Speaker 1: My friends at my Pillow. My buddy Michaelendell told me
Speaker 1: he was coming out with a brand new product. It's
Speaker 1: called the New Mattress Topper. So I got the new
Speaker 1: Mattress Topper immediately and I've been sleeping on it now
Speaker 1: for a couple of months. It's the best thing you've
Speaker 1: ever felt in your life. Now you literally have my
Speaker 1: pillow foam for support. It's a transitional foam that helps
Speaker 1: relieve pressure points. And it's Ultrasoft patented temperature regulating cover.
Speaker 1: And I gotta tell you how's a ten year warranty,
Speaker 1: a cover that's washable and driable. It's made in the USA,
Speaker 1: back by the sixty day unconditional money back guarantee. Once
Speaker 1: you try this new mattress topper, you put it right
Speaker 1: over your mattress, you will never sleep better. And right now,
Speaker 1: you my radio listeners, you're gonna save thirty percent off
Speaker 1: when you go to my pillow dot com and use
Speaker 1: the promo code topper. And by the way, Mike will
Speaker 1: also give you two standard my pillows absolutely free. All right,
Speaker 1: So try my pillow dot Com promo code topper promo
Speaker 1: code topper for this great deal and the best night's
Speaker 1: sleep you ever had. All right, glad you with us.
Speaker 1: We are loaded up today and I am absolutely fascinated
Speaker 1: by what is developing with the Muller witch hunt investigation
Speaker 1: and how that's going down. Roger Stone, who seems to
Speaker 1: be a target of Robert Muller and his merry band
Speaker 1: of Democratic donors and his pit bull Andrew Weissman, genius
Speaker 1: that he is cost tens of thousands of jobs at
Speaker 1: and Ron Accounting, and then of course genius that he
Speaker 1: is loses in the Supreme Court nine zero, and then
Speaker 1: he puts four Merrill executives in jail for a year,
Speaker 1: and of course that's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court
Speaker 1: of Appeal. And but the tactics that they're using are
Speaker 1: now finally coming into question, and this is an amazing phenomenon. Well,
Speaker 1: by the way, we'll have Roger Stone on. We'll also
Speaker 1: I've talked to Andy McCarthy and Greg Jarrett both earlier today.
Speaker 1: They are they have an amazing analysis of all of
Speaker 1: this in as much as there could be no possible
Speaker 1: crime as it relates to collusion for either Stone or
Speaker 1: Jerome Corsie, none whatsoever. And of course the media's take
Speaker 1: on it is extraordinarily biased. Congressman Louie Gomert's going to
Speaker 1: check in today. He actually says we can get full
Speaker 1: funding for the wall if the Congress, Republican Congress, and
Speaker 1: Senate in this lame duck session would actually do their job,
Speaker 1: and that the plan would be to pay for a
Speaker 1: wall through the reconciliation process. And you know, and he's
Speaker 1: absolutely right. You know, over the last twenty years, budget
Speaker 1: reconciliation has been used as a very powerful weapon to
Speaker 1: bypass filibusters, where you normally need cloture and a vote
Speaker 1: of sixty in the Senate to advance legislation. In this case,
Speaker 1: you only need fifty because Mike Pence is the tiebreaker.
Speaker 1: And so when the president was elected, you know, there
Speaker 1: already was an effort to move to reconciliation as a
Speaker 1: way to repeal Obamacare. And that's when we discovered that
Speaker 1: after seven and a half years and sixty or seventy
Speaker 1: votes to repeal and replace, that there are actually some
Speaker 1: Republicans that didn't mean a single word that they uttered
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail, and they were just gonna go
Speaker 1: rogue regardless, and they didn't have the stomach for the fight.
Speaker 1: And then we found out that the Senators some what
Speaker 1: six or seven of them that voted in twenty fifteen
Speaker 1: for straight repeal of Obamacare, well they decided when it
Speaker 1: actually mattered, knowing that Obama wouldn't support it when it mattered,
Speaker 1: they weren't going to vote that way. Again, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 1: And in spite of all of that, still the losses
Speaker 1: what thirty eight or so now for Republicans in the House.
Speaker 1: But now with the big win in Mississippi by Hyde
Speaker 1: Smith yesterday, you know, now it's fifty three forty seven
Speaker 1: Mississippi came through. That was a big important vote that
Speaker 1: took place in that runoff election. There was one more
Speaker 1: left at Umber the fourth, and I think it's for
Speaker 1: secretary State Georgia, and I mind whatever, just one race
Speaker 1: is left and it's in Georgia, and it's not governor
Speaker 1: or lieutenant governor. I think it's secretary of state or
Speaker 1: whatever they call it. What's that, Linda, Yeah, I am
Speaker 1: right there, thank you. But so there is no reason
Speaker 1: for the Republicans not to use the same tactics that
Speaker 1: the White House under Obama used. The reconciliation process that
Speaker 1: was the only way they were ever gonna get Obamacare passed,
Speaker 1: and they did it. That's not how you pass major
Speaker 1: legislation anyway. When the House now is back in Washington,
Speaker 1: why doesn't the Republican leadership in the House set up
Speaker 1: the twenty nineteen Budget resolution alter the reconciliation instructions to
Speaker 1: provide twenty five billion in new mandatory spending authority for
Speaker 1: the Department of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Committee,
Speaker 1: and instructions provided to offset the new spending with cuts
Speaker 1: to other mandatory programs. Now a reconciliation bills. Look, it's
Speaker 1: just a complicated legislative process where Congress. It allows Congress
Speaker 1: to expedite passage of certain budgetary legislation on spending revenues
Speaker 1: debt that limit a simple majority vote in vote the
Speaker 1: House two and eighteen votes Senate fifty votes. Senate rules
Speaker 1: prohibit filibustering and impose a twenty hour cap on a
Speaker 1: total time for debate motions amendments related to reconciliation bills.
Speaker 1: The procedure also exists in the House, but the House
Speaker 1: regularly passes rules that constrain debate amendments, so reconciliation has
Speaker 1: even a less significant impact in that body, and we
Speaker 1: can get all of that done. All of that can happen,
Speaker 1: and we have a lot of issues about the wall.
Speaker 1: You've got ten thousand more migrants headed for the border.
Speaker 1: This has now become the situation we warned you it
Speaker 1: was likely to become. Although some people are turned around
Speaker 1: and figured out Donald Trump means it and they're going home.
Speaker 1: We went through a long laundry list of how many
Speaker 1: times Barack Obama as president. I mean, it's pretty outrageous.
Speaker 1: You know, everyone's so upset if they're using tear gas,
Speaker 1: women and Joe chemical weapons. One person said, it's tear gas.
Speaker 1: And where did the president get this great idea for
Speaker 1: tear gas? Well, he got it from Barack Obama, because
Speaker 1: Barack Obama did it again and again and again in
Speaker 1: the media doesn't care about what the truth is, and
Speaker 1: you got the media's echo chamber in the media, they're
Speaker 1: spinning out of control over non lethal tear gas to
Speaker 1: disperse crowds, in this case, a crowd that was trying
Speaker 1: to bust down a barrier and rush the border while
Speaker 1: they were pelting our border patrol agents. We've gotten the
Speaker 1: video with rocks and bottles and other debris and even
Speaker 1: hitting a few of them. So you have thousands of
Speaker 1: migrants now more and more keep arriving just south of
Speaker 1: San Diego and Tijuana, and based on the press, you
Speaker 1: can't ignore now what is a serious situation that is
Speaker 1: ongoing there and all while assaulting border patrol with rocks
Speaker 1: and bottles, etc. And the mainstream meeting is doing anything
Speaker 1: and everything to vilify the president for doing so. However,
Speaker 1: as per usual, they have failed to tell you the truth,
Speaker 1: the whole truth, the unvarnished truth. You know. NewsBusters pointed
Speaker 1: out that networks totally ignored the use of tear gas
Speaker 1: during the Obama administration, and the Washington Times, we touched
Speaker 1: on it a bit yesterday, showed that the tear gas
Speaker 1: was used about once a month during Obama's time in
Speaker 1: office in order to stop migrants from crossing the border illegally.
Speaker 1: Isn't that pretty much all you need to know about
Speaker 1: your abusively biased destroyed Trump pat Trump mainstream media. There's
Speaker 1: no monthly outrage over the actions of the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: no grandstanding, no, you know, it's sort of like we
Speaker 1: get this all the time, selective moral outrage. If, for example,
Speaker 1: the very people that said I believe as it relates
Speaker 1: to charges against Brett Kavanaugh. In the case of doctor Ford,
Speaker 1: Republicans handled it app with the absolute sensitivity a topic
Speaker 1: like this deserves. And then she had mentioned four witnesses,
Speaker 1: one eyewitness to what had happened the alleged assault by
Speaker 1: Judge Kvanaugh. The witness said it never happened. Never, So
Speaker 1: do you believe in due process or Democrats didn't because
Speaker 1: they kept saying I believe, I believe, And then it
Speaker 1: gets worse, then ending with Julie Sweatnick and nearly every
Speaker 1: weekend there was a punch that was spiked, and young
Speaker 1: teenage girls drugged, and girls put in bedrooms, and boys
Speaker 1: line the hall and waiting their turn to gang rape
Speaker 1: these drug girls. Even though sweatnext story changed dramatically. Well,
Speaker 1: I never saw him do anything to the punch, meaning Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: and never saw him, you know, spike the punch. But
Speaker 1: one song him with a red solo cup at a party.
Speaker 1: There's a shocker, and well he wasn't really standing in line,
Speaker 1: he was just in the hall. And then of course
Speaker 1: that fell apart. But you noticed that many of the
Speaker 1: same people that wanted to really go after Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: They're the same people that were silent. That's a thirty six,
Speaker 1: thirty seven year old charge. Silent about Keith Ellison's recent
Speaker 1: charge this year by a former girlfriend of abuse, repeated abuse,
Speaker 1: physical and other abuse, or the charges against Michael Avanati
Speaker 1: abuse in that particular case, charges unlike them. I'm consistent.
Speaker 1: I believe in due process, presumption of innocence for everybody.
Speaker 1: But if they cared about the issue, they would have
Speaker 1: taken the same strong stand that they were taken against Cavanaugh,
Speaker 1: against the fellow Democrats and the Bill Clinton that they
Speaker 1: love worship, idolizing a door. Now let me you know
Speaker 1: other things. We have all these We have more people coming.
Speaker 1: There's another new caravan forming in Central America tonight from
Speaker 1: El Salvador, and we're watching that very closely. And if
Speaker 1: you thought Sunday's border patrol victory over the migrants trying
Speaker 1: to push down the wall and quote invade if you're
Speaker 1: going to quote the mayor of Tijuana, but anyway, up
Speaker 1: to ten thousand more caravan migrants are still headed to
Speaker 1: the US border, and we have another caravan for me.
Speaker 1: Then we have the brother of the Honduran President indicted
Speaker 1: for importing tons of cocaine into the US. I've been
Speaker 1: to the drug warehouses. It's it's pretty fascinating. I gotta
Speaker 1: pull up that video and play it again on Hannity.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'll do it tonight. Republicans, you know, ignoring the
Speaker 1: Reconciliation Bill to Philly fully fund the wall, why, it's
Speaker 1: very frustrating. All right, So we have really these are
Speaker 1: fascinating times, and we have Roger Stone is going to
Speaker 1: join us later in the program, and we have Andy
Speaker 1: McCarthy and Greg Jarrett are going to join us in
Speaker 1: the program. Is signpost that Muller is now in full
Speaker 1: acceleration mode as it relates to wanting to wrap this up.
Speaker 1: The President has given written answers. One of the questions
Speaker 1: apparently was leaked today and the President's answer, and we'll
Speaker 1: ask Roger Stone about it, and that was whether whether
Speaker 1: or not Roger Stone and he ever talked about any
Speaker 1: possible release by Assange and wiki leaks. And I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure that the answer is going to be no. But
Speaker 1: then we've got two people here. One is Jerome Corsi
Speaker 1: and who's a friend of Roger Stones. He's been offered
Speaker 1: a plea deal where he they would not oppose a
Speaker 1: sentencing of probation only. So, in other words, immunity plea deal,
Speaker 1: you can get off with probation. What is he? Seventy
Speaker 1: years old, seventy one years old, seventy two years old.
Speaker 1: I don't know how old Jerome Corsi is. I know
Speaker 1: he fought in the Vietnam War because he was part
Speaker 1: of the swift Boat Vets for Truth and wrote the
Speaker 1: book with James O'Neill Unfit to Serve about John Kerry.
Speaker 1: So I don't know how. Listen, he says some crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: He doesn't believe that the moon landing is reel. I
Speaker 1: got it. I understand this. For the sake of this case,
Speaker 1: that's not what matters. And so they want him, obviously
Speaker 1: to flip on Stone. Now the question is what are
Speaker 1: they going to flip him on? In other words, is
Speaker 1: it a crime that they hear that maybe Wiki leaks
Speaker 1: has information that's damning to Hillary? Okay, well, I can
Speaker 1: guarantee you if you line up four hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: five members of Congress and one hundred senators and somebody
Speaker 1: tells them that they might be up research on your
Speaker 1: opponent that's going to help you win the election. I
Speaker 1: bet you all five hundred and thirty five of them
Speaker 1: are gonna ask what do you got? And they will remember.
Speaker 1: This is now post the the DNC email dumped by
Speaker 1: Wiki leaks that led to the firing of Debbie Wasserman, Schultz, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: And tons of speculation Who's going to do? What went?
Speaker 1: And there is there more you know, smoking guns that
Speaker 1: are been coming out. Who knows? But the question is, well,
Speaker 1: we don't know, but where is the crime? If you
Speaker 1: think that there's information available. I'm going to get into
Speaker 1: this through the historical judicial precedent of the Pentagon papers
Speaker 1: because it really I think fits in this particular case,
Speaker 1: and honestly, I think it's the best thing that could happen.
Speaker 1: And why they never asked Wiki leaks to provide where
Speaker 1: they got the information from is beyond any comprehension. I
Speaker 1: have also only because I interviewed Asana went out to
Speaker 1: the Ecuadorian embassy in London and I was there and
Speaker 1: I interviewed him and he's very clear. I'll play his
Speaker 1: answers later about this not being from Russia or a
Speaker 1: third party. Now I have intel sources that say well,
Speaker 1: maybe it was a third party Russian cutout, but it
Speaker 1: still came from Russia or whatever. Well does that mean?
Speaker 1: You know, the Pentagon papers were stolen too, and they
Speaker 1: were published by the New York Times, and they were
Speaker 1: published by the Washington Post. And by the way, so
Speaker 1: was the Wiki leaks emails as well, published by most
Speaker 1: of these publications. So why would anyone be in trouble
Speaker 1: if they were looking or to try to ascertain whether
Speaker 1: or not this information about an opponent. And if it's
Speaker 1: stolen and you didn't encourage the stealing, which would be
Speaker 1: a conspiracy, And if it's stolen and you know, like
Speaker 1: it was in the Pentagon paper case, it apparently doesn't
Speaker 1: make a difference if you're publishing it for informational purposes
Speaker 1: as some type of vote journalism. He let me tell
Speaker 1: you something about smoking. Guess what. It's not about politics,
Speaker 1: it's about people. Now they're about thirty eight million America?
Speaker 1: Is that smoke? And I want to tell you about
Speaker 1: my experience switching to jewel. I used to smoke cigars.
Speaker 1: I smoked them regularly. I even inhaled them at times.
Speaker 1: Not good. Everyone in my family growing up, they all
Speaker 1: smoked and Now that I've made the switch to Jewel,
Speaker 1: guess what I have found the best alternative ever. Now
Speaker 1: Jewel is designed with smokers in mind in terms of
Speaker 1: its form technology. It's simple to use, no buttons, no switches.
Speaker 1: It is the satisfying alternative now for one in eight
Speaker 1: American adults who like nicotine like me. Now to discover
Speaker 1: the smoking alternative that's nothing like any e sig or
Speaker 1: vape you've ever tried. Just go to Jewel dot com,
Speaker 1: slash switch America. That's Juul dot com slash switch America
Speaker 1: and learn more information at ju uel dot com slash
Speaker 1: switch America. All right, as we roll along Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: All right, Roger Stone is gonna check in, also Andy McCarthy,
Speaker 1: Greg Jared. Neither one of them think that there's any
Speaker 1: underlying crime. And what's fascinating is, you know, if Corsie
Speaker 1: is saying, I'm not going to sign a plead deal
Speaker 1: that would prevent him from otherwise likely going to jail,
Speaker 1: because that's what the threat is. Either. You know Michael
Speaker 1: Flynn when he agreed to the plead deal, which was
Speaker 1: that he lied to the FBI. Remember, none of the
Speaker 1: FBI agents nor James Comey nor Peter Struck, who was
Speaker 1: one of the agents that interviewed him, thought he lied.
Speaker 1: But here's a guy he's facing, you know, literally bankruptcy,
Speaker 1: having to sell his house. By the way, thanks for
Speaker 1: serving your country over three decades. This is how we
Speaker 1: pay you back, and probably the threat of well, your
Speaker 1: sons in business with you. We're gonna have to be
Speaker 1: bringing him into this as well. And any loving father's
Speaker 1: going to take the sword and fall on it fast,
Speaker 1: whether it's the truth or not the truth. And Corsie
Speaker 1: is saying, no, I'm not going to do it, and
Speaker 1: that means that probably if he if he would willingly
Speaker 1: take the deal, the plea deal offered by Mueller, that
Speaker 1: would mean he doesn't have to worry for the rest
Speaker 1: of his life, which also included partial immunity. According to
Speaker 1: what he's saying. Paul Manafort cooperating witness of Muller. Now
Speaker 1: we find out both Corsi and Manafort have cooperation deals
Speaker 1: with the President's attorney with the White House. And the
Speaker 1: point is Manafort now being accused by Robert Muller in
Speaker 1: this particular case, of violating the plea deal that they
Speaker 1: had and also sharing the information. What's Mueller looking for?
Speaker 1: So Muller's now turning and tightening the screws on Corsi
Speaker 1: and on Manafort. Looks like, you know, Ecuador may turnover
Speaker 1: Julian Osange. By the way, he would be the one
Speaker 1: guy that knows where all this information originated from, wouldn't he?
Speaker 1: All right? Twenty five un till the top of the
Speaker 1: hour eight hundred nine f one, Sean, if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program, just stick with
Speaker 1: me here. I know this gets a little complicated, little
Speaker 1: bit in the weeds, but it is worth the deep dive,
Speaker 1: especially knowing that the Special Counsel never had real interest
Speaker 1: in Russia collusion, because if they did, they would have
Speaker 1: been very involved. And let's see the exoneration of Hillary
Speaker 1: before the investigation, and then the same people that said, oh,
Speaker 1: Hillary should win one hundred million to nothing, you know,
Speaker 1: go on this entire which hunt about Trump Russia collusion
Speaker 1: and there's been no evidence. And then of course the
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign funneling money to a law firm legal costs
Speaker 1: that it's not fed to a research group Fusion GPS,
Speaker 1: hiring a foreign national Christopher Steele, Christopher Steele. Then of
Speaker 1: course putting together a series of papers that then become
Speaker 1: known as the dossier. The dossier's full of Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: bought and paid for Russian lies, none of it verified,
Speaker 1: none of it corroborated. Even Christopher Steele in an interrogatory
Speaker 1: he doesn't and by his own writing in his own
Speaker 1: allegations under the threat of perjury, Oh no, this is
Speaker 1: just raw intelligence, maybe fifty fifty. None of it is
Speaker 1: true that I know of. I can't say for sure. Well,
Speaker 1: then how did that then get used by in that
Speaker 1: particular case, used by the used to obtain FISA warrants
Speaker 1: by the FBI and the Department of Justice. The bulk
Speaker 1: of information coming from the Clinton bought and paid for
Speaker 1: Russian lying dossier, and they present it to a FISA court, unverified, uncorroborated,
Speaker 1: and now debunked by even its own author, never telling
Speaker 1: the court, meaning the FISA Court judges as they're committing
Speaker 1: fraud on the court Grassley Graham memo, Nunez memo. Bulk
Speaker 1: of information is what was in the FISA applications. So
Speaker 1: they commit a fraud on the court. They get it
Speaker 1: to spy on a former Trump campaign chairman or advisor,
Speaker 1: a non paid by the name of Carter Page. Then
Speaker 1: it's disseminated as outright truth to the American people for
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election. That's called propagandizing. That's called lying.
Speaker 1: That's Russian lies, paid for by Hillary to misinform purposely
Speaker 1: the American people that Donald Trump, you had two hookers
Speaker 1: in the Moscow rits urinating on his bed. This is
Speaker 1: where this has all gone to. And if we cared
Speaker 1: about Russian influence, if we cared about Russian chaos, if
Speaker 1: we cared about Russian collusion, they would also to have
Speaker 1: been investigating all of this, which they never have and
Speaker 1: probably never will. Lindsey Graham says he is going to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of it in the next congressional session,
Speaker 1: especially if House Democrats do what I predict they're gonna do,
Speaker 1: and it's gonna be destroy Trump every second, every minute,
Speaker 1: every hour of every day. But that's where the double standard,
Speaker 1: a dual system of justice, no equal justice under the law,
Speaker 1: no equal application of our laws. And then even further,
Speaker 1: this information is used by top officials fbideal J. Bruce
Speaker 1: Or at the Department of Justice, demoted twice his wife Nelly,
Speaker 1: working for Fusion GPS putting all those crap together. But anyway,
Speaker 1: he's still in contact with Christopher Steele. We have three
Speaker 1: O two's that have yet to be released. Then we
Speaker 1: learned through struck page messages that they had a media
Speaker 1: leak strategy, and it was a circular leak strategy, which
Speaker 1: means that they take the same phony Russian dossier that's
Speaker 1: not verified, and they start feeding portions of it to
Speaker 1: the media, and then you then can make the case. Look,
Speaker 1: it's reported here, and it's reported there, and it's reported
Speaker 1: over here, and people see it. Look at all the
Speaker 1: different sourcing on this, but it's all one source, and
Speaker 1: the one sources Christopher Steele's dossier. And then, of course
Speaker 1: the insurance policy comes in because this then becomes well,
Speaker 1: if five chance of forty year old drops oat of
Speaker 1: a heart attack, you want life insurance. Well, the insurance
Speaker 1: plan in this case is well, Trump's never gonna win,
Speaker 1: but if he does, we've got Plan B the insurance.
Speaker 1: They didn't care about any of that, So it's like
Speaker 1: they don't care. They cared about the issues that they
Speaker 1: so passionately cared about when it's to take down a
Speaker 1: Republican justice. Kavanaugh boy they're all over. I believe, I believe.
Speaker 1: Do they believe Keith Ellison's accuser? How come they never
Speaker 1: believed any of the accusers of Bill Clinton, the many
Speaker 1: of them, including the charge of rape and groping and
Speaker 1: fondling and touching and kissing against a woman's will in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office, Kathleen Willie or exposing himself as then
Speaker 1: Arkansas Attorney General to Paula Jones and saying kiss it
Speaker 1: whatever else that he ended up losing that case and
Speaker 1: his law license, and he was impeached over it. So
Speaker 1: you know there's gonna be a lot happening, So stick
Speaker 1: with me here. So what you've got is you've gotten
Speaker 1: now two and one more on the record. Roger Stone
Speaker 1: is quoted in the American Spectator and say, I'm innocent.
Speaker 1: I'm not taking a deal. If Muller offers me one now,
Speaker 1: Roger Stone will join us at the top of the
Speaker 1: next hour. But what you've not here is, obviously, remember,
Speaker 1: Judge Ellis, you're gonna put the screws to Manafort in
Speaker 1: the hopes that he sings or he composes, so then
Speaker 1: you can either impeach or hurt Donald Trump. Whole purpose
Speaker 1: of going after somebody's lone application forms from years ago,
Speaker 1: or a tax violation that had already been put to
Speaker 1: rest in the Department of Justice. All right, he found guilty,
Speaker 1: he works on a cooperation deal that blows up, and
Speaker 1: now Corsi and in the case of Manaphort, two guys
Speaker 1: that are basically saying I'm not gonna lie. We call
Speaker 1: it testa lying. In other words, that you sit there
Speaker 1: and it's obvious if you tell us this, we'll get
Speaker 1: We'll go easy on you for cooperating with us. If
Speaker 1: you say these things, you'll spend less time in jail,
Speaker 1: maybe no time in jail, but you gotta give us
Speaker 1: what we want to hear. And then people say, you
Speaker 1: know what, in the case of both of those men,
Speaker 1: they're older men. That's the rest of their life in jail.
Speaker 1: So often prosecutors, in their zealousness, they lose any sense
Speaker 1: of proportionality, perspective, or prosecutorial discretion. They don't think they're lived.
Speaker 1: They don't really seem to remember that these are real people,
Speaker 1: real lives that they're destroying. Forget that General Flynn served
Speaker 1: his country with honor and distinction for over three decades
Speaker 1: of his life and Nobody in the FBI thought he
Speaker 1: lied when he was questioned. Nobody, So how did he
Speaker 1: come to the plea deal admitting that he lied? Well,
Speaker 1: they basically said, well, first of all, he's getting bankrupt.
Speaker 1: You don't make a lot of money when you're in
Speaker 1: the armed services, serving your country your whole life. So
Speaker 1: now he has to sell his house. And then I'm
Speaker 1: pretty certain good educated guests knowing how some of these
Speaker 1: prosecutors work, having read License to Live by Sydney Powell,
Speaker 1: especially how Weissman and company work. Oh, we're just going
Speaker 1: to have to go after your son. I know he
Speaker 1: was in business with its sad. Well, you know what's
Speaker 1: he gonna do? What would you do if it's your kid,
Speaker 1: You're gonna dive on the sword and die for your kid.
Speaker 1: That's what you're gonna do. And that's what I think
Speaker 1: happened in his case. Or Papadopoulos, who's been more than
Speaker 1: angry leading up to his two weeks in jail. Will
Speaker 1: be interesting to see what he says when he gets out.
Speaker 1: So you got Muellers now tightening the screws on both corsi,
Speaker 1: you know, saying that Manaport violated the cooperation deal, Corsi
Speaker 1: is a friend of Roger Stone who joins us at
Speaker 1: the top of the hour. So charges apparently appear imminent.
Speaker 1: We're not sure. Actually, I think why if they ever
Speaker 1: wanted to know. I flew to the Ecuadorian embassy in
Speaker 1: Great Britain. I flew there in one day and I
Speaker 1: flew back the same day, and I interviewed asan Jin
Speaker 1: January is seventeen. We asked him on radio, We've asked
Speaker 1: them on TV did he get this from Russia or
Speaker 1: Russian sources or people connected to Russia as the Multiple
Speaker 1: times he said, well, we'll play it later, So now
Speaker 1: he might be out, but he would be And I've
Speaker 1: known this has been a puzzling question in my mind.
Speaker 1: If you want to know where did he get the
Speaker 1: information from? And I know some intel people say absolutely
Speaker 1: it was Russia, absolutely? Or was it Russia or was
Speaker 1: it a third party representative or cut out for Russia
Speaker 1: that maybe he knew or didn't know, was a third
Speaker 1: party cut out or was it something altogether different? Who knows?
Speaker 1: But I would assume that there's some type of evidence,
Speaker 1: considering it had to be electronically transferred uploaded to the
Speaker 1: wiki League Sosange computer at some point, so we'll see
Speaker 1: what happens in that particular case. Now we have reports
Speaker 1: that the Russian spy and this this Maria Boutina woman
Speaker 1: is reportedly in talks for a plea deal. He got
Speaker 1: a number of Mueller's prosecutors even working on Veterans Day,
Speaker 1: and that's when Michael Cohen had taken the train to
Speaker 1: Washington to talk to Mueller's team. ABC reporting that an
Speaker 1: unusually high number, maybe three dozen sealed indictments have been
Speaker 1: filed over the course of the last year in DC.
Speaker 1: Fourteen of those have been added just since August, and
Speaker 1: that's when Mueller's investigation was publicly quiet. One thing they
Speaker 1: did do is they didn't get involved in the election.
Speaker 1: But we'll see. The President did turn in his long
Speaker 1: awaited written answers to Mueller's investigations, or at least a
Speaker 1: version of it that's locked in. And Trump, you know
Speaker 1: what the media will tell you well that he's tacitly
Speaker 1: acknowledging Mueller's at thirty President said repeatedly he's not going
Speaker 1: to stop Muller. And my prediction is is that Mueller
Speaker 1: is going to be exactly the person we thought he was,
Speaker 1: He's going to go in and try and damage, destroy, delegitimize,
Speaker 1: hurt Donald Trump as much as he can. So that
Speaker 1: I've never had any doubt based on the team that
Speaker 1: he's put together. How do you hire Hillary Clinton's former attorney?
Speaker 1: How do you never hire a single Republican as part
Speaker 1: of this group? How do you hire Andrew Weissman who
Speaker 1: was at Hillary's big victory party and writing what was
Speaker 1: the woman's name that was fired by the press? Ally Yates,
Speaker 1: you know, saying great job, great job. The guy with
Speaker 1: Enron losing tens of thousands of job NINEO in the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, losing putting innocent people in jail. Merrill executives
Speaker 1: four years only to be overturned by the Fifth Circuit.
Speaker 1: There wasn't a year of his life in jail that
Speaker 1: he can never get back. So as you look at
Speaker 1: the timeline and the silence, I don't think anybody fully
Speaker 1: completely knows, but it's obvious that they're asking questions of
Speaker 1: again about the Trump Tower meeting, and based on the
Speaker 1: court filing earlier in the week, Muller apparently hopes this
Speaker 1: you know, issue to issue in a report on mat
Speaker 1: Affords activities. To the court, so we'll find out what
Speaker 1: violation he might be involved in. It's just a lawyer
Speaker 1: for Paul Manafort, you know. Apparently they were had a
Speaker 1: cooperation agreement with the White Houses lawyers, and so I
Speaker 1: guess in that particular case, Manafort agreed to cooperate with
Speaker 1: the special counsel. Rudy Giuliani acknowledging the arrangement yesterday, defending it,
Speaker 1: saying it gave Trump's legal team insights into what Mueller's
Speaker 1: investigations about what are they looking for, and two other
Speaker 1: people familiar with the conversations confirmed the arrangement to The
Speaker 1: New York Times, it appears course he had the same arrangement,
Speaker 1: and the Times noted that some legal experts believed that
Speaker 1: this could have been a bid by Manafort for a pardon.
Speaker 1: That speculation, and there was one report yesterday that said
Speaker 1: that that wouldn't even be, you know, completely possible as
Speaker 1: it relates to state charges where it wouldn't be applicable
Speaker 1: a pardon. And Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing, met with Trump's
Speaker 1: legal team. But you don't break any laws if you
Speaker 1: have a joint defense agreement. That's allowed anyway, So you know,
Speaker 1: julianni has said Mueller's zealed to get Trump is prompting
Speaker 1: him to push witnesses to lie. That's what's happening here. Now,
Speaker 1: you think about it. If you're facing you're seventy years old,
Speaker 1: you're facing, however, many years in prison. How appealing it
Speaker 1: must be. Is you sit at a table and they say,
Speaker 1: come on, you know, you know what we want you
Speaker 1: to say. If you say it, we're gonna go real easy.
Speaker 1: You're gonna your life's gonna be golden. You'll be maybe
Speaker 1: a year max, maybe six months max. Yeah, we'll even
Speaker 1: fight for probation for you, or you might die in prison.
Speaker 1: The fact that neither one of these guys was willing
Speaker 1: to take that, that is amazing to me. And you know,
Speaker 1: as you have Stone campaign advisor Roger Stone releasing documents
Speaker 1: showing that as the presidential campaign heated up in twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen in the summer, this is after the DNC convention,
Speaker 1: when I guess the first batch of wiki leaks information
Speaker 1: came out. Stone tried to dispatch, in this particular case,
Speaker 1: his friend Jerome Corsi into finding what does wiki leaks
Speaker 1: even know? Because that might be damaging that Hillary. I
Speaker 1: was talking to Andy McCarthy today, said, well, guess one thing,
Speaker 1: it's not It's not a crime. So that's why, Well,
Speaker 1: now we got to go after a perjury charge because
Speaker 1: Corsi said in an interview that he might be indicted
Speaker 1: on the charge of ligne to federal investigators because he
Speaker 1: told them he refused Stone's request, when in fact he
Speaker 1: passed it on to an intermediary. This is going back
Speaker 1: to twenty sixteen. Does anybody know what you did in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. I can't even tell you what I did
Speaker 1: last week or what I even talked about yesterday on
Speaker 1: this program. I'm just going at the speed of light
Speaker 1: every day. And it's how do you remember what you
Speaker 1: did or set in twenty sea You forget something that's perjury? No,
Speaker 1: it's not. It's called having a normal memory. Anyway. So
Speaker 1: the draft statement against Corsi, which apparently they were informed
Speaker 1: about and people familiar with it or reporting about it.
Speaker 1: The New York Times had it, The Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: had it, in other places have it. Spectator had a
Speaker 1: good article today and they're saying that in it, prosecutors
Speaker 1: are claiming that Corsi understood that Stone was in regular
Speaker 1: contact with senior members of the Trump campaign, including with
Speaker 1: then Donald candidate Donald Trump. Now I think he got
Speaker 1: off the campaign or advisement in twenty fifteen. Whether or
Speaker 1: not he talked to Trump, I have no idea, but
Speaker 1: we'll ask him because one of the questions leaked is that, well,
Speaker 1: did you have any contact with Roger Stone about Julian
Speaker 1: Assange and to get that information. I don't even think
Speaker 1: Trump knew about Julian Osange and the information or had
Speaker 1: any understanding of what it was. To be honest, he
Speaker 1: wasn't in this political world, deep weed world we live
Speaker 1: in sometimes and that there might be events that, you know,
Speaker 1: at the end of this then we're finding out all
Speaker 1: these you know, secret criminal complaints are out there and
Speaker 1: indictments are out there. Who knows. I've never trusted this honor.
Speaker 1: About July twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, person one send an
Speaker 1: email to Corsi. That would be Roger Stone, who's going
Speaker 1: to join us? Get the founder of organization one. Get
Speaker 1: to the founder of the organization one at the Ecuadorian
Speaker 1: Embassy in London. Gee, I wonder who that is? And
Speaker 1: get pending organization one emails. They deal with the foundation
Speaker 1: allegedly Okay, how's that different from the Pentagon papers published
Speaker 1: by both the New York Times and the Washington Post
Speaker 1: that were illegally obtained. They did it, and by the way,
Speaker 1: most of these newspapers published the same thing. Wiki Leaks published,
Speaker 1: Where's the crime? Where's the collusion? Unbelievable? Right, gladuate us
Speaker 1: our two Sean Hannity Show eight hundred nine for one Sean.
Speaker 1: You want to be a part of the program. So
Speaker 1: as now we know that the president has submitted written
Speaker 1: answers what nearly six hundred days into this Mueller witch hunt,
Speaker 1: and the fact that, of course they're not really looking
Speaker 1: for collusion, they're just looking for Trump Russia collusion. So
Speaker 1: far no evidence, but in the final waning hours, days, months,
Speaker 1: clearly some form of desperation has set in. What's been
Speaker 1: most fascinating is that Jerome Corsi has himself said that
Speaker 1: he was offered a plea deal that even could result
Speaker 1: in probation no time in jail, and he has rejected it. Similarly,
Speaker 1: we now heard from Robert Muller that the plea deal
Speaker 1: that they had, the arrangement that they had with Paul
Speaker 1: Manafort all the same thing. There he has well, and
Speaker 1: in both cases, by the way, they have joint defense
Speaker 1: agreements with the counsel of the White House, which has
Speaker 1: a pretty fascinating development and makes a lot of sense
Speaker 1: if you're looking at it from the presid in point
Speaker 1: of view, the White House's point of view. But now
Speaker 1: it seems to be coming down to two people, and
Speaker 1: that would be Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi. And you know, supposedly,
Speaker 1: if you believe NBC News, Muller says he has emails
Speaker 1: from Corsi about the Wiki leaks, Democratic email dump. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't know many other people in the media besides
Speaker 1: myself who's actually taken the time to get in an airplane,
Speaker 1: fly across the pond and sit down and talk to
Speaker 1: Julian Assange himself. I was very specific. I wanted to
Speaker 1: know where this information came from. Did it come from Russia? Now,
Speaker 1: to be fair, I've had people in the intel community
Speaker 1: say that they're convinced, they know it's a certainty you
Speaker 1: that at least was Russia or Russian cutout. But that's
Speaker 1: not what Asan said, And let's listen to part of
Speaker 1: that interview. Russia give you this information or anybody associated
Speaker 1: with Russia. Our source is not a state party. So
Speaker 1: the answer for our interactions is no, you did not
Speaker 1: get this information about the DNC John Podesta's emails. Can
Speaker 1: you tell the American people a thousand percent you did
Speaker 1: not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia.
Speaker 1: We can say, we have said repeatedly over the last
Speaker 1: two months that our source is not the Russian government
Speaker 1: and it is not the state party. Our source is
Speaker 1: not the Russian government. So in other words, let me
Speaker 1: be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents
Speaker 1: or anything from the DNC. Correct. All right? Joining us
Speaker 1: now is Rogers Stone. By the way, Stone's Rules a
Speaker 1: best seller, and Roger also quoted as saying in the
Speaker 1: American Spectator today, I'm innocent. I wouldn't take a deal
Speaker 1: of Muller offered me one. Roger, welcome back to the program.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us, Thanks Sean for having me.
Speaker 1: I've got to imagine that there's a lot of pressure
Speaker 1: in your life right now. We keep hearing that obviously
Speaker 1: Robert Muller is after you and after Jerome Corsi. Why
Speaker 1: don't I just generally give it to you and tell
Speaker 1: our audience what you think is actually going on here. Well, soan,
Speaker 1: first of all, I think I've been targeted because I
Speaker 1: supported Donald Trump for president. I helped defeat Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: But I violated no law regarding the twenty sixteen election
Speaker 1: or anything else. And the idea that I knew about
Speaker 1: the source or the content of the wiki least disclosures,
Speaker 1: whether they were allegedly hacked emails or allegedly stolen emails
Speaker 1: of John Podesta, is simply false. I had a tipster
Speaker 1: who told me that after Assange went on CNN in
Speaker 1: June and Fox in August and said that he had
Speaker 1: a trove of documents on Hillary Clinton, I had a
Speaker 1: tipster to tell me that they were devastating, a bombshell
Speaker 1: incredible would end Hillary's campaign, and that they would be
Speaker 1: published in October. And I provided text messages only last
Speaker 1: week that proved that that source was Randy Kretico, a
Speaker 1: New York based progressive radio talk show host, and that
Speaker 1: his source was not Julie Assange, but a woman attorney
Speaker 1: who works for Wiki Lakes. So now suddenly the media
Speaker 1: doesn't want to talk about Randy Cretico anymore. Now suddenly
Speaker 1: they have a new narrative, which is the idea that
Speaker 1: I must have received these documents, either Podesta's emails or
Speaker 1: the DNC emails from Jerry Corsi. That is also false.
Speaker 1: The emails that the Wall Street Journal and others refer
Speaker 1: to are not a smoking gun. There's no smoking gun
Speaker 1: there at all, unless political gossip has now been criminalized.
Speaker 1: Corsi predict that there are disclosures coming from WikiLeaks, and
Speaker 1: he makes an oblique reference to the American people learning
Speaker 1: more about the podestas. No where does it refer to
Speaker 1: Podesta's emails being stolen. So I thought this was about
Speaker 1: rushing collusion. I thought it was about WikiLeaks collaboration. I
Speaker 1: think we learned a long time ago. I think to
Speaker 1: be about a country trap for a seventy two year
Speaker 1: old man. You know. Let me refer to the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal. They talk about your tweet on August the
Speaker 1: twenty first, that said, trust me, it will soon the
Speaker 1: Podesta's time in the barrel. That's how I read it.
Speaker 1: Verbade him from their piece, not my words. And then
Speaker 1: weeks later, emails from Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were
Speaker 1: dumped online by wiki leaks, And I think we got
Speaker 1: to also put in a context a little bit of
Speaker 1: the timeline, because it was on the eve of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Convention when we got the DNC emails, correct the
Speaker 1: first ones. I think that's correct. But the significance here
Speaker 1: is that doctor Corsi appears to have been pressured to
Speaker 1: say that my claim that that tweet was based on
Speaker 1: his briefing of me about the Podesta brothers lucrative Russian
Speaker 1: business dealings in gas, in aluminum and uranium and banking
Speaker 1: that I asked him to write a memo about so
Speaker 1: that I could retail it two reporters, was somehow a
Speaker 1: cover story. Well, let's let's examine that my tweet was
Speaker 1: not controversial for six weeks later, when the Podesta emails
Speaker 1: were finally published. There was no congressional investigation, There was
Speaker 1: no Muther investigation, there was no subpoenas, there was no
Speaker 1: media attention, there was no media controversy. So cover up
Speaker 1: for what? Why did they quote Corsi here? Jerome Corsi
Speaker 1: is saying that, as a long time acquaintance of yours,
Speaker 1: that he's contradicting your version of events, saying in an
Speaker 1: interview Tuesday that you called him on August thirty a,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, nine days after the tweet and asked Corsi
Speaker 1: for help in creating an alternative explanation for it. What
Speaker 1: does that mean? That means that you had a seventy
Speaker 1: two year old man who was hot boxed by mother's
Speaker 1: investigators for forty hours? Is what had that happened by
Speaker 1: that time? By the time, he only said that recently
Speaker 1: at that time. First of all, he told me about
Speaker 1: the Podestas and their extensive Russian disiness dealings prior to
Speaker 1: the twenty first. It took him until the thirty first
Speaker 1: to get me the memo. Then he subsequently asked me
Speaker 1: several times in text messages and emails whether I had
Speaker 1: been successful in selling it to any reporters, which was
Speaker 1: the purpose of it. So there is no need for
Speaker 1: a cover up story. Nothing we've done is illegal number one.
Speaker 1: And he says that he told me that he had
Speaker 1: deduced that John Podesta's emails had been stolen, but he
Speaker 1: does not do so in email or text message. He
Speaker 1: says it was a phone call which he now remembers,
Speaker 1: which I don't remember because frankly I never knew that
Speaker 1: until it was published. Well, it's what's weird about that article, though,
Speaker 1: is when he says what I construct, what I testified
Speaker 1: too before the grand jury, was that I believed I
Speaker 1: was creating a cover story for Roger because Roger wanted
Speaker 1: to explain this tweet. And then he went on to
Speaker 1: say something quite chilling to me and anybody that believes
Speaker 1: in the constitution and civil liberties, that he believed that
Speaker 1: the Special counsel knew this because they could virtually tell
Speaker 1: my keystrokes on the computer. That's a little that's a
Speaker 1: little scary, big brother scenario to me. Well, look, five
Speaker 1: days before the famous Podesta tweet, and which, by the way,
Speaker 1: the mainstream media always drops the word v V. Podesta's
Speaker 1: shown refers to two people, John and Tony, but by
Speaker 1: dropping the word Z you can imply that it's a
Speaker 1: reference to John Podesta's emails being published. Shows you the
Speaker 1: dishonesty of the Wall Street Journal, for example. You know
Speaker 1: what's amazing knowing this and on this as well. But
Speaker 1: five days prior, I put out a tweet that says,
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort makes John Podesta no part of me. John
Speaker 1: Podesta makes Paul Manafort look like Saint Thomas Aquinas. Why
Speaker 1: hasn't he been investigated Because apparently the same type of
Speaker 1: business and business dealings and lack of I guess the
Speaker 1: requirement as it relates to, you know, foreign if you're
Speaker 1: doing any work politically for foreign countries. Did he did
Speaker 1: he register as such an agent with the federal government.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I understand your question. In other words,
Speaker 1: we have the far laws which they were making a
Speaker 1: big deal with Manafort. Is Tony Podesta up to speed
Speaker 1: on that? Did he do it all those years? Is
Speaker 1: violated the same law that Manafort has been convicted of violating.
Speaker 1: He didn't file under a FIRO registration either, but he
Speaker 1: hasn't been prosecuted. Isn't that strange? Yeah, you know, I
Speaker 1: find it interesting that Jerome Corsi and I really got
Speaker 1: to know him when he did he was part of
Speaker 1: the I think it was James O'Neill, and they did
Speaker 1: Unfit for Command, a book about John Kerry and all
Speaker 1: the things that Kerry had said about as fellow Vietnam vets.
Speaker 1: I know he takes some kind of bizarre positions on
Speaker 1: the moon landing and so on and so forth. Putting
Speaker 1: that aside for a minute, but when you have two
Speaker 1: people that know as and they're both older people, Paul
Speaker 1: Manafort who I got to know during the campaign, and
Speaker 1: Jerome Corsi that they're both offered. In the case of
Speaker 1: Corsi and reports, maybe he just gets probation if he
Speaker 1: says what Weissman and Mueller's team want him to say,
Speaker 1: and he said, no deal, I'm not gonna lie, and
Speaker 1: then Manafort seemingly did the same thing. That means that
Speaker 1: they both might face the rest of their lives in jail.
Speaker 1: And they could have easily, you know, extricated themselves from
Speaker 1: that and given them what they wanted, and they would
Speaker 1: have benefited a lot personally by doing so. Absolutely accurate. Look,
Speaker 1: I feel badly for doctor Corcy, who I liked very much,
Speaker 1: but I think he has been squeezed into giving them something.
Speaker 1: And the two things he has said about me are incorrect,
Speaker 1: the other ones even more incredible. He claims that I
Speaker 1: had advanced notice of the so called Billie Bush NBC
Speaker 1: grabbed them by the you Know What tape, and that
Speaker 1: I asked him, for whatever reason, to contact Julian Assange
Speaker 1: to tell Wiki Leaks to speed up the release of
Speaker 1: their documents to distract from that story. Sean, that is
Speaker 1: whole cloth. I knew nothing about this at advance. I
Speaker 1: was stunned when I heard about it. I was on
Speaker 1: the street in Manhattan. I heard about it around four
Speaker 1: o'clock in the afternoon. I rushed to a computer to
Speaker 1: read the Washington Post story on it because I heard
Speaker 1: they had broken the story. So again, he has no
Speaker 1: evidence of this other than the fact that we evidently
Speaker 1: spoke on the phone that day. But that proves nothing.
Speaker 1: How do we reconcile though, how do we reconcile the
Speaker 1: julian Is Sans who published these things? Weren't they also
Speaker 1: published in the New York Times exactly? In fact, as
Speaker 1: Sane was asked about Roger Stone, he said, while he
Speaker 1: is a cunning spinmaster, we've had no communication with him whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So I think mister Muller in trying to find somebody
Speaker 1: in the Trump orbit who received emails either stolen or
Speaker 1: hacked and passed them on to the candidate, and that
Speaker 1: just never happened. Here's what I never understood in all
Speaker 1: of this Wikileakssans, Corsi, Goosfer, you name it. It just
Speaker 1: never happened. Here's something that I have been very puzzled.
Speaker 1: If they really wanted to get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: was there any connection to Wiki leaks and the releases
Speaker 1: that they've had in the lead up to the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election. I've got to imagine, and I've always felt
Speaker 1: that the person that could give them the most honest answer,
Speaker 1: probably with some real hardcore evidence, would be Julian Asange. Now,
Speaker 1: to the best of my knowledge, I don't know, but
Speaker 1: all they're interested in doing with him is extraditing him
Speaker 1: and convicting him for doing exactly what the New York
Speaker 1: Times and the Washington Post in the Wall Street Journal do,
Speaker 1: which is getting information from whistleblowers and publishing it. That's
Speaker 1: what journalists do. Not long ago, we were all celebrating
Speaker 1: the Washington Post in this movie, the Post celebrating their
Speaker 1: publication of the classified documents, the Pentagon Papers, about the
Speaker 1: origins of the Vietnam War. So the left holds that
Speaker 1: out as a heroic act. But they would now want
Speaker 1: to send a Signe to prison for doing the exact
Speaker 1: same thing. Seems to me to be a great deal
Speaker 1: of hypocrisy there. I guess the question is what would
Speaker 1: the crime be if you did know that something was
Speaker 1: going to be published. We do have a case called
Speaker 1: the Pentagon Papers. If you recall, well, I'd have to
Speaker 1: be in the receipt of stolen material to have any
Speaker 1: kind of case made against me, and of course I wasn't.
Speaker 1: I was trafficking in political information. And yeah, there's no question, Sean.
Speaker 1: I took a tip from Randy Kretico that the Asge
Speaker 1: held material was significant, and I hyped it relentlessly on tweet,
Speaker 1: not to aggrandize myself, not to suck up to the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, but to try to drive voter and media
Speaker 1: attention to the disclosures when they came, because I was
Speaker 1: assured by somebody I thought nobody was talking about that
Speaker 1: they would be devastating. You have you ever done this
Speaker 1: and been wrong? No? No, But I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: it is more amazing to me. Hold that thought, because
Speaker 1: I'll pick it up there. And we got a longer
Speaker 1: segment on the other side, Roger Stone, his Bookston's Rules,
Speaker 1: will get to that his relationship of the President much more.
Speaker 1: On the other side eight hundred nine four one, Sean
Speaker 1: told free telephone number, quick break right back, We'll continue
Speaker 1: straight ahead, and they wanted I had nothing to hide.
Speaker 1: I gave them to him immediately, and for having forgotten
Speaker 1: on day one, because I hadn't reviewed the emails, this
Speaker 1: particular email about Ted Malick. I'm now being charged with
Speaker 1: willfully and knowingly giving false information, which is nonsense. Do
Speaker 1: you think that your political views are playing a role
Speaker 1: in the decision of the Special Council to charge you
Speaker 1: with a felony? Yes? I think. And also, by the way,
Speaker 1: they accused me of deleting emails and I told them
Speaker 1: to restore. They restored the emails I supposedly deleted through
Speaker 1: the time machine. This is a political winch hunt, all right.
Speaker 1: That was Jerome Corsi on Tucker Carlson Show the other night.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred nine for one, Shawn is our number. You
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the program. And we
Speaker 1: now see that Jerome Corsi is rejected, according to his
Speaker 1: home words, a plead deal with Robert Muller, saying that
Speaker 1: he will not testify or admit to something he didn't
Speaker 1: do and lie, even though the prosecution apparently in their
Speaker 1: offers said they wouldn't oppose just a probation type of
Speaker 1: punishment in that deal, which means that if Muller really
Speaker 1: goes forward indicts Jerome Corsi, that he could face potentially
Speaker 1: the rest of his life in jail clearly a of
Speaker 1: the centers around Roger Stone, who's on our Newsmaker line,
Speaker 1: author of Stone's Rules. What do you make What did
Speaker 1: you think of what he said there that the chargers
Speaker 1: a nonsense? And do you think both Paul Manaford and
Speaker 1: Jerome Corsi are both pretty much doing the same thing?
Speaker 1: And that is refusing And I think I don't think
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn the FBI didn't even think he lied Roger
Speaker 1: They they thought he was telling the truth. But he
Speaker 1: had no money, he had to sell his house, and
Speaker 1: at that point they were probably squeezing his own family
Speaker 1: and threatening his own son who worked with him. So
Speaker 1: I imagine he finally, just like every father, said I'll
Speaker 1: fall on the sword instead and signed onto something that
Speaker 1: the FBI didn't even believe he had done. That's lied
Speaker 1: to the FBI. Well, only ten days ago, Vanity Fair
Speaker 1: had a headline that says Paul Manafort is dishing on
Speaker 1: Roger Stone. Well, obviously that's not true because and I
Speaker 1: have to assume that they probably did question him vigorously,
Speaker 1: but there's nothing to dish. I never got anything from
Speaker 1: Wiki leaks. I don't think Manaphort and I ever discussed.
Speaker 1: Wiki leaks is what's amazing Sean. At the same time,
Speaker 1: Democrats are demanding that Acting Attorney General Matthew Whittaker stepped
Speaker 1: down because of his previous political activities. The prosecutor leading
Speaker 1: the inquisition into Roger Stone is Jeanie Ree, formerly the
Speaker 1: lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, specifically in the matter of
Speaker 1: the Clinton emails, one of the matters in which I
Speaker 1: am being falsely investigated. I know nothing about Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: missing emails. Miss Rie is also a fifty four hundred
Speaker 1: dollar donor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Now, I wrote
Speaker 1: the book The Clinton's War on Women, using a lot
Speaker 1: of the seminal research you did about the victims of
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton who were intimidated by Hillary. The point is
Speaker 1: my position on the Clintons is well known. Having someone
Speaker 1: who worked for the Clintons as a legal attack dog
Speaker 1: heading the potential prosecution of Roger Stone is a far
Speaker 1: more egregious conflict than anything Matthew Whittaker has. Let me
Speaker 1: go back to what's happening with Jerome Corsi because it
Speaker 1: does impact you and where where I think they're headed.
Speaker 1: In this and the draft court documents shared by Jerome Corsi,
Speaker 1: written by Mueller's office to be filed in case of
Speaker 1: a plea. They quote emails from twenty sixteen. The Corsi
Speaker 1: says that he exchanged with you and that is identified
Speaker 1: in the documents person one and in emails the two
Speaker 1: men discussed Wiki leaks and Julian Osange and their plans
Speaker 1: to release emails damaging and Missus Clinton. The quote is
Speaker 1: word is friend in embassy plans. Two more dumps Corsi
Speaker 1: writing August second, referring to Julian Assange living in the
Speaker 1: Ecuadorian embassy in London. What now for almost seven years?
Speaker 1: One shortly after I back the second in October impact
Speaker 1: plan to be very damaging, and the documents and the
Speaker 1: Special Council's office alleging Corsi knowingly and intentionally made materially
Speaker 1: all statements related to the emails. You know, it reminds
Speaker 1: me so many of so much of what has happened here.
Speaker 1: Go back to Martha Stewart and many other people. It's
Speaker 1: they never get you for the underlying crime. And as
Speaker 1: horrible as the charges were against Denny Haster, he didn't
Speaker 1: get that. He never got charged with the underlying crime.
Speaker 1: It's you get charged with lying, and I don't know
Speaker 1: the impact. What is your reaction to those emails that
Speaker 1: they say they have and that refer to you. Well,
Speaker 1: my lawyers, of course have reviewed the emails and their
Speaker 1: characterization of them. I'd say they're miss characterized. I'd also
Speaker 1: point out that Jerry Corsey then subsequently on October third,
Speaker 1: both in the text message to me and in a tweet,
Speaker 1: says Osange has nothing. He was bluffing, he was full
Speaker 1: of bs. So if he knew this was coming, why
Speaker 1: then when Osange had his public event on October two,
Speaker 1: it would be October third US time did he say
Speaker 1: that Ossange had nothing. I also have text messages from
Speaker 1: Jerry when the actual Wiki leagues data dumps are done
Speaker 1: in October, in which he's clearly reading the material for
Speaker 1: the first time. So those emails don't prove anything. They
Speaker 1: certainly don't prove criminality on But I remember at the
Speaker 1: time after the pre DNC emails released that there was
Speaker 1: all sorts of speculation all over the place that oh,
Speaker 1: there might be more, there might be more, what's gonna
Speaker 1: come here, what's gonna come there? Remember, absolutely every politico
Speaker 1: and every political reporter in the country was following this
Speaker 1: story and wanted to know unless legitimate political inquiry has
Speaker 1: been criminalized. There's nothing in the emails between Jerry Corsi
Speaker 1: and I that is improper. The only thing that appears
Speaker 1: to be improper here is that they accused Jerry of
Speaker 1: erasing them, and then they accused him of lying them.
Speaker 1: But nor does it say John Podesta's emails have been
Speaker 1: stolen and would be published. It doesn't say that. It
Speaker 1: says the American people will soon learn more about Podesta.
Speaker 1: That's not the same thing. That's an inference, and that's
Speaker 1: quite a leap by the government. Now, how often I
Speaker 1: know you've known Donald Trump for forty years, you're also
Speaker 1: viewed and I think you know this is a very
Speaker 1: controversial figure you have your whole career. I'd know that
Speaker 1: you weren't a part of the campaign, at least that
Speaker 1: I knew of at any point were you? Did you
Speaker 1: talk to the then candidate at the time. I worked
Speaker 1: for the campaign until August of twenty fifteen. I left
Speaker 1: the campaign to publish the Clinton's War on Women right,
Speaker 1: And I think after that I worked as hard as
Speaker 1: humanly possible to elect Donald Trump president. Not only did
Speaker 1: I produce the documentary we talked about produced, the Clinton's
Speaker 1: War on Women book. I did an enormous amount of
Speaker 1: surget speaking on behalf of the president. He was someone
Speaker 1: I've known intimately for forty years. He was at my wedding.
Speaker 1: I went to his parents wake and their funerals. I
Speaker 1: knew them both. They were wonderful people. I have a
Speaker 1: real affection for Donald Trump and his family. So while
Speaker 1: I had no official role, I really do think I've
Speaker 1: been targeted because of my loyalty to the president and
Speaker 1: because of my role in helping defeat Hillary Clinton. Now,
Speaker 1: in the course of when you left the campaign, you
Speaker 1: sound like you were very busy. Did you stay in
Speaker 1: touch with then candidate Trump. I spoke to him more
Speaker 1: in twenty fifteen and in the early part of twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen than I did at the end of the campaign, because, frankly,
Speaker 1: once his platform was determined, and by the way, determined
Speaker 1: by Donald Trump himself, not by Roger Stone, not by
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon, not by some polster. Donald Trump decides what
Speaker 1: he's going to say, by the way, I can confirm
Speaker 1: all of that is true. True, He listens, but then
Speaker 1: he makes up his own mind. Yeah, he'll listen to
Speaker 1: good advice. He'll ask tough questions. But nobody puts words
Speaker 1: in this guy's mouth, nobody puts ideas in his head.
Speaker 1: He Donald Trump is responsible for Donald Trump's election more
Speaker 1: so than any other individual on the face of the earth.
Speaker 1: He's not. There is no Carl Rove in Trump Land.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't exist. So we kept in touch. We
Speaker 1: would talk sporadically. When the President calls you, he does
Speaker 1: most of the talking. You do most of the listening.
Speaker 1: But we never spoke about wiki leagues, not once, which
Speaker 1: I said on Meet the Press. They asked me three times,
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd asked me. The answer was the same three times.
Speaker 1: CNN has just reported that in the written questions from
Speaker 1: mister Muller to the President, he was asked specifically, did
Speaker 1: you discuss wiki leagues with Rogerstone? And the President correctly
Speaker 1: said no. And by the way, the President doesn't text,
Speaker 1: and the president does an email that I know of,
Speaker 1: and I don't think he ever has. That's my take
Speaker 1: on it. Where do you think this is gonna end?
Speaker 1: Do you believe, like Paul Manafort, one morning there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a knock on your door and then they come
Speaker 1: I haven't committed any crime. I mean, even the emails
Speaker 1: that they cite in the QUERSI matter are not evidence
Speaker 1: of any crime on my part. So no, I really
Speaker 1: don't think so. If the decision is made on the
Speaker 1: basis of facts and evidence and the law, then no
Speaker 1: charges will be brought against you. But look at the
Speaker 1: team that Mueller's put together. Look at Andrew Weissman's track record.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Jeannie Ray earlier, who worked as the lawyer
Speaker 1: for the Clinton Foundation. Andrew Weissman. The New York Times
Speaker 1: dubbed him Mueller's pit bull. Let's see, he costs tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of Americans their jobs at Enron Accounting back
Speaker 1: in the day. He was overturned by the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: nine zero. He put four Merrill executives in jail for
Speaker 1: a year that was overturned by the Fifth Circuit. And
Speaker 1: his tactics are you know, if you look at license
Speaker 1: to Lie Sidney Powell, you realize you've got somebody who's
Speaker 1: been pretty rogue their entire lives, and that these tactics
Speaker 1: are are pretty common. And you can indict a ham sandwich.
Speaker 1: You know it, and I know it well. They can
Speaker 1: certainly get an indictment. I think there's more public focus
Speaker 1: on their activities in their partisanship now than there was
Speaker 1: even at the time that Paul Manifort went to trial. Sean, look,
Speaker 1: I have no choice but to fight. I set up
Speaker 1: a legal defense fund at Stone Defense Fund dot com
Speaker 1: because this is this ravens to destroy me financially. I mean,
Speaker 1: it literally can bankrupt my family. I don't know how
Speaker 1: I'm gonna pay for Christmas because every dollar I have
Speaker 1: is going to the lawyers. But I've defeated a defamation lawsuit.
Speaker 1: I had a lawsuit by an Obama backed group that
Speaker 1: accused me of Russian collusion dismissed. I'm being sued along
Speaker 1: with Jerry Kushner and Donald Trump Junior and the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and the Republican National Committee by that DNC. I've
Speaker 1: asked to see their servers in discovery, and I'm very
Speaker 1: happy about that. I still have they How did the
Speaker 1: FBI and not take those servers? How did they get
Speaker 1: to bring in their own company? So I have the
Speaker 1: US Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees inquiries to deal with.
Speaker 1: I have a newly energized Adam Schiff at the House
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, who says he's reopening the investigation, and I
Speaker 1: have the on rushing troops of Robert Muller. This threatens
Speaker 1: to bankrupt me, so I had to set up Stone
Speaker 1: Defense fund dot Com to fight for my life. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you in light of what we have been
Speaker 1: able to uncover, and I'm pretty sure you're as aware
Speaker 1: as I am about all of these issues. You know,
Speaker 1: It's like, if it's if it's Kavanaugh, Bret Democrats, Liberals,
Speaker 1: they are dead set again. They're all for we believe
Speaker 1: without any due process, any presumption of innocence, and that's why.
Speaker 1: But yet if it's a Democrat Keith Ellison, Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: more recently charges against Michael Abanati, they have no interest
Speaker 1: in ever talking about it, which tells me their interest
Speaker 1: was only political against Kavanaugh. And similarly, if they really
Speaker 1: cared about collusion with Russia, how do you ignore the
Speaker 1: Clinton bought and paid for dossier that with funneled money
Speaker 1: through a law firm, to an op research group, to
Speaker 1: a foreign national Russian lies that he wouldn't even the author,
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele, wouldn't even acknowledge to be true in an
Speaker 1: inner sugatory in Great Britain under oath and threat of perjury.
Speaker 1: How do you not get into those Russian lines disseminated
Speaker 1: to the American people in the lead up to the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. I think you and I both understand
Speaker 1: the entire Russian collusion delusion is meant as a distraction
Speaker 1: from the largest political scandal in our country's history. And
Speaker 1: that's an abuse of a power in which the surveillance
Speaker 1: capability and authority of the state was used to spy
Speaker 1: on Donald Trump's campaign. And there are more than one
Speaker 1: fis A warrant. It's not just Carter Page. The New
Speaker 1: York Times reported on January twenties, twenty seventeen, that Paul
Speaker 1: Manifort and Roger Stone were also subjected to fis A warrants.
Speaker 1: And when I file a Foyer request of thirty different
Speaker 1: agencies of government, I get back nothing. Yeah, you'll get
Speaker 1: that thirty years from now, when we're both get it. Never. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the FBI efforts to infiltrate Donald Trump's campaign.
Speaker 1: Well that's all true too. And look at what we've
Speaker 1: got here, no evidence of collusion, but we do have
Speaker 1: a bought and paid for phony dossier that was used
Speaker 1: to propagandize in line of the American people. We have that,
Speaker 1: we do have Faiza Court fraud committed four separate times.
Speaker 1: We do have an exoneration of Hillary with clear obstruction,
Speaker 1: clear violation of the Espionage Act. That exoneration put in
Speaker 1: written in May early May of twenty sixteen, and she
Speaker 1: wasn't even interviewed nor with sixteen other main witnesses. And
Speaker 1: I never heard of an exoneration written before investigation. And
Speaker 1: I don't think if I did what Hillary did to
Speaker 1: subpoen at emails, delete them, acid washed the hard drive
Speaker 1: and everything else, that I would survive. But we'll continue
Speaker 1: more on the other side. Roger Stones, our guest, Stones
Speaker 1: rules as his book, as we continue his journey now
Speaker 1: as he awaits the actions of Robert Muller, quick break
Speaker 1: right back, we'll continue. Well, So, and first of all,
Speaker 1: I think I've been targeted because I supported Donald Trump
Speaker 1: for president. I helped defeat Hillary Clinton. But I violated
Speaker 1: no law regarding the twenty sixteen election or anything else.
Speaker 1: And the idea that I knew about the source or
Speaker 1: the content of the wiki, least disclosures whether they were
Speaker 1: allegedly hacked emails or allegedly stolen emails of John Podesta
Speaker 1: is simply false. I had a tipster who told me
Speaker 1: that after Assange went on CNN in June and Fox
Speaker 1: in August and said that he had a trove of
Speaker 1: documents on Hillary Clinton, I had a tipster to tell
Speaker 1: me that they were devastating, a bombshell, incredible, would end
Speaker 1: Hillary's campaign, and that they would be published in October.
Speaker 1: And I provided text messages only last week that proved
Speaker 1: that that source was Randy Cretico, a New York based
Speaker 1: progressive radio talk show host, and that his source was
Speaker 1: not Julian Assange, but a woman attorney who works for
Speaker 1: Wiki Lakes. So now suddenly the media doesn't want to
Speaker 1: talk about critical anymore. Now suddenly they have a new narrative,
Speaker 1: which is the idea that I must have received these documents,
Speaker 1: either Podesta's emails or the DNC emails from Jerry Corsi.
Speaker 1: That is also false. All right, that was just in
Speaker 1: the last hour, Roger Stone. As now the mystery of
Speaker 1: what is going on. Paul Manafort Julian Assange both denying
Speaker 1: the Guardian report that they had met on three separate occasions,
Speaker 1: Jerome Corsi saying He will not sign something that is
Speaker 1: not true in some plea deal offered to him, he
Speaker 1: claims by Robert Muller in connection with what he knew
Speaker 1: and what he and Roger Stone were communicating about in
Speaker 1: the lead up to the twenty sixteen presidential election. And
Speaker 1: on top of all of that, we just have you
Speaker 1: know what's going to happen next the President and put
Speaker 1: out answers to specific questions, one of them apparently having
Speaker 1: to do with whether or not the President had any
Speaker 1: conversation with roger Stone about the issue of white what
Speaker 1: might be released by Julian Assans. Roger Stone just telling
Speaker 1: us moments ago that there was no such conversation, and
Speaker 1: the President answered correctly. Anyway here to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of this are what are the legal aspects that
Speaker 1: are in play here? Because when Robert Muller, if he's
Speaker 1: offering Jerome Corsi, is Corsi claims some type of plea deal,
Speaker 1: then that's interesting to one count of perjury or lying
Speaker 1: in even the possibility of only probation. But he's not
Speaker 1: going to sign something that's not true. Remember back, Lieutenant
Speaker 1: General Flynn said, the FBI agents and James Comey himself
Speaker 1: Peter Struck amongst them all did not believe he lied
Speaker 1: to the FBI, but he was going bankrupt, had to
Speaker 1: sell his house. I believe the screws would be interned
Speaker 1: on him, probably pressuring him with some time for threat
Speaker 1: against his son who he was in business with. This
Speaker 1: happens all too often, and we call it, as my
Speaker 1: friend Greg Jared, who joins us now calls it testa
Speaker 1: lying say what they want. You get off with no sentence,
Speaker 1: You get off with a light sentence. But both mana
Speaker 1: Fort and Coursi are saying no, we're not going to
Speaker 1: play that game. Also with us. Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor,
Speaker 1: columnist National Review, former, by the way, assistant US Attorney
Speaker 1: for the Southern District of New York. Welcome both of you.
Speaker 1: You know, Andy, we've gone back and forth about this,
Speaker 1: and you know, it reminds me of like Sammy the
Speaker 1: boll Gravano, who you know, he kills what eighteen nineteen
Speaker 1: people and they make a deal and he doesn't go
Speaker 1: to jail if he testifies against Gotti. How do you
Speaker 1: trust the guy when you're bribing him with a get
Speaker 1: out of jail free card. In that particular case, maybe
Speaker 1: more dramatic, but do you see that happening here? Sean.
Speaker 1: The vital difference between what you just described in terms
Speaker 1: of Gravano and what we're dealing with here is that
Speaker 1: Gravano actually played guilty to a crime, that is to say,
Speaker 1: to a scheme, to a conspiracy. What a prosecutor does
Speaker 1: in a real criminal case when the prosecutor has an
Speaker 1: actual conspiracy that he's investigating, is he brings the cooperator
Speaker 1: in and the cooperator testify or allocutes in his guilty
Speaker 1: plea to the existence of the conspiracy. He says, here's
Speaker 1: the crime that we agree to commit. I was a
Speaker 1: member of the Gambino family at Costa No No Street.
Speaker 1: Here was the boss, here was the under boss. This
Speaker 1: is the crew I ran. These are the crimes I committed.
Speaker 1: And that way you have the structure of the criminal enterprise.
Speaker 1: You've got it all described, you have everybody's role in
Speaker 1: it right here. What we're dealing with is an investigation
Speaker 1: of no crime, so they don't have What they're doing
Speaker 1: is they're investigating the scene underbelly of a k In politics,
Speaker 1: the kind of stuff that goes on in campaigns and
Speaker 1: even if Muller had his dream version of events. Here.
Speaker 1: Let's say Wiki Leaks was in contact with Jerry Corsey,
Speaker 1: who was in contact with Stone, who told the President
Speaker 1: that they had Hillary Clinton or John Potesta's emails. What's
Speaker 1: the crime because I don't think anybody knew it was there.
Speaker 1: So this is important because I'm watching all of this
Speaker 1: and I'm asking myself, what is okay somebody says that
Speaker 1: they have something that is damning OP research, It's going
Speaker 1: to hurt the other party. Now, I think if four
Speaker 1: hundred thirty five members of Congress one hundred US senators
Speaker 1: get a phone call and the phone call says, no,
Speaker 1: we got information that is damaging to your opponent, do
Speaker 1: you agree with me? Probably all five hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: five would say what do you got and go and
Speaker 1: meet such a person. Of course they would, because that's
Speaker 1: the way politics goes in America. But my point is
Speaker 1: that they are criminalizing something that is not criminal activity.
Speaker 1: That's the reason that they have to plead them guilty
Speaker 1: to false statement counts. I agree with you that Sammy
Speaker 1: Gravano got a disgraceful sentence, but at least he pled
Speaker 1: guilty to racketeering at least he pled guilty to the
Speaker 1: crime that they were investigating. Here, they're not investigating a crime,
Speaker 1: so they have to plead everybody guilty to false statements
Speaker 1: counts and sean. If you were a prosecutor building a
Speaker 1: case that you intend to have a big bang at
Speaker 1: the end, do you think the way you go about
Speaker 1: that is to plead all your important witnesses to lying
Speaker 1: to the FBI. You want to put people on the
Speaker 1: stand that the first thing that the jury's going to hear,
Speaker 1: and the most enduring thing they're going to hear, is
Speaker 1: that the guy's a liar and can't be trusted. Nobody
Speaker 1: builds a case that way. Greg Jarrett Well Durham, Course,
Speaker 1: he sent me the plea offer that he received from
Speaker 1: Robert Muller, and count number one false statement. It begins
Speaker 1: by saying, Jerome, course, he did willfully and knowingly make
Speaker 1: a materially false, fictitious, fraudulent statement to wit and then
Speaker 1: identifies three things. He said, those three things are different
Speaker 1: than emails that he have and a half, and the
Speaker 1: lawyer responded, of course. He's lawyer responded by saying, my
Speaker 1: client did not have the benefit of reviewing his emails
Speaker 1: and once he did that, he amended his statements to
Speaker 1: your office. And now you're asking him to admit that
Speaker 1: he lied, when in fact, he simply didn't recall a
Speaker 1: couple of the emails. He's seventy old. Look, I'm much younger.
Speaker 1: If you asked me who was on my show next week,
Speaker 1: I honestly don't think I could recall. I don't think
Speaker 1: I would an example. So I went back because I
Speaker 1: had some vague recollection that I wrote about wiki leaks
Speaker 1: in two thousand and sixteen during this summer, and I
Speaker 1: research it. I go back through my emails, I go
Speaker 1: through my column. I wrote a column which I don't
Speaker 1: remember writing. And by the way, and do you know
Speaker 1: that's true? Right? How does anyone remember what the hell
Speaker 1: you did in twenty sixteen. I don't even know where
Speaker 1: I was. It was having on emails and information that
Speaker 1: I sent out trying to get the same information from
Speaker 1: wiki leaks. Now I don't remember sending them. So if
Speaker 1: I had testified yesterday, I'd be in the same position
Speaker 1: as Jerome Corsi. I want to and do you want
Speaker 1: to jump in on that? I just was going to
Speaker 1: say that, uh, you know, I remember every word of
Speaker 1: every column, and I expect everyone else to remember every word.
Speaker 1: That's ridiculous. You do not anyway. But let's go back
Speaker 1: to this document describing Corsis activities, and I want to
Speaker 1: just as if it's a crime, it says honor about
Speaker 1: July twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, person one, we believe now
Speaker 1: to be Rogers Stone send an email to Corsi with
Speaker 1: the subject line get to the founder of organization one
Speaker 1: we believed to be Wiki leagues, meaning assange the body
Speaker 1: of the message read get to the founder of the
Speaker 1: organization Organization one at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. They're
Speaker 1: not really hiding it, and get pending organization one emails
Speaker 1: They deal with foundation allegedly, so somebody gave him. It
Speaker 1: sounds like somebody gave him a tip. Hey, this guy
Speaker 1: might have information that deals with the Clinton Foundation. That's
Speaker 1: how I read it, right, Yeah, And if it was
Speaker 1: a crime, they would have asked Jerry Corsi to plead
Speaker 1: guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage. They're describing an operation
Speaker 1: to get somebody's clause on opposition research, which people may
Speaker 1: think is icky, but is not illegal. And again, Sean,
Speaker 1: I'll come back to the same thing. The reason that
Speaker 1: they're pressuring him to plead guilty to a false statement
Speaker 1: is in order to camouflage what they're doing as if
Speaker 1: they were investigating actual crime. But what's going on here
Speaker 1: is they're investigating a non crime. They trip people up
Speaker 1: and they get them to falsely explain, or as they
Speaker 1: put it, inaccurately explain what happened. And what the media
Speaker 1: then runs out and reports is that Mulla is doing
Speaker 1: an investigation of Trump collusion with Russia and everybody's pleading guilty.
Speaker 1: Isn't this what we call a classic to that? Isn't
Speaker 1: this a classic perjury trap? In other words, you know
Speaker 1: they can't get you on the underlying crime. So what
Speaker 1: it teaches I guess everybody else's, even though you might
Speaker 1: be inclined as I normally would be. If the FBI
Speaker 1: wanted my help, I would want to help them. But
Speaker 1: if I'm risking my own life and a charge of
Speaker 1: perjury if I don't accurately remember something, I don't even
Speaker 1: know what I did on TV last night, And and
Speaker 1: Corsi's mistake is twofold. First of all, he should not
Speaker 1: have volunteered to testify. He should have said no, when
Speaker 1: he was asked. And second of all, he should have
Speaker 1: reviewed his emails before he testified. That's his mistake. But nevertheless, well,
Speaker 1: he actually deleted them, but then he was able to
Speaker 1: gain access, as you often are, through deleted emails that
Speaker 1: are nevertheless kept. But I mean the point is that
Speaker 1: if Robert Muller decides to charge Jerome Corsi with making
Speaker 1: a false statement, he'll never be able to prove it,
Speaker 1: I predict, because he'd have to show that it was
Speaker 1: willingly and knowingly made. Well in the defense of Jerome Corsi,
Speaker 1: as it is for many people, is that I didn't
Speaker 1: knowingly make a false statement. I didn't remember emails that
Speaker 1: I said. He but isn't it an act of bravery?
Speaker 1: I mean, pretty much what it seems. Mueller's team was
Speaker 1: offering you plead guilty to one count of lying, and
Speaker 1: we won't even we won't even oppose the possibility that
Speaker 1: you just get probation. So of Coursie says, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna lie. Mantaport, he says, I'm not going to tell
Speaker 1: you what you want to say. Greg, you coined the term, well,
Speaker 1: I've heard it before, test to lie. In other words,
Speaker 1: they're sitting there across the table from you, basically telling
Speaker 1: you what they want to hear, and all you have
Speaker 1: to do to save your own ass is say what
Speaker 1: they want to hear. And if you do, you're going
Speaker 1: to benefit instead of the rest of your life in jail.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's going to be, you know, two weeks like Papadopoulos,
Speaker 1: But to both of them to both say no because
Speaker 1: they can't go along with something that's false. They're both
Speaker 1: older gentlemen. It seems to me that that's a pretty
Speaker 1: principled stand, knowing that this might be the rest of
Speaker 1: their lives in jail. They're being principled. In the special
Speaker 1: counsel is being unprincipled because he doesn't care about the
Speaker 1: truth and he's using the tactics of bribery and extortion
Speaker 1: to try to get somebody to capitulate in Coursie and
Speaker 1: I think man Afford now are refusing to do so.
Speaker 1: The quick answer on that, Andy, and we'll take a
Speaker 1: break to capitulate on what that's the I mean, what
Speaker 1: Greg outlines, sure, but the thing is, what if they
Speaker 1: admitted what Mueller wanted, it's still not a crime. What
Speaker 1: they're doing is they're criminalizing what they do in a
Speaker 1: political campaign. It's not like, you know, somebody agrees with
Speaker 1: Muller's version of events. And finally we have the big
Speaker 1: hacking conspiracy they don't have. I want to ask you
Speaker 1: about that when we get back. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you about because the New York Times also publish this information,
Speaker 1: as did other papers, the other news sources, and there
Speaker 1: was a case in the past where it became a
Speaker 1: big deal. I'll explain that when we get back. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about other publications that did the same thing that
Speaker 1: wiki leaks did. They got the information, and they got
Speaker 1: the emails DNC Podesta. They all didn't they all print them?
Speaker 1: Are they Why are they less culpable than wiki leaks
Speaker 1: doing it? Andy, They're not. We have a pentagon. If
Speaker 1: if wiki leaks was involved, if if wiki leaks had
Speaker 1: an understanding with Russian operatives that there would be hacking
Speaker 1: and wiki leaks would take the hacked information and put
Speaker 1: it out, then Wiki leaks may have a hacking problem.
Speaker 1: You know, they may be involved in the hacking conspiracy.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that other people who take what they
Speaker 1: have and run with it have committed a crime. You could,
Speaker 1: you know, I remember when this came at Sean Marco Rubio,
Speaker 1: I think, came out and said nobody should rely on
Speaker 1: this stuff, that nobody should um, you know, publicize it
Speaker 1: because it's it's stolen material, and he wanted to be
Speaker 1: like the last honest man. But the way things work
Speaker 1: in America, everybody uses this stuff and the media regularizes
Speaker 1: it by publishing it. I think that's a good point.
Speaker 1: And on the other side of the guys, don't mind.
Speaker 1: I want to hold you over a few more minutes
Speaker 1: and get into historically why I think this is important
Speaker 1: and what it means for freedom of the press and
Speaker 1: those that are given information like this. Eight hundred nine one.
Speaker 1: Sean will continue more with Greg Jarrett and Andy McCarthy
Speaker 1: on the other side. All right, twenty five now till
Speaker 1: the top of the hour. It's getting more interesting by
Speaker 1: the hour, by the minute, by the day. And Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller has had two setbacks now in the last couple
Speaker 1: of days, one with Paul Manafort also apparently along with
Speaker 1: Jerome Corsia, had joint defense agreements with the White House,
Speaker 1: which means a lot of the information was going back
Speaker 1: and forth. Mueller's claiming the cooperation agreement with Manafort has
Speaker 1: been breached and in the case of course, he's saying
Speaker 1: that he refuses to take a plea deal in which
Speaker 1: he would be forced to lie about something. I want
Speaker 1: to get into the issue it maybe used the Pentagon
Speaker 1: papers as a case in point Andy to explain to
Speaker 1: people exactly why this is not a crime. Even if
Speaker 1: it did it happened as it relates to Jerome Corsi
Speaker 1: or Roger Stone, why would you say it's not a crime. Well, Sean,
Speaker 1: maybe the best example for people would be like a diary. Right,
Speaker 1: you have a diary in your house. I come in
Speaker 1: and I steal the diary out of your house and
Speaker 1: I give it to Greg and Greg runs with the
Speaker 1: information on it. Now, Greg didn't deputize me to go
Speaker 1: steal it, you know, he didn't know I was going
Speaker 1: to take it. But he finds the information interesting he
Speaker 1: publishes it. Now I've committed a crime because I stole
Speaker 1: it from you. Greg hasn't done anything wrong. Now you
Speaker 1: could say, maybe he's done something on ethical or something
Speaker 1: that you think is achy, because you've you've put personal
Speaker 1: information in your diary and he's not respecting your right
Speaker 1: to privacy as you see it, sure, fine, but he's
Speaker 1: still let me let me ask you specifically in this case,
Speaker 1: because I interviewed a sage on radio and on TV,
Speaker 1: and I asked him repeatedly, I'll play it for you
Speaker 1: if you want, whether or not he got this information
Speaker 1: from Russia. Now, one caveat people in the intel community,
Speaker 1: other sources. I have said it absolutely. Maybe it wasn't
Speaker 1: directly from Russia or a state party, as he said,
Speaker 1: but it could have been a third party cut out,
Speaker 1: if you will. In other words, somebody that is not
Speaker 1: associated with them but really is doing their bidding. But
Speaker 1: here's what, Asan said, Russia give you this information or
Speaker 1: anybody associated with Russia. Our source is not a state party.
Speaker 1: So the answer for our interactions is no, you did
Speaker 1: not get this information about the DNC John Podesta's emails.
Speaker 1: Can you tell the American people a thousand percent you
Speaker 1: did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia.
Speaker 1: We can say, we have said repeatedly over the last
Speaker 1: two months, that our source is not the Russian cover
Speaker 1: and it is not the state's party. Our source is
Speaker 1: not the Russian government. So in other words, let me
Speaker 1: be clear, Russia did not give you the podested documents
Speaker 1: or anything from the DNC. All right, now, Andy, just
Speaker 1: using your example of you giving something to Greg and
Speaker 1: Gregg maybe unethically but not illegally, you know, publishes that something,
Speaker 1: and maybe you're on the hook. What if something is
Speaker 1: brought to wiki leagues by whatever source, but it happens
Speaker 1: to be truth that they're publishing. May not like it,
Speaker 1: it may be secrets, it might be you know, personally,
Speaker 1: I can't believe we as a country have not developed
Speaker 1: cyber security. We get hacked all the time. It's insane
Speaker 1: that we have not built up a better defense system
Speaker 1: for our government. Which also raises the question of Hillary's
Speaker 1: emails and how unsafe that was in a bathroom closet.
Speaker 1: But when he says that if what he is saying
Speaker 1: is true and this was offered to him, is he
Speaker 1: Greg using urine aology? Did he just receive it from
Speaker 1: somebody and he published what somebody gave him because he
Speaker 1: believed it to be true. The best example is the
Speaker 1: Pentagon papers case. The documents about the Vietnam War were
Speaker 1: stolen by Daniel Ellsberg. They were given the New York
Speaker 1: Times and the Washington Post that published them. The Post
Speaker 1: and The New York Times are insulated from prosecution. They're
Speaker 1: publishing something that's a matter of public interest, even though
Speaker 1: they were stolen, And that principle of the Pentagon Papers
Speaker 1: cases stood for a very long time. We don't prosecute
Speaker 1: people for trying to find out information, especially news organizations
Speaker 1: that are in the public interest, even though they originally
Speaker 1: might be stolen information. The same can be said here.
Speaker 1: Let's assume that the documents were stolen and given to
Speaker 1: Wiki Leaks, and then they then published. Of course, he
Speaker 1: was trying to do exactly what you did, trying to
Speaker 1: find out information. If you read the count again, stim
Speaker 1: it says he reached out to wiki leagues. All right,
Speaker 1: so did you, So did I So did hundreds of
Speaker 1: other journalists across America during the summer of two thousand
Speaker 1: and sixteen because Julians he's got some stuff and it's
Speaker 1: going to be damaging to Hillary Clinton. So everybody was
Speaker 1: trying to find out what it was. So why then,
Speaker 1: it's not why Andy then would in the sense if
Speaker 1: this is offered to Wiki leagues, and I know they
Speaker 1: view themselves as a news organization, if it's given to them,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't they be in the same position as the
Speaker 1: New York Times and the Washington Post in the Pentagon
Speaker 1: Papers case. Well, Sean, I don't know that I accept
Speaker 1: Asana's explanation that he didn't get it from Russia. If
Speaker 1: you take at face value what he said, and if
Speaker 1: it turns out as you qualified before, if what he's
Speaker 1: saying is true, then I agree with Gregg's analysis of it.
Speaker 1: He's just like a journalist. What all right, Let's say
Speaker 1: his source was a Russian cut out. Let's say it's that.
Speaker 1: Does that matter who where he got it from? I
Speaker 1: think it depends on whether he knows and whether you
Speaker 1: have an arrangement that you can that you can properly
Speaker 1: describe as a conspiracy and others. How is that different though,
Speaker 1: than the Pentagon papers? What do you mean in other words?
Speaker 1: You know they were stolen, they were stolen documents, they
Speaker 1: were printed. Yeah, but if you're encouraging people to do
Speaker 1: the theft and there's proof of that, Let's say he didn't.
Speaker 1: Let's say you didn't encourage it. Somebody came to him
Speaker 1: and offered it to him. Well, that's a different thing, right,
Speaker 1: That's like that's like somebody takes information. What I'm saying
Speaker 1: is there's a lot of there's a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: this is not a one off with Wiki leaks, right, Uh,
Speaker 1: They've had they have a lot of information that they've
Speaker 1: put out in the past. And there's a lot of
Speaker 1: people in the intelligence community long before any of this happened,
Speaker 1: that thought that they were in arm of Russian intelligence.
Speaker 1: And I don't think that that's ever been disproved. It
Speaker 1: certainly hasn't been disproved. Listen, I know people that believe
Speaker 1: that with all their heart and soul, and I don't
Speaker 1: have an so because it's it's way above my pay grade.
Speaker 1: But but then let me take it a step further
Speaker 1: and ask if in fact they got these disinformation however
Speaker 1: they got it and they published it, and if they
Speaker 1: didn't encourage it. You're saying there's no crime associated with that,
Speaker 1: and that that precedence of the Pentagon papers would hold, Yes,
Speaker 1: if there's no conspiracy, Sean, I don't understand why giving
Speaker 1: it to wiki leaks would be different from giving it
Speaker 1: to me, you know, I mean, there's either a crimer
Speaker 1: there's not underneath it all. Yeah, and Greg, to take
Speaker 1: it even maybe a step further, if they really wanted
Speaker 1: to find out where they got it from. Why didn't
Speaker 1: Muller and his Well, first of all, why didn't you know?
Speaker 1: The interesting thing is he never went after Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: and real Russian lies, really used it to propagandize the
Speaker 1: American people, bought and paid for Russian lies. Then a
Speaker 1: fraud committed on four fives accords and four app separate applications,
Speaker 1: pertinent information withheld from those judges. And then of course
Speaker 1: she was exonerated and without an investigation. And then we've
Speaker 1: got surveillance and I'm asking and leaking raw intelligence abuse here.
Speaker 1: But you know, let's just for the sake of argument
Speaker 1: here say that you know, in the case of Wiki leaks,
Speaker 1: that they did what any other paper would do or
Speaker 1: any other Yeah, and Muller admits it. But why didn't
Speaker 1: they ask Well, here's my question, why didn't they ask
Speaker 1: Julian Assange? Well, they shouldn't. The first thing you do
Speaker 1: is you asked Julian Assange. There's no indication anyone. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: he be the one guy I'm sorry to interrupt, wouldn't
Speaker 1: he be the one guy that knows where he got
Speaker 1: it from? And wouldn't he be able wouldn't he be
Speaker 1: able to prove where he got it from. He would,
Speaker 1: But the on the Statement of Offense first page, Muller
Speaker 1: declares the theft of campaign related emails and other documents
Speaker 1: was by the Russian government's main intelligence directorate of the
Speaker 1: General Staff, the gru. So Mueller declares, this was the
Speaker 1: theft was bought. Okay, let's say that's true, but that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that's where they got it from. And if
Speaker 1: the Russians gave it to WIKI leagues and Jerome Corsi
Speaker 1: and others, including yourself, try to find out information in
Speaker 1: details about that. You're not committing a crime. The gr
Speaker 1: you committed a crime, but nobody else did. All right, Listen,
Speaker 1: you guys are both fascinating. I mean, this really is
Speaker 1: getting interesting to me, and it seems like there is
Speaker 1: there's a certain desperation to this that I think is
Speaker 1: going to be revealed in pretty short order. We'll find out.
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy, thank you, Greg Jarrett, thank you. We appreciate
Speaker 1: you guys spending the extra time with us. Eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine for one. Shawn told free telephone number you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. Our friend Congressman
Speaker 1: Louis Gormer to Texas their first congressional district. What percentage
Speaker 1: of the vote did you get this time? It was
Speaker 1: only about seventy two, seventy three, seventy two seven. I'm
Speaker 1: never campaigning for you again. You don't need me ever.
Speaker 1: Are you kidding? If it would have been a lot
Speaker 1: worse without you? Sean? Are you kidding? Can I say
Speaker 1: one thing about Mueller mower investigation? We got senators say
Speaker 1: the more investigation we got to be protected. Look, let
Speaker 1: me go on record, the Mueller investigation has got to
Speaker 1: be protected at all costs. I've been saying Mueller needed
Speaker 1: to be investigated for years now, and if there's an
Speaker 1: investigation of Moller, it needs to be protected. This guy's dirty,
Speaker 1: he needs to be investigated. That's the mower investigation that
Speaker 1: needs Well, that's not gonna happen. But you know, we
Speaker 1: are talking about a lot of different things here. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you this, um. Now, you have a plan
Speaker 1: that's going to allow Congress to pay for the border
Speaker 1: wall through a reconciliation bill that would be in the
Speaker 1: House and Senate can do it with fifty one votes
Speaker 1: in the Senate. Yeah, or even fifty votes, because then
Speaker 1: we have a vice president that would break it for
Speaker 1: the president. And you know what, in September we were told, look,
Speaker 1: let's don't have a fight for the wall. Now, let's
Speaker 1: come back in December and do it then. And now
Speaker 1: there is no fight. And I got up today at
Speaker 1: conference and I was saying, look, guys, you said you
Speaker 1: were wanted to fight in December. Now is the time
Speaker 1: to fight. We only have a couple of months. And Sean,
Speaker 1: you had been so proud of the members that stood
Speaker 1: up and said, hey, I've been defeated, but I'm willing
Speaker 1: to stay here every day. I'd like to have Christmas
Speaker 1: Day itself, but I would stay here every day. People
Speaker 1: are willing to fight. Rank and file are willing to fight.
Speaker 1: And Paul says, well, the Senate doesn't have the votes.
Speaker 1: We can do it through reconciliation. Brad Burn has the
Speaker 1: bill is called the fifty vote for a Wall bill
Speaker 1: because you don't have to have sixty and it could
Speaker 1: be done. Paul's been chairman of Budget Committee's done it before.
Speaker 1: He knows how it's done. Well, they don't have the
Speaker 1: votes in the Senate. Look, we have got to have
Speaker 1: people right up the Senate, right up the House members saying, look,
Speaker 1: you got two months help the president. You didn't help
Speaker 1: him enough before. Now you got a chance before you
Speaker 1: go out help the president. We got a lot people
Speaker 1: up because the fight is in a lot of members,
Speaker 1: Republican members here just not why are they afraid to
Speaker 1: have this fight ever? I mean, this is it. Don't
Speaker 1: get it. I don't get it. It's if we don't
Speaker 1: have this fight, they may want Rodney for president next time.
Speaker 1: There will not be another Republican president if we don't
Speaker 1: do what we need to do to help Donald Trump
Speaker 1: protect our border, protect our country, not to stop immigration,
Speaker 1: but make sure it's legal. He's doing what he can.
Speaker 1: That's why his voters will come out in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: But we can do this is through the Reconciliation product,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats can stop it. We have the votes.
Speaker 1: What has Mitch McConnell said about it. Well, I haven't
Speaker 1: heard from Mitch, but I've heard from Paul and Kevin.
Speaker 1: Their position as well. The Senate says they don't have
Speaker 1: the votes. Well maybe they don't have Jeff Flake, but
Speaker 1: we could get fifty votes if there's enough pressure brought
Speaker 1: to bear on what's going to happen next year if
Speaker 1: they don't help out and get this done for a
Speaker 1: while where we need it. I mean, we have slapped
Speaker 1: the president the effects figuratively speaking. It's time. We can
Speaker 1: do this now. And thank you for your fight. This
Speaker 1: is a desperate time and I don't normally get applause
Speaker 1: at conference, but when I said, guys, this little experiment
Speaker 1: in self government is very in grave danger of coming
Speaker 1: to an end. Let's fight. Let's spend these next two
Speaker 1: months helping the president. And I got a bunch of applause.
Speaker 1: People are ready to fight, but the leadership is not.
Speaker 1: They just said, I'm gonna get Kevin McCarthy on the
Speaker 1: line and see if I can talk to him about it,
Speaker 1: because he's the guy that can make this happen, and
Speaker 1: he should make it happen. In the new listeners, I
Speaker 1: think you need to add, Look, you have a good
Speaker 1: relationship with the president. Wanted you to have the President
Speaker 1: called Mitch McConnell and push him. Well, and that's the thing.
Speaker 1: If the House will do our job, then the President
Speaker 1: has incredible leverage against Senate to get it done. But
Speaker 1: if we don't even fight to do it in the House,
Speaker 1: well then there is no pressure on the Senate. We
Speaker 1: gotta get it done. We're gonna work on that the
Speaker 1: rest of the week. Is it unfolds Louis Garmoert, thank you,
Speaker 1: my friend, eight hundred nine for one. Sean told that's
Speaker 1: what It's simple. They have the power. All they have
Speaker 1: to do is the work, not that hard keeping promises.
Speaker 1: The American people will will reward you politically for that.
Speaker 1: All right, that's gonna wrap things up for us here today. Wow,
Speaker 1: what a show we have on Hannity tonight. By the way,
Speaker 1: I just see Jerome Corsi as now said that his
Speaker 1: attorneys have prepared It looks like they filed a criminal
Speaker 1: complaint with the Acting Attorney General Whittaker on Muller's special
Speaker 1: counsel and the DOJ. Now, both Jerome Corsi and Roger
Speaker 1: Stone will join us tonight Hannity Tonight ninetiestern say DVR,
Speaker 1: We'll be back here tomorrow see tonight. Thanks for being
Speaker 1: with us.