Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Shawan Hannity Radio show podcast. All right, so I
Speaker 1: have insomnia, but I've never slept better. And what's changed
Speaker 1: just a pillow. It's had such a positive impact on
Speaker 1: my life. And of course I'm talking about my pillow.
Speaker 1: I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer. And now
Speaker 1: you can to just go to my pillow dot com
Speaker 1: or call eight hundred zero nine zero use the promo
Speaker 1: code Hannity, and Mike Lindell, the inventor of My Pillow,
Speaker 1: has the special four pack. Now you get off to
Speaker 1: my Pillow premiums and to go Anywhere pillows. My pillows
Speaker 1: made here in the USA has a sixty day unconditional
Speaker 1: money back guarrantee and a ten you warranty. Go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com right now or call eight zero
Speaker 1: nine zero promo code Hannity to get Mike Lindell's special
Speaker 1: four pack offer. You get to my Pillow Premium pillows
Speaker 1: and to Go Anywhere pillows for forty percent off. And
Speaker 1: that means once those pillows arrive, you start getting the
Speaker 1: kind of peace full and RESTful and comfortable and deep
Speaker 1: peeling and recuperative sleep that you've been evning and you
Speaker 1: certainly deserve. Mike pillow dot Com promo called Hannity you
Speaker 1: will love this Pillow heard in passing with the Russian
Speaker 1: ambassador during that reception. I do not remember it. After
Speaker 1: the speech, I was interviewed by the news media. There
Speaker 1: was an area for that U in a different room,
Speaker 1: and then I left the hotel. But whether I ever
Speaker 1: attended a reception where or where the Russian ambassador was
Speaker 1: also present, is entirely beside the point of this investigation
Speaker 1: into Russian interference in the sixteen campaign. Let me state
Speaker 1: this clearly, colleagues, I have never met with or had
Speaker 1: any conversation with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning
Speaker 1: any type of interference with any campaign or election in
Speaker 1: the United States. Further, I have no knowledge of any
Speaker 1: such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign. I
Speaker 1: was your colleague and this body for twenty years at
Speaker 1: least some of you and I participate. UH And the
Speaker 1: suggestion that I participated in any collusion, that I was
Speaker 1: aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt
Speaker 1: this country, which I have served with honor for thirty
Speaker 1: five years or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process.
Speaker 1: Isn't an appalling and detestable life. Relatedly, there is the
Speaker 1: assertion that I that I did not answer Senator Franklin's
Speaker 1: question honestly at my confirmation hearing colleagues, that is false.
Speaker 1: Senator Sessions just taking to the his testimony before the
Speaker 1: Senate Intelligence Committee a combative and outraged It is an appalling,
Speaker 1: detestable lie. I have served my country for thirty five
Speaker 1: years with honor and distinction, which goes right to the
Speaker 1: heart of the new narrative that doesn't exist, the big lie,
Speaker 1: the black helicopter conspiracy theory, the tinfoil at news media
Speaker 1: destroyed Trump News media conspiracy out there Trump Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: which we learned last Thursday, doesn't exist. And there are
Speaker 1: so many different things. All right, hang on one side,
Speaker 1: what are you telling me, Linda? While are you talking?
Speaker 1: We can continue to carry these I'm aware I got
Speaker 1: a lot to say here. All right, We're gonna get
Speaker 1: to that in a second. You know, he said, these
Speaker 1: false attacks will not intimidate me. Events have only strengthened
Speaker 1: my resolve. I'm I'm literally watching this. Let's let's dip
Speaker 1: in and then we'll get right back to this analysis
Speaker 1: in a second. I will not allow this great department
Speaker 1: to be deterred from its vital mission. Thank you, Mr Chairman,
Speaker 1: ranking Remember Warner. I have a great honor to appear
Speaker 1: before you to day, and I will do my best
Speaker 1: to answer your questions. Thank you for that testimony. I'd
Speaker 1: like to note for members, the chair and the Vice
Speaker 1: chairman will be recognized for ten minutes. Members will be
Speaker 1: recognized for five minutes. Uh. And I'd like to remind
Speaker 1: our members that we are in open session. No references
Speaker 1: to classify it or committee sensitive materials should be used
Speaker 1: relative to your questions. With that, I recognized myself at
Speaker 1: this time for ten minutes. John Sessions, Um, you talked
Speaker 1: about the Mayflower Hotel where the President gave his first
Speaker 1: foreign policy speech, and it's been covered in the press
Speaker 1: that the President was there, You were there, others were there? Uh?
Speaker 1: From your testimony, you said you don't remember whether Ambassador
Speaker 1: kiss Leak was there, the Russian ambassador. Is that correct? Um?
Speaker 1: I did not remember that, UM, but I understand he
Speaker 1: was there. Uh. And UM, so I don't doubt that
Speaker 1: he was. I believe that representations are correct. In fact,
Speaker 1: I recently saw a video of him coming into the room.
Speaker 1: But you never remember having a conversation or meeting with
Speaker 1: the master kiss. I do not, And there was in
Speaker 1: that event. Was there ever a private room setting that
Speaker 1: uh that you were involved in, no other than the
Speaker 1: reception area that was shut off from UH? This really closely.
Speaker 1: I think I can I can help you more if
Speaker 1: I bring you up to speed on everything that's happening here. UM,
Speaker 1: it's always a tough decision to make programming wise, do
Speaker 1: you run with the tape? Do you run with the testimony?
Speaker 1: It's very slow moving. A lot of you don't have
Speaker 1: the background. Let me give you some background that I
Speaker 1: think will will help context and texture to all of
Speaker 1: this and enhance your understanding of what is actually going
Speaker 1: on today. So the Attorney General did this voluntarily. He
Speaker 1: agreed to meet with the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is
Speaker 1: an open setting, and I think there's a certain sign
Speaker 1: here on their part. Yeah, we're willing to investigate. You
Speaker 1: just heard his opening statement, thirty five year public servant.
Speaker 1: I find it appalling and detestable the lie of that
Speaker 1: I would ever collude or somehow working in conjunction with
Speaker 1: a foreign entity to influence the election process in this country.
Speaker 1: And he was pissed. And I've known him for many years.
Speaker 1: That is not his usual demeanor. That is somebody that
Speaker 1: has really ticked off. And also he asked that the
Speaker 1: hearing be open. He asked for that in full public view.
Speaker 1: What you're now listening to, what we're dipping in and
Speaker 1: out of here. And if you look at his life
Speaker 1: and his background, he has been you know, all the
Speaker 1: things that are being alleged here. When he was the U. S. Senator.
Speaker 1: It is his job to meet with ambassadors and foreign
Speaker 1: leaders and foreign dignitaries. That's what all members of Congress do.
Speaker 1: In the case of this ambassador from Russia that they're
Speaker 1: talking about, oh, let's see Pelosi and Schumer and and uh,
Speaker 1: you know Jack Read and Cantwell and my Casque, all
Speaker 1: of them met with this particular guy. So it would
Speaker 1: make it if that scandalous. So are the efforts of
Speaker 1: these other senators who were also doing their job. And
Speaker 1: you know, one of the meetings was quote international outreach
Speaker 1: at the Obama State Department. Eight diplomats during the Republican
Speaker 1: National Convention. They organized it, and they're making something into
Speaker 1: this that it's never been. As we learned last week,
Speaker 1: no collusion, none whatsoever as it relates to Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and the Trump campaign. Nothing, zero, zip, not. And the
Speaker 1: lie continues. It just goes on and on. And that's
Speaker 1: what's so outrageous about this. Now, if you look at
Speaker 1: everything that we have learned from James Comey, you know,
Speaker 1: confirmed multiple times that not only did the Trump White House,
Speaker 1: the President himself, his staff, all of them did not
Speaker 1: ask to stop the Russian investigation. The President encouraged it.
Speaker 1: He wanted it to continue. He said, if there's any
Speaker 1: satellites around me, I'd like to know. I think it's
Speaker 1: important for people to know. And he's done nothing wrong,
Speaker 1: no evidence of collusion. But yet this narrative continues this,
Speaker 1: you know, and it gets worse because you got this investigation,
Speaker 1: You got that investigation. When do you hear the information
Speaker 1: I've got on Robert Mueller today? Who should recuse himself?
Speaker 1: You know? Is that Director Comey in all of this testimony,
Speaker 1: you know, all of this talk was never even investigating
Speaker 1: the president, and Director Comy he admitted, well, what he's
Speaker 1: a leaker. He went out there because he wanted a
Speaker 1: special counsel, ends up being one of his best friends,
Speaker 1: one of his mentors. And why do you see the
Speaker 1: people that that Mueller of Mueller is surrounding himself with
Speaker 1: and have come me so concerned about conversations of President Trump,
Speaker 1: And he's shocked and and maybe if I was a
Speaker 1: little stronger and I was nauseous and everything, and I
Speaker 1: didn't know what to do, and well, he had an
Speaker 1: obligation and duty to stand up, walk out and report
Speaker 1: it as a matter of law eighteen US Code. For now,
Speaker 1: I'm going to tell you something here. You know, we've
Speaker 1: seen this side show before, and that is I I
Speaker 1: was retweeting Alan Dershowitz today. Is there any any liberal
Speaker 1: that is willing to put aside their obsessive, compulsive hatred
Speaker 1: of the president and objectively discerned civil liberties, the rule
Speaker 1: of law, the constitution of the United States, Because, as
Speaker 1: Dirt dirsh Wits have been saying and a few others,
Speaker 1: there's no possibility of obstruction of justice here, zero evidence
Speaker 1: of collusion. Show it to me. I'll look at it
Speaker 1: as I've been saying now for a long long time.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the big stories that we were
Speaker 1: breaking later in the programming. By the way, assessings did
Speaker 1: say that he did not meet with the Ushan ambassador
Speaker 1: at the Mayflower Hotel, you know, but they cannot from
Speaker 1: there vantage points stop this obsession. And now you've got
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller involved in this because why because James Comey
Speaker 1: wanted it. James Comey, a disgruntled fired x FBI director
Speaker 1: who clearly had an agenda. When I tell you what
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter broke today, it will blow your mind. And
Speaker 1: nobody else seems to be willing to report what is
Speaker 1: real obstruction of justice that she and John Solomon have discovered.
Speaker 1: But you got now, oh what did we discover? Was
Speaker 1: on Breitbart earlier today. You know that in fact, Robert Mueller,
Speaker 1: who's you know, was appointed by the deputy Attorney General,
Speaker 1: Robert Rosenstein, who took independent control after the recusal of
Speaker 1: of the Attorney general in this particular case Sessions anyway,
Speaker 1: that you know, and Sessions leaking the document anyway. So
Speaker 1: now we've got a more controversial pick of Mueller's working
Speaker 1: the team a former prosecutor at Wilmer Hale, a partner,
Speaker 1: Jennie Ray, and in according to Politico, she performed work
Speaker 1: for the Clinton Foundation defending it from Freedom of Information
Speaker 1: Act requests related to Hillary Clinton's private email server. How
Speaker 1: in in how did this possibly happen? You want a fair,
Speaker 1: balanced objective, you know, investigation, and you hire a Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation lawyer for the Russia probe and that's tolerable to people.
Speaker 1: That is insane in terms of a conflict of interest,
Speaker 1: and former Speaker of the House, this is now a
Speaker 1: witch hunt. Officially, it is a witch hunt. Now there's work.
Speaker 1: It gets worse than that. Now we find Life that
Speaker 1: had this today a great piece, you know, talking about
Speaker 1: Speaker ging Rich's comment and a tweet challenging the fairness
Speaker 1: of this investigation, and you know, pointing out and he'll
Speaker 1: join us later in the program, the early hires of
Speaker 1: of Robert Mueller. You know, Republicans quote he said, are
Speaker 1: delusional if they think the Special Council is going to
Speaker 1: be fair. He's right. You think back to Patrick Fitzgerald,
Speaker 1: when Patrick Fitzgerald started his job. Valerie Plaine leak. Valerie Plaine. Okay,
Speaker 1: he knew on day one who the leaker was. We
Speaker 1: didn't find out till later. The investigation should have been
Speaker 1: shut down then and there goes on what two three years,
Speaker 1: and at the end of the day, they go so
Speaker 1: far outside the realm of what it is that they
Speaker 1: were originally supposed to be investigating. Because he knew the answer,
Speaker 1: So he has to justify these existence and the existence
Speaker 1: of all the office people that they put in place.
Speaker 1: And he's a guide by reputation that doesn't sleep in
Speaker 1: the middle of a case. So he'd be damned if
Speaker 1: he doesn't get something at the end of the day.
Speaker 1: So we call it investigation creep, where you start at
Speaker 1: one place and you go a hundred of different directions
Speaker 1: in the other, in the other way, and what did
Speaker 1: he get? A perjury trapped for Scooter Libby. It's ridiculous
Speaker 1: at this point, it's the same thing. We already know
Speaker 1: no obstruction of justice, we know no collusion. And then
Speaker 1: the question is why are we still doing all of this?
Speaker 1: And why is he hiring not only a Clinton Foundation
Speaker 1: lawyer for the Russia probe, now he's stocking his staff
Speaker 1: with Democratic donors to Hillary and Obama. You've got four
Speaker 1: lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: dollars over the years to the Democratic Party. Democratic candidates,
Speaker 1: including Obama, including Clinton. It's it takes my breath away.
Speaker 1: Why would why would you put partisans on all of this?
Speaker 1: This is beyond disturbing. This is now. I've talked about
Speaker 1: five enemies. The president has, the deep state, the Democrats
Speaker 1: they wanted to impeach him from day one, that can't
Speaker 1: take the election loss. Then you got the destroy Trump media.
Speaker 1: Then you've got weak Republicans that won't ever stand up
Speaker 1: for anything. And then you've got the never trumpers that
Speaker 1: that want to desperately have their images your abilitated and
Speaker 1: and become relevant again. Wait till I explain what the
Speaker 1: the interaction between Loretta Lynch and James Comey that was
Speaker 1: discussed in close session last week as broken by John
Speaker 1: Solomon and Sarah Carter. That's coming up next, and we'll
Speaker 1: be following the Attorney General's testimony. Hey, with optimism once
Speaker 1: again on the rise in America. The working people of
Speaker 1: this country are more important than ever. Well, now they
Speaker 1: have a podcast that celebrates them and tells their stories
Speaker 1: on the job from Hired to Retired. Also new podcasts
Speaker 1: from our friends that express employment professionals that digs into
Speaker 1: the lives of men and women at work and explores
Speaker 1: their journeys as they fight to make the American dream
Speaker 1: of reality. On the Job takes the listener through the
Speaker 1: ups and downs of making a living in America. Now
Speaker 1: check out the new podcast On the Job from Hired
Speaker 1: to Retired on I Heart Radio, iTunes, or wherever you
Speaker 1: download your favorite podcasts, or just go to Express pros
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast for more information. All right, let's
Speaker 1: tip in Attorney General Sessions now before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: Let's step in with Democrat Mark Warner before I was
Speaker 1: confirmed and before he was confirmed. It's something that we
Speaker 1: both agreed to that a fresh start at the FBI
Speaker 1: was probably the best thing. Just again, seems a little
Speaker 1: I could understand that if you talked about that before
Speaker 1: you came on, you had a chance for fresh start.
Speaker 1: There was no fresh start. Suddenly we're in the midst
Speaker 1: of the investigation, and with timing that seems a little
Speaker 1: peculiar that what kind of, at least to me, was
Speaker 1: out of the blue. The President fires the FBI director,
Speaker 1: and if there are all these problems of disarray and
Speaker 1: a lack of of sweet chord at the FBI, all
Speaker 1: things that the acting director of the FBI denied is
Speaker 1: the case. I would have thought that somebody would have
Speaker 1: had that kind of conversation with Director Tommy was at
Speaker 1: leastman O that let's go to the may or. The
Speaker 1: April meeting has been brought up. I think the chairman
Speaker 1: brought it up. By the time April came around, you'd
Speaker 1: already been named as the chair of of then candidate
Speaker 1: Trump's National Security Advisory so showing up that meeting would
Speaker 1: be appropriate not only Hotel. Yes, yes, sir, And you
Speaker 1: know I'm understanding was that the President son A. Law
Speaker 1: Gerald and Jared Kushner was at that was at that
Speaker 1: meeting as well. I believe he was. Yes, you don't
Speaker 1: recollect whether m. Kushner had any conversations with ambassad kiss
Speaker 1: Leak at that session. I do not, And to the
Speaker 1: best of your memory, you had no conversation with the
Speaker 1: ambassad kiss Leak at that meeting. I don't recall it.
Speaker 1: Senator maura Um, it would have been certainly, I can
Speaker 1: assure you nothing improperly if I'd had a conversation with him,
Speaker 1: and it's conceivable at that occurred. I just don't remember it.
Speaker 1: But there was nothing in your notes or memories so
Speaker 1: that when you had a chance, and you did, and
Speaker 1: I appreciate correct the record about the other two sessions.
Speaker 1: In response to Senator Frank and Santar Lady, this one
Speaker 1: didn't pop into your memory that maybe in the over
Speaker 1: abundance account of caution that you have to report that
Speaker 1: this session as well. Well, I guess I could say
Speaker 1: that I possibly had a meeting, but I still do
Speaker 1: not recall it. And uh, let me let me these
Speaker 1: hearings get so monotonous. When we come back, we'll give
Speaker 1: you some of the big highlights that have so far happened,
Speaker 1: will update you. We've got a lot coming up today.
Speaker 1: Former Speaker of the House, New Gingrich, we have the
Speaker 1: biggest blockbuster story about well, an incident between Loretta Lynch
Speaker 1: and the FBI Director Comy that raises tremendous questions about
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, legality, and collusion. Straight ahead, all right,
Speaker 1: this is Senator Rish now with Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General.
Speaker 1: Le'll just dip in a little more. Although it's fairly monotonous,
Speaker 1: to be honest, conversations with the UH officers of other
Speaker 1: governments or ambassadors or what have you are everyday occurrences here,
Speaker 1: multiple time occurrences for most of us. Is that a
Speaker 1: fair statement? I think it is, yes. And indeed, if
Speaker 1: you run into one in a grocery store, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have a conversation with them. Is that fair? Could very
Speaker 1: well happen and nothing improper. On the other hand, Uh,
Speaker 1: collusion of collusion with the Russians or any other government
Speaker 1: for that matter, when it comes to our elections certainly
Speaker 1: would be improper and illegal. Would that be a fair statement? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: All right? Are you willing to sit here and tell
Speaker 1: the American people, unfiltered by what the media is going
Speaker 1: to put out, that you participated in no conversations of
Speaker 1: any kind where there was collusion between the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: and any other foreign I can say that absolutely, and Uh,
Speaker 1: I have no hesitation to do so. Mr Sessions, your
Speaker 1: former U S Attorney for me, the United States senator,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General the United States. You participated, as you've described,
Speaker 1: in the Trump campaign, and UH ask such a you
Speaker 1: traveled with the campaign? I g I did you spoke
Speaker 1: for the campaign at the one or a number of occasions?
Speaker 1: I was not continually? Uh? And on the based upon
Speaker 1: upon your experience and based upon your participation in campaign.
Speaker 1: Did you hear even a whisper or a suggestion or
Speaker 1: anyone making reference within that campaign that somehow the Russians
Speaker 1: were involved in that. I did not. Would you have
Speaker 1: done if you'd have heard that, well, I would have
Speaker 1: been shocked and I would have known it was improper
Speaker 1: and headed for the exit. I suppose maybe. Uh so
Speaker 1: this was, uh, you know serious. This is a serious matter,
Speaker 1: because what you're talking about it hacking into a private
Speaker 1: person or d n C computer and obtaining information and
Speaker 1: spreading that out. That's just not what's amazing about all
Speaker 1: this because he's saying it, by the way, Linda, the
Speaker 1: same person as your answer. Uh, what's so amazing about
Speaker 1: this is he answers the question and then come back
Speaker 1: and ask it fifty different ways. And it's an easy
Speaker 1: question to answer because they don't have much to go
Speaker 1: on here, and even even the president, as we learned
Speaker 1: from COMA, was never under investigation. There's no evidence of collusion.
Speaker 1: I don't even have time today to play the longer
Speaker 1: and longer and longer montage of everybody Democrats included all
Speaker 1: saying no evidence of collusion, and we had evidence. I
Speaker 1: talk about it but it doesn't exist, and it just
Speaker 1: goes on and on, this monotonous dog and pony show
Speaker 1: that is, you know out there. Let's let's dip into
Speaker 1: I Am Fine style a little. Essentially told them that
Speaker 1: he learned on May eighth that President Trump intended to
Speaker 1: remove Director Comy. When you wrote your letter on May nine,
Speaker 1: did you know that the President had already decided to
Speaker 1: fire Director Comy, uh, Senator Einstein. I would say that,
Speaker 1: I believe it's been made public that on the President
Speaker 1: asked us our opinion, it was given, and he asked
Speaker 1: us to put that in writing. Uh and Uh. I
Speaker 1: don't know how much more he said about it than that,
Speaker 1: but I believe he has talked about it, and I
Speaker 1: would let his words speak for themselves. Well. On May eleven,
Speaker 1: on NBC Nightly News. Two days later, the President stated
Speaker 1: he was going to fire call me regardless of the recommendation.
Speaker 1: So I'm puzzled about the recommendation because, um, the decision
Speaker 1: had been made. So what was the need for you
Speaker 1: to write a recommendation. Well, we were asked our opinion, uh,
Speaker 1: and when we expressed it, which was consistent with the
Speaker 1: memorandum and the latter we wrote after comfortable, and and
Speaker 1: I guess the Deputy Attorney General did too, and in
Speaker 1: providing that information in writing. So the President asked me,
Speaker 1: all right, with this schets monotonous. So the President asked
Speaker 1: me to do something and to give a recommendation and
Speaker 1: tell me what the recommendation should be. But I gave
Speaker 1: him a recommendation as he asked. Was getting really asked?
Speaker 1: And all right, Just to sum up what's happened so far,
Speaker 1: it's pretty obviously. Look the the any suggestion he says
Speaker 1: that I was aware of collusion against the United States,
Speaker 1: I find appalling and I find the testable. He recused
Speaker 1: himself from the Russian probe over d o J stipulation
Speaker 1: on campaign involvement. He never intended to not disclose meetings
Speaker 1: with the Russian ambassador. And as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: he said he was not silence silent when Comey expressed concern,
Speaker 1: contradicting the former FBI Drove director in other words, um,
Speaker 1: he went on to say, and in great detail, excuse me,
Speaker 1: I was in the room, and I gave a long answer. When,
Speaker 1: of course we're going to do everything properly, he said,
Speaker 1: of course we will, he said, he did not have
Speaker 1: interactions with Mullerson's his appointment. Oh, I guess he didn't.
Speaker 1: I guess he didn't collude the way Comey did before
Speaker 1: his testimony. Or let's just say, maybe collusions are wrong word.
Speaker 1: Maybe we're using that word a little too much in
Speaker 1: the American vernacular at this time. It's it's an overused word.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll say advice from the special counsel. He said
Speaker 1: he hadn't had any interactions with him were accusal was
Speaker 1: due to d o J rules, not because of wrongdoing.
Speaker 1: So he's trying to be as ethnically sound as he can.
Speaker 1: He said, there's nothing wrong with the president talking to
Speaker 1: an FBI director. He said there's a longstanding d o
Speaker 1: J policy to not disclose conversations as Attorney General that
Speaker 1: he has at the White House. He said, I'm not
Speaker 1: claiming executive privilege. That is the president's power. He said,
Speaker 1: I did not have conversations with Comey about the FBI
Speaker 1: leadership performance. He says he couldn't recall any conversations that
Speaker 1: he or Jared Kushner had with the Russian ambassador in April,
Speaker 1: of which is the one I told you about earlier.
Speaker 1: FBI by the way we've learned, is now in possession
Speaker 1: of the the Comy memos, which were always government property,
Speaker 1: that ended up being leaked two The New York Times
Speaker 1: by his friend. You see what's going on here? Do
Speaker 1: you understand what this is about? Now? We've got Robert Mueller,
Speaker 1: the Special Council is out there, and one of the
Speaker 1: attorneys he's hires is a Clinton Foundation lawyer. Do you
Speaker 1: know how breathtaking that is? Why would you not see
Speaker 1: an obvious conflict of interest here? You know, William Hale
Speaker 1: partner Genie ray or Red, according to Politico, performed work
Speaker 1: for the Clinton Foundation defending it from Freedom of Information
Speaker 1: Act request related to Hillary's private email server. Is that
Speaker 1: not a red flag to anybody? Is that not evidence
Speaker 1: of a witch hunt that is emerging here? Is this not?
Speaker 1: Patrick Fitzgerald mission, creep, investigative, creep reducs Alan Dershowitz. This
Speaker 1: is dangerous to civil liberty. Show me the man and
Speaker 1: I'll find you the crime. Said, some Democrats are out
Speaker 1: doing each other searching for criminal statutes that can be
Speaker 1: stretched to fit what they would like to see as
Speaker 1: crimes by President Trump. That is exactly what we're living
Speaker 1: in here. It is the five enemies that I have
Speaker 1: talked about. It is the deep state, It is the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party that never got over Trump's win. It is
Speaker 1: the destroy Trump media. It is weak, spineless Republicans that
Speaker 1: can't even stand up to what is a witch hunt here.
Speaker 1: And then of course the never Trumpers. They just want
Speaker 1: relevancy and they want to say, see, we were right,
Speaker 1: that's where we are. And meanwhile, Americans still exist in poverty,
Speaker 1: Americans are still suffering. Americans you know, are on food stamps,
Speaker 1: Americans you know, are out of the labor force. It's unbelievable, unbelievable.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm gonna tell you something. Somebody's lying here.
Speaker 1: And my viewing of this is it seems to be
Speaker 1: comey and the angry, disgruntled employee was comey. Now here's
Speaker 1: where I know. And this is what we're gonna get
Speaker 1: into in our final hour of the program. You don't
Speaker 1: want to miss Sarah Carter today. So, Sarah Carter, John Solomon,
Speaker 1: I think have the biggest blockbuster story that you're not
Speaker 1: gonna hear about from the mainstream media because they're so
Speaker 1: corrupt and and this is important. In his testimony, Colly
Speaker 1: said Uh, well, you know nothing. You know, Sessions, you
Speaker 1: know he never said to not leave the room and
Speaker 1: leave him alone with the president. And he told the committee,
Speaker 1: the Senate Intel Committee, that you know, he didn't say
Speaker 1: a word back. Session just testified two seconds ago that
Speaker 1: he answered come with a long answer, agreeing that everything
Speaker 1: should always be done properly. So Comey's lying or Sessions
Speaker 1: is lying, and I'm betting it's Comey. Look at this
Speaker 1: whole thing now where he wanted a special counsel and
Speaker 1: he got it and it turns out to be his
Speaker 1: best friend. All right, Now, let's take another look at comy.
Speaker 1: We know Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies. You know, the
Speaker 1: legal standard is is very clear gross negligence. He used
Speaker 1: the words extreme carelessness. There's no difference mom and pop
Speaker 1: shop bathroom. You know, an email server, top secret classified
Speaker 1: Special Access program information on it. That is the mismanager.
Speaker 1: That is gross negligence of intelligence. That is a felony
Speaker 1: destroying top secret classified special Access program information. These are
Speaker 1: felonies committed by Hillary Clinton. Now we already know about
Speaker 1: the inappropriate contact as it relates to Bill Clinton and
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch. Now listen to this. Now, the FBI director
Speaker 1: or x fired, disgruntled, angry j Edgar Comy privately told
Speaker 1: members of Congress that he had a frosty exchange with
Speaker 1: Obama's Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year when he confronted
Speaker 1: her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Now,
Speaker 1: pay attention, Larette. What he was told is Laretta Lynch
Speaker 1: put the kobosh on any indictment for Hillary Clinton. So
Speaker 1: pay attention. This is important. And during his testimony last
Speaker 1: Thursday before the Senate Intel Committee, Comey alludes to the
Speaker 1: exchange between him and Lynch after publicly discussing an encounter
Speaker 1: with Lynch where she ordered him to refer to the
Speaker 1: criminal probe of Clinton and the handling of classified emails
Speaker 1: is well, don't say it's an investigation, just call it
Speaker 1: a matter, which was right along the talking points of
Speaker 1: the Clinton campaign, and even suggested it smacked a political
Speaker 1: spin rather than the professional way that law enforcement officers talk. Now,
Speaker 1: if he's so concerned about obstruction, pay close attention here.
Speaker 1: That concerned me, Comey said, because that language tracked the
Speaker 1: way the campaign was talking about the FBI's work. And
Speaker 1: that's concerning. Well, it's more than concerning Mr Comey, And
Speaker 1: then Comey said the conversation occurred well before the email
Speaker 1: probe was shut down and shortly before both Comey and
Speaker 1: Lynch were expected to testify and congress about and possibly
Speaker 1: feel questions about the candidates email they she wanted him
Speaker 1: on the same page before that testimony, he said her
Speaker 1: request gave him a queasy feeling. Now Democratic Senator Feinstein said,
Speaker 1: I would have a queasy feeling too, though, to be
Speaker 1: candid with you, you know, I think we need to
Speaker 1: know more and that's the only way to know about
Speaker 1: this is to have the Judiciary Committee take a look.
Speaker 1: God bless fine Stone. She's saying, really that sounds like
Speaker 1: obstruction without her saying it. And a multiple private conversations
Speaker 1: and private sessions over the last few months, Comey has
Speaker 1: told lawmakers about a second later confrontation with Attorney General
Speaker 1: Lynch shortly before the email probe was shut down by him,
Speaker 1: and he told lawmakers and closed door sessions that he
Speaker 1: raised his concern and by the way this happened in
Speaker 1: the close session last week, I'm told that he raised
Speaker 1: concerns with the Attorney General that she had created a
Speaker 1: conflict of interest by meeting Bill Clinton on an airport
Speaker 1: tarmac while investigating wrongdoing of his wife. And let's get this.
Speaker 1: During the conversation, call Me tells lawmakers he can front
Speaker 1: and Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a
Speaker 1: communication between two political figures that suggested, get this, Lynch
Speaker 1: had agreed to put the kabash on any prosecution of Clinton. That,
Speaker 1: ladies and gentlemen, is called a smoking gun. That is
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. And by the way, we're not even
Speaker 1: talking about the Russian connection with uranium one that she
Speaker 1: signed off on having money funneled back millions to the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation, Comey said. The Attorney General looked at the
Speaker 1: document again, communication between two political figures suggesting Lynch stuff
Speaker 1: that we have this in the bag. This is what
Speaker 1: it said, that Lynch had already said she put the
Speaker 1: kabash on any prosecution. The fix was in no wonder
Speaker 1: she wasn't indicted, and then called me said. The Attorney
Speaker 1: General looked at the document, looked up with a quote
Speaker 1: steely silence that lasted quote for some time, and then
Speaker 1: asked him do you have any other business with her?
Speaker 1: If not, he should leave her office. Comy then took
Speaker 1: the interaction and the fact that is astruction. She needs
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted as well as Hillary Clinton. They're doing
Speaker 1: all the wrong investigations here, they're interviewing all the wrong people,
Speaker 1: and they've got this ask backwards the whole thing. If
Speaker 1: you care about truth, justice, the constitution, equal application of
Speaker 1: the law between the Clintons and then the rest of America,
Speaker 1: this is a this is a disgrace. What's gone on
Speaker 1: here a national disgrace. Al Right, top story today when
Speaker 1: we got two of them. We've got, of course, the
Speaker 1: Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his testimony that's going ongoing now.
Speaker 1: We're dipping in and out at the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: And our other top story is, oh my goodness, it
Speaker 1: looks like Attorney General Lynch under Obama, Apparently James Comey
Speaker 1: confronted her with a piece of evidence, a communication between
Speaker 1: political figures that suggested Lynch had put the cabosh on
Speaker 1: any indictment or prosecution of Hillary Clinton. Sarah Carter, who
Speaker 1: broke that story, will join us. New king Ridge will
Speaker 1: join us next. We'll get his take on all that's happening.
Speaker 1: We'll also get your calls in here, and we'll be
Speaker 1: dipping in and out of this this hearing throughout the day.
Speaker 1: Quick break right back will continue. I recuse myself from
Speaker 1: any investigation into the campaign for president, but I did
Speaker 1: not recuse myself from defending my honor against schirless and
Speaker 1: false allegations at all times throughout the course of the campaign,
Speaker 1: the confirmation process, and since becoming Attorney General, I have
Speaker 1: dedicated myself to the highest standards. Question is Mr Comey
Speaker 1: said that there were matters with respect to the recusal
Speaker 1: that were problematic and he couldn't talk about them. What
Speaker 1: are they that? Why don't you tell me they are none?
Speaker 1: Senator Widen, There are none. I can tell you that
Speaker 1: for absolute certainty, we can you tell. This is a
Speaker 1: sacred innuendow being leaked out there about me, and I
Speaker 1: don't appreciate it. Wow, that was the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions,
Speaker 1: fiery before the Senate Intelligence Committee. And what is really
Speaker 1: backfiring on the Democrats and they just keep going back
Speaker 1: to the same questions again and again and again and again.
Speaker 1: Um joining us now former Speaker of the House, he's
Speaker 1: got a brand new book out today. And by the way,
Speaker 1: understanding Trump, he is going to be in Ridgewood, New
Speaker 1: Jersey tonight at seven pm. And Mr Speaker, we also
Speaker 1: look forward to having you on TV, which is always
Speaker 1: fun to have a rare and studio appearance. And uh,
Speaker 1: congratulations on the book. And we'll get to that in
Speaker 1: a second. But Ridgewood, New Jersey, of book ends, which
Speaker 1: is a great place to have a book signing. Um,
Speaker 1: you said, you know, can you think of one thing
Speaker 1: Trump can do worse than you know, the whole issue
Speaker 1: that this is a witch hunt with Robert Mieller. No, Look,
Speaker 1: I think it's amazing. And by the way, I thought
Speaker 1: that Jeff Sessions was just magnificent, and the way he
Speaker 1: stood up pointed out both the difference between recusal over
Speaker 1: a specific issue and failure to run the FBI, which
Speaker 1: was his duty, pointed out that his personal integrity was
Speaker 1: being impugned. And I thought it was a tremendously compelling
Speaker 1: opening statement by the Attorney General. I was very very
Speaker 1: proud of him, very compelling. But also his answer that
Speaker 1: we just played a Ron Wyden was particularly amazing too.
Speaker 1: And it's like, you know, this is now character assassination.
Speaker 1: You know, the whole thing here seems to hinge on
Speaker 1: a very basic fundamental question that we now had answered
Speaker 1: last week. We know the president wasn't being investigated. We
Speaker 1: know that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: and Russia. And I can play all the Democrats saying
Speaker 1: with no evidence of collusion, which I've done many many times,
Speaker 1: and then you know, one has to ask itself why
Speaker 1: are we having the investigation at this point because we
Speaker 1: already know the answer. According to James Comey, Well, the
Speaker 1: whole thing is astonishing. You know, it hit me because
Speaker 1: I've been digging deeply into uh Comey's background and in
Speaker 1: our experience of Comy in the past, and then how
Speaker 1: he um manipulated the entire system to get Mueller to
Speaker 1: be the UH Special Council, and then Mueller hairing four
Speaker 1: Democratic lawyers, one of whom had worked for the Clinton Foundation,
Speaker 1: one of whom had a track record of concealing evidence
Speaker 1: from the defense UH in a way that it is illegal. UM.
Speaker 1: And it hit me as I dug into all this
Speaker 1: stuff that the real Remember this is coming in a
Speaker 1: period where Kathy Griffin is holding up UH an image
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump's head bleeding. UH. It's coming at a
Speaker 1: time when a New York public theater is showing the
Speaker 1: assassination of the prey. By the way. We we found out,
Speaker 1: by the way, just a little while ago that this
Speaker 1: assassination theater group did in fact collect millions of dollars
Speaker 1: in taxpayer grants after days of reports claiming taxpayer dollars
Speaker 1: weren't used to fund Shakespeare in the Park, which you know,
Speaker 1: the depiction of President Trump as as Julius Caesar suffering
Speaker 1: a bloody assassination. Well, and my point is you have
Speaker 1: to see everything that's going on in the context. I
Speaker 1: was reminded of Arthur Miller's extraordinary play The Crucible about
Speaker 1: the Salem Witchcraft trial. Because what you've got now on
Speaker 1: the left is the equivalent of the Salem Witchcraft Trial.
Speaker 1: These people know that Trump and and that the Attorney
Speaker 1: General and that others are guilty. They don't know what
Speaker 1: they're guilty of. But it's literally the same kind of
Speaker 1: psychological emotion that Miller portrayed so vividly in his play
Speaker 1: about the witchcraft trials in Salem back in the seventeen century.
Speaker 1: And so you get this this wave of weird stuff. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and it doesn't matter what you say. I mean,
Speaker 1: for example, Uh, the solid evidence that the Russian ambassador
Speaker 1: visited the White House twenty two times. Well, he's the
Speaker 1: Russian ambassador, He's supposed to go visit the White House.
Speaker 1: But whether or not in a large group meeting, the
Speaker 1: Russian ambassador in passing actually saw Sessions. And then it's
Speaker 1: the Remember this whole report by Comy, and I think
Speaker 1: Comey is a maliciously destructive person. This the whole way
Speaker 1: Comey framed it was based on what apparently is an
Speaker 1: intercept of the Russian ambassador sending a message back to
Speaker 1: Moscow exaggerating his ability to have a conversation with Sessions.
Speaker 1: There are everybody who was at the reception, who has
Speaker 1: who has showed up he said no, this is simply
Speaker 1: totally untrue. And you get this again and again and
Speaker 1: every time one of them gets knocked down. There to
Speaker 1: news stories. And I'll be fascinating to see what comes
Speaker 1: out of today, because I think Jeff Sessions is a
Speaker 1: very smart and very very honorable person is going to
Speaker 1: do more than enough to handle his former colleagues. And
Speaker 1: at that point the Left is gonna have to find
Speaker 1: a whole new excuse for the hysteria that they're in
Speaker 1: the middle of You've raised a couple of points. One
Speaker 1: is that Robert Mueller is stocked his staff with Democratic donors.
Speaker 1: And I think even more breathtaking than this is that
Speaker 1: Mueller hired the Clinton foundation lawyer for this particular Russian probe. Now,
Speaker 1: this particular woman was somebody that her name is Genie Ray,
Speaker 1: and according to Politico, she performed work for the Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation defending it from Freedom of Information Act requests related
Speaker 1: to hill HER's private email server. Now, if that, if
Speaker 1: that's not a conflict of interest, I I don't know
Speaker 1: what is. I really don't look. I mean, I said
Speaker 1: today on one of the shows as we were launching,
Speaker 1: I mean, there is no other show by my show. Well,
Speaker 1: when you're a struggling author, do the best you can
Speaker 1: to get off the ground. You gotta go where you
Speaker 1: can do. You know, by the way, the book is phenomenal.
Speaker 1: If you can stay longer, by the way, tell me again,
Speaker 1: I'm happy to because I'm thrilled by understanding Trump. But
Speaker 1: I said to I said to one of the audiences
Speaker 1: one of the earlier days. You know, if if if
Speaker 1: MOA wants to prove that we should genuinely respect his neutrality,
Speaker 1: what if he established a rule he has to hire
Speaker 1: one pro Trump lawyer for every pro Clinton lawyer. I
Speaker 1: can't believe that nobody besides me seems to have picked
Speaker 1: up on this. You know, you know Sarah Carter from
Speaker 1: circanoose Sarah Carter. This is probably the most unbelievable story
Speaker 1: describes the situation of a confrontation beyond Bill Clinton on
Speaker 1: the tarmac with with Loretta Lynch. Apparently that the FBI
Speaker 1: director call me, got information from two politicos that actually
Speaker 1: suggested that Loretta Lynch had already put the kabash on
Speaker 1: any possibility of any Clinton indictment, that she was in
Speaker 1: the tank for Hillary. He confronts her, She says nothing,
Speaker 1: but looks at him with steely silence. According to the
Speaker 1: testimony that apparently took place in closed session, and is
Speaker 1: that not obstruction of justice? Does that not warrant an
Speaker 1: investigation in of it of itself? Well, by the way,
Speaker 1: to her credit, Senator Feinstein, the senior Democrat and the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, has said publicly that she believes clearly that
Speaker 1: Attorney General Lynch has to be investigated and that this
Speaker 1: whole thing really is so bad that she wants to
Speaker 1: see something done to dig much deeper. I think it's
Speaker 1: a commentary on the Republicans just not being adequately aggressive
Speaker 1: and thinking in terms of of having energy and following
Speaker 1: up that nobody on the Republican side has said. You know,
Speaker 1: Senator Feinstein is exactly right, and we should do on
Speaker 1: a bipartisan basis. What Senator Feinstein has recommended. I mean
Speaker 1: is this can't be that hard to do that. It
Speaker 1: really shouldn't be that hard to do that. You know,
Speaker 1: I've got to you suggested Congress put an then to
Speaker 1: all of this. I think that the president has five
Speaker 1: enemies now that he's dealing with it, all want his destruction.
Speaker 1: Number One, the deep state, as his attorney said, the
Speaker 1: the selective leaking on this president of of top secret
Speaker 1: intelligence information is unprecedented. Number Two Democrats, as you point out,
Speaker 1: wake up every day they kill still can't believe they
Speaker 1: lost the election, and they wake up with the thought,
Speaker 1: how do we destroy the president? Number Three a deeply
Speaker 1: lying in corrupt news media that not only colluded with
Speaker 1: Hillary in the campaign, they've been out to destroy him
Speaker 1: from day one. Then you've got weak Republicans who won't
Speaker 1: take your suggestion and fight back because Frankly, this whole
Speaker 1: Special Council needs to be shut down now. And then
Speaker 1: you've got the never Trump for people, the five groups,
Speaker 1: and they want relevance and they want to be able
Speaker 1: to say to the world, see told you so. I
Speaker 1: don't know at this point in time, where are his allies. Well,
Speaker 1: I've I've been recently ever since that we aren't speaking.
Speaker 1: I played last week about this whole the sickness of
Speaker 1: Comey and Mueller in this whole thing. I've gotten a
Speaker 1: surprising number of Republican Congress when the Senators contacting me
Speaker 1: and asking me to get more involved in talking about
Speaker 1: what we should do to get back on offense. And
Speaker 1: I think that there's a lot bigger hunger for having
Speaker 1: a positive approach that reaches beyond the current cycle than
Speaker 1: than people might have thought. I think I think we
Speaker 1: may be surprised to find out how many people are
Speaker 1: eager to have a chance to get involved and to
Speaker 1: do something positive. Yeah. Well, listen, I'll tell you the
Speaker 1: people that have been most defensive of the president, that
Speaker 1: see this the way we see it, the Freedom Caucus
Speaker 1: members and none of the very people that it wasn't
Speaker 1: Paul Ryan that got the healthcare bill passed in the House.
Speaker 1: It was the Freedom Caucus. And I think it's beyond frustrating,
Speaker 1: Mr Speaker that we, you know, we find ourselves in
Speaker 1: a position where we now have a special counsel that
Speaker 1: got appointed because you had a selective leak by an
Speaker 1: FBI director in and of itself, maybe a felony committed
Speaker 1: by him. He might have violated the Records Act. He
Speaker 1: might have also violated a teen US Code four in
Speaker 1: terms of you know, he had a legal obligation if
Speaker 1: he thought somebody was trying to obstruct justice and he
Speaker 1: stood there shocked, and perhaps if he was stronger, he
Speaker 1: would have left. Uh, if he thought something was inappropriate
Speaker 1: and he didn't leave, he selectively leaks government information and
Speaker 1: then gets the his mentor and his cohort, Robert Mueller,
Speaker 1: to be the special counsel, which he set out to
Speaker 1: do well. And and let me make a point here
Speaker 1: for all of our listeners, because I think this is
Speaker 1: one of the things that confuses Washington. UM, Comey has
Speaker 1: Comey is part of the deep state, but Comey is
Speaker 1: part of the sickness. UH. Nobody should be confused about this.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to give you two examples. Comey was
Speaker 1: deeply worried that when President Trump said something to him
Speaker 1: about whether or not General Flynn might be innocent, that
Speaker 1: it would have a chilling effect on his unf agents.
Speaker 1: You go back and read these activets. Well, Barack Obama
Speaker 1: said publicly that he thought Hillary Clinton was innocent. Now
Speaker 1: why is it if Barack Obama said the president, then
Speaker 1: President States says publicly he thinks somebody under investigation is innocent.
Speaker 1: That doesn't have a chilling effect. By the way, can
Speaker 1: I can I just be a little bit of a
Speaker 1: wise ass like I think you've known me all these years? No,
Speaker 1: I gotta do this, you know, if we're all upset
Speaker 1: about you know, government's influencing elections, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: we've had testimony the Russians did it before this election,
Speaker 1: they'll do it after this election. And yeah, of course
Speaker 1: they try to break in, but no votes were changed
Speaker 1: at all. But does it matter that that Barack Obama
Speaker 1: use State Department funds to try and unseat and used
Speaker 1: his political team to unseat an ally in Israel by
Speaker 1: the name of Prime Minister Yah? Who I mean? Did
Speaker 1: he not to the very thing that everyone thinks that
Speaker 1: they're so aghast and shocked by well, and of course
Speaker 1: that's part of that's that's part of the whole problem
Speaker 1: of the modern world. But look, I don't think I
Speaker 1: don't want to in any way defend the Russians. No,
Speaker 1: not either. I'm just saying, but this whole gigantic double
Speaker 1: standard is more than astonishing. All right, stay right there now,
Speaker 1: the brand new book. He's gonna be at Bookends in
Speaker 1: New Jersey, Ridgewood tonight at seven o'clock New king Ridge
Speaker 1: is gonna give a talk and then I'll be signing
Speaker 1: books and hopefully make it back to Hannity, which may
Speaker 1: not happen because I'm to keep promoting the living daylights
Speaker 1: out of this, and the crowd is gonna be so
Speaker 1: long you're gonna call me say the hell with your show.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be on the show, all right, So we're
Speaker 1: gonna have the speaker tonight, uh Tenny Eastern. His book
Speaker 1: is called Understanding Trump. I think the definitive, the definitive
Speaker 1: book now written about the President and how he was
Speaker 1: able to outperform all expectations and win the presidency. Quick
Speaker 1: break more with Speaker king Rich. His book is up
Speaker 1: on Hannity dot Com and it's called Understanding Trump. Straight
Speaker 1: ahead right, former Speaker of the House, no King Rich.
Speaker 1: He's written a brand new book. And if you don't understand,
Speaker 1: or if I honestly, if you don't want to be
Speaker 1: spun by the media, and you want to understand this
Speaker 1: Trump phenomena. Everybody was laughing. No, but he thought he
Speaker 1: could win and the attacks against him by the swamp.
Speaker 1: This is the definitive book, and it's called Understanding Trump.
Speaker 1: Is gonna be at book ends in Ridgewood, New Jersey
Speaker 1: for all our w R listeners in New York at
Speaker 1: seven o'clock tonight. He'll be speaking and signing books. Tell
Speaker 1: us what you know, give us some headlines about the book. Well,
Speaker 1: look the books an effort to say, first of all,
Speaker 1: this guy, you know, Trump, is really different. And one
Speaker 1: of the problems with the elite media, other than the
Speaker 1: ideological hatred, is they keep trying to place him as
Speaker 1: though he were a normal politician. This is a pure entrepreneur,
Speaker 1: a guy who believes in action, the guy who believes
Speaker 1: in dreaming big, a guy who takes huge risks. Uh,
Speaker 1: and he plays by the rules that fit. If you're
Speaker 1: an entrepreneur, the kind of guy who builds Trump Tower,
Speaker 1: or builds his eighteen golf courses, or creates, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the number one rated TV show. Uh. And you go
Speaker 1: down the list of what Trump has achieved, and I
Speaker 1: think people need to understand you can't measure him as
Speaker 1: though he's Barack Obama or George W. Bush or even
Speaker 1: a Ronald Reagan. He's one of the most unique people.
Speaker 1: I write rank him frankly with people like Andrew Jackson
Speaker 1: and Abraham Lincoln as as people who are really outside
Speaker 1: the norm. He's in the news media cannot relax and
Speaker 1: just try to say themselves, if this guy is so smart,
Speaker 1: he not only had to be a billionaire, he then
Speaker 1: pivoted and beat sixteen Republicans for the nomination. He then
Speaker 1: pivoted and beat the news media and a billion dollars
Speaker 1: in Hillary Clinton for the presidency. Maybe there's something he
Speaker 1: understands and they just kind of bring themselves to do that.
Speaker 1: And so I decided, as close to I doing him
Speaker 1: a good while, that I would write a book that
Speaker 1: really tried. That's not called predicting Trump. I don't believe
Speaker 1: you can predict Trump. I don't think Trump can predict Trump,
Speaker 1: but I believe. But it's called Understanding Him because I
Speaker 1: do think they are underlying patterns. I'll give you one
Speaker 1: that you know well, because New Yorker you've known him
Speaker 1: for years. Trump will always CounterPunch. If you hit him,
Speaker 1: he will instinctively immediately CounterPunch. By the way. You know
Speaker 1: what I am, what a counterpuncher? Exactly? Do you two
Speaker 1: get along? Well, yeah, we really do. We've seen some
Speaker 1: of my own fights and He's like, man, you fight
Speaker 1: as hard as I do. Alright. The book is called
Speaker 1: Understanding Trump. Bridgewood, New Jersey, Tonight, seven o'clock Speaker Gang,
Speaker 1: which will be speaking signing books when we come back.
Speaker 1: Wide open telephone. Sarah Carter blows open this, Loretta Lynch, comey,
Speaker 1: connection of obstruction. I am on the side of the dice.
Speaker 1: So very simple question that should be asked is did
Speaker 1: Donald Trump or any of his associates in the campaign
Speaker 1: colude with Russia and hacking those emails and releasing them
Speaker 1: through the public. That's where we started six months ago.
Speaker 1: We have now heard from six of the eight Democrats
Speaker 1: and this committee, and to my knowledge, I don't think
Speaker 1: a single one of them asked that question. They've gone
Speaker 1: down lots of other rabbit trails, but not that question.
Speaker 1: Maybe that is because Jim Comey said last week, as
Speaker 1: he said to Donald trum that on three times he
Speaker 1: assured him he was not under investigation. Maybe it's because
Speaker 1: multiple Democrats on this committee have stated they have seen
Speaker 1: no evidence thus far after six months of our investigation
Speaker 1: and ten or eleven months of an FBI investigation of
Speaker 1: any such collusion. I just suggest, what do we think
Speaker 1: happened at the Mayflower? Mr? Sessions are Are you familiar
Speaker 1: with what spies called tradecraft? A little bit that involves
Speaker 1: things like covert communications and dead drops and brush passes, right,
Speaker 1: that is part of it. Do you like spy fiction?
Speaker 1: John Lcker, Ray, Daniel Silva, Jason Matthews, Alan First, David.
Speaker 1: Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies? No? Yes?
Speaker 1: Have you ever in any of these fantastical situations heard
Speaker 1: of a plotline so ridiculous that a sitting United States
Speaker 1: Senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at
Speaker 1: an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull
Speaker 1: off the greatest caper in the history of escuator. Thank
Speaker 1: you for saying that Uh. Senator Cotton, It's just like
Speaker 1: through the looking glass. I mean, what is this? I
Speaker 1: explained how in good faith I said I had not
Speaker 1: met with Russians because they were suggesting I, as a surrogate,
Speaker 1: had been meeting continuously with the Russians. I said I
Speaker 1: didn't meet with them. And now the next thing, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm accused of some reception uh ap plotting some sort
Speaker 1: of influence campaign for the American election. It's just beyond
Speaker 1: my capability to understand. And I really appreciate Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 1: the opportunity at least to be able to say publicly
Speaker 1: I didn't participate in that and know nothing about it.
Speaker 1: And I gather that's one reason why you want to
Speaker 1: testify today in public. Last week, Mr Comey, and characteristic,
Speaker 1: dramatic and theatrical fashion, alluded ominously to what you call
Speaker 1: innu window that there was some kind of classified intelligence
Speaker 1: uh that suggested you might have colluded with Russia or
Speaker 1: that you might have otherwise acted improperly. You've addressed those
Speaker 1: allegations here today. Do you understand why he made that allusion? Actually?
Speaker 1: I do not, um that's happen. I know nobody has
Speaker 1: provided me any information. Thank you bout limited to have
Speaker 1: a lot of questions. UM. Mr Blunt asked you if
Speaker 1: you had spoken in response to Mr Commy's statement to
Speaker 1: you after his private meeting with the President on February
Speaker 1: fourteenth or February Uh, you said that you did respond
Speaker 1: to Mr Comy. Mr Commy's testimony said that you did not.
Speaker 1: Do you know why Mr Comey would have said that
Speaker 1: you did not respond him on that conversation with you
Speaker 1: on February fourteenth, I do not. Um. It was a
Speaker 1: little conversation, not very long, um, but there was a
Speaker 1: converse station and I did or respond to him, perhaps
Speaker 1: not to everything he asked, but uh he I did
Speaker 1: respond to him, I think in appropriate way. Do you
Speaker 1: know why Mr Comey mistrusted President Trump from their first
Speaker 1: meeting on January six He stated last week that he did,
Speaker 1: but didn't state anything from that meeting that caused him
Speaker 1: to have such mistrust. To believe, I'm not able to
Speaker 1: speculate on that. Let's turned to the potential crimes that
Speaker 1: we know have happened leaks of certain information. Here's a
Speaker 1: shortlist of what I have uh, the contents of alleged
Speaker 1: transcripts of alleged conversations between Mr Flann and Mr kisel Yak,
Speaker 1: the contents of President Trump's phone calls with Australian and
Speaker 1: Mexican leaders, the content of Mr Trump's meetings with the
Speaker 1: Russian Foreign Minister and the ambassador, the leak of Manchester bombing,
Speaker 1: the Manchester bombing suspects identity and crime scene photos, and
Speaker 1: last week, within twenty minutes of this committee meeting in
Speaker 1: a classified setting with Jim Comey, the leak of what
Speaker 1: Mr the basis of Mr Comey's in the window was,
Speaker 1: are these leaks serious UH threats to our national security?
Speaker 1: And as the Department of Justice taking them with the
Speaker 1: appropriate degree of seriousness and investigating and ultimately going to
Speaker 1: prosecute them the full suctence of the law. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Senator Cotton. UH. We have had one successful case very
Speaker 1: recently in Georgia. That person has been denied bail, I believe,
Speaker 1: and is being held in custody. But some of these leaks,
Speaker 1: as you well know, are extraordinarily DAN damaging to the
Speaker 1: United States security and we have got to restore a
Speaker 1: regular order principle. We cannot have UH persons in our
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies are investigative agencies are in Congress leaking sensitive
Speaker 1: matters on staff. So this is uh, I'm afraid will
Speaker 1: result in is already resulting in investigations, and I'm fear
Speaker 1: that some people may find that they we say hadn't leaked.
Speaker 1: Thanks you, My time is expired. Before the record, it
Speaker 1: was stated earlier that the Republican platform was weakened on
Speaker 1: the point of arms for Ukraine. That is incorrect. The
Speaker 1: platform was actually strengthened, and I would note that it
Speaker 1: was the Democratic car I'm gonna I'm gonna jump in here.
Speaker 1: That is Senator Cotton of Arkansas. I mean he has
Speaker 1: submerged as the total hero. Uh today you just heard it. Well,
Speaker 1: you know the president wasn't under investigation eleven freaking months.
Speaker 1: Is there any evidence of collusion, because there are people
Speaker 1: on this committee that have said there's no evidence of
Speaker 1: collusion eleven months and six months into their specific investigation,
Speaker 1: eleven months of black helicopter conspiracies and tinfoil had conspiracies
Speaker 1: never ending in the destroy Trump media anyway, I thought
Speaker 1: that was an amazing day to day on top of
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions, very forceful, just opening remarks, just blew it
Speaker 1: out of the water. Jay Seculo was with US Chief
Speaker 1: Council for the America in Center for Law and Justice
Speaker 1: and is now apparently working with the President. UM. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the program, Jay, how are you. Thanks great, John.
Speaker 1: I think Jeff Sessions has done just an incredible job
Speaker 1: today testifying. Yeah. I mean, this is what really amazes
Speaker 1: me is I'm watching this eleven months, Jack, right, no
Speaker 1: evidence and people on that committee have said, no evidence.
Speaker 1: Why are we still here? Well, this is for this
Speaker 1: of the politics of it, because there's no case. I mean,
Speaker 1: James Comy laid out that there was no case. So
Speaker 1: if we look at what James Comy's already said, both
Speaker 1: in his written testimony and his oral statements, he acknowledged
Speaker 1: that the president was you know, it's not just he's
Speaker 1: not under investigation. He was never under investigation. That's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, James called me acknowledged that there was no
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice as it relates to this Russia probe.
Speaker 1: And number three, as I've I've said, James Comey is
Speaker 1: the leaker. Jeff Sessions today forcefully, directly and properly said
Speaker 1: that while he appreciated the opportunity to appear before the Committee.
Speaker 1: He said he's gonna follow longstanding Justice Department of practice
Speaker 1: and cannot and will not violate my duty to protect
Speaker 1: the confidential communications I've had with the president. Unlike James,
Speaker 1: call me, let me ask your juxtaposition. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the most amazing thing there. You have a guy,
Speaker 1: James Comey, who purposefully leaks, which, by the way, I
Speaker 1: think and I think you agree with me, as a
Speaker 1: violation of the Records Act. On top of the fact
Speaker 1: that he had an obligation. I was stunned. Had I
Speaker 1: been stronger, I would have left. And and I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if if there was obstruction, that's up for Muletor decide.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking, okay, then if you thought that, then
Speaker 1: you're violating also eighteen USC UH sixty one and eighteen
Speaker 1: USC four. Okay, you're the lawyer, not me, then no, no,
Speaker 1: you know, I wouldna say. Here's the irony of this.
Speaker 1: He said, he's not the one to make that determination
Speaker 1: except what the case involvement. Hillary Clintony did, he was
Speaker 1: the one. So he likes to play judge and jury
Speaker 1: when it suits his agenda, and he doesn't want to
Speaker 1: play judge and jury when he can leave something hanging
Speaker 1: and Sean, you said something critical that people are forgetting,
Speaker 1: and we got to remind people this. This has been
Speaker 1: This investigation didn't start on May seventeenth when a special
Speaker 1: council was appointed. This investigation has been going on for
Speaker 1: nine months. Well, how is it, then, the Jay, how
Speaker 1: is it that I'm reading a report of the report
Speaker 1: of the report today Mueller is stocking his staff with
Speaker 1: Democratic donor lawyers and and literally hiring the swamp, including
Speaker 1: a Clinton Foundation lawyer that was hired by Hillary to
Speaker 1: fight back against Freedom of Information Act requests against their
Speaker 1: email server. Well, look, I mean, here's what you've got,
Speaker 1: and this is just the situation as it exists. The
Speaker 1: special counsel has been appointed, and the special counsel has
Speaker 1: a mandate. Now, the thing that always makes me concerned
Speaker 1: when I look at these cases and I've been involved
Speaker 1: in Kate. Look, I was in the middle of the
Speaker 1: lead lawyer in the I R S targeting scandal that
Speaker 1: was involving the I R S and the subsequent investigation
Speaker 1: by the Department of Justice. People try and tend to
Speaker 1: want to forget that. I'm that's my case. So I
Speaker 1: know what these deplointma who justice investigations are like or
Speaker 1: not like in depending on the circumstances. And here's what
Speaker 1: you've got that mandate at the end, and matters related
Speaker 1: there too. But I'm gonna go back to a fundamental
Speaker 1: issue here, and that fundamental issue, whether it's Bob Mueller
Speaker 1: and the entire staff that he's got as a special counsel,
Speaker 1: the issue is going to be was their criminal culpability
Speaker 1: aimed at or targeting the President the United States? And
Speaker 1: the answer to that is there's nothing, and they've all
Speaker 1: acknowledged there's nothing. I mean, you have said. This is
Speaker 1: what I don't understand seen any of it, ince of
Speaker 1: any of this speaking is nonsense. It reminds me of
Speaker 1: of Patrick Fitzgerald, and he knew on day one that
Speaker 1: Richard Armitage was the leaker and the investigation should have
Speaker 1: been shut down then and there. And even unless I
Speaker 1: can't believe I'm saying this, Alan Dershowitz has been dead
Speaker 1: on accurate about all of this in a different ways,
Speaker 1: about civil liberties and equal application under the law. Find
Speaker 1: me a person, I'll make up a crime for them,
Speaker 1: you know, and think you know, after three years and
Speaker 1: all the money spent. You know, the only thing he
Speaker 1: could get was what Scooter Libby on a perjury charge,
Speaker 1: which is by the way, a perjury trap. So I'm
Speaker 1: asking you this, if you know, if you look at
Speaker 1: the congressional and D O G, d O J investigations. Okay,
Speaker 1: now you have Now you have called me that sets
Speaker 1: it up to get a special counsel hired. Now you
Speaker 1: have they have his, his mentor that's in charge of it.
Speaker 1: And now you have his mentor hiring all these Democrats,
Speaker 1: including people that obviously have a conflict of interest having
Speaker 1: been on Hillary Clinton's team regarding emails. Now you have done.
Speaker 1: You know, you have handled a lot of these things
Speaker 1: issues as a lawyer, and you know, and you've done
Speaker 1: criminal cases, a lot of criminal cases. And you want
Speaker 1: to Supreme Court decision at the Georgia Supreme Court last year,
Speaker 1: I recall the biggest, biggest uh seven seri case in
Speaker 1: the country representing the State of Georgia in a major
Speaker 1: criminal case. So you're you're gonna ask me the criminal question.
Speaker 1: I know where you're going, all right, I'm asking the
Speaker 1: criminal question. Yeah, so that there's no there there and
Speaker 1: what's going to happen Sean. And this is where what
Speaker 1: happens in these You've got multiple three parties basically Congress,
Speaker 1: the House and Senate and the Special Counsel trying to
Speaker 1: investigate this at the same time, which is a collision course.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what happens on these. It's a collision course.
Speaker 1: And I think what Rod Rosenstein said today is, you know,
Speaker 1: you look at the situation. He's the Attorney General acting
Speaker 1: basically for this investigation. And the fact is it comes
Speaker 1: down to and and this is the pot can't get
Speaker 1: past this point. You cannot legally get past this point
Speaker 1: that James Comy and has written submissions said never under investigation,
Speaker 1: not under investigation, no obstruction with reguard to the Russian probe.
Speaker 1: And then he's the leaker. And that argument he's made,
Speaker 1: which is is ridiculous that this was his personal document
Speaker 1: instead of the document of the Department of Justice. We
Speaker 1: let's see what he's done. He writes a memo about
Speaker 1: a conversation he had with who the President of the
Speaker 1: United States in his role as the By the way,
Speaker 1: he writes it in a government car and a government computer.
Speaker 1: Whose property is it? According to the Records Act, it's
Speaker 1: our property United States of America. Then he puts it
Speaker 1: in his government desk, where he holds it in his
Speaker 1: government desk until he decides after he gets fired to
Speaker 1: take it out of that desk or to remove it
Speaker 1: before he got fired and send it to a law
Speaker 1: professor who leaked it to the New York Times for
Speaker 1: the sole purpose of obtaining a special counsel, which he did. Now,
Speaker 1: this committee that's doing the questions today, as far as
Speaker 1: I know, have not received that memo. You're kidding me.
Speaker 1: That's my understanding is right now that memo is has
Speaker 1: only been established right now with the special counsel. These
Speaker 1: committees haven't seen this matter. What about the conflict I
Speaker 1: mean if he I mean, did did Jeff Sessions coordinate
Speaker 1: his testimony today with with the special counsel? Well, what
Speaker 1: about how does Comey get away with doing that? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think it raises an interesting the issue,
Speaker 1: and that is under the conflict section. I mean, the
Speaker 1: idea that James Colemy is a witness if there was,
Speaker 1: but again, there's nothing there. But if there, if they
Speaker 1: were to proceed down some you know, rabbit trail path
Speaker 1: of of saying there's some type of trying to show
Speaker 1: established an obstruction, which I again impossible in my view.
Speaker 1: Why would you let your witness, if it was James Comey,
Speaker 1: get on a stand, so to speak, or appear before
Speaker 1: the United States Congress. I mean this raises a whole
Speaker 1: host of issues. Now, those issues that Rod Rosenstein said
Speaker 1: today in his testimony, those issues will be addressed at
Speaker 1: the time that they're addressed, and that's how you do those.
Speaker 1: You don't. You don't speculate to what IF's and what
Speaker 1: might we know? What the law is, the laws the law,
Speaker 1: and Rod Rosenstein would have to make a determination if
Speaker 1: there was a conflict for some lawyer had to not
Speaker 1: be involved in one part of the case, or whether
Speaker 1: if there was an investigation of James Comey, which I
Speaker 1: think there should be, whether that's done by the special Counsel,
Speaker 1: whether that's done by d J. Those will come up
Speaker 1: in due course, and as lawyers will handle those in
Speaker 1: due course, as the lawyers for the president, you handle
Speaker 1: those in due course. You don't. You don't speculate on
Speaker 1: the what ifs, what maybe here, what I gotta, I
Speaker 1: gotta what do you take a Sarah Carter's discovery and
Speaker 1: and their blockbuster piece. She's going to join us next.
Speaker 1: That in fact, that James Comey confronted Loretta Lynch about
Speaker 1: the fix being in and her putting the kabash on
Speaker 1: any indictment of Hillary Clinton. I mean, that is breathtaking
Speaker 1: to me. That is breath taking. I will not be
Speaker 1: shocked if that ends up being the actual conclusion. Remember
Speaker 1: this is an attorney general. According to if he was
Speaker 1: telling the truth, James Comey said that calling the matter,
Speaker 1: don't call it an investigation involved in Clinton campaign. And
Speaker 1: then of course then the tarmac. Uh, and I know
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary Committee members are demanding Lynch now testify. All right,
Speaker 1: Jay Sekula, always a pleasure. Thank you. We'll see you
Speaker 1: tonight on Hannity Tenney Eastern on the Fox News Channel
Speaker 1: along with new king Ridge. We got a great line
Speaker 1: up tonight. Sarah Carter will join us tonight. She joins
Speaker 1: us at the top of the next hour. All right,
Speaker 1: when we come back, we'll get to your call. Sarah
Speaker 1: Carter is up next. What a blockbuster report she has
Speaker 1: about Comey confronting Loretta Lynch about the fix being in
Speaker 1: on the Hillary Clinton email server matter. But Mr Clapper
Speaker 1: then went on to say that, to his knowledge, there
Speaker 1: was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and the Russians. We did not conclude any evidence
Speaker 1: in our report. And when I say our report, that
Speaker 1: is the n s, A, FBI, and CIA with my office,
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything any reflection
Speaker 1: of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians.
Speaker 1: There was no evidence of that in our report. Was
Speaker 1: Mr Clapper wrong when he said that, I think he's
Speaker 1: right about characterizing the report which you all have read.
Speaker 1: We did not include any evidence in our report. And
Speaker 1: I say our that's n s, A, FBI, and CIA
Speaker 1: with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had
Speaker 1: anything that had any reflection of collusion between members of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence
Speaker 1: of that included in our report. Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination,
Speaker 1: conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at
Speaker 1: the time you learned of twenty sixteen efforts? I don't
Speaker 1: know whether or not such collusion, that's your term, such
Speaker 1: collusion existed. I don't know. The big questions, of course,
Speaker 1: is is there any evidence of collusion you have seen yet?
Speaker 1: Is there there is a lot of smoke. We hadn't
Speaker 1: smoking gun at this point, but there is a lot
Speaker 1: of smoke. Do you agree with this conclusion that the
Speaker 1: president has reached there was no evidence of collusion? You know,
Speaker 1: we haven't seen any of that whatsoever, George. We've been
Speaker 1: looking and showing everything that they possibly have that has
Speaker 1: not led to that. Uh. We have ultimate to all
Speaker 1: of us have the utmost respect for Bob Mueller, both
Speaker 1: on the Democrat and Republican side. I believe he's going
Speaker 1: to do his job thoroughly. We will accept his recommendation
Speaker 1: and path pathway forward. And I think that's extremely important
Speaker 1: that we all agree this is the right person, to
Speaker 1: right time to do this type of work. So if
Speaker 1: the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
Speaker 1: In theory? Yes, Has it happened not in my experience,
Speaker 1: because it would be a big deal to tell the
Speaker 1: FBI to stop doing something that without an appropriate purpose.
Speaker 1: We're oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see
Speaker 1: a case there, and so you ought to stop investing
Speaker 1: resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where
Speaker 1: we were told to stop something for a political reason.
Speaker 1: That would be a very big deal. It's not happened
Speaker 1: in my experience. At one point, the Attorney General had
Speaker 1: directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead
Speaker 1: to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me.
Speaker 1: But that was one of the bricks in the load
Speaker 1: that led me to conclude I have to step away
Speaker 1: from the department if we're to close this case credibly well.
Speaker 1: It concerned me because we were at the point where
Speaker 1: we had refused to confirm the existence as we typically
Speaker 1: do of an investigation for months, and it was getting
Speaker 1: to a place where that looks silly because the campaigns
Speaker 1: were talking about interacting with the FBI in the course
Speaker 1: of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was
Speaker 1: using all kinds of euphemisms, security review matters, things like
Speaker 1: that for what was going on. We were getting to
Speaker 1: a place where the Atturnent and I were both gonna
Speaker 1: have to testify and talk publicly about it. And I
Speaker 1: want to know what she's going to authorize us to
Speaker 1: confirm we had an investigation, and she said, yes, but
Speaker 1: don't call it that, call it a matter, And I said,
Speaker 1: why would I do that, and she said, just call
Speaker 1: it a matter. And again, you look back in hindsight,
Speaker 1: you think, should I have resisted harder? I just said,
Speaker 1: all right, isn't worth This isn't a hill worth dian on.
Speaker 1: And so I just said, okay, I mean as the
Speaker 1: President United States with me alone saying I hope this.
Speaker 1: I took it as this is what he wants me
Speaker 1: to do. No, I didn't obey that, but that's the
Speaker 1: way I took it. The Attorney General, previous Attorney General
Speaker 1: asking you about the investigation on the Clinton emails, saying
Speaker 1: that you've been asked not to call it an investigation anymore,
Speaker 1: but to call it a matter, and you had said
Speaker 1: that con used to you. Can you give us additional
Speaker 1: details on that? Well, it concerned me because we were
Speaker 1: at the point where we had refused to confirm the
Speaker 1: existence as we typically do of an investigation for months,
Speaker 1: and it was getting to a place where that looks
Speaker 1: silly because the campaigns were talking about interacting with the
Speaker 1: FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign
Speaker 1: at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security
Speaker 1: review matters, things like that. For what was going on.
Speaker 1: We were getting to a place where the turn Gil
Speaker 1: and I were both gonna have to testify and talk
Speaker 1: publicly about it. And I want to know what she's
Speaker 1: going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation.
Speaker 1: And she said, yes, but don't call it that. Call
Speaker 1: it a matter. And I said, why would I do that?
Speaker 1: And she said, just call it a matter. And again,
Speaker 1: you look back in hindsight, you think should I have
Speaker 1: resisted harder? I just said, all right, isn't worth This
Speaker 1: isn't a hill worth dian on. And so I just said, Okay,
Speaker 1: the press is going to completely ignore it. And that's
Speaker 1: what happened. When I said we have opened a matter,
Speaker 1: they all reported the FBI has an investigation open. And
Speaker 1: so that concerned me because that language track the way
Speaker 1: the campaign was talking about the FBI's work, and that
Speaker 1: that's concerning It gave the impression that the campaign was
Speaker 1: somehow using the same language the FBI, because you were
Speaker 1: handed the campaign language and told to be able to
Speaker 1: use the campaign. And again I don't know whether it
Speaker 1: was intentional or not, but it gave the impression that
Speaker 1: the Attorney General was looking to align the way we
Speaker 1: talked about our work with the way political campaign was
Speaker 1: describing the same activity, which was inaccurate. We had a
Speaker 1: criminal investigation open, as I've said before, the Federal Geer
Speaker 1: of Investigation. We had an investigation open at the time,
Speaker 1: and so that gave me a queasy feeling. You know,
Speaker 1: those tapes are amazing. I mean, Comey never pressured. Well,
Speaker 1: I was pressured by Comey. I was pressured by by
Speaker 1: the President. I was pressured by Loretta Lynch. Okay, if
Speaker 1: you can't get that straight and you're under oath, any
Speaker 1: Republican would themselves be looking at a perjury charge, maybe
Speaker 1: an obstruction charge. It's unbelievable the double standard that exists. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, the list keeps getting longer. How is it
Speaker 1: that nobody else in the media is playing for you
Speaker 1: what we play and that is really simple. That is
Speaker 1: no evidence of collusion, all right, joining us now. We
Speaker 1: talked about it earlier, Sarah Carter would Circle dot com
Speaker 1: and her block bost story today about this interaction between
Speaker 1: Lynch and Comy. Thanks Sean. Yet, John and I were
Speaker 1: able to kind of track down that second meeting, that
Speaker 1: meeting that former FBI Director Comey had with Loretta Lynch
Speaker 1: and what was so fascinating to me, and I think
Speaker 1: this is this is the area of the story that's
Speaker 1: most interesting is that when Director Comy approached her with
Speaker 1: this like sensitive document, it was a communication between two
Speaker 1: political figures. Um, this document is classified, but it was
Speaker 1: a communication that basically said Lynch was going to put
Speaker 1: the kabash on any kind of indictment, on any kind
Speaker 1: of probe into Hillary Clinton. And when he confronted Lynch,
Speaker 1: this is according to lawMy Chris who were directly briefed
Speaker 1: on this, But I want to slow down here, she
Speaker 1: had put in writing that she is going to block
Speaker 1: any any investigation into the Clinton's any lawbreaking. Well, well,
Speaker 1: it was two political figures connected to Lynch that were
Speaker 1: one was reassuring the other that don't worry, Lynch has
Speaker 1: already made a promise that she's gonna put the kabash
Speaker 1: on any kind of indictment or prosecution of of Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: And when he approached her with this piece of evidence
Speaker 1: in at the d o J. He went to the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice to meet with her, she stared at him.
Speaker 1: This is according to lawmakers that were briefed by Comey.
Speaker 1: She stared at him for what seemed a steely silence.
Speaker 1: He described it that lasted a long period of time,
Speaker 1: was very uncomfortable. And then she asked him if there
Speaker 1: were any more questions, and he said no, and then
Speaker 1: she asked him to leave the office and did not
Speaker 1: answer him at all. Isn't that all the obstruction of
Speaker 1: justice where you come from, Sarah, it's the evidence. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if the evidence proves to be true, if that piece
Speaker 1: of evidence which he briefed, Now this is not just
Speaker 1: our sources on Sunday. What was really interesting with Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham actually brought this up and he talked about this
Speaker 1: on one of the Sunday shows and he said, you
Speaker 1: know this piece of evidence that is out there that
Speaker 1: you know right now, Congress is trying to verify whether
Speaker 1: this is with whether this is actually true or not.
Speaker 1: But Comey had a piece of evidence that he presented
Speaker 1: to Lauretta Lynch that basically said between two political figures
Speaker 1: that she would put the kabash on this. So I
Speaker 1: think there definitely lawmakers want answers to this. They want
Speaker 1: to know what that was. And I'm sure this is
Speaker 1: something that he briefed uh the lawmakers in close session about.
Speaker 1: That was why he couldn't talk about it in the
Speaker 1: public hearing. It was basically because of how that evidence
Speaker 1: was collected, how it was obtained, and what evidence it was,
Speaker 1: where it came from. This is, to me, is the
Speaker 1: most unbelievable thing. Why was this done in the closed
Speaker 1: session after we watched the public session. Why wasn't this
Speaker 1: brought out in public? Why did call me what possible
Speaker 1: justification could call me have for not moving forward with
Speaker 1: an investigation into obstruction, especially when you add to that
Speaker 1: the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton. Well, apparently
Speaker 1: the way that this evidence was obtained and how it
Speaker 1: was obtained and where it was obtained from was the
Speaker 1: reason behind its classified nature, according to lawmakers that we
Speaker 1: spoke with. So that was the area that they were
Speaker 1: most concerned about. And UM, they didn't want to talk
Speaker 1: about that in the public setting because obviously there's there's
Speaker 1: reasons for intelligence collection that they don't want to discuss publicly. Now,
Speaker 1: remember there was a Washington Post story and I just
Speaker 1: want to bring you back to that, UM, a Washington
Speaker 1: Post story that stated that b Wasserman Schultz there was
Speaker 1: the stubious email from Debbie Wasserman Schultz UM and I
Speaker 1: believe it was Podesta. I'm not one percentage sure on that,
Speaker 1: but there was an email between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and
Speaker 1: someone else who said that Lynch would basically not go
Speaker 1: forward with any um and it was it was actually
Speaker 1: given to the FBI by the Russians, that this evidence
Speaker 1: was actually given to the FBI by the Russians. And
Speaker 1: what happened was the Washington Post, so that said that
Speaker 1: the story was dubious, that he based all of his
Speaker 1: investigation into Hillary on this faulty email. And what some
Speaker 1: people are saying is no, there really is an email.
Speaker 1: There really is a communication out there that's sensitive that
Speaker 1: has been verified as fact. And right there, Sorry, I
Speaker 1: gotta I gotta do this real quick, all right, So
Speaker 1: we continue with Sarah Carter hard new Blockbuster along with
Speaker 1: John Solomon at Circuit dot Com. Is James Comey in
Speaker 1: a fascinating story, met privately with members of Congress. This
Speaker 1: is after his testimony last week and explained a frosty
Speaker 1: exchange with Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General at the time,
Speaker 1: when he confronted her about possible political interference and a
Speaker 1: in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. After showing Lynch a
Speaker 1: sensitive document that she was quote unaware that the FPI possessed,
Speaker 1: and during his testimony last Thursday, call Me alluded to
Speaker 1: the exchange with Lynch where she ordered him not to
Speaker 1: refer to a criminal probe of clinton handling of classified
Speaker 1: emails as an investigation, but rather as a matter, and
Speaker 1: he suggested it smacked a political spin. But then he
Speaker 1: ended up doing it anyway, because I guess he's not
Speaker 1: strong and everything, and then he found this other I
Speaker 1: want to go back now. So to other lawmakers, everything's fine,
Speaker 1: no worries here, right, don't worry. She's got it covered.
Speaker 1: We're gonna put the kabash on any indictment of Hillary
Speaker 1: because the Loretta Lynch is in our pocket. Isn't that
Speaker 1: pretty much what they said? Well, apparently that's what was
Speaker 1: That was what was being discussed. I mean apparently between
Speaker 1: the people that these emails. Now, we don't know this
Speaker 1: specific classified email other than what we know from what
Speaker 1: the Washington Post reported, which Comy later said was nonsense.
Speaker 1: On the Hill, he said, those those stories are not true.
Speaker 1: And that's interesting because there was another lawMy because I
Speaker 1: spoke with us, that said, you know, Comey's account to Congress.
Speaker 1: What he was saying to Congress behind closed doors doesn't
Speaker 1: sink with those media reports, which means it isn't it
Speaker 1: isn't in line with what the Washington Post was reporting
Speaker 1: on that story. Could there be two separate emails? Could
Speaker 1: there be information that was coming from the Russians and
Speaker 1: then there was this other piece of evidence. I mean,
Speaker 1: we don't know that. What we do know is that
Speaker 1: there's a highly sensitive communication that Comey had his hands
Speaker 1: on that made him very concerned. And according to the
Speaker 1: lawmakers who were briefed on this, that was not a
Speaker 1: dubious piece of communication. It was actually something that the
Speaker 1: FBI felt was very valid, and that's why he presented
Speaker 1: it to Lynch. It was interesting because a it into
Speaker 1: the lawmakers who were briefed by him. You know, he
Speaker 1: asked her the question about Bill Clinton meeting Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: on the tarmac in Phoenix last year, but then he
Speaker 1: followed it with would you please take a look at
Speaker 1: this and handed her that communication. And it was at
Speaker 1: that point when she looked at the communication that everything
Speaker 1: went silent and she no longer wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: him and asked him to leave. How does he take that,
Speaker 1: not follow up on that, not to get an investigation
Speaker 1: on that, and not conclude, Oh my god, the attorney
Speaker 1: general is now running interference for Clinton and has conspired
Speaker 1: to stop any investigation or any possible indictment when we
Speaker 1: know she committed felonies. And do you know what the
Speaker 1: timeline is on all of this, you know, Sean, I
Speaker 1: think that's the great mystery here, right. I mean, when
Speaker 1: we hear his testimony, he he lets more out this
Speaker 1: last testimony that Comey gave. He talks about the way
Speaker 1: Lynch had asked him to call it a matter and
Speaker 1: not an investigation. Then he talks about this um other
Speaker 1: incident that he can only talk about behind closed doors
Speaker 1: because of its classified nature. But then he also goes
Speaker 1: through you know Trump and alludes to the fact that, well,
Speaker 1: the reason I didn't I didn't go um to anyone
Speaker 1: is because well I really couldn't. I wasn't sure what
Speaker 1: was going on over at the d o J. There
Speaker 1: were the right people in place there. I felt kind
Speaker 1: of cowardly. I didn't want to tell the president, you know,
Speaker 1: I didn't. I didn't want to uh face the president
Speaker 1: and tell him these things. If I would, if I
Speaker 1: could look back now, I would have done it differently.
Speaker 1: This is all kind of strange coming from a man
Speaker 1: who had the FBI. He you know, personally, I think
Speaker 1: that the talk of being cowardly and all of that,
Speaker 1: it seems it's I would like to question him on that. Basically,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that it isn't true. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: his own feelings. But he's a strong man, and he's
Speaker 1: very smart, and he's very calculating, and so it's for me,
Speaker 1: it's interesting is that he laid everything out on the
Speaker 1: table at this hearing. He kind of spilled it all
Speaker 1: out there, and you have to wonder if there's some
Speaker 1: other kind of motivation behind that. Is there a reason
Speaker 1: for him to do this. Is he trying to get
Speaker 1: information out there? And why? Unbelievable story, credible reporting as always,
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter Circuit dot Com. We're gonna stay on this,
Speaker 1: I promise you, and you'll be joining us on TV
Speaker 1: tonight UH TENNY Eastern on the Box News Channel. You've
Speaker 1: been doing an amazing job and and thank you for
Speaker 1: your hard work. We really appreciate it. Eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: Poll one Shawn. At the bottom of the hour, we'll
Speaker 1: get to your calls. Will recap the day Attorney General Sessions,
Speaker 1: you know, outraged today at any thought that he may
Speaker 1: have colluded with anybody, was piste off today as the
Speaker 1: hearings began. Will recap that and more straight ahead now
Speaker 1: till the top of the hour. Toll free telephone number
Speaker 1: on those busy breaking news days eight nine four one,
Speaker 1: Shawn if you want to be a part of the program. Obviously,
Speaker 1: top story today the Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his
Speaker 1: testimony before the Senate and Intelligence Committee, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: as I pointed out earlier, he did voluntarily. As I
Speaker 1: pointed out earlier, in the rest of the media just
Speaker 1: seems to not really care about the truth and maybe
Speaker 1: it wasn't the best decision. And are they now going
Speaker 1: to expect every single solitary you know, member the Trump
Speaker 1: administration to talk about their contacts with Russia. Well, he
Speaker 1: agreed to meet in public with these people, He agreed
Speaker 1: and allied their fears. If that's what it even is
Speaker 1: at this particular point in time. You know, as a senator,
Speaker 1: it is part of your job, and every senator, all
Speaker 1: one senators meet with foreign dignitaries. That's that's kind of
Speaker 1: standard operating procedure protocol, you know, ambassadors and dignitaries, and
Speaker 1: you know, it's part of what their duties are. And
Speaker 1: in this case of the Russian ambassador and other Russian officials,
Speaker 1: they also simultaneously met with dozens of Democrats Pelosi and
Speaker 1: Schumer and and Casey and McCaw ascal and can't well,
Speaker 1: and it just goes on. It's almost everybody. And the
Speaker 1: meetings that Sessions had, you know, despite all these efforts
Speaker 1: to turn them into the biggest scandal in the history
Speaker 1: of man, kind of guy's doing his job. And the
Speaker 1: d o J has consistently denied the existence of a
Speaker 1: third meeting at the Mayflower Hotel with the Russian ambassador.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, God forbid, I meet with so
Speaker 1: many people on a regular basis, talk to so many
Speaker 1: people on a regular basis to four hours on air day.
Speaker 1: If anyone ever asked me what I did on the
Speaker 1: show yesterday, I'm gonna be like, um, I could not
Speaker 1: tell you the lineup of last night show. Let's put
Speaker 1: it that way. I know, Linda, can you tell me
Speaker 1: the lineup of last night's TV show? Because what happens
Speaker 1: is that show is finished, and then I'm focused on
Speaker 1: the next show. I mean, I can, but that's because
Speaker 1: I watched DV. Are you like all good citizens should? No?
Speaker 1: I agree, but and of course, but I honestly would
Speaker 1: have trouble. I'd have to really go back in my
Speaker 1: mind's eye and think, like, I know, we started the
Speaker 1: show with my opening monologue, and then well, there's nothing
Speaker 1: going on. I mean, there's just nothing going on. You know,
Speaker 1: you just have plenty of free time, lots of times
Speaker 1: to think about all of the different story reason a length,
Speaker 1: because you know, it's just it's quiet. Well. The funny
Speaker 1: thing is is my friends talk about the Hannity brain
Speaker 1: and say, oh, ask Kennedy, what Reagan's you know statistics
Speaker 1: for after eight years in office? I got one better
Speaker 1: than that. You're you do have a ridiculous memory. I
Speaker 1: think one of your best and weirdest qualities is your
Speaker 1: ability to remember all over five affiliates we have. You
Speaker 1: know their call letters, you know what the station logo is,
Speaker 1: you know who the people are that work at the station.
Speaker 1: You know that's a good point. Probably people think you
Speaker 1: put it up on the screen. You never have to
Speaker 1: look it up. You know it by heart. All right.
Speaker 1: But here's the other thing. Now, that's my businesses and
Speaker 1: my work. Now, if I meet somebody out someplace and
Speaker 1: I see them the next night, I'll forget their name,
Speaker 1: which is so embarrassing to me. I will forget. And
Speaker 1: it's not that I've tried the you know, the Carnegie
Speaker 1: you know what is it? Yeah, it just doesn't work
Speaker 1: for me. And then I'll give you another example, like
Speaker 1: right now I have to I have I could not
Speaker 1: tell you what was on Monday night's TV show. I
Speaker 1: can't tell you. I can't tell you who the guests
Speaker 1: were on the show Monday. So I'm like the worst
Speaker 1: person I ever put under oath because they're gonna think
Speaker 1: you're lying. And then they'll go to me in the
Speaker 1: all right, we'll remember Reagan statistics and I'll rattle them
Speaker 1: all off. And then they'll say, we'll tell us your affiliates,
Speaker 1: you know which are talking Kansas, and I'll be able
Speaker 1: to rattle it off. And that's frustrating. I mean, it
Speaker 1: would not be good for me. I think you'd be
Speaker 1: bringing me a cake. I think I think the brain
Speaker 1: does a wonderful thing, and that is that it retains
Speaker 1: that which is important and get rid of the rest
Speaker 1: of it. So that means that the people I meet
Speaker 1: whose names I forget are not important. That's a horrible
Speaker 1: don't remember what they look like. You'll look, Oh, I
Speaker 1: know that person over there answered, I'm like, what's wrong
Speaker 1: with listen? I've even I've even been at dinners with
Speaker 1: people that I have known for years, and I'll be
Speaker 1: whispering to either a friend or my wife or whoever.
Speaker 1: You if you're there, you know, if it's an event,
Speaker 1: and I'll be who who? What's your name? Okay? It's embarrassing.
Speaker 1: And it's not that I don't love the people I do.
Speaker 1: I just I don't know. It's like there's only so
Speaker 1: much capacity in terms of the actual I don't think
Speaker 1: name for the first four or five. Shut up, Come on,
Speaker 1: you know it's true that she's too slow. What's her
Speaker 1: name again? Remember her? Sunshine? You know me? That's what
Speaker 1: used to say about me. Now, that was to get
Speaker 1: under your skin because I was testing you, and you,
Speaker 1: by the way, you absolutely hid who you are for years.
Speaker 1: You just were like quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden boom, look what appens? Sneak
Speaker 1: attack I'm like, all right, Well, it reminds me a
Speaker 1: little bit of my daughter, because if you meet my daughter, Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you? Your daughter's ridiculously no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: until you get to know where. Then she is off
Speaker 1: the hook, out of control, in charge, the funniest, most
Speaker 1: entertaining person you'll ever meet. But not if you just
Speaker 1: meet her like she just meet her, you'll think she
Speaker 1: doesn't talk. No, that's true. She's very shy at the outset,
Speaker 1: at the outset, sort of like my dog Gracie. You
Speaker 1: meet Gracie, she's insane for the first five minutes, and
Speaker 1: I'm just like, all right, you gotta ignore it for
Speaker 1: five minutes and then act like you care she's in
Speaker 1: the room, and then she'll be all over you with love.
Speaker 1: That dog is the best. Well, Marley is the best.
Speaker 1: Marley's great because Marley played catch with me. I love
Speaker 1: that part. Are you play catch with her? Oh? She
Speaker 1: just she brings me the toy constantly and I have
Speaker 1: to throw at least five times. If it's less than five,
Speaker 1: she gets annoyed. And also, all right, let me get
Speaker 1: to the phones here. Let's say hi to Victor Is
Speaker 1: in Hollywood, Florida. Victor, Hi, how are you probably pretty
Speaker 1: hot down there like it is in New York today?
Speaker 1: What's going on, sir? I'm good. I have a comment
Speaker 1: about the the Comy testimony when he was asked his
Speaker 1: interpretation of Trump's uh telling him, I hope you can
Speaker 1: let this go, and he interpreted it, in his words,
Speaker 1: as an order. Correct. Correct, It wasn't what you got
Speaker 1: from even even though he said that I hope, he
Speaker 1: interpreted I hope as an order. Okay, So my question
Speaker 1: is how often do you ignore or not listen to
Speaker 1: the president's order if you take it as an order?
Speaker 1: I mean, as you of the movie A few good
Speaker 1: men when Nicholson is understanding can handle the truth? Well? Well,
Speaker 1: when he said, sir, when you've given order, is it
Speaker 1: possible that order was ignored? No, it was not. Order
Speaker 1: was forgot? No it was not. But here's the difference. Now.
Speaker 1: You gotta remember, because Comey also had a legal obligation.
Speaker 1: If he thought that was an order, that what he's
Speaker 1: saying is the president was ordering him to in fact
Speaker 1: do something that he felt was unethical, inappropriate, and even
Speaker 1: bordering on obstruction, which is how the liberals and the
Speaker 1: left are interpreting it. Well, then eighteen USC four kicks in,
Speaker 1: and that means that he had a legal responsibility to
Speaker 1: report it, you know. And I was so stunned I
Speaker 1: couldn't leave the chair. I was, you know, to be
Speaker 1: if I had been stronger, I was nauseous. I mean,
Speaker 1: all the emotionality. So go ahead and finish your point though, well, well,
Speaker 1: the point is again, how often does does anybody who
Speaker 1: works under the president ignore the order? If you're not
Speaker 1: going to report it as you you said, is obligation, okay,
Speaker 1: then why who In the past, I would, as I see,
Speaker 1: I would have followed up with different questions than than
Speaker 1: some of these senators congressmen, because I believe they missed
Speaker 1: the mark a lot of times. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's on purpose or not, but I would have said,
Speaker 1: how often, Director, comey, have you when your experience ever
Speaker 1: ignored or not followed a direct order from the President
Speaker 1: of the United States? And he would have probably answered, well, never,
Speaker 1: it's it's never been done. I can't recall the time
Speaker 1: when anybody's ignored an order. So then why did you
Speaker 1: ignore it? Why did you not follow it? Let alone
Speaker 1: report it? Okay? So it doesn't. It just contradicts his
Speaker 1: whole testimony. It just exposes him more as the liar
Speaker 1: that he is. Well, i'd look, you know how I
Speaker 1: feel about Comey, and I'll be honest. You know, some
Speaker 1: people are saying what I what I've concluded about him
Speaker 1: is is unfair. Um, I honestly, you know, I've no
Speaker 1: so many law enforcement officials in my life, but I
Speaker 1: can tell you this. I know guys in the FBI.
Speaker 1: I love these guys in the FBI. Some of them
Speaker 1: are my friends in the FBI. And they were so
Speaker 1: devastated in July of last year when he laid out
Speaker 1: a case for obstruction of justice and then said never mind.
Speaker 1: You know, extreme carelessness does meet the legal standard of
Speaker 1: gross negligence. They were shocked. They were One guy told
Speaker 1: me he was embarrassed, and everybody he worked with was embarrassed. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm sure that there are some people that like James Comey,
Speaker 1: but I think others like me see that he was
Speaker 1: fully and completely politicized sadly for his part. And I
Speaker 1: don't know what else to say. He Um, he just
Speaker 1: lost it in the end there and contorted and just
Speaker 1: into you know, the only decision he made was to
Speaker 1: protect Hillary. The only decision is we just had Sarah
Speaker 1: Carter on is to protect Lauretta Lynch. The only decisions
Speaker 1: he's making here we're self serving for Democrats. Victor, good call,
Speaker 1: appreciate it. Back to our phone. Madeline is in Illinois,
Speaker 1: Madeline High, how are you glad you called the Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Show. Hey, thanks great listening to you guys every afternoon.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My my complaint is that Comey has deep
Speaker 1: ties with the Clintons. Why this has never been investigated?
Speaker 1: I went back on an article from Washington Standard dated
Speaker 1: September twenty nine. Both he and his brother Peter have
Speaker 1: profited millions from the Clinton Foundation, and I want to
Speaker 1: know why that is not brought up. Listen, there were
Speaker 1: two articles that I brought up today, and that was
Speaker 1: one of them. I do not know. One was the
Speaker 1: bright Bar piece, and that is Mueller high as Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation lawyer for Russia probe that that was the one
Speaker 1: you're talking about here. The second is Robert Mueller stocks
Speaker 1: his staff with Democratic donors. I am you know, I
Speaker 1: tweeted out Alan Dershwitz today. Nine years ago, Alan and
Speaker 1: I had a stupid fight on radio, and they'd be
Speaker 1: perfectly blunt. I regretted. At this point in my life,
Speaker 1: I'm a little more mature. I don't always agree with him.
Speaker 1: He's he's political, but the guys smart Harvard professor um,
Speaker 1: I think we we we agree on so much, especially
Speaker 1: as it relates to Israel and you know, the battle
Speaker 1: against anti Semitism and radical Islam. I mean, I've read
Speaker 1: his stuff over the years, and but he's tweeting out
Speaker 1: something that is very profound about the law. And he's
Speaker 1: tweeting out that these special counsels have this investigation creep
Speaker 1: mode that they get into, and he is pointing out
Speaker 1: there's no obstruction, no way, shape, matter of form. And
Speaker 1: he's like, all these Democrats know it, and they're doing
Speaker 1: it anyway because they're playing politics. And he's saying, does
Speaker 1: anybody here care about civil liberties, our constitution, the rule
Speaker 1: of law? And he's onto something here, Any honest attorney,
Speaker 1: constitutional lover, Well, someone that believes in equal justice under
Speaker 1: the law is going to conclude exactly what Dershowitz has
Speaker 1: concluded here. And so I've been retweeting him. I don't
Speaker 1: think he knows me for a whole In the Wall
Speaker 1: although I didn't meet him once at a Pat Robertson
Speaker 1: event and interestingly years ago, and we actually had a
Speaker 1: nice exchange then and we kind of we're letting bygones
Speaker 1: be bygones. But it became one of the classic cannedate
Speaker 1: fights and during the impeachment time. But that's what's at
Speaker 1: stake here. This is now, you know, Patrick Fitzgerald all
Speaker 1: over again. On day one, Patrick Fitzgerald knew Richard Armitage
Speaker 1: was the leaker. He should have shut down the investigation.
Speaker 1: But he goes on and on and on for years,
Speaker 1: and what does it end up with. It ends up
Speaker 1: with a perjury trap for for Scooter Libby. It's so ridiculous.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, I'm looking at who they're hiring here.
Speaker 1: They're hiring the swamp Clinton Foundation lawyers. No conflict of
Speaker 1: interest here, especially if you want the real Russian conspiracy.
Speaker 1: You know, then we got you know, stocking his staff
Speaker 1: with Democratic donors. You know, New Gingrich is right. He
Speaker 1: sparked a media meltdown with his tweet challenging the fairness
Speaker 1: of this investigation. And I'm standing by my position that
Speaker 1: Mueller needs to shut it down because we know now
Speaker 1: there's no obstruction of justice. Congress should shut it down.
Speaker 1: They're too stupid, and they're too pathetic, and they're too weak.
Speaker 1: And you know, of my list of five people that
Speaker 1: are trying to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump, Republicans
Speaker 1: are on it. Weak Republicans, never Trumpers there on the list.
Speaker 1: Deep State that's on the list, Democrats on the list,
Speaker 1: destroy Trump media on the list. I mean, it's it
Speaker 1: is an obstacle that is so monumental for this president
Speaker 1: to get, you know, I mean, you know, I'm so
Speaker 1: happy to see that the mining industry, oh, their first
Speaker 1: profitable quarter in a couple of years. Well, that's good.
Speaker 1: And you know, Mad dog Man is slamming Congress for
Speaker 1: inhibiting military readiness. And you know, then we've got decision
Speaker 1: time at the Supreme Court. Imagine if Hillary had picked
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court justice. Oh, by the way, a Trump
Speaker 1: apprenticeship plan is aimed at filling six million job vacancies.
Speaker 1: Well that's pretty good. Just getting people back to work,
Speaker 1: getting them out of poverty, getting them off of food stamps,
Speaker 1: you know, getting them to participate in the labor force
Speaker 1: once again. One more quick called here, as we say,
Speaker 1: hide to Patty is in Ventura, California. I lived a
Speaker 1: little south of you for five years in Santa Barbara.
Speaker 1: All right, well that's a little north actually, but that's cool.
Speaker 1: Oh I'm sorry North, You're right North. I apologize as
Speaker 1: south is Los Angeles beautiful place up there too. Yeah. Great,
Speaker 1: Just so all sick of the extreme left. There's such
Speaker 1: store losers and the destroy Trump media and they're just
Speaker 1: so sick of obstructing Trump and his administration from doing
Speaker 1: their jobs for like six months now, and I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm sick of their filing lawsuit and creating so much
Speaker 1: smoke and there's no fire. So here's the thought. I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering, can someone like Trade Goudy or Jay Secular,
Speaker 1: anybody because they please maybe file a lawsuit for obstruction
Speaker 1: of justice against the establishment Democrats and liberal media on
Speaker 1: behalf of all of us. The only way is there's
Speaker 1: a couple of reforms we need. Number One, we've got
Speaker 1: to change the libel laws in the tree and if
Speaker 1: you liabel somebody, the press needs to start paying for
Speaker 1: their lives. Number Two, um, and that is, if it's approvable,
Speaker 1: outright scandalous lie, you've got to have some recourse. Um,
Speaker 1: as it relates if the president doesn't clean out the
Speaker 1: deep state. Now, it's at some point you're gonna have
Speaker 1: to blame him and the Obama holdovers. And when it
Speaker 1: comes to the media, I guess it's my job. I'm
Speaker 1: taking on my shoulders to do everything I can do
Speaker 1: to expose them as the liars they are. But it's
Speaker 1: as bad as I've ever seen it. Hannity Tonight, ten
Speaker 1: Eastern on the Fox News Channel, New king Ridge will
Speaker 1: join us. Of course, we'll talk about Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Speaker 1: More importantly, Loretta Lynch confronted by James Comey over the
Speaker 1: fact that she may have put the kabosh on any
Speaker 1: possibility of a Clinton indictment over the email server scandal. Well,
Speaker 1: if that's not obstruction of justice, I don't know what is.
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter's blockbuster report all of this covered in ways
Speaker 1: the media will not tend. Eastern Live. Hannity tonight, Foxy.
Speaker 1: Back here tomorrow. Thanks for being with us. M