Speaker 1: Wow, what a day. This is banned. This is like
Speaker 1: an Adam bomb has now blown up the entire charade.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats thought they had it all done today.
Speaker 1: They thought this is great. Sonon is gonna say this,
Speaker 1: and he's gonna say that. And Solon's opening statement is
Speaker 1: damn me. And you even have the compromised, corrupt congenital
Speaker 1: liar running out to the TV cameras saying that Solon
Speaker 1: has tied Donald Trump directly to AID because every other
Speaker 1: witness has been a hearsay witness or an opinion witness.
Speaker 1: What I think of what the transcript said, This is
Speaker 1: the first guy that actually talked to Trump and he
Speaker 1: thinks that Trump tied AID to Ukraine. I'm watching this
Speaker 1: and I'm watching and I'm a bit unfolding, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: this doesn't fit with what he said behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: because Solon is the guy that actually said, uh, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I talked to the president. The President said, there's no quid,
Speaker 1: no pro no quo. I don't want any quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: I want to end the corruption. That's all the President
Speaker 1: had ever said. That's what he testified. He used those
Speaker 1: terms over and over and over and over again in
Speaker 1: his audition testimony behind closed doors, so we knew what
Speaker 1: he had said. So he's just assuming. But he you know,
Speaker 1: he starts out and now he's giving false hope to
Speaker 1: the mob and the media and to the corrupt, compromised,
Speaker 1: congenital liar shift. But then the Republicans start digging in
Speaker 1: and asking questions. There have been rock stars on the
Speaker 1: Republican side. I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you where this
Speaker 1: all ended today. Congressman Turner crushed it today. Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: crushed it not once but twice today. What's the congresswoman
Speaker 1: from New York's name? She was amazing also today. And
Speaker 1: then we have congres has been Ratcliffe today because he
Speaker 1: got Silander agreed and he had known. There's nothing sinister
Speaker 1: in or nefarious in any way in all of this.
Speaker 1: Let me play where it died today for the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the mob in the media, it died. It literally
Speaker 1: blew up in their faces. We'll start with Congressman Turner
Speaker 1: and the first Jordan a cross on this because it
Speaker 1: all of it ends because we had Turner get him
Speaker 1: to say he repeatedly, nobody ever told you that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was linking or tying AID to actions. Right, and
Speaker 1: then Jordan when he gets in and he said, okay,
Speaker 1: when did Zelinsky make the public announcement about the investigations?
Speaker 1: And never? Oh, so he got the AID and there
Speaker 1: was no announcement, So there really never was a quid
Speaker 1: pro qoill on top of what we now know. And
Speaker 1: the president, by the way, he released there are three
Speaker 1: occasions whether president of the United States invited the new
Speaker 1: president of Ukraine's Alinsky to the White House without any
Speaker 1: connection to him doing anything. That also came out today.
Speaker 1: Let's start with Congressman Turner and then the follow up
Speaker 1: by Jordan. This was like a bomb that just exploded
Speaker 1: right in the faces of our corrupt media mob. And
Speaker 1: by the way Turner calls them out and the compromise
Speaker 1: corrupt congenital liar Shift an awesome moment. Listen. After you testified,
Speaker 1: Chairman Shift ran out and given press conference and said
Speaker 1: he gets to impeach the President Nited States because of
Speaker 1: your testimony. And if you pull up CNN today right now,
Speaker 1: their banner says Silon ties Trump to withholding aid. Is
Speaker 1: that your testimony today, Master Silon, that you have evidence
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump the investigations, the aid, because I don't
Speaker 1: think you're saying that I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was
Speaker 1: presuming I also said that President Trump, So not just
Speaker 1: the president. Giuliani didn't tell you, Well, Vaney didn't tell you, nobody,
Speaker 1: Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told
Speaker 1: you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations.
Speaker 1: Is that correct? I think I already testified. No answer
Speaker 1: the question, is it correct? No one on this planet
Speaker 1: told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to
Speaker 1: the investigations. Because if your answers yes, then the Chairman's
Speaker 1: wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one
Speaker 1: on this planet told you that President Trump was tying
Speaker 1: aid to investigations. Yes or no? Yes, So you really
Speaker 1: have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a
Speaker 1: scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations,
Speaker 1: other than my own presumption, which is nothing. I mean,
Speaker 1: That's what I'd understaid. So you know what hearsay evidence is, Ambassador.
Speaker 1: Hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me.
Speaker 1: Do you know what made up testimony is? Made up
Speaker 1: testimonies when I just presume it. I mean, you're just
Speaker 1: assuming all of these things, and then you're giving them
Speaker 1: the evidence that they're running out and doing press conferences.
Speaker 1: And CNN's headline is saying that you're saying the President
Speaker 1: United States should be impeached because he tied aid to
Speaker 1: investigations and you don't know that, correct. I never said
Speaker 1: the President United States should be impeached. Nope, but you did.
Speaker 1: You have left people with the confusing impression that you
Speaker 1: were giving testimony that you did not. You do not
Speaker 1: have any evidence that the President United States was tied
Speaker 1: to withholding aid from Ukraine and exchange for investigations. I
Speaker 1: yield back. I finally called the president. I believe it
Speaker 1: was on the ninth of September. I can't find the
Speaker 1: records and they won't provide them to me, but I
Speaker 1: believe I just asked him an open ended question, mister chairman,
Speaker 1: what do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all
Speaker 1: these different ideas and theories and this and that. What
Speaker 1: do you want? And it was a very short, abrupt conversation.
Speaker 1: He was not in a good mood, and he just said,
Speaker 1: I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid
Speaker 1: pro quo tells Lensky to do the right thing, something
Speaker 1: to that effect. President Trump never told me directly that
Speaker 1: the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing
Speaker 1: we got directly from Juliani was that the barissima in
Speaker 1: two sixteen elections were conditioned on the White House meeting.
Speaker 1: The aid was my own personal you know, guests, based
Speaker 1: again on your analogy two plus two equals for so
Speaker 1: you didn't talk to President Trump when Ambassador Taylor says
Speaker 1: that that's what you told him, is that your testimony here?
Speaker 1: My testimony is I never heard from President Trump that
Speaker 1: aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections. So you
Speaker 1: never heard those specific words, correct, right, But never heard
Speaker 1: those words over check mate and a call. The President's
Speaker 1: in a bad mood. He said he didn't want a
Speaker 1: quid pro quo. It's over and here Congressman Turner actually
Speaker 1: gets this guy to admit that the compromised fact witness
Speaker 1: congenital liar Schiff ran out and said, we got him,
Speaker 1: and the salon just tied Trump said he can tie
Speaker 1: Trump to the aid being withheld. We got him. But
Speaker 1: then he goes on and says Trump told him he
Speaker 1: didn't want a quid pro quol directly. Every other witness
Speaker 1: up till now, every other one was either hearsay so
Speaker 1: and so's uncle's brother's grandmother's third cousin's niece's father said,
Speaker 1: or well, I didn't hear it myself, but um what
Speaker 1: I read in the transcript or I was on the call,
Speaker 1: and you know that's the exact stuff that happened on
Speaker 1: the transcript. This is critical, it is over, it's done,
Speaker 1: This is the end of this. Let the Democrats impeach
Speaker 1: all they want. None of the hearsay, none of the
Speaker 1: interpretations matter. And Sonlin blew it out of the water
Speaker 1: because he is now the greatest fact witness for the
Speaker 1: President of the United States, because he's the only one
Speaker 1: that actually talked to him. And the President's directive was clear,
Speaker 1: what do you want from Ukraine? Nothing? I don't want
Speaker 1: to quit pro quel, just you know, get rid of
Speaker 1: the corruption, which is all in the transcript. Anyway, Now,
Speaker 1: let's go to the issue that Jim Jordan follows up.
Speaker 1: And Jim Jordan is like asking, no, well, when did
Speaker 1: Zelensky make the announcement that he was going to investigate
Speaker 1: Hunter and joe An election interference? When did he because
Speaker 1: he got the money, so we must have done something. No,
Speaker 1: we blow this out of the water here. Listen, ambassador,
Speaker 1: when did it happen? When did what happened? The announcement?
Speaker 1: When did President Zelensky announced that the investigations were going
Speaker 1: to happen? On page fourteen, you said this was there
Speaker 1: a quick pro code. Today's your opening statement. As I
Speaker 1: testified previously, with regards to the requested White House call
Speaker 1: White House meeting, The answer is yes, that they didn't
Speaker 1: need to be a public statement from President Zelensky. When
Speaker 1: the chairman asked you about the security assistance dollars, you
Speaker 1: said there needed to be a public announcement from Zelenski.
Speaker 1: So I'm asking you a simple question, when did that happen?
Speaker 1: Never did? Never did? They got the call July twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: They got the meeting, not in the White House but
Speaker 1: in New York on September twenty fifth, They got the
Speaker 1: money on September eleventh, when the meeting happened again, Never didn't.
Speaker 1: You don't know who's in the meeting. Which meeting are
Speaker 1: you referring the meeting that never happened? Who was in it?
Speaker 1: You know how people. Do you know how you know
Speaker 1: how Zelinsky announced it? Did he tweet it? Did he
Speaker 1: do a press statement? Did he do a press conference?
Speaker 1: You know how that happened? I mean, you got all
Speaker 1: three of them wrong. They get the call, they get
Speaker 1: the meeting, they get the money. It's not two plus two,
Speaker 1: it's oh for three. I mean, I've never seen anything
Speaker 1: like this. And you told mister Castor that the President
Speaker 1: never told you that the announcement had to happen to
Speaker 1: get anything. In fact, he didn't just not tell you that.
Speaker 1: He explicitly said the opposite. They said the opposite. They
Speaker 1: did nothing. The President said, I don't want to quit
Speaker 1: pro quel. This is Jordan now again, and this round
Speaker 1: he's following up on what Congressman Turner said. Listen to this.
Speaker 1: You said to the President of the United States, Aidan's
Speaker 1: that right. I don't know if that's a fair characterization.
Speaker 1: I think he's careful. He's expressed concerns about four May
Speaker 1: going in certain countries, Okay, fair enough? And he knew
Speaker 1: Ukraine was corrupt, is that right? He believed Ukraine was corrupt, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And he wanted Europe to do more. Definitely definitely wanted
Speaker 1: to Europe to more, and the president had a belief
Speaker 1: that Ukrainian government officials, some senior Ukrainian government officials, supported
Speaker 1: his opponent in twenty sixteen. I won't go into all
Speaker 1: the details, but I think of the one member parliament
Speaker 1: who said the majority of Ukrainian politicians want Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: to win. So he had that belief as well, and
Speaker 1: obviously he understood what was happening. We got a brand
Speaker 1: new guy in Ukraine, the Selinski guy wins right right,
Speaker 1: and his party takes over, and President Trump wants to
Speaker 1: see with all these other things that are concerned to him.
Speaker 1: He wants to see if this new guys actually, as
Speaker 1: I like to say, the real deal, a real reformer
Speaker 1: and actually going to deal with the corruption problem. So
Speaker 1: it gets up for fifty five days, gets held up
Speaker 1: on June eighteenth, excuse me, July eighteenth, and then is
Speaker 1: released on September eleventh. But it seems to me more
Speaker 1: important than the fifty five day pause is the fourteen
Speaker 1: days when Ukraine realized AID was held up. On the
Speaker 1: twenty ninth, we've now had you testified that the two
Speaker 1: witnesses yesterday testified that the political article, so AID gets
Speaker 1: held up on August excuse me, Ukraine learns AID is
Speaker 1: held on August twenty ninth, and then of course released
Speaker 1: on released on September eleventh. In those fourteen days, there
Speaker 1: are three important meetings with senior government officials and President's Lensky.
Speaker 1: There's the August twenty ninth meeting between Master Bolton and
Speaker 1: Presidents Lensky. There's the meeting September one that you're a
Speaker 1: part of. Vice President Pence meets with Presidents Lensky. And
Speaker 1: then there's a meeting on September fifth where US Senators
Speaker 1: Murphy and Johnson meet with Presidents Lensky. None of those meetings,
Speaker 1: none of those meetings, did any linkage to security assistant
Speaker 1: dollars and an announcement or start of any investigation ever
Speaker 1: come up. None of them. But it seems to me
Speaker 1: the one that's the most important is probably the one
Speaker 1: we've talked least about, and that's the September fifth meeting,
Speaker 1: because that's actually a meeting where there is no one well,
Speaker 1: it's much more congressional focus than White House focus. This
Speaker 1: is the meeting where Senators Murphy, Senators Murphy and Johnson
Speaker 1: bipartisan meet with President Zelensky. And what's interesting is what
Speaker 1: both senators in the last two days have given us
Speaker 1: letters recounting what happened in that meeting. Senator Murphy said,
Speaker 1: I broached the topic of pressure on Zelenski from Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani and the President's other emissaries to launch investigation to
Speaker 1: Trump's political rival. Murphy brought it up. You brought You
Speaker 1: got two senators who both strong supporters of money gone
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. These guys are all for it. And Senator Murphy,
Speaker 1: the Democrat, even brings up the issue everyone's been talking about.
Speaker 1: It seems to me, if ever there was gonna be
Speaker 1: a time where the President of Ukraine says, guys, you
Speaker 1: don't know what I'm dealing with. I'm getting pressure from
Speaker 1: the President United States. He wants me to do this.
Speaker 1: I gotta make it. It seems if ever there was
Speaker 1: a time that the President of Ukraine, the new guy
Speaker 1: who now knows the aid has been on hold. If
Speaker 1: ever there was a time to bring it up, that
Speaker 1: would have been the time. But guess what, At no time,
Speaker 1: Senator Johnson tells US had no time during this meeting
Speaker 1: or on any other meeting on this trip. Was there
Speaker 1: any mentioned by Zelenski or any other Ukrainian that they
Speaker 1: were feeling pressure to do anything in return for military aid.
Speaker 1: Not even Senator Johnson says, not even after Murphy warned
Speaker 1: them about getting involved in the election. So Murphy gave
Speaker 1: this big deal on Juliani and nothing nothing. Guess what
Speaker 1: Murphy also said, I do not dispute any of Senator
Speaker 1: Johnson's factual, factual representations regarding the meeting, if ever it
Speaker 1: was going to happen. September fifth was the day that
Speaker 1: no one from the White House there, non Ambassadbale, not
Speaker 1: Vice President, no one. It never came up. What have
Speaker 1: we learned? What do we learn? We learned that yeah, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no no. The President said no quid pro quo, and
Speaker 1: no the President never tied aid to it. They got
Speaker 1: the aid and they never did anything. It's over. We'll continue,
Speaker 1: all right, Let's go back to the tape more Jim Jordan,
Speaker 1: and then I'm gonna break this all out for you,
Speaker 1: because this couldn't be a better day for President Trump. Listen,
Speaker 1: you said to the President of the United States, what
Speaker 1: do you want from Ukraine? The president, I want nothing,
Speaker 1: I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelinsky to
Speaker 1: do the right thing. I want him to do what
Speaker 1: he ran on. What do you run on, mister ambassador
Speaker 1: silon transparency and dealing with corruption? Right? That's right. Mister
Speaker 1: cass raised another important point. Why didn't you put that
Speaker 1: statement in your opening statement? I think you said you
Speaker 1: couldn't fit it in. Is that right that we might
Speaker 1: be here for forty six minutes? Instead? It wasn't five
Speaker 1: trust me, wasn't purposeful. No, I couldn't fit it in
Speaker 1: a twenty three page opener, the most important statement about
Speaker 1: the subject matter at hand. The President unites in a
Speaker 1: direct conversation with you about the issue at hand, and
Speaker 1: the President says, let me read it one more time.
Speaker 1: What do you want from Ukraine? Mister president? I want nothing.
Speaker 1: I want no quid pro quo. I want this new guy,
Speaker 1: brand new guy in politics, his party just took over.
Speaker 1: I wanted Linskey to do the right thing. I want
Speaker 1: him to run on and do what he ran on,
Speaker 1: which is deal with corruption. And you can't find time
Speaker 1: to fit that in a twenty three page opening statement.
Speaker 1: You know what a quid pro quo is? I do
Speaker 1: just for that? Right? Looks to me like Ukraine got
Speaker 1: that three times and there was no this there was
Speaker 1: we didn't do anything. Excuse me, they didn't have to
Speaker 1: do anything. I've never seen anything like that. And this
Speaker 1: is this is when the call came out, y'all. Remember this.
Speaker 1: When the call came out, everyone said, we're gonna quit
Speaker 1: pro quel, there's gonna be That was what was in
Speaker 1: the call. And of course, of course that didn't happen.
Speaker 1: That didn't happen. Remember what they what the complaints said,
Speaker 1: Remember what the memo said of the whistleblower. This call
Speaker 1: was frightening, this call was scary. All those things none
Speaker 1: of that materialized. None of that materialized, I mean it was.
Speaker 1: It just couldn't go any better. Every witness before song
Speaker 1: one today was either a hearsay so and so so
Speaker 1: and so so and so so and so so and
Speaker 1: so so and so so so so said, or a
Speaker 1: let me tell you what I think of the transcript
Speaker 1: that I didn't hear. Witness. Now you got the one
Speaker 1: guy that did talk to the president. And what did
Speaker 1: we get from testimony today? Very clearly stating in a
Speaker 1: conversation with Donald Trump that the president said, when asked
Speaker 1: an open ended question, what do you want from the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian leader, the new president. Nothing. I don't want to
Speaker 1: quit pro quo. I want him to get rid of
Speaker 1: corruption like it ran on. That's it, that's over, it's done.
Speaker 1: And then the question is, okay, well, when did Zalinski announce,
Speaker 1: based on the transcript that he was gonna investigate Parisma
Speaker 1: and Hunter and quid pro quote Joe zero experience Hunter
Speaker 1: and quid pro quote Joe. He never did. But he
Speaker 1: got the money anyway, didn't he? It's all her. This
Speaker 1: is not an issue anymore. No one on the planet
Speaker 1: told you the President Trump was tying aid to investigations,
Speaker 1: yes or no. Nobody told me. So. You really have
Speaker 1: no testimony that ties President Trump to a scheme to
Speaker 1: withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for the investigations, other
Speaker 1: than what I presumed. How many times this guy presumed,
Speaker 1: he presumed a lot in the course of all of this.
Speaker 1: You know, he said, I believe these probably these investis.
Speaker 1: I believed the resumption it was likely this. I presume
Speaker 1: we presumed this, and that we I likely believe. I
Speaker 1: don't know, I have no idea, but I was presuming that,
Speaker 1: you know. But it was a short conversation. The aid
Speaker 1: was my own personal I got, you know, based again
Speaker 1: on an analogy two plus two equals four. That was
Speaker 1: my presumption, my personal presumption. Again, I was presuming these things.
Speaker 1: But when the actually talk to the guys that I
Speaker 1: don't want this, I don't remember, but it seems logical.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I just you know, I guess I
Speaker 1: have my own beliefs. I'm listening to these other people
Speaker 1: and they're saying this, that's what we got today. Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan got to the harder you said there. You know,
Speaker 1: when did they say that there was gonna be a
Speaker 1: public announcement from Zalinski to look into the things that
Speaker 1: President Trump mentioned about election and interference and quid pro
Speaker 1: quo Joe and Hunter. Yeah, no, he never made an announcement,
Speaker 1: but he got the money anyway. Jordan actually said, you
Speaker 1: got all three wrong. They get the call, they get
Speaker 1: the meeting, they get the money, and the President invites
Speaker 1: this guy three times. You got Now the letters released
Speaker 1: today come to the White House without any quid or
Speaker 1: pro or qual This is so sick how the Democrats
Speaker 1: are acting in this country. No one on the planet
Speaker 1: ever told you President Trump was tying aid to investigations.
Speaker 1: They never told me that, Nope, never heard that. He
Speaker 1: said just the opposite. I mean, you now the president rightly.
Speaker 1: I mean we're gonna go back to things. You know,
Speaker 1: President was right about election interference and write about quid
Speaker 1: and pro and quo joe? What did I say. I've
Speaker 1: been saying the president's faithfully executing the loss for three years.
Speaker 1: We've heard from the compromise corrupt coward and congenital liar
Speaker 1: ship and all these Democrats. Oh, far an election interference matters,
Speaker 1: but we'll ignore the dirty Russian dossier. And then we'll also, yeah,
Speaker 1: it matters, but we don't care about Ukrainian interference. Get
Speaker 1: to that in a second. Because Solomon outlined in detail
Speaker 1: the epidemic of corruption in Ukraine. Yeah, it was an epidemic.
Speaker 1: It was a total epidemic. I don't know how Sonoon
Speaker 1: missed his statement that there was never a quid pro
Speaker 1: quote because he said it multiple times in the last hearing,
Speaker 1: Because he didn't say it in his opening statement. Democrat,
Speaker 1: Oh we got him, this is awesome changing his testimony. No,
Speaker 1: he didn't, you know, but he made a lot of
Speaker 1: presumptions and then outruns, you know, the corrupt compromise congenital
Speaker 1: like we got him, CNN, fake news, we got him.
Speaker 1: And he said no, actually that never happened. Just the
Speaker 1: opposite happened. Unbelievable. This is this is like it's just
Speaker 1: all the wind is out of their sails. It was
Speaker 1: like an Adam bomb in this thing. And he testified
Speaker 1: the first time repeatedly. They all know that he that
Speaker 1: this is the conversation. They don't care. He's the only
Speaker 1: guy up until now still no quid, no pro and
Speaker 1: no quote. It made it clear, the President made it clear,
Speaker 1: don't want that. I want Zelinski to do the right thing,
Speaker 1: which was what the President was saying from the very beginning.
Speaker 1: Ron Johnson talks about that meeting. It never came up
Speaker 1: the issue of AID or withholding aid tied to any
Speaker 1: actions by any of them. Ever, if you go back
Speaker 1: to the original transcript, and I went back today and
Speaker 1: I looked to wait a minute, they're forgetting a big
Speaker 1: part of this, because the big part of their early
Speaker 1: discussion to this about yeah, we want to drain our
Speaker 1: swamp here in this country. That's a Lensky saying that
Speaker 1: to Trump, just like you're doing in Washington, and the
Speaker 1: President actually was a little skeptical. He goes, you know,
Speaker 1: in the very paragraphe said, I'd like you to do
Speaker 1: us a favor, which is to get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of election interference and what Ukraine did. That's what he mentioned,
Speaker 1: you know, CrowdStrike and you know one of your wealthy people,
Speaker 1: the server Ukraine, was involved in this. Well, they were.
Speaker 1: And the President says, I think you're surrounding yourself with
Speaker 1: some of the same people. Why is he saying that
Speaker 1: because he doesn't want any more corruption, because they did
Speaker 1: interfere in our elections and we know it because the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian court told us so. Yeah, this might surprise you.
Speaker 1: New York Times Crane court rules Manafort disclosure caused meddling
Speaker 1: in US elections only Molly, where'd you get that, Hannity?
Speaker 1: And we actually do research on this show. In the research,
Speaker 1: guess what we find out the truth. By the way,
Speaker 1: new polling out on all of this, you got mu
Speaker 1: law Pole shows that Wisconsin, the support for impeachment is
Speaker 1: dropped four points in the past months, now just below
Speaker 1: forty percent national poll and that morning consult Yeah, only
Speaker 1: forty percent of independent support. This a ten point drop.
Speaker 1: Gallup found the president's approval rating is ticking up since
Speaker 1: this all began. That shouldn't surprise anybody. You know, you
Speaker 1: got and it's just all corruption, all of this by
Speaker 1: the way, House Republicans, they're going to subpoena the whistleblower
Speaker 1: at Hunter Biden Good. They need to pretty amazing corruption
Speaker 1: that we now are experiencing in this country and elsewhere.
Speaker 1: You look at the Kiev court lawmaker's release. They were involved.
Speaker 1: But we've been telling you all of this, that they
Speaker 1: were involved from the very get go. We've been telling
Speaker 1: you all of this that you know, the whole January eleven,
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, you know what was that whole article about
Speaker 1: that was in Politico. It was about their corruption. It
Speaker 1: was about, yeah, the whole thing is bad. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: they helped Hillary at a very high level, Politico wrote
Speaker 1: again January eleven, twenty seventeen. Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire,
Speaker 1: key of officials scrambling to make amends with the President
Speaker 1: elect after quietly working to boost Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
Speaker 1: officials of a former Soviet Bloc country. Ukrainian government officials
Speaker 1: tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump or in
Speaker 1: the election by publicly questioning his fitness for office. And
Speaker 1: they also, meeting Ukraine disseminated documents implicating a top Trump
Speaker 1: aid in corruption, and they suggested they were investigating the matter,
Speaker 1: only to back away after the election. And they helped
Speaker 1: Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and advisers. A
Speaker 1: political investigation found Now it even gets more interesting, a
Speaker 1: Ukrainian American operative. Later they identify that person as this
Speaker 1: woman Shaloopa, who was a paid consultant for the DNC,
Speaker 1: met with top officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington
Speaker 1: in an effort two exposed ties between Trump, Paul Manafort,
Speaker 1: and Russia. Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race
Speaker 1: meeting the twenty sixteen race, helping to force Manafort's resignation
Speaker 1: and advanced the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected
Speaker 1: to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia, but they were
Speaker 1: far less concerted or centralized. Blah blah blah, Oh that
Speaker 1: all happened. Wow was other testimony? Bombshell. By the way,
Speaker 1: I know nobody wants to get into this. You have
Speaker 1: a State Department official who served in the embassy in
Speaker 1: Kiev telling Congress that Obama administration tried to partner in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen with a Ukrainian gas firm that employed Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: George Kenne had said that I'll tell you another thing
Speaker 1: that's happening. This is all as John Solomon. He'll describe
Speaker 1: it in the next half hour. He's gonna join us.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a mini little as he had
Speaker 1: predicted report from Michael Harrowitz that nobody's paying attention to
Speaker 1: Michael Harrowitz concluding that Peter Strock was cited for misconduct,
Speaker 1: security violations, exceptionally poor judgment and FBI memos. This is
Speaker 1: just part of what Bard did the other night, a
Speaker 1: preview of coming attractions and the FBI quote the FBI's
Speaker 1: vetting of informants like Christopher for Steel slammed by the
Speaker 1: Inspector General Michael Harowitz. This report now is going to
Speaker 1: be out in the first weeks of December and December eleventh,
Speaker 1: Harowitz goes before Lindsey Graham's committee. They found significant weaknesses,
Speaker 1: inadequate resources dedicated in the FBI to vet informants, artificial
Speaker 1: limits on long term reviews, etc. These factors increased the
Speaker 1: likelihood that the FBI was not adequately mitigating the risks
Speaker 1: associated with long term associations like Steel, including the risks
Speaker 1: posed by overly familiar, non objective handling agents and relationships.
Speaker 1: Most troubling revelation is maybe some FBI analysts that used
Speaker 1: to vet informants complained they were discouraged from documenting their
Speaker 1: conclusions and recommendations. Oh so they could use Steel's dirty
Speaker 1: Russian dossier paid for by Hillary to help Hillary get elected.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's going to be a big deal too.
Speaker 1: And it's all coming. This whole thing is about to
Speaker 1: blow up in their face, every bit of it. And
Speaker 1: today was just the first part of it. It's unbelievable.
Speaker 1: By the way, Radio Free Europe about election interference and
Speaker 1: the court decision in Ukraine. Yeah, the court said the
Speaker 1: publication of the so called black Ledgered documents quote led
Speaker 1: to interference in the electoral process of the United States
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen and harm the interest of Ukraine as
Speaker 1: a state. And by the way, the White House today
Speaker 1: releases a letter from President Trump, you know, to Zelenski
Speaker 1: you know, inviting him to the White House with no zero,
Speaker 1: zero quid pro quo. It's over. This whole thing is done,
Speaker 1: except the mob in the media will just try and
Speaker 1: keep it alive any way. They'll cherry pick, but they'll
Speaker 1: they'll they will purposely propagandize, mislead, slanders, smear besmirch, and
Speaker 1: advanced conspiracy theories and lies to the American people. That's
Speaker 1: how corrupt they are. This is dead. It died today.
Speaker 1: That's what happened today. President Trump never told me directly
Speaker 1: that the AID was conditioned on the meetings. The only
Speaker 1: thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the barissima
Speaker 1: in two thousand and sixteen elections were conditioned on the
Speaker 1: White House meeting. The AID was my own personal you
Speaker 1: know guests based again on your analogy two plus two
Speaker 1: equals for so you didn't talk to President Trump. When
Speaker 1: Ambassador Taylor says that that's what you told him, is
Speaker 1: that your testimony here, My testimony is I never heard
Speaker 1: from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement
Speaker 1: of elections. So you never heard those specific words, correct, right,
Speaker 1: but never heard those words, never heard those words. And
Speaker 1: it goes on from there, which raises the question, Okay,
Speaker 1: if you never heard this or that, but you made
Speaker 1: an assumption, well you write the word out assume, and
Speaker 1: you can assume all you want. One of the things
Speaker 1: that is becoming very very clear to me is you've
Speaker 1: got this sort of bubble among the ambassadorships, and it's
Speaker 1: kind of like they think they ought to be setting
Speaker 1: foreign policy and that they think that they know what's best.
Speaker 1: But nothing contradicts what's in the actual transcript. And now
Speaker 1: that the President released the letter to President Zelensky on
Speaker 1: top of the two transcripts where aid was never mentioned
Speaker 1: and there was never any mention any one individual about
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo, and everybody admits that, then you
Speaker 1: got to say, well, why are we even here? And
Speaker 1: then if you get to the substance of what it
Speaker 1: is that the President is asking in the transcript of
Speaker 1: President Zelinski, well we have the New York Times acknowledging,
Speaker 1: we have political acknowledging, and we have a Ukrainian court
Speaker 1: acknowledging that in fact, twenty sixteen election interference with Ukraine
Speaker 1: actually happened. Well, I thought Democrats cared about that, because
Speaker 1: a big part of that would then be Alexander Shaloopa,
Speaker 1: a DNC contractor being paid by the DNC, going to
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and colluding with Ukrainians to
Speaker 1: dig up dirt on Manafort and President Trump for the
Speaker 1: purpose of helping Hillary Clinton win the twenty sixteen presidential race.
Speaker 1: And I thought that those were all things that we
Speaker 1: were supposed to care about. Apparently not. And then again
Speaker 1: we get back to Okay, Well, if everyone's concerned about
Speaker 1: the quid and the quo and the pro then you
Speaker 1: gotta think of Joe, and Joe's on tape bragging that
Speaker 1: you're not getting the billion dollars. Why would a vice
Speaker 1: president ever demand the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor and
Speaker 1: that you're not getting the billion and you've got six hours.
Speaker 1: Why would that ever happen? Well we now know why,
Speaker 1: because the dopey forty nine year old son Hunter was
Speaker 1: being paid millions, putting aside the millions that he got
Speaker 1: from China ten days after flying with his vice president's
Speaker 1: son to China and then Romania and apparently other countries
Speaker 1: may be involved too. But he gets millions of dollars
Speaker 1: and he's asked, do you have any experience with Ukraine,
Speaker 1: no energy, no oil gas, No, do you have any
Speaker 1: idea why then they would pay you millions of dollars?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Do you think maybe it's because your
Speaker 1: father is the second highest elected official in the United States? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what, Probably I think that's it. John Solomon,
Speaker 1: who's come under fire. I mean, this was a pretty
Speaker 1: amazing moment because you know this woman, Maria Yanovic, whatever
Speaker 1: her name is, the former ambassador. Oh. John Solomon actually
Speaker 1: was one of the few people he along with the
Speaker 1: Washington Post and ABC News, it was one of three
Speaker 1: people that had interviewed the fired prosecutor. This guy named
Speaker 1: Shokin and Choking had said in all three interviews he
Speaker 1: was fired because Joe Biden demanded it or else they
Speaker 1: weren't going to get a billion dollars. So how do
Speaker 1: you bifurcate your brain as a Democrat not care about that?
Speaker 1: And then John Solomon also interviewed the prosecutor general, and
Speaker 1: that prosecutor general is on video saying to John Solomon, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that woman gave me a list of names not to prosecute.
Speaker 1: Now I'm beginning to think, well, if we cared about
Speaker 1: election interference, so we cared about corruption, and we cared
Speaker 1: about quid and pros and quoes. How did the Democrats
Speaker 1: ignore all of that? Anyway, John Solomon is here with
Speaker 1: us now. We also as new information to discuss as
Speaker 1: it relates to the IG report that we now know
Speaker 1: is coming out around the first week of December, because
Speaker 1: Michael Horowitz a scheduled to appear before Lindsey Graham's committee
Speaker 1: on December the eleventh. That's right, investigated reporter Fox News,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, how are you. I'm doing well. I think
Speaker 1: you know. We said this several weeks ago, right Sean,
Speaker 1: that these impeachment hearings might very well be the weapon
Speaker 1: of mass distraction that was designed to keep people's eye
Speaker 1: off of the Russia developments. And here's a great example.
Speaker 1: Today we have these hearings where no one has established
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo yet for the AID, and yet
Speaker 1: everybody's ignoring an extraordinary Inspector General's report released late last
Speaker 1: night that conclude that the FBI has systematically failed to
Speaker 1: manage and vet the confidential human sources like Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: that are used to conduct counter intelligence and regular criminal investigations.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about serious misconducts, serious oversights. We have
Speaker 1: FBI officials quoted in this IG report saying that when
Speaker 1: sometimes when they came across an now, oh slow down.
Speaker 1: When John speaks quickly and says we have FBI officials
Speaker 1: quoted in the IG report, that means, you know, let's
Speaker 1: set off alarms here. You're about to give us information
Speaker 1: that nobody knows has heard before. So we're getting the
Speaker 1: IG report in early December, and Horowitz the schedule to
Speaker 1: appear before Graham's committee in the Senate on September the eleven.
Speaker 1: You're saying you have information what's in the report out
Speaker 1: that this is not the fasive report, it's a preliminary one.
Speaker 1: It's one I told you about two weeks ago would
Speaker 1: be coming out. Don't know if you remember this, but
Speaker 1: the informant report, confidential informant report. It came out last night.
Speaker 1: And see, the Democrats did such a good job of
Speaker 1: distracting us with impeachment. We didn't even know this report
Speaker 1: came out, which is exactly why these hearings were started,
Speaker 1: to keep our eye off the ball on the unraveling
Speaker 1: of the Rush investigation. But let me tell you what
Speaker 1: it says were all wondered. Remember we've all said a lot,
Speaker 1: We've talked on your show endlessly, Sean, How could it
Speaker 1: be that the FBI would allow a guy like Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele being paid by Hillary Clinton, professing hatred for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: having an election day deadline, and leaking to the media.
Speaker 1: How could we let that guy be the primary source
Speaker 1: we use to get a fight of warrant to look
Speaker 1: at the Trump campaign in the final weeks of the election.
Speaker 1: How could that have happened? Well? Inspector General Horrowitz released
Speaker 1: a remarkable and damning report last night on the website
Speaker 1: It's public, but not no one in the media is
Speaker 1: picking up on it. It says the FBI under James Comey,
Speaker 1: under Andrew McCabe, under Peter Stroke that they failed to
Speaker 1: manage and vet human sources, informants just like Christopher Steele, regularly, routinely.
Speaker 1: And one of the most serious things that highlights is
Speaker 1: that FBI officials are quoted in this report released last
Speaker 1: night saying, when we sometimes found derogatory information and about informants,
Speaker 1: allow Christopher Steele, we were told don't put that in
Speaker 1: the documents because he would help the defense lawyers, or
Speaker 1: it would prevent our informants from becoming witnesses at trial.
Speaker 1: So basically keep bad information about sources off the books.
Speaker 1: That is a damning acknowledgement and helps us explain how
Speaker 1: the heck did we end up with Christopher Steele. They
Speaker 1: kept the derogatory information they had about him off the books.
Speaker 1: All right, So what we have is the FBI substantiating
Speaker 1: that Peters Struck had engaged in a dereliction of duty,
Speaker 1: had committed misconduct through you know, these text messages with
Speaker 1: Lisa Page, is anti Trump bias on his official FBI phone,
Speaker 1: committed security violations by performing official government work on his
Speaker 1: personal email. And we've got one official recommending termination, another
Speaker 1: recommending suspension. And yet the leadership and the bureau at
Speaker 1: the time they chose the more severe of the two
Speaker 1: penalties terminating Struck last year. But so what does this
Speaker 1: tell us about in terms of a preview of coming attractions. Well,
Speaker 1: remember after the first IG report that focused on the
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton email one of the conclusions that was there
Speaker 1: that the Horowitz said about the Clinton email case he
Speaker 1: couldn't say for sure whether political bias affected Peter Stroke's
Speaker 1: judgment or decisions on the Hillary Clinton email case. What
Speaker 1: you can clearly see from the disciplinary file that was
Speaker 1: released on Monday by the FBI and the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: In the Stroke lawsuit, Stroke claims he's a victim should
Speaker 1: never been fired. The Justice Department thinks very differently. His
Speaker 1: disciplinary file, his misconduct file states clearly that his expression
Speaker 1: of bias cast a paul over both the Clinton email
Speaker 1: investigation and the Russian investigation, one that may not leave
Speaker 1: the FBI for a a long time. The FBI blames
Speaker 1: Peter Stroke for causing all of the credibility issues that
Speaker 1: we now have about the Russia and the Clinton email cases.
Speaker 1: A very strong indictment of Peter Stroke's misconduct when he
Speaker 1: said all those things about smelly people at Walmart, and
Speaker 1: we're going to stop the president all those things and
Speaker 1: Hillary should win one hundred million zero. Yeah, the FBI saying,
Speaker 1: in its own words, so, but we're really not getting
Speaker 1: to the heart of what I think, Well, where I
Speaker 1: think that the Horowitz report should go, which is premeditative
Speaker 1: fraud perpetrated on the Fiji chort. You think we're getting there, absolutely.
Speaker 1: I think these reports, I think listen, I think there's
Speaker 1: a story being told in pieces right Peter Stroke really
Speaker 1: was a bad guy, despite the fact that he tried
Speaker 1: to sue us recently claiming he wasn't he was wrongfully terminated.
Speaker 1: That's not true. That's the first piece to get in place.
Speaker 1: Then a couple of days later, the IG goes and says,
Speaker 1: you know, before I tell you anything about Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: just know the FBI has been cheating on him. Formants
Speaker 1: are doing bad things with informants for a long time.
Speaker 1: I think Michael Howard's, Bill Barr, John Durham are laying
Speaker 1: the predicate for what's going to be an explosive five
Speaker 1: hundred page report. Five hundred fifty page report is what
Speaker 1: I'm told on all of the misconduct that occurred in
Speaker 1: the FBI investigation. But I think some of these earlier
Speaker 1: reports and ones I'm mentioning are designed to lay the
Speaker 1: foundation for you to understand that there was a culture
Speaker 1: in the FBI of leaking leaking evidence so that you
Speaker 1: could then cite the evidence in your court filing. Custs
Speaker 1: what we're going to find in Russian there was a
Speaker 1: culture of not vetting your informants and looking the other
Speaker 1: way at their flaws, and there was a really bad
Speaker 1: guy at the Helm, Peter Stroke, that had the two
Speaker 1: most important cases of the last half century, and this
Speaker 1: guy had political bias and misconduct in security violations. All
Speaker 1: of those were released to set the stage for the
Speaker 1: Fiser Report. But what's interesting You really can't blame this
Speaker 1: though on Peter Struck, can you? Oh, it's my lare
Speaker 1: it goes much higher? Yeah? It has, And that's the point. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because look, it wasn't only it wasn't only Comey. Remember
Speaker 1: not only did he work from Muller. Muller took his
Speaker 1: phones and pages phones and oh he sent them back
Speaker 1: to the factory to get cleaned. I wonder why. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're exactly right. Listen, Peter Stroke is the symptom of
Speaker 1: a much more serious and sick FBI, which I think
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, James Comey's FBI Andrew
Speaker 1: McKay's FBI is the reason we have this message. Then
Speaker 1: the only question we need to find out is who
Speaker 1: at the CIA, who at the White House? Were they
Speaker 1: communicating these tactics too? But it's one of the thing though,
Speaker 1: that you pointed out in your interpretation of this early
Speaker 1: release is at the vetting of informants like Christopher Steele.
Speaker 1: And remember Steele's docier When they finally did review it,
Speaker 1: they disproved over ninety percent of it. I guess they
Speaker 1: couldn't disprove all one hundred percent of it. But then
Speaker 1: then we've got then we've got to get into that. Well,
Speaker 1: then we got Kathleen Cavlac and Bruce war And I
Speaker 1: think there are as many as five warnings that the
Speaker 1: DOJ that would be the FBI, that would be James Comey,
Speaker 1: who signed three of the four FISA applications. The bulk
Speaker 1: of information we're told was the Steele dossier that was
Speaker 1: we now know unverifiable because he didn't stand by his
Speaker 1: own own dossier when when push came to shove in
Speaker 1: an interrogatory. So the vetting of these informants was slammed
Speaker 1: by the Inspector General Harrowitz two. Yeah, And what it
Speaker 1: basically says is there was a culture of hiding derogatory
Speaker 1: information about informants. And now let's go back to why
Speaker 1: that's relevant to Russia. In the footnote, standing by Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele for all four of the FISA warrants that were
Speaker 1: used to spy on Credit Carter Page in the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: They kept saying, the FBI is unaware of any derogatory
Speaker 1: information about confidential human source one Christopher Steele. Why is
Speaker 1: that important? That is where you have the willful misleading
Speaker 1: of a court. You asked, well, we get there. That's
Speaker 1: how they get there. The FBI was in possession of
Speaker 1: significant derogatory information about Christopher Steele, political bias, hatred for Trump.
Speaker 1: Oh remember it was come himself that went to Trump
Speaker 1: Tower and tried to say, well, this is not verified
Speaker 1: but salacious. But meanwhile, in October the previous year, he
Speaker 1: went and signed the Baizer warrant, so he was lying
Speaker 1: to then President of Electrump. Stay right there. John Solomon
Speaker 1: will also be joined by our legal team. We'll get
Speaker 1: into his interpretation of the Ukrainian events as well. All
Speaker 1: of this on Hannity Tonight News. The mob will never
Speaker 1: tell you about all right, final moments this half Howard,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, he'll stay with us, and we'll bring in
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett and Jordan Seculo. All right, just your quick
Speaker 1: summary of what's missing in this Ukraine story, because there's
Speaker 1: a lot missing here. Yeah, Sean, I think the single
Speaker 1: most important thing you saw all these Ukraine experts prey
Speaker 1: out the the State Department n SC so called experts.
Speaker 1: If all of them knew that the President was looking
Speaker 1: to see if there was an investigation to be done
Speaker 1: on Barisma and Hunter Biden, they all failed to tell
Speaker 1: the President in February. In March of twenty nineteen, Ukraine,
Speaker 1: on its own, with no pressure, chose to reopen the
Speaker 1: investigation of Barisma based on new financial evidence they had.
Speaker 1: Why did not a single one of those so called
Speaker 1: experts not tell the president before all of this other
Speaker 1: shenanigans begin. I think it's an extraordinary letdown of this
Speaker 1: career staff that they didn't tell their own president. Mister President,
Speaker 1: you don't need to ask for an investigation. It already
Speaker 1: has been opened based on the merits in Ukraine. That
Speaker 1: is an irrefutable fact. February and March of this year
Speaker 1: they reopened it. Nobody in these hearings has picked up
Speaker 1: that line of questioning. Great point, all right, more with
Speaker 1: John Solomon. We'll bring in Jordan Seculo, Greg Jarrett on
Speaker 1: the other side. After you testified, Chairman Shift ran out
Speaker 1: and give him press conference and said he gets to
Speaker 1: impeach the president Night States because of your testament and
Speaker 1: If you pull up CNN today right now, their banner says,
Speaker 1: Sillon ties Trump to withholding aid. Is that your testimony today,
Speaker 1: Master Silon, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied
Speaker 1: the investigations the aid, because I don't think you're saying
Speaker 1: that I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming I also
Speaker 1: said that President Trump, So not just the president. Giuliani
Speaker 1: didn't tell you, Well, Vaney didn't tell you. Nobody, Pompeo
Speaker 1: didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is
Speaker 1: that correct? I think I already testified. No answer the question,
Speaker 1: is it correct? No one on this planet told you
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations?
Speaker 1: Because if your answers yes, then the chairman's wrong and
Speaker 1: the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this
Speaker 1: planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations,
Speaker 1: yes or no? Yes, So you really have no testimony
Speaker 1: today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold
Speaker 1: aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations, other than
Speaker 1: my own presumption, which is nothing. I mean, That's what
Speaker 1: I'd undersaid, So you know what hearsay evidence is, Ambassador,
Speaker 1: hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me.
Speaker 1: Do you know what made up testimony is? Made Up
Speaker 1: testimony is when I just presume it. I mean, you're
Speaker 1: just assuming all of these things, and then you're giving
Speaker 1: them the evidence that they're running out and doing press conferences.
Speaker 1: And CNN's headline is saying that you're saying the President
Speaker 1: United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations.
Speaker 1: And you don't know that, correct. I never said the
Speaker 1: President United States should be impeached. Nope, but you did.
Speaker 1: You have left people with the confusing impression that you
Speaker 1: were giving testimony that you did not. You do not
Speaker 1: have any evidence that the President United States was tied
Speaker 1: to withholding aid from Ukraine and exchange for investigations. I
Speaker 1: yield back an amazing moment that was Congressman Michael Turner today. Wow,
Speaker 1: that just blew that out of the water. And it
Speaker 1: shows you how corrupt the well compromised congenital liar is,
Speaker 1: how corrupt fake news CNN is, NBC and every other
Speaker 1: news organization is. You can't be any more clear than that,
Speaker 1: can you? It doesn't get any more clear than what
Speaker 1: the witness that they're using is. Woh, Blockbuster has said today,
Speaker 1: this is madness, this is insanity. They will ignore anything
Speaker 1: that is exculpatory towards this president, and they'll run with conjecture,
Speaker 1: and they'll run with hearsay, and they'll run with I
Speaker 1: don't know. You got a bunch of bureaucrat ambassadors. No,
Speaker 1: no offense to them. I guess they're serving their country. Well, boy,
Speaker 1: they think an awful lot of themselves when they're not
Speaker 1: the commander in chief either. And on the substance of everything,
Speaker 1: this president was right to say, hey, are you surrounding
Speaker 1: yourself with the same bad people that the prior president
Speaker 1: of Ukraine was surrounding himself with, Because if you are,
Speaker 1: that's not good. And can you help us do me
Speaker 1: a favor, get to the bottom of your country's role
Speaker 1: and election interference and any other corruption that was going
Speaker 1: on there. And by the way, simultaneously ignoring the real evidence,
Speaker 1: the real quid, the real quo, the real pro with
Speaker 1: Joe and Hunter, zero experience, Hunter, millions of dollars. You're
Speaker 1: not getting the billion, fire the prosecutor, you get the billion.
Speaker 1: You got six hours. It doesn't get any more clear
Speaker 1: cut than this, but they try to muddy those waters
Speaker 1: and cherry pick that which they think, Oh, I can
Speaker 1: use this to bludgeon Trump again after two and a
Speaker 1: half years of this with Russia that ends in nothing anyway,
Speaker 1: joining us On top of John Solomon, who remains with us.
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, of course, he has his best seller out
Speaker 1: as along with Jordan Secular. We put it up on
Speaker 1: Hannity dot com, both of them. Greg, that was to
Speaker 1: me one of the defining moments today. Oh, it truly was.
Speaker 1: You know, at first I thought Sonlon would say, well,
Speaker 1: my presumption was based on what other people told me.
Speaker 1: It's worse than that, as Turner pointed out, it's a
Speaker 1: presumption that he conjured up out of thin air. He
Speaker 1: didn't even get it from anybody else. You know, there
Speaker 1: are two main points today, and you certainly heard one
Speaker 1: of them. But the other is that, you know, Sanlon
Speaker 1: underscored that the President said to him repeatedly, I want nothing,
Speaker 1: I want no quid pro quo. But he also then
Speaker 1: made a rather stunning admission when he said, I never
Speaker 1: heard the President say that aid was conditioned on an
Speaker 1: announcement of investigations, Why then is it continue here? Why
Speaker 1: is this even an issue even at this point that
Speaker 1: shouldn't be as you know, as my my friend and colleague, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, John Solomon pointed out, this is the you know,
Speaker 1: weapon of mass distractions. They know what's coming down the pike,
Speaker 1: the IG report, and this serves as their subterfuge. Jordan's
Speaker 1: secular your thoughts, Yeah, well, our takeaway is this, I
Speaker 1: mean to just Builo mcgreg was saying, and then Solomon
Speaker 1: gets asked again, did you hear from anyone in the world,
Speaker 1: anyone on the planet that this was And he says no,
Speaker 1: and to us, I mean, this was. This was the
Speaker 1: most key moment because it contradicted the entire narrative from
Speaker 1: the beginning of his whole testimony. I mean, I saw
Speaker 1: Kim start talking about you know, Kin start was like,
Speaker 1: you know, his warning the warning labels, and then he
Speaker 1: heard that State said, I can't even believe an ambassador
Speaker 1: of the United States would leave that clear cut of
Speaker 1: a statement out of his opening statement because it is
Speaker 1: literally what everyone has been talking about. Now. I think
Speaker 1: it gets to the point also that the attorney from
Speaker 1: Minority made that this is this is again someone who
Speaker 1: takes no notes. He doesn't remember anything, and he can't know.
Speaker 1: When he says he can't get other people's documents, I
Speaker 1: want everybody to understand this. It's other people's documents. It's
Speaker 1: not he can't get access to his emails and text
Speaker 1: messages and his staff. It's he can't get access to
Speaker 1: whatever he wanted the State Department. And you know, he
Speaker 1: decided to not use executive privilege to put himself through this.
Speaker 1: I think, as the President said, from what he knows
Speaker 1: from his dealings with him, he's been a pretty good guy.
Speaker 1: But you know, as he kind of this is the
Speaker 1: only witness who's had the direct interplay with the President
Speaker 1: United States, he's admittedly said he kind of. I mean,
Speaker 1: they really overplayed that interplay and that he kind of
Speaker 1: acknowledged that day it wasn't as much as it sounded
Speaker 1: like or he ever they tried to imply it was,
Speaker 1: and then when it was, but also when he spoke
Speaker 1: to anyone else, no one ever said this. He's just
Speaker 1: presuming it now. I can understand why, maybe at this
Speaker 1: point lots of people would would presume that because if
Speaker 1: you read news crawlers and things like that you can
Speaker 1: start presuming it. So I think it's very clear that
Speaker 1: you make that point for everybody to understand that people
Speaker 1: are making this up. This is made up, this is
Speaker 1: this is just taking as thin air, not even basing
Speaker 1: in his great sis aint it basically of what someone
Speaker 1: else told him. He didn't. It was one of the
Speaker 1: most stunning moments I think in this whole charade. I
Speaker 1: really do. I mean, I'm sitting there and and he's right.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what the fake DUS media was doing.
Speaker 1: And I read the opening statement and I said, Okay,
Speaker 1: this doesn't seem right, this doesn't gel with what he
Speaker 1: said in his prior testimony. And then we get to
Speaker 1: the rationale and the reasoning behind it. Well, I just
Speaker 1: was listening to other people, so I put two and
Speaker 1: two together. But yeah, the President did say I don't
Speaker 1: want to quit pro quel. The President at no time
Speaker 1: ever said there's any link it. He actually said the
Speaker 1: opposite John Solomon, and you know, the White House very cleverly,
Speaker 1: I thought, releasing the actual letter invitation to Zelinsky with
Speaker 1: zero no ties to anything to meet with the President
Speaker 1: in the Oval office. Yeah, listen, that's the most important part.
Speaker 1: When you get to cases like this, and we're going
Speaker 1: to get to a trial perhaps someday in the Senate.
Speaker 1: Facts matter, statements matter, Witness testimony matters, Contemporaneous events and
Speaker 1: evidence matter. The contemporaneous evidence and the primary testimony clearly
Speaker 1: indicate the President wanted no quid pro quo tie between
Speaker 1: the aid and the investigations. He wanted investigations for the
Speaker 1: reasons he cited, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: there was no quid pro quo, which is what he's
Speaker 1: being charged with in this allegation of bribery or extortion
Speaker 1: or whichever term the Democrats have poll tested today. But
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, those facts are going
Speaker 1: to be very relevant to any trial attorney or any
Speaker 1: jury looking at it, because prior to this point, Greg Jarrett,
Speaker 1: all we had were people's interpretations of what they thought
Speaker 1: of the transcript, which frankly is meaningless. It's all hearsay.
Speaker 1: None of it would be admissible in the Senate, and
Speaker 1: I can't imagine that the Chief us as presiding over
Speaker 1: this circus if it gets over there, and I'm assuming
Speaker 1: it probably will, because that's how unhanged the Democrats are.
Speaker 1: Whatever deny the President and his attorneys his sixth Amendment rights,
Speaker 1: which is the right to confront his accuser. You know,
Speaker 1: if the federal rules of evidence are invoked by the Senate,
Speaker 1: if that's what the majority wants to do, and they should,
Speaker 1: you know, none of these witnesses are going to be
Speaker 1: able to testify. The Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is
Speaker 1: bereft of facts. So he's determined to remove the President
Speaker 1: from office based purely upon the opinions of others who
Speaker 1: surmised or imagined this quid pro quo that doesn't exist
Speaker 1: anywhere in the transcript of the telephone call. And now
Speaker 1: we learn from Ambassador Sonlin that the President told him directly,
Speaker 1: not once, but twice, there's no quid pro quo, and
Speaker 1: that is not tied to anything. And so none of
Speaker 1: these people could ever testify. They might, you know, someone
Speaker 1: might be able to say, this is what the President
Speaker 1: told me in that telephone conversation. But beyond that, all
Speaker 1: of these witnesses are nothing but rank speculation, conjecture, and hearsay.
Speaker 1: You know, this is impeachment by rumor and innuendo. It's unbelievable. Now,
Speaker 1: there was an interesting story that came out today Jordan's
Speaker 1: seculo from zero Hedge and it's the headline says a
Speaker 1: lot to Ukrainian. Ukrainian indictment claims seven point four billion
Speaker 1: Obama linked laundering, puts Biden group take at sixteen point
Speaker 1: five million dollars for quote their services. You know. One
Speaker 1: of the things I'm really having a hard time here
Speaker 1: that you know, and I say it off and probably
Speaker 1: repeated too much, is that fire the prosecutor you get
Speaker 1: the billion. Don't fire him, you don't get the billion.
Speaker 1: He knew as someone was being investigated in a paid
Speaker 1: millions for zero experience that that gets under my skin.
Speaker 1: Well it doesn't. This is why trying to base then
Speaker 1: impeachment off of Ukrainian foreign policy, which you know, that's
Speaker 1: what we've ultimately gotten to, is disputing over policy, and
Speaker 1: when when you get to silence point, it's not even that.
Speaker 1: It's like just presumptions over what you think, which almost
Speaker 1: sounds like he was setting up the president. I mean,
Speaker 1: I haven't just based off kind of how he said.
Speaker 1: Why was he calling all these times and kind of
Speaker 1: asking it this way? It's like he was asking it
Speaker 1: this way and the presidents screaming back. I don't want
Speaker 1: him doing anything like what are you like maybe even
Speaker 1: picking up on this. But but at the same time,
Speaker 1: the recklessness here because they've also as we get every
Speaker 1: time that these hearings and every day and anybody's watching
Speaker 1: it and the media can't. They can try to cut
Speaker 1: around it when they do their clips later in the day,
Speaker 1: but they can't do it while people watch. Is that
Speaker 1: every day it's coming up to this Biden and these
Speaker 1: questions about why are they even getting involved when you
Speaker 1: when your dad's vice president, why get involved with any
Speaker 1: of these companies in Ukraine with the mess that Ukraine
Speaker 1: was um and and that if you're going to base
Speaker 1: off Ukraines on either side, I mean it's like listen,
Speaker 1: they've going after reporting and John knows this very well
Speaker 1: now going out to report it because he talked to
Speaker 1: one Ukrainian and another Ukrainian says this Ukrainians wrong, and
Speaker 1: that Ukrainians why it's it's we're also dealing with their
Speaker 1: you know, you can talk to whever you want to
Speaker 1: it politics too, but also at level which is very
Speaker 1: different from you know, being a reporter to deciding I'm
Speaker 1: gonna actually be on their board. But oh, we're not
Speaker 1: going to talk about this now. I think that that's
Speaker 1: the recklessness of Democrat. That's how bad they want to
Speaker 1: go after presidents from and a lot of these government
Speaker 1: officials from both sides of the aisle who work in
Speaker 1: the in the bureaucracy, who may have you know, initially
Speaker 1: worked for a Republican and then they worked for a Democrat.
Speaker 1: But you know a lot of them just reading their
Speaker 1: talking points for him. And if you don't read this,
Speaker 1: they're talking points. They try to take you down. And
Speaker 1: they don't like this. They don't. I mean, you could
Speaker 1: see they're just they are so upset that they prepare
Speaker 1: talking points and this president decide to govern independently. All right,
Speaker 1: we'll wrap things up. Amazing developments today. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you your mob in the media, they
Speaker 1: are so corrupt, they're such liars. They won't even they
Speaker 1: won't even tell you about Sonlon's beat down today. They're
Speaker 1: not even going to tell you that. They're not going
Speaker 1: to tell you about the ig preliminary report about Peter
Speaker 1: Struck and his misconduct and his poor judgment, and or
Speaker 1: will they tell you about how the FBI vetting of
Speaker 1: informants slammed by Michael Horowitz, or what Attorney General Barr
Speaker 1: had to say. I'm gonna tell you any of this
Speaker 1: so sick, corrupt, it's unbelievable. I wrap the things up.
Speaker 1: We only have to about twenty seconds each. Final thoughts,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, twenty seconds. Ukraine is Russia, redo, it's a
Speaker 1: hearsay case. It's going to turn out not to be true. Wow, unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, Well, this is an example of how desperate
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are and
Speaker 1: Democrats at large in the House of Representatives to call
Speaker 1: nothing but hearsay witnesses and witnesses who presume things. You know,
Speaker 1: that's not evidence, that's garbage. And that's essentially the only
Speaker 1: argument that Democrats have against the president. It's based on
Speaker 1: junk last word, Jordan's secular last word, Jordan secular. All Right,
Speaker 1: we lost Jordan Seculo. We're gonna have to end it there. John,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Greg, thank you. We have a massive Hannity
Speaker 1: tonight on the Fox News channel. This just blew up.
Speaker 1: Is worse than a's like an Adam bomb to the
Speaker 1: star witness. They thought they had it all got blown
Speaker 1: out of the water. When we come back, I know
Speaker 1: a lot of you want to weigh in eight hundred
Speaker 1: and nine four one Sean, you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program, quick break right back Hannity at
Speaker 1: nine tonight. This is an amazing day in more ways
Speaker 1: than I can even tell you. Straight ahead, stay right
Speaker 1: here for our final news round up and information overload
Speaker 1: in the final hour of the Sean On Hannity Show
Speaker 1: this morning to dedicated public servants speaking truth to power
Speaker 1: in the face of withering public criticism from President Trump
Speaker 1: and his allies. It's absolutely an impressive morning for these witnesses, who,
Speaker 1: as everyone has pointed out, are so clearly fact witnesses.
Speaker 1: These are career professionals, and Vinman struck me as the
Speaker 1: most devastating we've seen in a public hearing to date.
Speaker 1: This is someone who obviously looks the part is the part.
Speaker 1: Look at him. He's in the uniform of the United
Speaker 1: States Army and he almost was emotional at the end
Speaker 1: of his opening statement. Clearly, these ludicrous accusations don't reflect
Speaker 1: committee members who are honestly searching for the truth. They
Speaker 1: are the actions of partisan extremists who hijacked the Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: transformed it into the Impeachment Committee, abandoned its core oversight functions,
Speaker 1: and turned it into a beachhead for austin an elected
Speaker 1: president from office. You have to keep that histin mind
Speaker 1: as you consider the Democrats' latest catalog of supposed Trump outrageous. Granted,
Speaker 1: a friendly call with the Ukrainian president wouldn't seem to
Speaker 1: rise to the same level as being a Russian agent,
Speaker 1: but the Democrats were running out of time. If they
Speaker 1: waited any longer, their impeachment circus would intervene with their
Speaker 1: own candidates twenty campaigns. So you have to give them
Speaker 1: points for creativity in selling this absurdity as an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1: All this explains why the Democrats have gathered zero Republicans
Speaker 1: support in the House of Representatives for their impeachment crusade.
Speaker 1: In fact, the vote we held was a bipartisan vote
Speaker 1: against this impeachment inquiry. Speaker Pelosi, Chairmanship and Chairman Nadler,
Speaker 1: the key figures behind this impeachment crusade, all proclaimed that
Speaker 1: impeachment is so damaging to the country that it can
Speaker 1: only proceed with bipartisan support. Are those declarations suddenly no
Speaker 1: longer true. Did impeachment become less divisive? Of course not.
Speaker 1: They know exactly what kind of damage they're inflicting on
Speaker 1: this nation that they've passed the point of no return.
Speaker 1: The Democrats have zeroed in on an anonymous whistleblower complaint
Speaker 1: there was cooked up in cooperation with the Democrats on
Speaker 1: this very committee. They lied to the American people about
Speaker 1: that cooperation and refuse to let us question the whistleblower
Speaker 1: to discover the truth. Meanwhile, the Democrats lash out against
Speaker 1: anyone who questions or cast doubt on this spectacle. When
Speaker 1: Ukrainian President Zelenski denies anything and proper happened on the
Speaker 1: phone call, the Democrats say that he's a liar. When
Speaker 1: journalists report on Ukraine election meddling and Hunter Biden's position
Speaker 1: on the board of corrupt Ukrainian companies, the Democrats lay
Speaker 1: them conspiracy theorists. When the Democrats can't get any traction
Speaker 1: for their allegations of quit pro quo, they moved the
Speaker 1: goalposts and accused the president of extortion, then bribery, and
Speaker 1: at last resort obstruction of justice. The American people sent
Speaker 1: us to Washington to solve problems, not to wage, scorched
Speaker 1: earth political warfare against the other party. This impeachment is
Speaker 1: not helping the American people, it's not a legitimate use
Speaker 1: of taxpayer dollars, and it's definitely not improving our national security.
Speaker 1: All right. That was Devin Nounez the hearings earlier today.
Speaker 1: No matter what the mob and the media says, this
Speaker 1: is what we know, Sonlon said. He outlined the epidemic
Speaker 1: of corruption that is the country of Ukraine in great detail.
Speaker 1: He repeated again and again, nobody ever told me that
Speaker 1: AID was tied to anything. His opening statement even made
Speaker 1: clear that President Trump never once discussed a quid pro
Speaker 1: quo and he couldn't be more clear when asked about
Speaker 1: this very issue. Yeah, no, I just presume this. No,
Speaker 1: I did not hear from the president, you know, when
Speaker 1: he was asked, he said in his opening remarks, I
Speaker 1: was acting good good faith as a president appointee, and
Speaker 1: he said, I want nothing the president when he talked
Speaker 1: to the President, I want no quid, no pro and
Speaker 1: no quo. He had no knowledge to acknowledge of why
Speaker 1: AID was withheld, and yet we're still back at the
Speaker 1: same point. You know, he comments well about why AID
Speaker 1: was withheld. I'm just guessing. Well, guessing isn't real evidence.
Speaker 1: As we've been pointing out here, it is amazing that
Speaker 1: this is where they have now taken us. Nor do
Speaker 1: they care about the security and safety of the American people.
Speaker 1: No evidence of a link between security AID and the
Speaker 1: public statement, none whatsoever. Now there's three separate times that
Speaker 1: President Trump offered an unconditional White House visit to President Zelensky.
Speaker 1: Three times. Sonlon couldn't be any more clear. The President
Speaker 1: was not involved in any of this. He discussed it
Speaker 1: over and over again today, Voker the same thing. All
Speaker 1: these other people tested the same thing. They didn't know
Speaker 1: why there was any hold, But the President was clear
Speaker 1: in his discussion with Zolensky that the reason is is
Speaker 1: because yeah, you better not be involved, but the same
Speaker 1: people the last president, because that's going to be really
Speaker 1: bad for you. Anyway. Bill O'Reilly is with us. Get
Speaker 1: his thoughts on this. Bill O'Reilly dot com is best
Speaker 1: selling book, The United States of Trump How the President
Speaker 1: Really sees America top bestseller. How are you, sir? I'm
Speaker 1: confused day. Do I need to help you? Do we
Speaker 1: need to get you a shrink? O'Reilly. You need to
Speaker 1: get me more than that. You know, I'm a simple man.
Speaker 1: I've always been a simple man. But no, no, you're
Speaker 1: anything but a simple man. You're a simple man club.
Speaker 1: So you're a complicated guy. I don't know why I
Speaker 1: have to watch thirty six hours of this. I don't.
Speaker 1: I much rather watch Doctor Phil or Judge Judy did
Speaker 1: knocking off all my favorite shows. So I wrote in
Speaker 1: the United States of Trump, and this is essential for
Speaker 1: everybody to understand that Donald Trump feels that he is
Speaker 1: a victim of people who wanted to destroy him and
Speaker 1: his campaign, and those people were harbored by the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: By the way, is he right, We'll see because his
Speaker 1: Justice Department is investigating that as we speak. So he
Speaker 1: feels he's a victim, and he's obsessed with writing the
Speaker 1: wrong he believes was delivered to him. That's what this
Speaker 1: is all about. Nothing more so. In the pursuit of
Speaker 1: exposing the wrong he believes happened to him. He makes
Speaker 1: a call to the President of Ukraine's Lynsky and he says,
Speaker 1: do me a favor. All right, you're the new guy,
Speaker 1: the new sheriff investigate all of his stuff that I'm
Speaker 1: hearing is really bad about how Ukraine tried to interfere
Speaker 1: in the election and how Joe Biden and his son
Speaker 1: conducted themselves in your country. Let me know what happened.
Speaker 1: He did it, There's no question. It's in the transcript.
Speaker 1: He did it. But if you look at the context
Speaker 1: that his thought process is, I have to expose all
Speaker 1: of this corruption that happened in the twenty sixteen election,
Speaker 1: it makes perfect sense. And he's entitled to do it
Speaker 1: because he's the chief law enforcement officer of America. He's
Speaker 1: in charge of the Justice Department. He's entitled and under
Speaker 1: the law, and I've just looked it up, he can't
Speaker 1: allow foreign aid to flow to a country that he
Speaker 1: believes or his administration believes is corrupt. He can't, by
Speaker 1: law do that. So here's what I don't understand. And
Speaker 1: maybe you can explain this to me, because you're much
Speaker 1: smarter than I am. By the way, Bill o'reiley has
Speaker 1: been such a wise ass right now. You are. I'm
Speaker 1: a sup I'm a simple man. You're not simple, Hannity.
Speaker 1: You're much smarter than I am. You're so full of
Speaker 1: crape radio stations. I only have two hundred, I got
Speaker 1: six twenty five, all right, six. Well look that means
Speaker 1: you're three times smarter than me. Okay, all right, So
Speaker 1: why doesn't he and we talked about this last week,
Speaker 1: and you tell me why he doesn't do it. Just
Speaker 1: go out and say what I just said. Just listen
Speaker 1: to the Hannity O'Reilly discourse and say just what I
Speaker 1: just said, because it's absolutely true. He told me this
Speaker 1: for the book to the United States and Trumpets in
Speaker 1: the book that was way before any of this dog
Speaker 1: and Pony show. Let me read something to you. What
Speaker 1: So if we go back to the transcript, and by
Speaker 1: the way, there are two transcripts, and now we have
Speaker 1: three separate invitations with no conditions of the President inviting
Speaker 1: Zelenska to the White House. But if you go back
Speaker 1: to the original transcript, which you know all these people
Speaker 1: are commenting on President Trump in the very paragraph where
Speaker 1: he said, you know, I'd like you to do us
Speaker 1: a favor, you know, because our country has been through
Speaker 1: a lot. Ukraine knows a lot about it, and they
Speaker 1: we now know, they were involved up to their eyeballs.
Speaker 1: But and then he says, I think you're surrounding yourself
Speaker 1: with some of the same people I would write. And
Speaker 1: so that is that is the reason enough to hold
Speaker 1: up aid to see what's going to happen. So why
Speaker 1: not explain all this? Why do I have to look
Speaker 1: at the lieutenant colonel up there and I have to
Speaker 1: look at some woman who knew somebody had heard an overcall?
Speaker 1: Why do I have to listen to this? Just go out,
Speaker 1: you're the resident, look into the camera and explain what happened.
Speaker 1: And that's it. You know, if he did that, that
Speaker 1: would undercut all of this bull It would make it.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't make it go away, because Shift and Pelosi
Speaker 1: are never going to stop until the Senate says, no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to remove a president because it's your opinion.
Speaker 1: He tried to do this for self gain. But there's
Speaker 1: enough evidence that says this was perfectly legitimate. Line And
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm not little bo peep thinking that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump didn't want to get dirt on Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: He did. But did he use the power of his
Speaker 1: office to do something corrupt thing to get that. No,
Speaker 1: he asked for a favor, a favor, and the favor
Speaker 1: was in context of an investigation that is going on
Speaker 1: now in the Justice Department. If he would just do this,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, this whole thing would evaporate. Let me
Speaker 1: point out two things that I've been telling the audience
Speaker 1: all day. There was a court decision bill in Ukraine. Actually,
Speaker 1: even the New York Times wrote about it that their
Speaker 1: headline was Ukraine rules Manafort disclosure caused quote meddling in
Speaker 1: US election. The court in Ukraine in a statement that
Speaker 1: they issued at the time, they had the head of
Speaker 1: the National Anti Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and they released
Speaker 1: the information and they said that the violation resulted in
Speaker 1: meddling in the electoral process of the United States in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen and damaged the national interests of Ukraine. Stay
Speaker 1: with me one second. Politico January eleven, twenty seventeen, headline
Speaker 1: Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. Heev officials scrambling to
Speaker 1: make amends with the president elect after quietly working to
Speaker 1: boost Clinton. Donald Trump was not the only presidential candidate
Speaker 1: whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet
Speaker 1: Bloc country. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: and undermined Donald Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
Speaker 1: They also disseminated documents implicating it a top Trump aide
Speaker 1: in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only
Speaker 1: to back away after the election. Then it goes on
Speaker 1: to talk about Alexander Chloopa, Ukrainian American who met with
Speaker 1: top officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in quote
Speaker 1: an effort to expose ties between Trump and a top
Speaker 1: campaign aide, Paul Manafort, and Russia. The Ukrainian efforts had
Speaker 1: an impact on the twenty sixteen race, having forced manaforts resignation.
Speaker 1: So the President is saying, because I thought Democrats cared
Speaker 1: bill about foreign election interference, a Ukrainian court and Politico
Speaker 1: admitted it all happened, and we know what happened. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it happened. Look, this is so complicated that no American
Speaker 1: outside of the people like you and me who are
Speaker 1: paid to do this can follow it. Nobody can follow it.
Speaker 1: I just want to break it down. There's no doubt
Speaker 1: Ukraine tried to help Hillary. Donald Trump angry about that.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wants that exposed. And if Joe Biden was
Speaker 1: a part of that, which he could have been, he
Speaker 1: wants that exposed. He has a right to withhold any
Speaker 1: foreign aid if he believes the country is corrupt. He
Speaker 1: asked the Lynsky to please investigate what happened, all right,
Speaker 1: and then tell the world that's the right thing, that's
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. But stay there, Oh, very rational, Trump,
Speaker 1: say the dealmaker, this is what he does. All right?
Speaker 1: Hang on one second, Bell, We'll take a break when
Speaker 1: we come back. Where does Bill O'Reilly think this is
Speaker 1: all going to end up? And we have a little announcement.
Speaker 1: Bill has this big speech, and I'm going to be
Speaker 1: there and I get to introduce him. It's gonna be fun,
Speaker 1: all right. Our final moment was Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly
Speaker 1: dot com is book is everywhere the United States of Trump,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com bookstores everywhere. All right, one, we're going
Speaker 1: to appear together. I have agreed to introduce you in
Speaker 1: Huntington in Long Island. Um, it's in December, number one
Speaker 1: and number two. Where do you think this is gonna go?
Speaker 1: All right, I'll get to the speech at the end.
Speaker 1: CHEV is gonna file articles of impeachment given the Nadler,
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a bribery charge, abuse of power. Then
Speaker 1: it goes to the Senate, the Senate will quit. I
Speaker 1: don't know how long it'll take. The turtle, as you
Speaker 1: call him, Senator McConnell as as already knows what he's
Speaker 1: gonna do, but he's not gonna tip his hand go
Speaker 1: oh yeah, yeah, we'll give it an airing, but it's
Speaker 1: not going to lead to the removal of the president.
Speaker 1: As for you introducing me, I am setting myself up
Speaker 1: to the biggest fall of my career. LinkedIn on December fifteenth,
Speaker 1: Hannity unchained and can say whatever he was about me.
Speaker 1: I'm staying out there think about I'm gonna probably I'm
Speaker 1: gonna end up talking for an hour. You know me,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna shut up. But what do you think?
Speaker 1: Do you think I'm actually gonna say something bad about you?
Speaker 1: You invited me to your event? Yeah, and I'm coming.
Speaker 1: The place is sold out, right, Bill, O'Reilly Bill, O'Reilly
Speaker 1: dot com. It's December fifteenth. I'd offer your tickets, but
Speaker 1: it's sold out. I'm gonna introduce Bill, but I'm also
Speaker 1: gonna do a little song and dance before I introduce him.
Speaker 1: And Bill, great to have you. Thanks for being with us,
Speaker 1: all right, eight hundred ninety four one. Sean, you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. I knew many
Speaker 1: of you want to weigh in on all of this madness.
Speaker 1: That is next as we continue all right twenty five
Speaker 1: to the top of the hour, let's go back to
Speaker 1: where we started the program today, because Democrats amazing moments
Speaker 1: with this guy Sonlon today and we got him, we
Speaker 1: got the president. This is amazing, Oh my gosh. Well,
Speaker 1: unfortunately Congressman Turner, who was amazing today and Kyra has
Speaker 1: been Jim Jordan who was amazing today. They blew the
Speaker 1: entire narrative out of the water, which should end the
Speaker 1: entire witch hunt, which should end the madness. But it's
Speaker 1: not going to because they're that corrupt, they're that dishonest.
Speaker 1: Coupled with, of course, you know, a little side note
Speaker 1: the unbelievable statements now, the little preview we're getting from
Speaker 1: Michael Horowitz as it relates to Peter Struck, the FBI,
Speaker 1: their vetting of informants like Christopher still basically saying that, yeah,
Speaker 1: Hannity was right that they used the bulk of information
Speaker 1: from a guy that was corrupt, that had an agenda
Speaker 1: that gave you literally unverifiable material, and you used it
Speaker 1: to spy on a presidential candidate transition team and President Well,
Speaker 1: let's go back to where we started, Michael Turner, Jim Jordan.
Speaker 1: It ended today, no matter, this was their day, and
Speaker 1: it is like an Adam bomb dropped in that room
Speaker 1: today after you testified, Chairman shift right out and give
Speaker 1: a press conference and said he gets to impeza the president.
Speaker 1: It's because of your testimony. And if you pull up
Speaker 1: CNN today right now, their banner says, Soillon ties Trump
Speaker 1: to withholding AID. Is that your testimony today, Master Silon,
Speaker 1: that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations
Speaker 1: to AID, because I don't think you're saying that. I've
Speaker 1: said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming I also said that
Speaker 1: President Trump. So no, not just the President. Giuliani didn't
Speaker 1: tell you, Well, Vaney didn't tell you, nobody, Pompeo didn't
Speaker 1: tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was tying AID to these investigations. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: I think I already testified. No answer the question, is
Speaker 1: it correct? No one on this planet told you that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations, because
Speaker 1: if your answers yes, then the chairman's wrong and the
Speaker 1: headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet
Speaker 1: told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations,
Speaker 1: yes or no? Yes? So you really have no testimony
Speaker 1: today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold
Speaker 1: aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations, other than
Speaker 1: my own presumption, which is nothing. I mean, that's what
Speaker 1: i'd not said. So you know what hearsay evidence is, ambassador,
Speaker 1: hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me.
Speaker 1: Do you know what made up testimony is? Made Up
Speaker 1: testimony is when I just presume it. I mean, you're
Speaker 1: just assuming all of these things, and then you're giving
Speaker 1: them the evidence that they're running out and doing press conferences.
Speaker 1: And CNN's headline is saying that you're saying the President
Speaker 1: United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations,
Speaker 1: and you don't know that, correct. I never said the
Speaker 1: President United States should be impeached. Nope, but you did.
Speaker 1: You have left people with the confusing impression that you
Speaker 1: were giving testimony that you did not. You do not
Speaker 1: have any evidence that the President United States was tied
Speaker 1: to withholding aid from Ukraine and exchange for investigations. I
Speaker 1: yield back, Ambassador, When did it happen? When did what happen?
Speaker 1: The announcement? When did President Zalinski announced that the investigations
Speaker 1: were going to happen? On page fourteen, you said this
Speaker 1: was there a quick pro code. Today's your opening statement.
Speaker 1: As I testified previously with regards to the requested White
Speaker 1: House call White House meeting, The answer is yes, that
Speaker 1: they didn't need to be a public statement from President Zelensky.
Speaker 1: When the chairman asked you about the security assistance dollars,
Speaker 1: you said there needed to be a public announcement from Zelenski.
Speaker 1: So I'm asking you a simple question, When did that happen?
Speaker 1: Never did? Never did? They got the call July twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: They got the meeting, not in the White House but
Speaker 1: in New York on September twenty fifth, They got the
Speaker 1: money on September eleventh, when the meeting happened again, never did.
Speaker 1: You don't know who was in the meeting. Which meeting
Speaker 1: are you referring the meeting that never happened? Who was
Speaker 1: in it? You know? How do you know how Zalinsk
Speaker 1: you know how Zalinski announced it? Did he tweet it?
Speaker 1: Did he do a press statement, did he do a
Speaker 1: press conference? You know how that happened? I mean you
Speaker 1: you got all three of them wrong. They get the call,
Speaker 1: they get the meeting, they get the money. It's not
Speaker 1: two plus two, it's oh for three. I mean, I've
Speaker 1: never seen anything like this. And you told mister Castor
Speaker 1: that the President never told you that the announcement had
Speaker 1: to happen to get anything. In fact, he didn't just
Speaker 1: not tell you that. He explicitly said the opposite. This
Speaker 1: blew everything out of the water today. And you know
Speaker 1: when I was listening, I gotta tell you, Mike Turner,
Speaker 1: he will be with us on Hannity tonight. One of
Speaker 1: the most spectacular moments I have ever seen happened in
Speaker 1: a Washington hearing and followed up by Jim Jordan. Okay,
Speaker 1: when did they make the announcement? When did they make
Speaker 1: the announcement meeting? When did they say they were going
Speaker 1: to investigate election interference? And a resma and Hunter and
Speaker 1: Joe That never happened either. And the point is they
Speaker 1: got the money. That means there was no quid, There
Speaker 1: was no quo, and there was no pro there is
Speaker 1: one with Joe. It never happened. The four facts never changed,
Speaker 1: do they? As Jordan always says, I, we are at
Speaker 1: a moment, a precipice in time where you have to
Speaker 1: suspend all intellectual thought, honesty, fundamental fairness, objectivity, and you
Speaker 1: have to be willing to go along with will forget Joe,
Speaker 1: Biden and Hunter the real quid pro quo. That's all proven,
Speaker 1: it's all available, all the evidence, and you have to
Speaker 1: infer that something happened here that didn't happen but was
Speaker 1: way below the level of what we know happened with them.
Speaker 1: No reason, no common sense, bifer kate, your brain cut
Speaker 1: off all connection to objective truth, compartmentalize all of this
Speaker 1: and justify it because of a rage and a hatred
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump. This is a spectacular moment that has
Speaker 1: been captured today. It's spectacular. It was like, you know
Speaker 1: you're reading this, you're hearing this, the innuend of the
Speaker 1: thought I pieced together. Hearsay, Yeah, I talked to the
Speaker 1: Oh no he never did it. No no, no, he said,
Speaker 1: and then he goes on to explain again and again,
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, the president was clear that he didn't
Speaker 1: want to quit pro quel. How many times does he
Speaker 1: have to say this? And then you got the what
Speaker 1: did I say? Corrupt, compromised, coward and congenital liar racing
Speaker 1: out in the middle of the hearings to the cameras.
Speaker 1: We got him fake news, CNN, n MB's and ABC,
Speaker 1: all of them doing the same thing we are. This
Speaker 1: is this is beyond now any you know, journalism being dead, No,
Speaker 1: it's We've got we've got activism, propaganda. We've got propta
Speaker 1: in the media that is widespread. We've got propagandists, we've
Speaker 1: got conspiracy theorists, We've got hoaxes, We've got lies, we've
Speaker 1: got misinformation, we got smears, slander, bespirchment. That's that's that's
Speaker 1: the news media today because they don't like Donald Trump
Speaker 1: at all. Very very it's actually frightening that you can
Speaker 1: have so many people buy into a lie. The lie
Speaker 1: is the truth, The truth is a lie, because that's
Speaker 1: the spectacular level of hypocrisy that you've got to absorb
Speaker 1: to do this. You've got to you've you've got to
Speaker 1: literally you I assume you can't look at yourself with
Speaker 1: a mirror and be honest, because if you're honest, you're
Speaker 1: gonna say, yeah, Joe quid pro and quot zero experience
Speaker 1: Hunter paid millions. There. It is firing you get a billion.
Speaker 1: You don't fire me, you don't get a billion. And
Speaker 1: here you have their number one witness, the only guy
Speaker 1: up to this point that wasn't assuming, that wasn't basing
Speaker 1: their comments off a transcript that was, you know, their opinions, hearsay.
Speaker 1: The first guy I actually talked to Trump, Yeah, he
Speaker 1: was very clear. No quid, no pro, no quo. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: what what Chiff said is a lie. That's not true.
Speaker 1: None of that is true. Because Chip was saying that
Speaker 1: you're testifying that you're tying Donald Trump to AID. Well,
Speaker 1: I was just presuming that I nobody nobody told you
Speaker 1: Donald Trump didn't tell you. Mc mulvaney didn't tell you.
Speaker 1: Secretary Pompeo didn't tell you that any aid is tied
Speaker 1: to the actions ye, and nobody said that. Ever, if
Speaker 1: you got a chairman congenital liar lying to the American people,
Speaker 1: and you got a news media that are their accomplices,
Speaker 1: that's what we proved today on a spectacular level. Maybe
Speaker 1: I should be happy, not happy to see this happening
Speaker 1: to this country. No, I'm not anyway, Let's get to
Speaker 1: our phones here. You've been very patient. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of you have. Just your blood is boiling like
Speaker 1: I am. Mine is Greg in South Dakota. Greg. How
Speaker 1: are you? We're glad you called. Thank you, Sean. You
Speaker 1: have to put you in a mindset of a Democrat
Speaker 1: and think like them, and that just disgusts me to
Speaker 1: drop to that level. But I think I see this
Speaker 1: ultimate endgame that they're after. They want Trump, they want Pence,
Speaker 1: and then they delegitimize his whole his whole presidency, and
Speaker 1: they want this true Supreme Court justices removed and all
Speaker 1: federal appointments that he has made. Ultimately, that's where they're headed.
Speaker 1: Have they done anything to help our safety and security?
Speaker 1: Have they done anything to help our economy, create jobs,
Speaker 1: create prosperity for the American people? Know three, I'm a farmer.
Speaker 1: I'm a farmer out here, Sean. I'm sitting in my
Speaker 1: tractor right now. I shut it down to talk to you.
Speaker 1: By the way, is that true? Who in your track?
Speaker 1: What do you farm? I'm corn and soybean farmer in
Speaker 1: South Dakota. Now you're probably not gonna believe what's about
Speaker 1: to come out of my mouth. I want. I'm about
Speaker 1: to say, you know what, I you know what I
Speaker 1: wish many days I wish I was you. Everyone thinks
Speaker 1: being on TV and radio so much fun. You know what?
Speaker 1: This is such madness that I'm immersed in every day.
Speaker 1: I think I'd rather do what you do every day
Speaker 1: in the peace, in God's country. That's what I feel
Speaker 1: like doing right now. I'm sitting out here and I
Speaker 1: can look for miles and I see very little going
Speaker 1: out or I'll be But you know what, you know
Speaker 1: what you do. You feed all of us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Every farmer that works his ass off feeds all of us.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your hard work, because it's not easy. Trump,
Speaker 1: thank you. I appreciate that President Trump has done more
Speaker 1: for the farmers. President Trump, how many speeches I've wasn't
Speaker 1: to him? Guilt? And he starts off talking about the farmers.
Speaker 1: He does maybe maybe maybe thirty minutes down the speech
Speaker 1: will give you one sentence and then you've forgotten about
Speaker 1: Not with President Trump, I'll never leave the man. Never.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of people out here, a majority
Speaker 1: big time majority are the same way. Yeah, have we've
Speaker 1: been pinched, you bet. But President Trump has done some
Speaker 1: things with the tariff money to help US farmers out,
Speaker 1: and we don't forget those things. You know what. Thank
Speaker 1: you for what you do. Every day. Every farmer in
Speaker 1: this country feeds us and you know, I know we
Speaker 1: go to our grocery store, we just pick out this
Speaker 1: and we pick out that, but a lot of hard
Speaker 1: work goes into that, sir, Thank you for what you do.
Speaker 1: Amazing Wisconsin, Eric Sean Hannity show him. Thanks for taking
Speaker 1: the call. I mean, this increase and it's a joke
Speaker 1: right now. And what I've been trying to understand in
Speaker 1: the past couple of days is what is the Democrats
Speaker 1: endgame here? Because right now they kind of can control
Speaker 1: the process. But mister Stuker, the Democrats want to kick
Speaker 1: this over to the Senate, which they have the votes
Speaker 1: to do. So what's the end game? Because now open
Speaker 1: up Hunter Biden, Joe Biden had him shift to potentially
Speaker 1: have to testify. All right, listen, I love the other
Speaker 1: side of this, just like you know. I mean, we've
Speaker 1: been in a way, we're on defense for these many weeks.
Speaker 1: But the Horowitz thing is going to put us on
Speaker 1: offense number one, and the Senate is not going to
Speaker 1: allow hearsay. And your opinions don't matter. Facts matter, truth matters,
Speaker 1: the rule of law matters, the Sixth Amendment matters. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the circus will end in the Senate. And I just
Speaker 1: hope that in three hundred and forty nine days. And
Speaker 1: you can help me out, Eric, because you're in a
Speaker 1: state that Donald Trump desperately needs to win. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: just I hope in three hundred forty nine days, every
Speaker 1: Green Bay Packers supporters out there supporting the president. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the other thing, too, is is how can
Speaker 1: they risk? So Joe Biden's called the tests, testify, he's
Speaker 1: off the campaign trail. What happens to a Warren? What
Speaker 1: happens to Harris? What happens to you know, every Sanders? Well,
Speaker 1: I can tell you what I think is going on,
Speaker 1: you really want to. I think I think that the
Speaker 1: Obama machine has determined that Joe Biden can't cut it.
Speaker 1: Warren and Sanders aren't going to cut it, and Buddha
Speaker 1: Judge who's in the lead now in Iowa New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: can't cut it. So there now, Axelrod Obama's comments that
Speaker 1: the two extreme this week, it's all planned out. I
Speaker 1: think their plan is to hope and pray that they
Speaker 1: can push the bal Patrick into that position. That's what
Speaker 1: I think is really going on. I'll be in the
Speaker 1: thick of it in Milwaukee for the Circus DNC next year,
Speaker 1: So yes, sir, I'll be there. I'll be there. How's
Speaker 1: Aaron Rodgers doing all right? Yeah? You singing in there?
Speaker 1: Are you an owner of the team like everybody else
Speaker 1: at Wisconsin? No, not me, not one of the thousands. Unfortunately. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you for your call. All the best, sir, Democrats
Speaker 1: get blown up at the hearings. We've got all the
Speaker 1: coverage the mob and the media will never tell you.
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham, Kevin McCarthy, Mike Turner was a rock star,
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows who's been unbelievable, Alan Dershowitz, Match Schlap, Greg Jared,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, and much more. Nine Eastern Hannity, Fox News.
Speaker 1: Hope you'll join us the news, the information, the mob
Speaker 1: and the media will never give you. We'll see you
Speaker 1: tonight at nine. Back here tomorrow,