukrainians of a state department
Speaker 1: that the Ukrainians felt bullied by. And I think that
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, the bigger issue here,
Speaker 1: the public interest issue, is has the State Department been
Speaker 1: acting in first in violation or inherance to the Geneva Convention.
Speaker 1: The Geneva Convention says, if you're a diplomat in a
Speaker 1: foreign country, you may not you may not intervene in
Speaker 1: the internal affairs or elections of the host country. We
Speaker 1: know that Mariyavanovitch gave a speech on March fifth. I
Speaker 1: learned about it because another career diplomat called me and said,
Speaker 1: you won't believe what she just did. I had never
Speaker 1: heard of her until that day. She gives a speech
Speaker 1: three weeks before the end of the Ukrainian presidential election,
Speaker 1: demanding that they remove this special anti corruption prosecutor. This
Speaker 1: would be like removing Robert like the Russians asking Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller to be fired. During the middle of the twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen election, people were up in arms in Ukraine. Not me,
Speaker 1: not Sean Hannity, not President Trump about this, The Ukrainians
Speaker 1: were up in arms about it. A senior official went
Speaker 1: over two days later, David Hale, the undersecretary, and he
Speaker 1: got peppered with questions, that's how big a controversy this
Speaker 1: was in Ukraine. And the question was doesn't this violate
Speaker 1: the Geneva Convention, the rule that you're not supposed to interfere?
Speaker 1: And David Hale said, well, I stand by the ambassador.
Speaker 1: She speaks for the president, but I'm not going to
Speaker 1: try to interpretate her words or words or what they are.
Speaker 1: And he kind of blows it off. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, it has now been confirmed factually
Speaker 1: by all these impeachment witnesses the following things. You are
Speaker 1: embassy in Kiev repeatedly ushured Ukrainian prosecutors not to pursue
Speaker 1: certain prosecutions that included a nonprofit group funded by George Soros.
Speaker 1: That included a law enforcement official that was being investigated.
Speaker 1: That included other political figures, including the parliamentary member who
Speaker 1: leaked the Paul Manafort black ledger and got Paul Manafort fired.
Speaker 1: Our State Department was telling Ukrainians what they could do
Speaker 1: when their internal law enforcement affairs, go back to the
Speaker 1: Geneva convention. Ask yourself, is that an appropriate thing? Furthermore,
Speaker 1: our State Department was in business with George Soros in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: It was jointly funding one of George Soros's nonprofits there.
Speaker 1: That nonprofit was essential to George Soros's expansion of his
Speaker 1: business in Ukraine and also to fight anti corruption. That
Speaker 1: was its mission. It's a legitimate public question for the
Speaker 1: American people to ask, should our State department be in
Speaker 1: business with a person who tried to get Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: elected and Donald Trump defeat in twenty sixty May not
Speaker 1: be Maybe it's appropriate, but it's an a fair question.
Speaker 1: And when you got it, but I don't understand. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I've never talked to anybody in Ukraine untouchable.
Speaker 1: Don't don't question me about that. We should question our
Speaker 1: public officials about these type of issues. Yeah, And I
Speaker 1: noticed the smear against you two and all of this um.
Speaker 1: And you know, because it really is funny because this
Speaker 1: guy Ken Vogel, who wrote that January eleven, twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: piece about all the Ukrainian election interference, nobody wants to
Speaker 1: talk about that any longer. You had reported that Ukraine
Speaker 1: wanted to give us evidence it was all true. We
Speaker 1: now know we have a Ukraine court decision that said
Speaker 1: they interfered in our elections. You know, it's just like
Speaker 1: with Hunter and Joe Biden. They don't care about a
Speaker 1: real quid pro quel. You get a billion, you fire
Speaker 1: the prosecutor. You don't fire him. You don't get a billion,
Speaker 1: you got six hours. Why would a vice president want
Speaker 1: to prosecute a fired It's the same thing. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: played that clip from Nancy Pelosi. She might as well
Speaker 1: have indicted Joe Biden for bribery. Her description actually more
Speaker 1: actively describes what Joe Biden did, by his own admission,
Speaker 1: than anything Donald Trump has been accused of. It's remarkable
Speaker 1: that they actually flipped this around and try to stick
Speaker 1: it on Donald Trump when their own guy was the
Speaker 1: first guy to use any suggestion of a foreign aid
Speaker 1: to try to cause Ukraine to do something. It's pretty remarkable.
Speaker 1: Just take Nancy Pelosi's words and comparing to what Joe
Speaker 1: Biden did. I think she indicted Joe Biden in her
Speaker 1: statement yesterday. Listen, I gotta tell you, I think they've
Speaker 1: been doing that the entire time. Everybody that talks about bribery,
Speaker 1: a shakedown, extortion, I mean, all of you know, we've
Speaker 1: identified all of the laws that we believe have been violated,
Speaker 1: and they are and that they're extremely significant and applicable.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a big deal what has gone
Speaker 1: on here. You know, I will tell you anecdotally, and
Speaker 1: ratings are one thing usually, but when you actually break
Speaker 1: down the numbers and you see what has gone on here,
Speaker 1: and you see that all these big networks, their ratings
Speaker 1: were atrocious. ABC has like and let's put it this way,
Speaker 1: the Fox News Channel had more viewers watching than MBC
Speaker 1: broadcast double the number. They had almost a million more
Speaker 1: viewers than CBS, almost a million more than ABC. I mean,
Speaker 1: and you look at primetime. The American people are fed
Speaker 1: up what they're doing to this country. They see this
Speaker 1: for what it is. This is We've got the transcript,
Speaker 1: you know, the hearsay hearsay here say triple hearsay, quadruple.
Speaker 1: Here say my cousin of my uncle, of my brother,
Speaker 1: of his grandfather's son's nephew said this. And that's why
Speaker 1: I came to that conclusion. You know, is hardly any
Speaker 1: information that would bring this country to the brink. And
Speaker 1: if they really love this country, they would stop doing this,
Speaker 1: because this is now three solid years of NonStop witch hunt,
Speaker 1: lies and conspiracy theories and attacks against the president because
Speaker 1: they couldn't beat them and they didn't think they'd lose,
Speaker 1: and that they didn't get Muller to do what they
Speaker 1: wanted them to do. Yeah, listen, it's the same crowd, right.
Speaker 1: It's Adam Schiff, it's Nancy Pelosi, it's the New York Times.
Speaker 1: And New York Times drove irresponsibly the Russia collusion narrative
Speaker 1: for two and a half years, and then when it disappeared,
Speaker 1: they went, oh, oh, well, we'll move on to something else.
Speaker 1: They never even retracted the stories that James Coleman the
Speaker 1: intelligence community told them were false. They never retracted them,
Speaker 1: even though that's a requirement under journalism ethic. But let
Speaker 1: me tell about one thing. That's important to the New
Speaker 1: York Times after they took a shot at me sing
Speaker 1: yesterday's story. They did me a favor because for six
Speaker 1: months Democrats and their media allies keep saying, well, general prosecutor,
Speaker 1: a prosecutor generally SENTO. After he gave that an interview
Speaker 1: on tape to me, he recanted, Well, guess what, no
Speaker 1: one who claimed that actually went and interviewed the guy
Speaker 1: I did. I went back and interview the second time.
Speaker 1: Did you were? Can't know? I'm sticking by exactly what
Speaker 1: I said The New York Times. Finally you interviewed him
Speaker 1: a month ago. Now they held it for a month,
Speaker 1: but they slipped it into the story about me yesterday.
Speaker 1: And you know what they found out. They found out
Speaker 1: what I found out. Mister Lucentko stands by what he says.
Speaker 1: He is adamant Massador Ivanovitch gave him a list of
Speaker 1: names of people not to prosecute when he met her
Speaker 1: the first time. She denies it, but she can't deny
Speaker 1: that her embassy repeatedly pressed Ukrainians not to prosecute cases,
Speaker 1: even independent of that meeting. So my story has been confirmed.
Speaker 1: After three or four months of me taking a lot
Speaker 1: of pokes claiming that I was wrong. It's pretty remarkable
Speaker 1: that the New York Times buried that in the twentieth
Speaker 1: graph of myself. You're saying that they're confirming what the
Speaker 1: prosecutor general said. How come everybody that talks about this
Speaker 1: as he were canted we talk to him. There was
Speaker 1: a single Ukrainian newspaper, and listen, if you're a journalist
Speaker 1: in America, you know you probably should do more than
Speaker 1: just rely on a Ukrainian news report. You should go
Speaker 1: to it. New York Times finally reached out to Lucento themselves.
Speaker 1: They say, so and what did he tell him? He said, yep,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you when I was in the meeting, she
Speaker 1: named people she didn't want me to prosecute. He stood
Speaker 1: by his comments. I've been criticized for months. The people
Speaker 1: who interview Lucentko know that he hasn't recanted. Everybody else
Speaker 1: just goes with the talking points and avoids doing the
Speaker 1: work to find out what the truth is. And that's
Speaker 1: how you end up with conspiracy fairies like Russia and
Speaker 1: now Ukraine, because people spin fairies and don't do the
Speaker 1: factual work, the spade work. You need to build a case, right,
Speaker 1: quick break. We'll come back more with investigative reporter John Solomon,
Speaker 1: and then on the other side of this, we got
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, Peter Schweitzer coming up and your calls. I
Speaker 1: know a lot of you want to weigh in on
Speaker 1: all that's happening. Investador Taylor, do you know whether Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden offers anything other than the fact that his dad's
Speaker 1: the former vice president. I don't wor at the time
Speaker 1: was the vice president. I have no knowledge of Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: or you would agree. He raises questions. Right, he was
Speaker 1: getting paid, I think fifty thousand dollars a month to
Speaker 1: sit on the board. Did you know if he relocated
Speaker 1: to Korea Ukraine? No knowledge? Do you know, mister Ken again,
Speaker 1: no knowledge? Okay, so he's getting paid fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a month, but we don't know whether he had any experience,
Speaker 1: he had any he spoke the language, or whether he
Speaker 1: moved to Ukraine. Correct, correct, All right, as we continue,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, investigative reporters with us. Look, I don't know
Speaker 1: anything about Ukraine. I've never talked to anybody in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Look just at a distance, you know, just just listening
Speaker 1: to the Bidens alone, that was always my main focus.
Speaker 1: Anyone that listens to about this radio show or watches TV,
Speaker 1: and I gotta tell you something. It seems like this
Speaker 1: country just is just pervasive corruption, like at a level
Speaker 1: that is breathtaking. Always have every story ever wrote on
Speaker 1: this back in the spring, always added the caveat, don't
Speaker 1: Ukraine is full of politics, corruption and in deep rooted
Speaker 1: divisions between these powerful oligarchs. And you have to take
Speaker 1: everything you hear in Ukraine with a grain of salt.
Speaker 1: I put that disclaimer in all my colleg because that's
Speaker 1: the truth of Ukraine. Still, from that, we can divine
Speaker 1: many facts, and those facts are not favorable to Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: They're also favorable to why a president like President Trump
Speaker 1: might look with some caution about why he should or
Speaker 1: shouldn't give aid or do other things with Ukraine. We
Speaker 1: know long before twenty nineteen the President had concerns about Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We've seen that reporting. Now it's been corroborated. I bet
Speaker 1: you there's something we don't know yet, John, I bet
Speaker 1: you we're going to learn it between now and if
Speaker 1: there is ever an impeachment trial. I bet you the CIA,
Speaker 1: the Treasury Department, and other intelligence agencies were raising concerns
Speaker 1: in secret and classified information, telling the President about concerns
Speaker 1: about the people that are around this new president. Zelenski,
Speaker 1: that would give everybody pause. Let's hold on a few
Speaker 1: minutes and sort through this, make sure we understand what
Speaker 1: we're doing before we give this money to Ukraine. That
Speaker 1: part of the story has not come out, but I
Speaker 1: have a higher degree of confidence that the President was
Speaker 1: getting in his PDB and another intelligence and meetings and
Speaker 1: briefings warnings about hey, let's just be careful with Ukraine.
Speaker 1: There's some issues here. Let's understand who's hanging around this
Speaker 1: new president. Make sure we get it sorted out before
Speaker 1: we start throwing money at him. I think that's going
Speaker 1: to become a new storyline that's going to further erode
Speaker 1: is bogus narrative that the Democrats and their media allies
Speaker 1: have woken. John Solomon, he'll be joining us on Hannity tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your reporting. Let's see what they say tomorrow.
Speaker 1: This is not good for this country. When are they
Speaker 1: gonna stop? Stay right here for our final news round
Speaker 1: up and information overloads summarize. We thought, we thought the
Speaker 1: mulcule as Lecheski had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor
Speaker 1: had taken a bribe to shut the case, and those
Speaker 1: were our main concerns. And are you in favor of
Speaker 1: that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted. I think since
Speaker 1: US taxpayer dollars are wasted, I would love to see
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's office find who the corrupt prosecutor
Speaker 1: was that took the bribe and how much it was paid.
Speaker 1: And that's what I said to the Deputy Prosecutor General
Speaker 1: on twenty fifteen. But in addition to prosecuting the person
Speaker 1: that took the bribes, shouldn't the organization or individual that
Speaker 1: sponsored the bribes be prosecuted? I would agree that the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian law authorities should uphold the rule of law and
Speaker 1: hold people account for breaking Ukrainian law. So this company
Speaker 1: Burisma involved in lots of criminal activity, correct? I do
Speaker 1: not know that, but over the years it's been involved
Speaker 1: in a number of questionable dealings. Correct. I would say
Speaker 1: that it's the largest private gas producer in the country
Speaker 1: and its business reputation is mixed. So to the extent
Speaker 1: a new regime is coming in under President Lensky, it
Speaker 1: certainly would be fair for the new prosecutor, a genuine prosecutor,
Speaker 1: to re examine old crimes that hadn't sufficiently been brought
Speaker 1: to justice. Right. I believe that the new prosecutor General,
Speaker 1: Ruslan Ribashotka, made a statement to that and that they
Speaker 1: would be reviewing past cases. But keep in mind, this
Speaker 1: is a country where those that commit crimes generally never
Speaker 1: get held to account, So there's a lot to review.
Speaker 1: Unbelievable in your analysis of what you're hearing their news
Speaker 1: round Up, Information Overload, our Sean Hannity Show. This is
Speaker 1: the problem with this country is this is rampant corruption city.
Speaker 1: You know the fact that we have now gotten to
Speaker 1: a point where you have to literally intellectually shut down
Speaker 1: your brain, compartmentalize, bifur kate your own definition of what bribery, shakedown, extortion,
Speaker 1: quit pro quo is. The way the Democrats have done
Speaker 1: this here. There is a level of madness associated with this.
Speaker 1: You cannot even be well at this point. We've talked
Speaker 1: about rage and psychosis and Trump derangement syndrome because all
Speaker 1: these people that are saying, yeah, this is bad. The
Speaker 1: president he had the President said he wanted a favor.
Speaker 1: He wanted the guy to investigate the twenty sixteen election
Speaker 1: interference that we know Ukraine was involved in because they
Speaker 1: told us they were, and a court told us there
Speaker 1: they were. An even political chronicled. I thought we wanted
Speaker 1: election interference issues dealt with and taking care of. Apparently
Speaker 1: not only if it can bludgeen Donald Trump, just like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we care about Russian interference, but not the dirty Russian
Speaker 1: nazier anyway. Greg Jarrett, author of the bestseller Witch Hunters,
Speaker 1: second book now is follow up the story of the
Speaker 1: greatest mass delusion in American political history, which is doing
Speaker 1: really well. Another New York Times bestseller. Peter Schweitzer, Government
Speaker 1: Accountability Institute President, he blew all this open. When did
Speaker 1: Secret Empires? Also a New York Times bestseller? When did
Speaker 1: you release that book that came out in March of
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen? Sean first interview I did was with you
Speaker 1: March of twenty eighteen, right, And in this book, I
Speaker 1: remember we talked about hunter By, and we talked about
Speaker 1: the Bidens, and we also have the brother involved in
Speaker 1: this too at a pretty high level as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right, and really what's stunning when you look
Speaker 1: at those hearings yesterday and what's coming ahead is I
Speaker 1: think people need to lay side by side Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and Joe Biden in terms of what they were going
Speaker 1: to get or the expectation or the hope of what
Speaker 1: they were going to get out of Ukraine. What Democrats
Speaker 1: have basically said is that Donald Trump was going to
Speaker 1: gain a political advantage over Joe Biden by getting this
Speaker 1: material released. And that goes to the debate about motive.
Speaker 1: But that's the biggest expectation gain that Donald Trump was
Speaker 1: going to get bad pr for Joe Biden. Now lay
Speaker 1: that next to what the Biden family actually got from
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians, and that is Hunter Biden got more than
Speaker 1: three million dollars from the Ukrainians for a job that
Speaker 1: he had no qualifications for. And both witnesses yesterday, by
Speaker 1: the way, we're asked, other than being the son of
Speaker 1: the Vice President Joe Biden, who was handing out all
Speaker 1: this foreign aid, what qualifications did he have to sit
Speaker 1: on the board of Barizma. Both witnesses said there was
Speaker 1: no other reason for him to be sitting on the board.
Speaker 1: He had zero qualifications. So look at who benefited from
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians who was actually making decisions that were beneficial
Speaker 1: to Ukrainians. And it's very clear that the prime corrupt
Speaker 1: act here was the one involving the Bidens in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, it is so obvious. I think you understand
Speaker 1: what I'm saying about having to bifurcate your brain. The
Speaker 1: dacier doesn't matter. Obstruction when you delete subpoena emails and
Speaker 1: clean the hard drive and beat up devices doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: But if it's Donald Trump, you'll have four separate investigations.
Speaker 1: You'll claim there's obstruction when there is none. When we
Speaker 1: have real obstruction. We care about election interference, but only
Speaker 1: if it's Donald Trump's election, or it's not the dossier,
Speaker 1: or not Ukrainian support of Hillary Clinton or a DNC
Speaker 1: operative that meets with Ukrainian representatives colluding against Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in his campaign, which did happen in twenty sixteen. You're right,
Speaker 1: it's a double unequal standard. Here. It's perfectly okay for
Speaker 1: the Bidens to engage in a quid pro quo that
Speaker 1: may have been motivated by corrupt intent. But here, when
Speaker 1: Donald Trump engages in a folk quid pro quo, there's
Speaker 1: no evidence of it. It's an impeachable offense. It's bribery,
Speaker 1: it's extortion. That's utter nonsense, and it's totally unfair. I
Speaker 1: will say this. Out of yesterday's testimony, the most valuable
Speaker 1: information we got was that diplomat Bill Taylor met three
Speaker 1: times after the Trump Zelenski phone call with Zelenski, and
Speaker 1: there was never a discussion between the two about pressure, threats, conditions, demands,
Speaker 1: quid pro quo. That is strong, circumstantial evidence that there
Speaker 1: never was any quid pro quo. And of course you
Speaker 1: don't see it in the transcript of the phone call.
Speaker 1: You don't see it. It doesn't exist. And then you
Speaker 1: got the whole Biden thing, you know, and you know,
Speaker 1: watching this yesterday so maddening to me. Well, my cousins,
Speaker 1: uncle's brothers, grandfather's stepson's niece from some other that. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is how removed it gets, Greg, It's not even
Speaker 1: you know. And then you have this idiot Quigly or
Speaker 1: whatever his name is, actually suggesting, well, you know, heresay
Speaker 1: evidence is actually it's a it's oftentimes much better than
Speaker 1: direct evidence. I'm like, Okay, did I just hear that?
Speaker 1: Because that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard out
Speaker 1: of a member of Congress. It is he won the
Speaker 1: twice award. Yesterday. Lawyers across America were howling with laughter.
Speaker 1: What he said is simply untrue, and it's amazing that
Speaker 1: he actually has a law degree. You know, these are
Speaker 1: witnesses yesterday. I don't know Donald Trump didn't talk to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. They have no idea what Donald Trump's intent was.
Speaker 1: They are simply a member of the chattering class of
Speaker 1: diplomats pedaling hearsay, opinions, and conjecture. So you know, this
Speaker 1: is impeachment by rumor and innuendo, built on triple and
Speaker 1: quadruple hearsay. This guy, George Kent says, well, I believe
Speaker 1: there was a quid pro quel. Well he got that
Speaker 1: from Taylor, who got it from Morrison, who got it
Speaker 1: from Somlin, who testified he presumed there was a quid
Speaker 1: pro quel. That is absolute junk. That's not evidence. And
Speaker 1: Representative Mike Turner was right when he said, your testimony, gentleman,
Speaker 1: would never be allowed in a court of law. That
Speaker 1: is the great iron need. But Peter Schwitzer, we're not here.
Speaker 1: We know the China deal again, does any experience in China,
Speaker 1: any experience in private equity Bank of China billion dollars
Speaker 1: later becomes a billion five, any experience there at all. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's the interesting common point with all
Speaker 1: of hunter Biden. Oh well, one last thing. Oh and
Speaker 1: he never made a penny off the China deal. That's
Speaker 1: what he said, never made a penny. Is that true? Well,
Speaker 1: you know the common point on all of hunter Biden's
Speaker 1: foreign dealings, and we now know that it's in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: it's in Romania, Kazakhstan, We've got China, and of course
Speaker 1: what if all those countries have in common. They all
Speaker 1: have very highly corrupt political cultures. And in all four
Speaker 1: of those countries he was involved in initiatives, he was
Speaker 1: involved in business that he had zero qualifications form. The
Speaker 1: only qualification he had at the time was that his
Speaker 1: father was vice president. That was it. So you know
Speaker 1: this notion, and this came up in the hearings. You
Speaker 1: played the audio at the at the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: I mean, both diplomats admitted that Bisma is a corrupt
Speaker 1: entity and it ought to be investigated because there were
Speaker 1: bribes that were paid, there's money that was missing, one
Speaker 1: of the people involved with Bisma Kolamowski. This oligarch controlled
Speaker 1: this bank, privat bank where more than a billion dollars
Speaker 1: an age just disappeared. Well, that needs to be investigated.
Speaker 1: These are the sorts of people that Hunter Biden was
Speaker 1: doing business in and what they have done from the
Speaker 1: beginning Sean as it relates to all of Hunter's business dealings,
Speaker 1: is they have lied, they have obscured. As it relates
Speaker 1: to China, they first said no, no, no, no, he
Speaker 1: wasn't on the board of directors of this financial firm,
Speaker 1: he was just on the advisory board. Well he just
Speaker 1: stepped down about a month ago, resigned from the board
Speaker 1: of directors of the financial firm. And the claim, the
Speaker 1: statement that well, he's not going to make any money
Speaker 1: off the deal is laughable. The way private equity works,
Speaker 1: you've had an early stake in the investments which he had.
Speaker 1: The payday comes down the road. So you know, if
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong here, if there's nothing amiss here, why
Speaker 1: are they not being transparent and open on these matters.
Speaker 1: They're not because there is a lot to hide. And
Speaker 1: this goes to the root of what happened in Ukraine
Speaker 1: and in other countries. We have a political class in Washington.
Speaker 1: There's some Republicans that do it as well. But I've
Speaker 1: never seen a case like Hunter Biden's where it is
Speaker 1: so systematic, it's so obvious. It happens really from the
Speaker 1: moment that his father's elected vice president. He gets all
Speaker 1: these deals in areas he has no background, and he
Speaker 1: cashes in it. It's the most blatant example by far
Speaker 1: that I've ever seen. And it's amazing the timing and
Speaker 1: what you've been able to do and how you exposed it,
Speaker 1: and how this now has taken on a life of
Speaker 1: its own. You know, Greg, on the legal side of this,
Speaker 1: you've identified laws that you believe Joe Biden could have violated.
Speaker 1: We've gone over the many times here. Do you see
Speaker 1: that there are other issues with other countries as well? Here? Oh,
Speaker 1: I entirely agree that it's not just Ukraine and China,
Speaker 1: but Kazakhstan and Romania. You know, as Peter is laid
Speaker 1: out so nicely, all of this needs to be investigated
Speaker 1: because if these companies in those countries are buying protection
Speaker 1: and there is some act by a vice president United
Speaker 1: States Joe Biden to protect his son that's a violation
Speaker 1: of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He is getting something
Speaker 1: of value by extorting or bribing a foreign country, and
Speaker 1: the value is, you know, he's getting his son, Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden out of hot water. You know. The all you
Speaker 1: have to do is look at the fired prosecutors statements,
Speaker 1: not just a John Solomon, but my goodness to the
Speaker 1: Washington Post a July twenty second column that they wrote
Speaker 1: in which the fire prosecutors said, I got fired because
Speaker 1: demanded it and because I was closing in on his
Speaker 1: son with my investigators. So you know, there's more than
Speaker 1: sufficient evidence here for the Department of Justice to open
Speaker 1: a criminal investigation as they should. And I guarantee you,
Speaker 1: having talked to Lindsey Grahman and I know you have
Speaker 1: two shan, you know he is determined to get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of the Biden quid pro quel. Quick break
Speaker 1: right back, we'll continue more with Greg Jared Peter Sweitzer
Speaker 1: on the other side. We have an unbelievable Hannity tonight.
Speaker 1: You do not want to miss. We're going to call
Speaker 1: out all of these people. All right, as we continue
Speaker 1: with Greg Jared Peter Sweitzer, this was the question I
Speaker 1: was thrown out to senators earlier today, and that is
Speaker 1: we I want to know where our senators stand on
Speaker 1: all of this. Yeah, I want to know if senators
Speaker 1: are going to allow this, this circus of this compromised, corrupt,
Speaker 1: coward and congenital liar shift to continue where hearsay conjectures
Speaker 1: now would miss evidence. I want to know from senators,
Speaker 1: is the United States going to allow an impeachment trial
Speaker 1: to continue where the accuser is a hearsay whistle blower?
Speaker 1: Are we are We're going to set a president president
Speaker 1: here with the president of the United States doesn't have
Speaker 1: the right to confront their accuser, especially in the case
Speaker 1: with the hearsay whistle blower, And we're now I'm I'm
Speaker 1: I'm just assuming that the House Democrats are stupid and
Speaker 1: if they want to end up impeaching the president over nothing, well,
Speaker 1: we need to know what they're going to do in
Speaker 1: the Senate and whether or not they are going to
Speaker 1: validate this madness, because we've got to hold these people accountable,
Speaker 1: and we need to know whether due process will be
Speaker 1: allowed in the Senate because if you if you're gonna
Speaker 1: have hearsay admissible and you're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to confront your accuser. We're in deep trouble. You both agree,
Speaker 1: that's why Lindsey Graham said it was dead on arrival
Speaker 1: in the Senate. It should be, and I spoke to
Speaker 1: him again last night. He still stands by that. I
Speaker 1: don't even think it will get to the point of
Speaker 1: a trial. Emotion to dismiss has a very good chance
Speaker 1: of passing on a majority vote. All right, Hyeah, last word,
Speaker 1: Peter quickly, Yeah, and Sean, I would just add, Look,
Speaker 1: they always used the phrase the president is not above
Speaker 1: the law, and I think that Greg has laid out
Speaker 1: why there has been no violation of the law. But
Speaker 1: in the case of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, the
Speaker 1: same thing applies. They are not above the law, and
Speaker 1: that's why they need to be investigated, investigated thoroughly. Those
Speaker 1: countries are not going to do it. They're afraid to
Speaker 1: investigate powerful Americans because they know the poll they have
Speaker 1: in those countries. That's why it needs to be investigated
Speaker 1: here in the United States by the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: All right, great work, both of you. We're going to
Speaker 1: have full coverage tonight on what the damage the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the mob and the media are willing to do
Speaker 1: to the country because of nothing and their breathtaking sick, twisted,
Speaker 1: ugly compartmentalizing and bifurcation of any truth. It's really twisted.
Speaker 1: To the best of my knowledge, the case against Slachevski,
Speaker 1: the former minister, was shut down December of twenty fourteen, Okay,
Speaker 1: And right around that time, Barisma starts adding officials to
Speaker 1: its board. Is that correct? Understanding? Is yes? That Lachevsky
Speaker 1: invited a series of new individuals to join the board
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen. And do you know what his strategy
Speaker 1: was and adding officials to his board. I have never
Speaker 1: met mister Latchevski, okay. And who were some of the
Speaker 1: folks he added to the board. The most prominent person
Speaker 1: he added to the board was the former president of Poland,
Speaker 1: Alexander Kashnevsky, and anyone else. There were a number of others,
Speaker 1: including some Americans, and the most prominent one in this
Speaker 1: context is Hunter Biden. Okay. So Hunter Biden's added to
Speaker 1: the board of Barisma. Now do you think that creates
Speaker 1: a problem that Barisma may be adding people to its
Speaker 1: board for protection purposes? Sir I worked for the government.
Speaker 1: I don't work in the corporate sector, and so I
Speaker 1: believe that companies build their boards with a variety of reasons,
Speaker 1: not only to promote their business plans. Was Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: a corporate governance expert? I have no idea what Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden studied at university or what his CV says. Is
Speaker 1: he the Jeffrey Salmenfeld of the Ukraine? I have no
Speaker 1: awareness or knowledge of what his background was and what
Speaker 1: he may have done on the border. Right, so you
Speaker 1: don't know whether he is any business experience in Ukraine
Speaker 1: prior to joining business board. I've heard nothing about prior experience. Okay.
Speaker 1: Do you know if he speaks Ukrainian? I do not.
Speaker 1: You know if he possesses any other element other than
Speaker 1: the fact that he is the son of at the
Speaker 1: time the sitting vice president, I do not. Okay, Ambassador Taylor,
Speaker 1: do you know whether Hunter Biden offers anything other than
Speaker 1: the fact that his dad's the former vice president? I
Speaker 1: don't know at the time was the vice president? I
Speaker 1: have no knowledge of Hunter Biden, but you would agree
Speaker 1: to raise his questions. Right. He was getting paid at
Speaker 1: I think fifty thousand dollars a month to sit on
Speaker 1: the board did you know if he relocated to career Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Do you know if Hunter Biden relocated to Ukraine? No knowledge?
Speaker 1: Do you know, mister Kent again, no knowledge? Okay, so
Speaker 1: he's getting paid fifty thousand dollars a month, but we
Speaker 1: don't know whether he had any experience, he had any
Speaker 1: he spoke the language, or whether he moved to Ukraine. Correct. Correct,
Speaker 1: But yesterday you heard an appointment of the president speak
Speaker 1: in very unambiguous terms a courageous public servant. The devastating
Speaker 1: testimony corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry, and
Speaker 1: that the president abused power and violated his oath by
Speaker 1: threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting
Speaker 1: in exchange for an investigation into his political rival. And
Speaker 1: at the heart of the corruption is this olig oligarchical
Speaker 1: system correct, where the oligarchs take control, often by a
Speaker 1: virtual theft of um. You know, for example, the right
Speaker 1: to certain energy licenses. Correct, that is one element, Yes, sir,
Speaker 1: And the company Barisma, it's it's leader. So Chevsky, he
Speaker 1: has a little bit of a storied history of corruption,
Speaker 1: doesn't he. Misters Lachevski was Minister of energy from twenty
Speaker 1: twenty twelve under the pro Russian government, and he used
Speaker 1: his regulatory authority to award gas exploration licenses to companies
Speaker 1: that he himself controlled. That would be considered an active
Speaker 1: corruption in my view. Yes, and certainly self dealing. Certainly
Speaker 1: self dealing and self enriching. And how did the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: government ultimately pursue that. In the spring of twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian government, the new government after the Revolution of Dignity,
Speaker 1: turned to partners, particularly the US and the UK, to
Speaker 1: try to recover tens of billions dollars of stolen assets.
Speaker 1: The first case that we tried to recover that money
Speaker 1: came from Missus Latchevsky. Serious Crimes Office in the UK
Speaker 1: had already opened up an investigation. They worked with US
Speaker 1: and the Ukrainian authorities developed more information. The twenty three
Speaker 1: million dollars was frozen until somebody in the General Prosecutors
Speaker 1: Office of Ukraine shut the case, issued a letter to
Speaker 1: his lawyer and that money went puff. To summarize, we thought,
Speaker 1: we thought the mukul As Lechevski had stolen money. We
Speaker 1: thought a prosecutor had taken a bribe to shut the case,
Speaker 1: and those were our main concerns, and are you in
Speaker 1: favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted. I
Speaker 1: think since US taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love
Speaker 1: to see the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's office find who the
Speaker 1: corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe and how much
Speaker 1: it was paid. And that's what I said to the
Speaker 1: Deputy Prosecutor General on February third, twenty fifteen. But in
Speaker 1: addition to prosecuting the person that took the bribes, shouldn't
Speaker 1: the organization or individual that sponsored the bribes be prosecuted?
Speaker 1: I would agree that the Ukrainian law authorities should uphold
Speaker 1: the rule of law and hold people account for breaking
Speaker 1: Ukrainian law. So this company Burisma involved in lots of
Speaker 1: criminal activity, correct, I do not know that, but over
Speaker 1: the years it's been involved in a number of questionable dealings. Correct.
Speaker 1: I would say that it's the largest private gas producer
Speaker 1: in the country and its business reputation is mixed. So
Speaker 1: to the extent a new regime is coming in under
Speaker 1: President Zelenski, it certainly would be fair for the new prosecutor,
Speaker 1: a genuine prosecutor, to re examine old crimes that hadn't
Speaker 1: sufficiently been brought to justice. Right. I believe that the
Speaker 1: new Prosecutor General, Ruslan Ribashotka made a statement to that
Speaker 1: and that they would be viewing past cases. But keep
Speaker 1: in mind, this is a country where those that commit
Speaker 1: crimes generally never get held to account. So there's a
Speaker 1: lot to review. But you got paid millions. Doesn't know,
Speaker 1: doesn't know anybody in Ukraine, doesn't know anything about Ukraine,
Speaker 1: doesn't know anything about oil energy or guess I will
Speaker 1: tell you it is. Every American needs to now be
Speaker 1: angry because what they are doing is that bad and
Speaker 1: that corrupt, and to be where you are. They are
Speaker 1: in the mob, in the media, and of course the Democrats,
Speaker 1: which is the dirty dossier. We don't care about that.
Speaker 1: But Trump Prussia collusion is the worst thing ever. Again,
Speaker 1: a foreign interference, Well for investigations, okay, but he obstructed,
Speaker 1: he obstructed, just as no he didn't. But you don't
Speaker 1: care about the subpoena emails. What Hillary did there? You
Speaker 1: care about election interference, but you don't care that a
Speaker 1: DNC operative literally went and met with a d NCA
Speaker 1: operative met with Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in
Speaker 1: Washington for the purpose of digging up dirt on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And now you've got nothing in a phone call zero.
Speaker 1: So you're bringing in people that say so and so
Speaker 1: who talked to so and so, who talked to so
Speaker 1: and so, so and so, so and so, so and so,
Speaker 1: so and so they said this, and yeah, that made
Speaker 1: sense to me. That's why I just assumed that was true.
Speaker 1: That's what you're getting here. But you can't confront your
Speaker 1: what You can't talk to Adam Schiff, who led again yesterday.
Speaker 1: You wonder why I call him a congenital liar, because
Speaker 1: he is the guy lied to us for three years
Speaker 1: about Russia, Russia, Trump, Russia, Russia, Trump, Trump, Russia, Russia
Speaker 1: Trump light for we got all the evidence, though they
Speaker 1: didn't add nothing, absolutely nothing. Now oh yeah, and we'd
Speaker 1: like to one day talk to the whistle blower. We're
Speaker 1: gonna call the whistle blower. But yeah, I was less
Speaker 1: than forthcoming. I should I've been more forthcoming about my office. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: we talked. Then you have to say, I don't know
Speaker 1: the whistle blower. Okay, make up your mind. What kind
Speaker 1: of country are we going to be here. This is
Speaker 1: now defining moment in this country. You don't like the
Speaker 1: election results, well I didn't like it. One Obama won.
Speaker 1: You know what, You suck it up, You move forward,
Speaker 1: and then you battle on the issue in the arena
Speaker 1: of ideas, and you fight for the for the things
Speaker 1: you believe in. That's that's what happens. You lose sometimes
Speaker 1: in life. That sucks. I'd rather win. I like the
Speaker 1: I like the economy now much better. People haven't lifted
Speaker 1: a finger to help this country in any way shape,
Speaker 1: manner of form. They've done nothing for three years except
Speaker 1: this b s and it is. You know, the more
Speaker 1: I watch this, the more sickening this becomes. It is despicable.
Speaker 1: It is disgraceful that this is how low they have
Speaker 1: sunk and what so that if they get elected, Well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get elected and do what new Green deal
Speaker 1: ninety four trillion dollars. Okay, that doesn't add up. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna get rid of oil and gas, the lifeblood of
Speaker 1: the world's economy, mustion, engine, planes and cows. Eventually everything
Speaker 1: else is free, and we're gonna tax. We won't. You
Speaker 1: can't have medicare for all fifty two trillion, But you
Speaker 1: don't have any option for healthcare on your own means
Speaker 1: you're screwed. Because if you think Obamacare was bad and
Speaker 1: the promise is moren't fulfilled, there what do we do then? Anyway?
Speaker 1: Eight hundred nine for one Sean, we're gonna get hit
Speaker 1: the phones here, all right, to our busy phones we
Speaker 1: go as we say hi to Jeff Is in Austin. Jeff, Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you glad you called? Sean? Long time listener,
Speaker 1: first time caller. Hey, I hear it in your voice
Speaker 1: where you're you're really distressed. You're you're upset. And I
Speaker 1: understand I am. I am a pissed off American today,
Speaker 1: and I think everybody should be pissed off today. This
Speaker 1: is what they're hurting the country. Now. This is bull
Speaker 1: this is garbage, I understand. But like I said, longtime listener,
Speaker 1: I remember back in the day, you used to say,
Speaker 1: letting not your heart be troubled, because in a little
Speaker 1: over three hundred fifty five days, we're gonna start talking
Speaker 1: about healthcare again. We're gonna start talking about lower prescription
Speaker 1: drug prices. Just letting not your heart be troubled. You
Speaker 1: used to say that all the time, and I want
Speaker 1: to encourage you to get I mean, in a way
Speaker 1: I can't dispute you know that those are not John
Speaker 1: Hannity's words. I mean it's actually biblical political and I
Speaker 1: believe in it completely. And I know in the end
Speaker 1: God wins the battle. Ultimately, he decides. But you know something,
Speaker 1: when you have something as great as the United States
Speaker 1: of America and then you have people that are abusing
Speaker 1: the process, corrupting the process the way eight these democrats
Speaker 1: have been, and you've got these partisans no nothing, agenda driven, lying,
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory, peddling, hoax pedaling, smear merchants in the media.
Speaker 1: It gets it gets it gets you a little time,
Speaker 1: It gets tiresome, it gets old. I get it. But
Speaker 1: just Trylotte by letting out your heart be troubled again.
Speaker 1: All Right, when I get there, after a couple of drinks,
Speaker 1: I'll call you. All right, maybe it'll be ready, maybe
Speaker 1: I'll feel better. Then. Um it is Thursday. I mean,
Speaker 1: you only have one more day to the weekend, Sean
Speaker 1: all you're gonna start it on me, now, really, you're
Speaker 1: gonna You're gonna pile on Hannity because I'm mad Nonna,
Speaker 1: And well hang on, Cherry woman, Cheryl. Cheryl is in Chicago.
Speaker 1: What's up, Cheryl? We had a great time in Chicago
Speaker 1: the other day. How are you hi, San? How do
Speaker 1: you appreciate what you do and what you stand for
Speaker 1: every day? Really do well? Thank you for giving me
Speaker 1: this chance? Um? Why now? What's the video in reference
Speaker 1: to Ukraine? Why is this fus Why are we all
Speaker 1: hearing about it now? I'm trying to earn Nancy Fan
Speaker 1: all these people on board. Why is everyone just getting
Speaker 1: this information now? Wouldn't it just be wouldn't been useful
Speaker 1: two three years from now? Like who would be protected then?
Speaker 1: And I haven't heard anybody talked about it. I heard
Speaker 1: your co host talk about it a tiny bit yesterday, right,
Speaker 1: But it's just like a constant Santa list of constant distractions.
Speaker 1: But who's you know, just buying time for Hillary? Like
Speaker 1: what you know? Everybody feels europain and frustration. But why now?
Speaker 1: Why this information? Because I'm gonna tell you why is
Speaker 1: because they failed. They failed in the election of twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: They failed with feign investigations into their conspiracy theory of
Speaker 1: Trump Russia collusion. They have to suspend all intellectual honesty, decency,
Speaker 1: common sense reason to get there and ignore the Hillary dossier,
Speaker 1: just like ignoring the Hillary supping at emails, just like
Speaker 1: ignoring DNC Ukrainian collusion in the in the election, just
Speaker 1: like ignoring the bidens it is. You know, at some
Speaker 1: point it just has build and it's now crescendoing into
Speaker 1: what is an absolute shift show pun intended that it is,
Speaker 1: you know, hurting the country, and they don't care. They
Speaker 1: just dig in deeper. They just they detach from reality further.
Speaker 1: They bifurcate their brains further, they compartmentalize, justifying, and I
Speaker 1: think a lot of it is brooted in the fact
Speaker 1: they think they're better, they think they're smarter, they think
Speaker 1: we're stupid. They you know, we get these moments, irredeemable deplorables.
Speaker 1: Hilary should win a one hundred million zero that we're
Speaker 1: smelly Walmart shoppers and we cling to our God, our guns,
Speaker 1: our Bibles, and our religion. Okay, guilty is charged on
Speaker 1: all counts. And they think they are better and no
Speaker 1: better and they I'm telling you, there is an elitist
Speaker 1: attitude that exists, and that's why Trump won in the
Speaker 1: first place because people are sick of them. They're sick
Speaker 1: of this garbage. You know, say what you will. The
Speaker 1: guy has fought to keep his promises and his plans
Speaker 1: are working all right, Hannity Tonight, we got more of
Speaker 1: these guys now responding Steve Dane's Montana Senator Alexander Senator
Speaker 1: Braun Indiana. We'll have the full completed, updated list tonight
Speaker 1: on Hannity. We're loaded up with the news and information
Speaker 1: about what they're doing to hurt the country and how
Speaker 1: it needs to stop. Best Guests, nine Eastern Hannity, Fox News.
Speaker 1: The story the Mob will Never tell you. We'll see
Speaker 1: it tonight at nine. Back here tomorrow