Speaker 1: All right, buckle up, glad you're with us. Happy Monday,
Speaker 1: and right down on toll free telephone number. You want
Speaker 1: to be a part of this extravaganza, it's eight hundred
Speaker 1: and nine four one sean if you want to join us.
Speaker 1: You know, you watch the deep state, You watch the
Speaker 1: people that have lied for over two years. You just
Speaker 1: watch them, You just listen to them, You just do
Speaker 1: the anticipation for what they think is massive, and you
Speaker 1: just begin to figure out that they don't have a thing.
Speaker 1: And I am predicting that. The only thing that I
Speaker 1: am somewhat concerned about is Mueller changes his mind all
Speaker 1: the time. Now, based on what Robert Mueller has said,
Speaker 1: he's going to stick to his report stand on the
Speaker 1: nature of the report he originally said as to part
Speaker 1: to the obstruction. First of all, you know, he went
Speaker 1: through great, great detail over how hard it is. You know,
Speaker 1: you just can't say somebody obstructive when there's no underlying crime.
Speaker 1: He was never denied anything. The White House publicly encouraged
Speaker 1: everybody to testify with all congressional investigations and with the
Speaker 1: Special Council investigation, and then of course the White House
Speaker 1: handed over one and a half million documents and the
Speaker 1: president himself answered questions, and it went on for two
Speaker 1: and a half plus years, and you would think that
Speaker 1: maybe at some point that we start getting to what
Speaker 1: the real crimes are here and all of the other
Speaker 1: important issues that they have purposely avoided. But at times
Speaker 1: you get frustrated. But I think that's all about to
Speaker 1: change this week. And I don't really care what any
Speaker 1: of these people like Adam Schiff have to say, or
Speaker 1: people like Jerry Nadler, because I don't think I think
Speaker 1: this is once again wishful thinking on their part. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you go back over the Muller report itself, what
Speaker 1: did it say? And this is the fourth investigation complete.
Speaker 1: Now they want investigations five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten.
Speaker 1: But the FBI said, and you can quote Peter Struck
Speaker 1: of all people who hates Donald Trump, who thinks that
Speaker 1: Hillary should win one hundred million to zero, that had
Speaker 1: the insurance policy in place, and the guy that wrote
Speaker 1: the exoneration for Hillary before the investigation, the guy that
Speaker 1: was a part of the sham interrogation of Hillary where
Speaker 1: they actually allowed other people to be in the interrogation
Speaker 1: room at the time, and all of this special treatment
Speaker 1: they gave Hillary anyway, And and of course his you
Speaker 1: know the comments about Smellie Walmart Trump supporters. So this
Speaker 1: is a guy that also said and people forget, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no there there. And Lisa Page in closed door
Speaker 1: testimony when asked about well, the FBI nine month investigation
Speaker 1: before the appointment of Muller into any collusion, a conspiracy
Speaker 1: with Russia, well had to say, no, we had nothing.
Speaker 1: Those were her words. Then the House Intelligence Committee they
Speaker 1: had nothing, and you would think, well, maybe that would
Speaker 1: put it into this No, then Bipartisan Senate committee nothing.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to the Muller report. What are the
Speaker 1: words in the Muller report that the investigation, meaning the
Speaker 1: Muller investigation, this is their words, did not establish the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in Russia's in
Speaker 1: its election interference activities. So what part of that is,
Speaker 1: you know, let's look at this here. What part of
Speaker 1: that don't people understand? Now we all know because we've
Speaker 1: interviewed many constitutional experts and attorneys on this program. And
Speaker 1: the president under Article two powers also had the ability
Speaker 1: to fire Muller any time that he wanted to fire Amoute.
Speaker 1: He didn't do it. Now, did the President complain? Yes?
Speaker 1: Did the President call it a witch hunt? Often? Was it,
Speaker 1: in the end proven to be true? No, it was
Speaker 1: President was screaming about his innocence. Turned out he was innocent,
Speaker 1: was frustrated at the amount of time that he and
Speaker 1: his team had to spend dealing with this, these trumped
Speaker 1: up charges. And I think, like a lot of us,
Speaker 1: have a lot of questions for Muller about the so
Speaker 1: called priority of his investigation. You know, how is it that?
Speaker 1: First the first most obvious question, mister Muller, when did
Speaker 1: you know what you ultimately put in your report that
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign that you couldn't establish that they coordinated
Speaker 1: with the Russian government in their election interference activities. When
Speaker 1: did you know once you knew that? Why did you
Speaker 1: keep going? Why then we just found this out last week?
Speaker 1: Did you pick somebody like Andrew Weissman If you read
Speaker 1: License to Lie by Sidney Powell, who is now General
Speaker 1: Flynn's attorney, Well, there are instances spelled out in specific
Speaker 1: details about how Weissman literally withheld exculpatory evidence. Any prosecutor
Speaker 1: will do that, will do that means that they do
Speaker 1: not care about the law. They don't care about truth.
Speaker 1: They only care about wins and losses. And some of
Speaker 1: them get so caught up in the winning and losing
Speaker 1: of the cases they forget about what their principal job is,
Speaker 1: which would be the administration of justice. And I think
Speaker 1: one of the harder questions that you know Mueller's going
Speaker 1: to have to answer is about Weisman. Why would you
Speaker 1: let this guy who is withheld exculpatory evidence, Why would
Speaker 1: he become your main guy? Why would you allow Weissman,
Speaker 1: who was at Hillary's victory party we learned last week
Speaker 1: end up hiring the people that ended up being the
Speaker 1: Special Council team, and not one of them was a Republican.
Speaker 1: Most of them had donated to only Democrats. So there's
Speaker 1: a political taint right from the get go. Why would
Speaker 1: you ever hire Jeannie Ray, who is Hillary Clinton's attorney?
Speaker 1: How would you set it up that way? Now you've
Speaker 1: had time, mister Muller, for fair investigations which are rarely
Speaker 1: rarely prosecuted, and loan applications that people light on, and
Speaker 1: tax violations that people cheated on taxes and years gone by,
Speaker 1: two very stupid things to do. By the way, as
Speaker 1: a side note to anybody out there, don't do it,
Speaker 1: it's against the law. Don't cheat on your taxes, it's
Speaker 1: against the law. Don't lie on a loan application. Okay,
Speaker 1: why did you have time for that? Farer violations, taxi medallions,
Speaker 1: But you didn't have time with the broad mandate possible
Speaker 1: to look at election and interference, especially Russian? How did
Speaker 1: you not and in any way shape manner of form.
Speaker 1: Want to get to the bottom of the fact that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, the other candidate in this case, not only
Speaker 1: was exonerated when the evidence was overwhelming and incontrovertible, and
Speaker 1: other people have gone to jail for far less. Christian
Speaker 1: Saucier is the first name that comes to mind. He
Speaker 1: took six pictures of the submarine. But violation of the
Speaker 1: Espionage Act? How is it possible that Hillary Clinton had
Speaker 1: marked emails top secret classified special access programming information on
Speaker 1: an outside server, A clear, no ambiguity, clear compelling case
Speaker 1: of a violation of the Espionage Act. And then, of
Speaker 1: course any other American I would think that have subpoena emails,
Speaker 1: that deletes them, cleans the hard drives with bleach bit acid,
Speaker 1: washes them, and then busts up the devices just in
Speaker 1: case any of the evidence lingers and pull out sim cards.
Speaker 1: How was that not obstruction? How did you not investigate
Speaker 1: the dirty Russian dossier? There's a lot of legal issues
Speaker 1: associated with that, you know. Did they take campaign funds?
Speaker 1: Did they funnel it and tried to hide it as
Speaker 1: a legal expense when they knew that the law firm
Speaker 1: they hired, Perkins Cooeie was going to go out and
Speaker 1: hire an op research group Fusion GPS, that went out
Speaker 1: to hire a foreign national, and that in the end
Speaker 1: the foreign national and push came to Shove wouldn't even
Speaker 1: stand by his own dossier and set under oath under
Speaker 1: the threat of perjury that I have no idea if
Speaker 1: any of this is true? How would you not look
Speaker 1: at the fact that the first FISA application was signed
Speaker 1: in October twenty sixteen, and I'd like to know what
Speaker 1: part of that was not part of Russian interference? Considering
Speaker 1: that same information was leaked to conspiracy theorists and friendlies
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party like Michael Izikoff, a left wing hack,
Speaker 1: or David Korn, a left wing hack, or the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: You know, obviously an anti Trump pro Hillary publication How
Speaker 1: could you not see that as interfering with Russian lies
Speaker 1: in the middle of an election. How do you not
Speaker 1: look at the fact that Andrew Weissman, your number one guy,
Speaker 1: was hanging out hopeful on election night at Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: campaign headquarters. How do you ignore the fact that Weissman himself,
Speaker 1: that he himself was brief by Bruce Orr about the
Speaker 1: contents of the dirty dossier in August to twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: But according to all accounts, you use that as a
Speaker 1: roadmap as part of your investigation, and in that meeting
Speaker 1: he was told Steel hates Trump, it's not verified, and
Speaker 1: Hillary paid for it, but they used in any way
Speaker 1: In fact, was it not a conflict of interest for you,
Speaker 1: mister Muller, when the day before Rod Rosenstein hired you
Speaker 1: as special counsel, you had interviewed with Donald Trump for
Speaker 1: the position of f Behind director and in that meeting
Speaker 1: you were told exactly why James Comey was fired. How
Speaker 1: is it possible, now that we know all of this
Speaker 1: information about Rush, about Ukrainians and their attempts to sway
Speaker 1: the American public and influence the election by digging up
Speaker 1: and providing dirt on Manafort and others, in Ukraine and
Speaker 1: they're offering all of that information. How did you ignore
Speaker 1: that aspect when you had the broadest mandate possible. You know,
Speaker 1: what do you know about this, Professor Massud? I think
Speaker 1: John Solomon's going to be talking about later this week.
Speaker 1: John Solomon has breaking news today and is going to
Speaker 1: break it on the program later. But we now find
Speaker 1: out that two weeks after being appointed, Andrew Weissman secretly
Speaker 1: offered a plea deal to a oligarch by the name
Speaker 1: of Dmitri Firtash. And this is only two weeks into
Speaker 1: the investigation into your being hired. And you also apparently
Speaker 1: subcontracted out the hiring of all of your staff to
Speaker 1: Andrew Weisman with his atrocious track record. And anyway, we
Speaker 1: didn't know before the d details of all of this.
Speaker 1: I'll let John Solomon tell you about at the top
Speaker 1: of the next hour, But people with direct knowledge of
Speaker 1: all of this that the deal was a really sweet
Speaker 1: deal that would have been made for this Ukrainian oligarch
Speaker 1: that would have served multiple purposes and would have had
Speaker 1: a lot of consequences. And you know what part of
Speaker 1: that didn't you want to investigate or understand if the
Speaker 1: mandate was about interference, Well, why not Ukrainian interference? If
Speaker 1: the mandate was about Russian interference? How do you not
Speaker 1: want to know about the Russian dossier that was leaked
Speaker 1: to the public before the election? If you don't if
Speaker 1: you want to know about Russian interference? As the New
Speaker 1: York Times characterizes the dirty Clinton bought and paid for
Speaker 1: dossier as Russian disinformation from the get go, and then
Speaker 1: that Russian disinformation from the get go was used to
Speaker 1: obtain a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen
Speaker 1: and then spy on all things Trump campaign, Trump transition,
Speaker 1: Trump presidency. How did you ignore that part of the
Speaker 1: investigation as well? You know, as it relates to the dossier.
Speaker 1: You know, you have a lot of questions to answer here.
Speaker 1: And what about a conflict of interest? Are you not
Speaker 1: a witness even in your own case? And does the
Speaker 1: president under Article two powers did he not have the
Speaker 1: power to fire you if he wanted to? And why
Speaker 1: didn't you sign any of the FISA warrants after you
Speaker 1: were appointed? You would have had the ability to at
Speaker 1: least sign the third renewal the fourth FISA warrant, but
Speaker 1: that ended up in the hands of Rod Rosenstein. How
Speaker 1: did that happen? Who wrote this report? What is the motive?
Speaker 1: How do you get to obstruction when there's no underlying crime?
Speaker 1: How do you not look into the other candidates and
Speaker 1: Russian interference with Hillary and direct interference and direct payments
Speaker 1: and direct lies that were told the American people before
Speaker 1: the election. How do you not look into that Russian
Speaker 1: disinformation leading to a countertelligence investigation against Donald Trump then
Speaker 1: candidate transition member and everything else. How did you feel
Speaker 1: about James Comey? Did he violate the Espionage Act by
Speaker 1: leaking intelligence in order to get you appointed? I mean,
Speaker 1: as I have a ton of questions we'll get into
Speaker 1: later in the program for Comy. All of it is
Speaker 1: out there, all of it is available. And Muller's team,
Speaker 1: you know, they're looking for some type of agreement. Well,
Speaker 1: we have the evidence. Your report said that your investigation
Speaker 1: did not establish, and I'm quoting to verbatim that the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in these in
Speaker 1: their interference activities. Okay, that means he's exonerated. Well, then
Speaker 1: how do the Democrats then go to interpret what it
Speaker 1: is you're saying now? When I read and I see
Speaker 1: you're you know you you yourself point out in the
Speaker 1: second part of the report, how there was you know,
Speaker 1: not really a motive anyway. Eight hundred nine four one
Speaker 1: seawan is a number you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. Now we also have this ongoing battle.
Speaker 1: All right, First it's stormy, stormy, and it's Russia, Russia.
Speaker 1: Then it's collusion, collusion, then it's s wholes whole. Now
Speaker 1: it's racist, racist thousands of times a second. That's all
Speaker 1: the media says. And I'm just going to lay out
Speaker 1: the history. This is all they ever do in campaigns
Speaker 1: and at other times, you know, you just read the headline.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're raising expectations so high. Yes, I believe
Speaker 1: this reaches the level of high crimes and misdevenors. Nadler
Speaker 1: is saying, could begin impeachment proceedings substantive evidence the Trump
Speaker 1: up is guilty of these things, and shifts saying he
Speaker 1: believes Trump can be indicted. So the Democrats are probably
Speaker 1: going to focus on five things that is in the
Speaker 1: report on the obstruction side. Okay, well, they didn't find
Speaker 1: obstruction to the point where they felt that they could
Speaker 1: recommend anything all right, he directed the White House Council
Speaker 1: to fire Muller, while the president and every ability himself
Speaker 1: to fire Muller. It makes no sense or that Corey
Speaker 1: Lewandowski that the you know, former campaign chief asked Sessions
Speaker 1: to reassert control. Why did he give up control in
Speaker 1: the first place. The President complained about that publicly and
Speaker 1: while witnessed tampering to discourage Manaport and Kohn from cooperate.
Speaker 1: Just the opposite happened, because everybody ended up cooperating in
Speaker 1: the end. And if the President has the ability and
Speaker 1: power and authority under Article two to fire Mueller, none
Speaker 1: of it's significant because he didn't do it. I'll explain,
Speaker 1: all right, glad you when US twenty five till the
Speaker 1: top of the hour, we have John Solomon breaking news
Speaker 1: on Andrew Weissman's bad behavior, and it raises a lot
Speaker 1: of questions that I think will be coming up in
Speaker 1: the hearings this week. Look, Iron York has a great,
Speaker 1: great piece out. We'll put it up on Hannity dot com.
Speaker 1: Democrats think they've got a slam dunk obstruction case against Trump,
Speaker 1: and they don't when you really get to the nuts
Speaker 1: and bolts of all of this. I remember, there's gonna
Speaker 1: be two hearings this week. One is the in the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee in the House Intelligence Committee, Judiciary will focus
Speaker 1: on volume two of the report, the so called obstruction Analysis,
Speaker 1: where they did not well by the way they covered
Speaker 1: allegations of obstruction, and the first volume is going to
Speaker 1: be pursued by the Intelligence Committee. Conspiracy coordination. Well, that's
Speaker 1: we already know the answer to that, because we actually
Speaker 1: have the Muller Report, and it couldn't be more clear,
Speaker 1: because they say over and over again they did not
Speaker 1: establish in any way, shape, matter of form that in
Speaker 1: fact the president ever or his campaign ever coordinated with
Speaker 1: the Russians. All right, So that part was always removed
Speaker 1: from the get go. Then the questions, we know, the
Speaker 1: Democrats on the Intel Committee, how are they going to
Speaker 1: establish conspiracy of coordination when the Mueller Report decisively says that,
Speaker 1: in fact, the president did not do that. Okay? Issue one.
Speaker 1: Then it's interesting, as Byron York points out, that the
Speaker 1: Democrats want to focus on five specific episodes of that
Speaker 1: they say would prove obstruction, which, of course the Office
Speaker 1: of Legal Counsel, the Attorney General, and the Deputy Attorney
Speaker 1: General at the time, Rod Rosenstein determined never happened, and
Speaker 1: that is that, well, Trump told White House counsel Don
Speaker 1: McGann to fire Muller and then publicly lie about it. Well,
Speaker 1: Don McGann never fired Robert Muller, nor did the president.
Speaker 1: Numerous constitutional scholars point out that the President also brought
Speaker 1: in very specific reasons why he might be fired, which
Speaker 1: was his conflicts of interest, of which there were many,
Speaker 1: not the least of which as they had a personal
Speaker 1: issue going back years ago related to a golf club.
Speaker 1: And number two was, well, the day before he got
Speaker 1: hired as special counsel, he was applying for the job
Speaker 1: as FBI director, and Trump said no, and it would
Speaker 1: then make him a witness in his own case. And
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's gonna fly very well. Or
Speaker 1: the fact that maybe Corey Lewandowski was asking Jeff Sessions,
Speaker 1: you know, because Jeff Sessions at the time, remember we
Speaker 1: told you, cited the wrong statute and the wrong law
Speaker 1: justifying his recusal. Greg Jarrett was the one to broke
Speaker 1: that wide open. And again, well, it never happened. When
Speaker 1: the initial resignation letter from Jeff Sessions came in, the
Speaker 1: President did not accept it, and he remained on as
Speaker 1: the Attorney General. But what's not there, as Byron York
Speaker 1: points out, is the evidence that's not included in the
Speaker 1: Democrats report, or what their choice of evidence that they're
Speaker 1: not going to be including in this particular case, and
Speaker 1: that is that the firing of Comy. You know, well,
Speaker 1: that was their first big issue as possible obstruction. That
Speaker 1: is not going to be in the Democrats what the
Speaker 1: Democrats are highlighting. Nor are the conversations with Trump and
Speaker 1: Comy that Comy wrote up in his famous report and
Speaker 1: his famous memos. Probably the Democrats have even figured out
Speaker 1: what we figured out is James Comey has a lot
Speaker 1: of explaining to do himself, in spite of him sending
Speaker 1: out a list of his own questions to try and
Speaker 1: help the Democrats in their efforts this week. Anyway, Nor
Speaker 1: is the president's efforts to talk about the public story
Speaker 1: that about the Trump Tower meeting. Yet the incident was
Speaker 1: often characterize his obstruction. They're not bringing that up either, apparently,
Speaker 1: And the Mueller investigation was not obstructed by anybody, It's
Speaker 1: a matter of fact. Publicly, the President and his team
Speaker 1: made it known to everybody that they want everyone to
Speaker 1: cooperate with congressional investigations and with the Special Council investigation. Well,
Speaker 1: that kind of takes that narrative and blows it out
Speaker 1: of the water. Or it's important to recall Muller could
Speaker 1: never establish an underlying crime. He would that's what he
Speaker 1: was supposed to investigate. That was supposed to be the
Speaker 1: core of all of this. He was going to investigate
Speaker 1: whether or not Donald Trump, in fact and his campaign
Speaker 1: conspired against the Russians. Well, again, I'll read from the
Speaker 1: Mueller report. It said that the investigation did not establish
Speaker 1: that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government. So
Speaker 1: that can't be any more clear than what you have
Speaker 1: here if you don't have an underlying crime. That's one
Speaker 1: of my big issues. Hillary was guilty of an underlying
Speaker 1: crime Espionage Act. Hillary was guilty of real obstruction when
Speaker 1: she deleted its subpoena at emails, and then the bleach
Speaker 1: bit and then the hammers and then the sim cards
Speaker 1: are gone out of nowhere. So Mueller could never establish
Speaker 1: the underlying crime in Hillary's case. You could the fact
Speaker 1: that they're the same players, and that we found out
Speaker 1: from the first Inspector General report that those players hated
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, that they actively worked to help save Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton in her campaign by not applying the law equally,
Speaker 1: that they ignored real obstruction of justice. I would think
Speaker 1: that Republicans at different points during these hearings are going
Speaker 1: to bring all of this out and ask, well, why
Speaker 1: wasn't that important? Now? The Mueller Report also included a
Speaker 1: lengthy section in Part two, quote legal defenses to the
Speaker 1: application of obstruction of justice statutes to the President. Now
Speaker 1: that includes extraordinarily compelling arguments. Again, the reports owned instances
Speaker 1: where they say obstruction could have occurred. Well, if you
Speaker 1: can't prove an underlying crime, and you can't and you
Speaker 1: have the legal defenses and what the law actually requires
Speaker 1: to prove such, well, then you run into massive legal problems.
Speaker 1: But Byron York points out this is not a legal proceeding,
Speaker 1: it's a political one, and that most of these lawmakers
Speaker 1: are dumb and don't know the law it, you know,
Speaker 1: as we saw even over the weekends saying well what
Speaker 1: are the high crimes and misdemeans? They don't know what
Speaker 1: the high crimes and misdemeans are because there hasn't been
Speaker 1: any you know, everything we heard this weekend from Nadler
Speaker 1: and Shift. They've been saying for two and a half
Speaker 1: years that we've got all this evidence, but they've not
Speaker 1: been able to produce any of it, And I doubt
Speaker 1: they're going to be able to produce it in one
Speaker 1: day worth the hearings, one before Shift's committee and the
Speaker 1: other before Nadler's committee. And I also think once the
Speaker 1: Republicans dig down deep into what has not been looked
Speaker 1: at by mull, it's gonna make Mueller look pretty political.
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure Mueller is going to have the
Speaker 1: ability to answer a lot of these important questions, especially
Speaker 1: about the dirty Russian dossier and the impact that had
Speaker 1: on the twenty sixteen elections, and then the FIA abuse.
Speaker 1: How did you not investigate the fact that Russian lives
Speaker 1: were used as the basis of four separate FISA applications
Speaker 1: that resulted in spying on the Trump campaign, the Trump transition,
Speaker 1: and the Trump presidency. So one of the things that
Speaker 1: our friend Byron York concludes is that you know, legal
Speaker 1: analysis may dominate, cable TV coverage is not going to
Speaker 1: really apply, and that the president's defenders will make common
Speaker 1: sense defenses that do make sense to the American people
Speaker 1: that are not lawyers. So whatever legal argument they might
Speaker 1: be making, you know, is based on nuance and constitutional understanding.
Speaker 1: And then Mueller has a problem of Widdy ten three
Speaker 1: separate positions on why he didn't make a final determination
Speaker 1: on obstruction. First, he said it had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with DJ policy or constitutional considerations about whether you can
Speaker 1: or cannot indict a sitting president. So that's going to
Speaker 1: become an issue, you know. The Mueller report contends the
Speaker 1: president's behavior changed. In June of twenty seventeen, Washington Post
Speaker 1: reports that Muller less than a month in office, investigating
Speaker 1: Trump for obstruction, and Mueller suggesting that Trump began to
Speaker 1: obstruct the investigation. Well, that narrative is countered by one
Speaker 1: and a half million documents handed over and a public
Speaker 1: declaration encouraging everybody to cooperate and anybody that's subpoenaed to
Speaker 1: go see the Special Council or go to whatever congressional
Speaker 1: investigation is ongoing. No, but not one time was executive
Speaker 1: privilege ever invoked, or the idea that the president told
Speaker 1: senior advisors that the Special Council had conflicts of interest.
Speaker 1: I think that's true. And ethics officials similarly clearing the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel's office. And on June fourteen, twenty seventeen, the
Speaker 1: press reported the President was being personally investigated for obstruction.
Speaker 1: The President tweeted out that this is a witch hunt.
Speaker 1: President tweeted out all sorts of things. The President might
Speaker 1: have asked Don McGann, I have no idea whether he
Speaker 1: should have the Special Council fired, but that too, never
Speaker 1: happened in the end. And the Muller report, you know,
Speaker 1: Muller reports that Trump was upset by the appointment of Mueller,
Speaker 1: knowing that this could harm his presidency and his agenda
Speaker 1: and his ability to get things done. And Trump told
Speaker 1: the associates that the new Special Council had conflicts of interest,
Speaker 1: and the you know, the fact that he had an
Speaker 1: issue with Robert Muller at a Trump golf club in Virginia,
Speaker 1: or that Mueller had applied for Jim Comey's job just
Speaker 1: the day before, you know, Trump called, We're told called
Speaker 1: Don McGann. Why did Don McGann ever testify in the
Speaker 1: first place. One has to ask, how does the White
Speaker 1: House Counsel not invoke executive privilege in that particular case?
Speaker 1: But he went and spent some thirty hours with the
Speaker 1: Special counsel. But that doesn't sound like somebody's really trying
Speaker 1: to hide something or obstruct something if you're allowing even
Speaker 1: the White House Counsel to talk to the Special Counsel.
Speaker 1: And on top of all of it, you have, at
Speaker 1: the very very top of the pyramid, you have the
Speaker 1: president with the legal authority to fire Robert Muller because
Speaker 1: of the conflicts of interest. And then at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, even though the President vented anger and
Speaker 1: talked about solutions of firings and all sorts of things,
Speaker 1: the president never did any of it. McGann never called
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein, McGan never asked to fire Muller. McGan never
Speaker 1: talked about what the conflicts were. And the President himself
Speaker 1: could have done all of this, and the President did
Speaker 1: not do any of this. And you know, by the
Speaker 1: way McGan called, you know what Rhine's previous and Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon said he might resign if this happened. Well, McGann
Speaker 1: didn't tell either previous or Bannon what Trump wanted, although
Speaker 1: previous remembers McGann told him the president was asked asking
Speaker 1: him to do something that he thought would be dumb.
Speaker 1: You know, there was another call. There was not a
Speaker 1: third call from Trump at that point. To Don McGann.
Speaker 1: Don McGan didn't resign. Rod Rosenstein was never called. Muller
Speaker 1: wasn't fired, Mueller didn't resign, Jeff Sessions didn't resign at
Speaker 1: the time, and in late November and early December, McGann
Speaker 1: began an extensive series of interviews with Muller's prosecutors, and
Speaker 1: by the way, The New York Times cited four people
Speaker 1: familiar with the matter. Trump ordered muller firing but backed
Speaker 1: off when the White House Council threatened to quit. All right,
Speaker 1: so he was advised that's a bad idea, and eventually
Speaker 1: went along with the advice of his White House counsel.
Speaker 1: How does any of this, again, there's no underlying crime.
Speaker 1: How does any of this become obstruction of justice? You've
Speaker 1: really got a stretch, really far and wide to get there,
Speaker 1: all right. One of the other things that I want
Speaker 1: to get to here is so you got all these
Speaker 1: democratic socialists, let me play for you. We have a
Speaker 1: problem in this country as it relates to this Trump
Speaker 1: hate rage psychosis that exists, which is every second, minute, hour,
Speaker 1: of every day. If you notice what the media mob does.
Speaker 1: They wake up every day and they all get on
Speaker 1: the same page, and they all end up using the
Speaker 1: same phrases and the same arguments, and they get all hysterical,
Speaker 1: and they get all worked up, and they repeat over
Speaker 1: and over again whatever the point happens to be. They
Speaker 1: never do it with Democrats. They only do it with Republicans. Now,
Speaker 1: I remember Mitt Romney is probably one of the nicest
Speaker 1: guys in the world. They try to make Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: out to be a racist. Joe Biden saying they're gonna
Speaker 1: put you all back in chains. I remember Al Gore
Speaker 1: when he's running for office, saying Republicans have the wrong
Speaker 1: agenda for African Americans. They don't want to even count
Speaker 1: you in the census. Hillary Clinton said similar things. Barack
Speaker 1: Obama said similar things. We had Missouri radio ads that says,
Speaker 1: if you elect Republicans black, you know, churches are gonna burn.
Speaker 1: You had the James Bird add in two thousand that
Speaker 1: said it was like my father was killed all over
Speaker 1: again because George W. Bush didn't support hate crimes legislation,
Speaker 1: when in fact he supported the death penalty for these
Speaker 1: evil you can't even call subhuman beings that dragged this
Speaker 1: poor man to his death. And you can't have a
Speaker 1: bigger penalty than the death penalty. John McCain, who was
Speaker 1: always loved by the media, well even he was called
Speaker 1: the racist when he ran for president. This is standard
Speaker 1: operating procedure. So we've gone from the medium mantras. If
Speaker 1: you follow the bouncing ball, it becomes Russia, Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: it goes to collusion, collusion, collusion, and it goes to stormy, stormy, stormy,
Speaker 1: and then it goes to s holsls hole and then
Speaker 1: it goes to well, where we are today? Racist? Racist? Racist.
Speaker 1: There was a three day period last week where more
Speaker 1: than two thousand times the media mob in this country
Speaker 1: said the word racist. Now, why do we point these
Speaker 1: things out because your media is corrupt, because your media
Speaker 1: has an agenda? Now do they do the same thing
Speaker 1: with the Democrats? Have they pointed out the virulent anti
Speaker 1: semitism of Congresswoman Omar the controversial comments of Acacio Cortez,
Speaker 1: when you know, calls America garbage, or the fact or
Speaker 1: the comparisons of the detention centers to concentration camps. Now
Speaker 1: do they talk about Congresswoman Omar and you know her
Speaker 1: comments how Israel has the world hypnotized and may all
Speaker 1: awaken people around the world to Israel's whatever powers. No,
Speaker 1: they talk about her using the term it's all about
Speaker 1: the Benjamin's or comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. No, they
Speaker 1: have used virulent anti Semitic remarks. They have used really
Speaker 1: remarks that trash this country. Congresswoman Omar saying pretty much
Speaker 1: that America was to blame for a terrorist attack and
Speaker 1: a Kenyan mall in twenty thirteen. No, we were not.
Speaker 1: That would be El Shabab that was responsible for that.
Speaker 1: So my point is, this is your media. We'll get
Speaker 1: into more details. We also have John Solomon today this week,
Speaker 1: we'll have a chance to ask questions of Robert Muller,
Speaker 1: the Special Council when he appears and answers questions about
Speaker 1: that four hundred page report he turned in. He's already
Speaker 1: said he's not going to go beyond those four hundred
Speaker 1: something pages. What is the purpose? What do you actually
Speaker 1: think you're going to learn? Well, since most Americans, you know,
Speaker 1: in their busy lives, haven't had the opportunity to read
Speaker 1: that report, and it's a pretty dry prosecutorial work product.
Speaker 1: We want Bob Muller to bring it to life, to
Speaker 1: talk about what's in that report. It's a pretty damning
Speaker 1: set of facts that involve a presidential campaign in a
Speaker 1: close race, welcoming help from a hostile foreign power, not
Speaker 1: reporting it, but eagerly embracing it, building into their campaign strategy.
Speaker 1: All right, expect the show that's going to be Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller this week. And yeah, well, I guess they're telegraphing
Speaker 1: where they think this is going to go. And you know,
Speaker 1: we want, we want the American people to hear from
Speaker 1: Robert Muller and saying, yes, this could be getting Trump
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings. For what I have in front of me,
Speaker 1: I have the Muller Report, and it says the investigation
Speaker 1: did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Speaker 1: Russian government in its election interference activities, meeting the Russians?
Speaker 1: What part of that? All right? Well, what about obstruction? Well,
Speaker 1: if you look, how did the president and obstruct when
Speaker 1: there's no underlying crime? The president cooperated, one point five
Speaker 1: million documents handed over, everybody encouraged to testify. The President
Speaker 1: answered questions of Muller and his team. But this now
Speaker 1: being the now a fifth and sixth investigation, four separate investigations,
Speaker 1: including the Muller Report, all saying the same thing. What
Speaker 1: the Muller Report says, they didn't establish the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: coordinated with the Russian government. Nadler saying, just like they've
Speaker 1: been saying for two and a half year, substantial evidence
Speaker 1: at the president's guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Well,
Speaker 1: what is it. We've been waiting, what is it? Oh,
Speaker 1: it's going to air evidence of wrongdoing. And Adam Schiff again,
Speaker 1: he's been saying again the biggest liar on TV. That
Speaker 1: won't take three hours. We've offered him on this radio show,
Speaker 1: one hour on TV. How Trump could easily be indicted.
Speaker 1: He's essentially an unindicted cold conspirator. They just this up.
Speaker 1: By the way, a federal judge sided with a Russian
Speaker 1: company rebuking Robert Muller recently, which is pretty interesting here
Speaker 1: chastising the Special Counsel for stating the Russian government was
Speaker 1: behind election year social media trolling, where there's no evidence
Speaker 1: that was ever presented by prosecutors. Where is that evidence?
Speaker 1: That's a good question, said his Nadler's name appears more
Speaker 1: than one hundred times, and the redacted version of the
Speaker 1: Special Council's report alleged to have served as an adviser
Speaker 1: to the unit Nited Arab Emirates, etc. Etc. Oh, there's
Speaker 1: a real good witness for you, if ever I've seen one.
Speaker 1: And but they just keep pushing and the cowardly shift.
Speaker 1: He should be indicted. He should be indicted when he
Speaker 1: leaves office. And the Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen suggesting Trump
Speaker 1: and bar brainwashed the public with life. No they didn't
Speaker 1: what part of did not establish the campaign coordinated with
Speaker 1: the Ussian government. Now, John Solomon has done amazing work
Speaker 1: for the last two and a half years, and he's
Speaker 1: going to have two explosive stories that are coming out
Speaker 1: this week. One will be out and available by nine
Speaker 1: o'clock tonight when we come on Hannity, and it is
Speaker 1: new You know that Muller deputy. In other words, the
Speaker 1: pit Poll, as The New York Times called Andrew Weissman,
Speaker 1: apparently secretly offered a plea deal to an oligarch, one
Speaker 1: to get himself out of trouble, and two to get
Speaker 1: information that he thought might hurt Donald Trump. Remember, this
Speaker 1: is the guy that was at Hillary's victory party that
Speaker 1: never happened. This is the guy we learned last week
Speaker 1: was responsible almost solely for hiring all of the Democratic donors,
Speaker 1: no Republican donors, including Clinton's former attorney. He's the guy
Speaker 1: that put Enron Accounting people out of business, Tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of people lost their job, lost nine zero in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. This is a guy licensed to lie
Speaker 1: by Sidney Powell gives examples of him withholding exculpatory evidence.
Speaker 1: This is a guy that put four Merrill executives in
Speaker 1: jail for a year, only to be overturned by the
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. How does this guy become
Speaker 1: your lead guy? How does he become your pit bull?
Speaker 1: How does he become in charge of hiring? Well, now
Speaker 1: we're learning more about Andrew Weisman. John Solomon joins us
Speaker 1: with this breaking news. What do you got Well, if
Speaker 1: we take everybody back to the June of twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: the summer of twenty seventeen, if we were all reading
Speaker 1: the mainstream media back then, we thought the Mueller investigation
Speaker 1: was chugging along and Donald Trump was in giant trouble. Right.
Speaker 1: If you remember back that time. Now they're watching Kennedy,
Speaker 1: they might have had a different story. But the public's
Speaker 1: perception was that the Mueller investigation was steamrolling ahead and
Speaker 1: that we were just weeks or months away from big
Speaker 1: indictments in the fall of the presidency. Behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: we now know that Andrew Weisman and Robert Mueller saw
Speaker 1: their case rumbling, that the Steele dossier had been debunked,
Speaker 1: and that they had very few pieces of Evans left
Speaker 1: even hint of any Russia collusion with Trump, and so
Speaker 1: on the second week of the Muller investigation, what I'm
Speaker 1: able to document today is that Weisman, not even moved
Speaker 1: into his new office yet reaches out to a major
Speaker 1: Ukrainian figure who's under US indictment since twenty fourteen and
Speaker 1: basically says, I can waive my magic Muller wand and
Speaker 1: make your criminal charges go away if you give me
Speaker 1: some dirt on Trump. Now keep it. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: Muller's not even staffed up yet, he's not even fully
Speaker 1: read into the case. And here is Andrew Weisman trying
Speaker 1: to throw a hail Mary plea bargain to a guy
Speaker 1: that's been under indictment for several years, and you'll learn
Speaker 1: in the course of the negotiations in his behavior, Weisman,
Speaker 1: in seeking up plea bargain, and what's known as a
Speaker 1: proffer from the defendant, suggests the testimony that would be
Speaker 1: most helpful to him. The problem is, this Ukrainian oligarch
Speaker 1: isn't willing to give that testimony, isn't willing to lie,
Speaker 1: isn't willing to make up any stories. So the deal
Speaker 1: falls apart. But what we find out is that Weisman's
Speaker 1: motive for the deal might not only have been to
Speaker 1: get Donald Trump, which clearly was one of his motives.
Speaker 1: It might also have been to make a problem go
Speaker 1: away for the Justice Department. It turns out, in the
Speaker 1: summer of seventeen, again not public, the case against the
Speaker 1: Mucci for test this Ukrainian oligarch is falling apart. The
Speaker 1: key piece of evidence alleging bribery by the Ukrainian businessman
Speaker 1: is now deemed to be a fraud, and two of
Speaker 1: the key witnesses against that the Justice Department used to
Speaker 1: secure the indictment have recanted their allegations. So behind the
Speaker 1: scenes you have Andrew Weisman, the ultimate fixture trying to
Speaker 1: make a case go away that might involve the oj misconduct,
Speaker 1: and trying to get some hail married dirt play on
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Neither one worked very well for him or
Speaker 1: for the Justice Department. How does Muller and so the
Speaker 1: question with a guy like Weisman's track record, which is
Speaker 1: only getting worse with this new report that you're putting
Speaker 1: out here, how does he answer the question of why
Speaker 1: he only picked Democrats, Why Andrew Weissman became in control
Speaker 1: of hiring only Democrats. What part of this guy's record
Speaker 1: of withholding exculpatory evidence causing Americans tends of thousands to
Speaker 1: lose their jobs, his losses in the Supreme Court putting
Speaker 1: innocent people in jail overturned? You know, at what point
Speaker 1: is he not responsible for hiring a guy whose conduct
Speaker 1: is atrocious and his track record atrocious. Well, that is
Speaker 1: clearly going to be one of the questions he's going
Speaker 1: to have to answer during Wednesday's hearing if it happens.
Speaker 1: And I think that it's very important for all the
Speaker 1: American public to understand why did Muller pick Weisman? And
Speaker 1: I think one of the answers is Weisman is emblematic
Speaker 1: of a period in the Justice Department history where prosecutor
Speaker 1: ran rough shot all of the great stuff that you
Speaker 1: see in Sydney Powell's great book License to Lie. Andrew
Speaker 1: Weisman's the poster child for that cowboy version of prosecutorial pursuit, aggressiveness,
Speaker 1: withholding exculpatory information, all the things that we also see
Speaker 1: in the Russia case, right overstatement of the facts, which
Speaker 1: recently resulted in Mueller getting rebuked by a judge. Andrew
Speaker 1: Weisman is the face of a Justice department that was
Speaker 1: operating under the Obama years, particularly I mean even going
Speaker 1: back into the Bush years when you saw the end
Speaker 1: Run case. And I think today the problem is that
Speaker 1: his conduct not only leading up to the time when
Speaker 1: he was appointed to Muller's team, but during Mueller's tenure
Speaker 1: is going to raise a lot of questions. I think
Speaker 1: Andrew Weisman has a lot to answer for him. And
Speaker 1: the first question is, how could you two weeks into
Speaker 1: an investigation, before you even know anything, You're already throwing
Speaker 1: a hail Mary plea bargain out there to a Ukrainian
Speaker 1: ola guard. And what sort of Justice department brings charges
Speaker 1: against a foreigner? And then finds out afterwards that evidence
Speaker 1: was wrong, or that they misstated their evidence, or that
Speaker 1: their witnesses are recanting. There's a real question about the
Speaker 1: Obama Justice Department's conduct in this period, starting back when
Speaker 1: Firtash was indicted in twenty fourteen and continuing to the
Speaker 1: advent of the Russian investigation. And Andrew Weisman is at
Speaker 1: the center of that machine. And I think Bob Muller
Speaker 1: has a lot of questions to answer on Wednesday. How
Speaker 1: do we know that? So Weisman's two weeks into the deal,
Speaker 1: he reaches out to the American lawyers for those Russian
Speaker 1: oligarch Dmitri what is it Firtash and with attempting offer
Speaker 1: give us third on Trump in the Russia case, and
Speaker 1: Mueller might make the Ukrainian oligarchs twenty fourteen US criminal
Speaker 1: charges go away. And you're saying that there's evidence that
Speaker 1: in fact, he's basically telling them what they want to hear. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's very specific things. So the way these proper situations go,
Speaker 1: and I've covered the Justice Department for thirty years, normally
Speaker 1: the prosecutors say, if you're interested in a plea deal
Speaker 1: first off, Usually it's the defense that comes to the prosecutors.
Speaker 1: In this case, it's the prosecutors going to the defense. Secondly,
Speaker 1: no matter how the conversation starts, the normal conduct of
Speaker 1: the prosecutors, these are the topics. Were interested and let
Speaker 1: us know if your client has anything and make a
Speaker 1: proffer an offer of testimony. Here Weiseman's shares incredibly private
Speaker 1: details about what Muller and his early thinking about the
Speaker 1: case is. And he's sort of suggesting what would be
Speaker 1: the helpful testimony, sort of leading the witness towards his
Speaker 1: profer And I'll give you a couple of examples that
Speaker 1: really jumped out to me. And what happened was that
Speaker 1: the fir Tash team kept very good records of these contacts,
Speaker 1: so you would know. Let me give you one example
Speaker 1: something that was not public at the time but was
Speaker 1: clearly part of the ferry. They're talking about this guy
Speaker 1: Felix Sader, former FBI informant, somebody who made a lot
Speaker 1: of allegations against Trump, and he Wiseman's telling the fur
Speaker 1: Tash team, we think a company tied to him called
Speaker 1: bay Rock, it was secretly investing in Trump's companies. That's
Speaker 1: not public information. That's not the sort of thing you
Speaker 1: should be sharing with a defendant. At the time, they
Speaker 1: told them they were looking for dirt on Jared Kushner.
Speaker 1: Nobody knew what we were Muller was looking at Jared
Speaker 1: Kushner at that time. They told them that one of
Speaker 1: the groups that Manafort was working for might have been
Speaker 1: an illegal front, and that the Russians were trying to
Speaker 1: coordinate their work through this illegal front. None of that
Speaker 1: is public at the time, and yet it's being shared
Speaker 1: behind the scenes by Wiseman too. Fur Tash are defended
Speaker 1: in the criminal case, sort of giving him the idea
Speaker 1: of what Mueller needs to close these cases down. That's
Speaker 1: sort of what they call in the in the legal business,
Speaker 1: leading the witness, and I think that you know, when
Speaker 1: you see that behavior, it not only shocked some of
Speaker 1: the fur Tash legal team members, it really raises questions
Speaker 1: among some of the legal experts I talked to in
Speaker 1: the last day or two about this, about the documents
Speaker 1: I have. Yeah, I gotta take a break. We'll come
Speaker 1: back more with the executive vice president and the investigative reporter,
Speaker 1: John Solomon. A right. As we continue with John Solomon,
Speaker 1: investigative reporter and Executive Vice President of the Hill. All right,
Speaker 1: so let's let's get your take, your preview of what
Speaker 1: you think we're going to see this week. Besides, I mean,
Speaker 1: they're going to try and put on a show. I mean,
Speaker 1: SHIFT is already moving to discredit the Horowitz report. I
Speaker 1: noticed before its release, Well, why would we ever in
Speaker 1: the middle of a Muller investigation into possible Russian interference
Speaker 1: in the twenty sixteen election? Why would we be more
Speaker 1: concerned about FARA violations and loan applications and old tax
Speaker 1: returns and taxi medallions, but not interested in what the
Speaker 1: New York Times is now suggesting was always Russian disinformation
Speaker 1: that Hillary paid for that was disseminated to you know,
Speaker 1: these hacks and conspiracy theorists like Michael Izakoff and the
Speaker 1: Washington Post and David korne Why would we care about that?
Speaker 1: Not even ask a single question about a dirty ru
Speaker 1: shandassier and that being the basis of a FISA warrant.
Speaker 1: But there's no need to think about those things. How
Speaker 1: does Muller answer that question? It is a great question.
Speaker 1: I suspect that Robert Muller is going to be a
Speaker 1: dud of a witness, much like Michael Cohen turned out
Speaker 1: to be a dud of a witness and in fact
Speaker 1: backfired and the Democrats as the very first witness in
Speaker 1: the House, Democrats new investigations. And I think the reason
Speaker 1: why he's telegraphed, why he has said publicly he will
Speaker 1: not go beyond what's in the report. So I suspect
Speaker 1: you did think Muller, as Devin Nouness suggested, maybe coordinating
Speaker 1: with the House Dems about what he's gonna say. I
Speaker 1: have a strong reason to believe that Robert Muller is
Speaker 1: going to stick to the words that he said after
Speaker 1: as press conference. How strong a belief do you have?
Speaker 1: Because that, let me interpret for our audience. If John
Speaker 1: Solomon's I have a strong sense, it means that he
Speaker 1: pretty much knows. So why don't you just tell us
Speaker 1: what you know. I don't want to say I know,
Speaker 1: because no one can predict a person's behavior until it happens.
Speaker 1: But my reporting suggests that what Robert Mueller said a
Speaker 1: month ago, which is I'm not intending to go beyond
Speaker 1: what's in the report, is what's going to be the
Speaker 1: core of testimony. And I think you're going to hear
Speaker 1: a lot of times I refer you to the report
Speaker 1: and I have nothing more to add to it. I
Speaker 1: think he's going to do that a lot in the
Speaker 1: course of the hearing. That's going to be frustrating the
Speaker 1: both sides. But I think the questions, particularly those from Republicans,
Speaker 1: are going to be enlightening. I think people like Devin
Speaker 1: Nunion has, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan are going to
Speaker 1: ask questions while a national audience is paying attention. That's
Speaker 1: going to shock the American public because they haven't been
Speaker 1: able to hear all these things before. They're there's going
Speaker 1: to be real questions about the conduct of the Russian
Speaker 1: investigation and Mueller's team and Weisman. It's interesting time that
Speaker 1: many Americans hear that. Look, if you want to say,
Speaker 1: you're welcome, I have my questions. Jim Comey, the arrogant SuperPatriot,
Speaker 1: put out his questions that he wants Democrats to ask,
Speaker 1: and I have questions that I want to ask, Jim Comey,
Speaker 1: And if you want to stick around and add to it,
Speaker 1: and what question as you think Republicans can you You're
Speaker 1: welcome to stay, John Solomon, But I don't know what
Speaker 1: your schedules. All right, Executive vice all right, great, executive
Speaker 1: vice president for the Hill Investigative reporter will come back.
Speaker 1: My questions for Jim Collmey, and then also my questions
Speaker 1: for Muller. Well, me and John will put that together
Speaker 1: as we continue straight ahead, all right, twenty five till
Speaker 1: the top of the hour, eight hundred nine for one sean,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program,
Speaker 1: we'll get back to our top story, which is you know,
Speaker 1: it's first it's Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion,
Speaker 1: stormy stormy, stormy, stormy, sho shleshole. And now it's racist, racist, racist.
Speaker 1: They cannot stop themselves. Now, the arrogant one, the super
Speaker 1: patriot himself, James Comey, has come out with his list
Speaker 1: of questions and ideas for the House Democrats of questions
Speaker 1: that he wants. Okay, I have questions too, and John
Speaker 1: Solomon remains with US Executive vice president, investigated were Porter
Speaker 1: of the Hill. I just jotted these down very quickly.
Speaker 1: We'll maybe put them up on the website today. But
Speaker 1: how about this, what is the espionage eighteen USC seven
Speaker 1: ninety three? Say? Then I would put the legislation up
Speaker 1: and say what part of that did Hillary not violate?
Speaker 1: Why was the language changed, mister Komey in the exoneration
Speaker 1: of Hillary Rodham Clinton when it was written in early
Speaker 1: May from the legal standard gross negligence and those words
Speaker 1: became extreme carelessness, which does not meet the legal standard.
Speaker 1: You talk a lot about questions you want answered about
Speaker 1: obstruction involving the president, but there's no underlying crime because
Speaker 1: we go directly to the Muller report that says that
Speaker 1: they did not establish the Trump campaign coordinated with the
Speaker 1: Russian government in their election interference activities. So in the
Speaker 1: case of Hillary, there is the Espionage Act, and she
Speaker 1: did delete thirty three thousand emails, and she used bleach
Speaker 1: bit to clean up the hard drive so they couldn't
Speaker 1: be recovered. And then of course she busted up devices
Speaker 1: with hammers, had an aid do it, and they removed
Speaker 1: the simcards just to make doubly sure that no data
Speaker 1: existed or remained. What about those emails? Tell us how
Speaker 1: that's not obstruction of justice? And while we're at mister
Speaker 1: colemany how many times, well you warned about the dossier
Speaker 1: being unverified? We know of two instances directly. One was
Speaker 1: from Bruce Or in August to twenty sixteen, and one
Speaker 1: was about two weeks prior to you signing the first
Speaker 1: FISA application, with the bulk of information being the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton bought and paid for dirty Russian disinformation dossier. So
Speaker 1: the question is how many other times were you warned
Speaker 1: about the dossier not being verifiable? Why did you sign
Speaker 1: the FISA application using the bulk of information as Hillary's
Speaker 1: bought and paid for Russian dossier, Because when you signed it,
Speaker 1: you are swearing to the fact that it was verified.
Speaker 1: We now know it's unverifiable, as its own author says
Speaker 1: he has no idea if any of it's true. And
Speaker 1: when the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign began, what
Speaker 1: was the basis for such an investigation? And why was
Speaker 1: there no investigation into Hillary Rodham Clinton and her bought
Speaker 1: and paid for Russian dossier with funneled money into a
Speaker 1: law firm, to an op research firm that hired a
Speaker 1: foreign national. And last, but certainly not least, mister Koma,
Speaker 1: you say the FBI doesn't spy, we don't spy your
Speaker 1: exact words, Well, when you signed the FISA application, the
Speaker 1: first one and I believe you signed three well warrant
Speaker 1: you putting your signature on a document that it will
Speaker 1: allow spying into Carter Page and also simultaneously backdoor into
Speaker 1: all things Trump campaign, later Trump transition team, and later
Speaker 1: the Trump presidency. How is that not spying? You want
Speaker 1: to add to that, John Solomon, I got one more
Speaker 1: question for Did you knowingly and willfully leaked classified memos
Speaker 1: to your lawyers as part of an effort to get
Speaker 1: a special prosecutor named? And if so, were you aware
Speaker 1: that you were violating the Spnash Act when you did so.
Speaker 1: We have strong evidence that he gave classified memos to
Speaker 1: his lawyers and that the FBI scrub teams had to
Speaker 1: come back and scrub his lawyer's offices to make sure
Speaker 1: none of that sensitive information got leaked further beyond where
Speaker 1: it was sent to the lawyers. That would be a
Speaker 1: remarkable irony. If James Comey, who preached to Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: but refused to indict her, engage in the same negligent
Speaker 1: handling of classified information as was uncovered in the in
Speaker 1: the Clinton email case, That's what I have for James
Speaker 1: Comey for sure. Okay, Now, the next I think biggest
Speaker 1: and most important group of questions would be and what
Speaker 1: would you ask beyond when did you Robert Muller know
Speaker 1: when did you know that there was no well quote
Speaker 1: the Muller report that the Trump campaign you never established
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in their
Speaker 1: election interference activities. When did you know that? What would
Speaker 1: you add to that very important question? I think the
Speaker 1: question you asked in the earlier segments important. Why did
Speaker 1: you hire so many Democrats? Why so many loaded political
Speaker 1: people on your staff? I think from today's column, the
Speaker 1: one that's coming out tonight, did you know that Weisman
Speaker 1: was making this offer to the Russian oligarch and why
Speaker 1: would you make such an offer before you were fully
Speaker 1: read into the case. Here's one of my favorites, and
Speaker 1: it's going to involve something that may come to light
Speaker 1: as early as tomorrow night. Who was Joseph Mifsu the
Speaker 1: professor who approached George Popadappas in the earliest known interaction
Speaker 1: in the Russia collusion fantasy? Who is he and what
Speaker 1: did you learn about him? And did you really do
Speaker 1: a thorough job investigating him? And then one of my favorites,
Speaker 1: if your mandate was to investigate all foreign interference in
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen Why did you not look at the
Speaker 1: acknowledgement by the Ukraine Embassy in Washington that Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: campaign and the Democratic National Committee sought Ukraine's help in
Speaker 1: finding dirt on Donald Trump that he could make public
Speaker 1: during the twenty sixteen election. And why didn't you look
Speaker 1: at the efforts of Ukraine's FPI, in Ukraine's top anti
Speaker 1: corruption lawmaker to publicly put out dirt on Donald Trump
Speaker 1: designed to help him lose the election. Isn't that election interference,
Speaker 1: just like the interference you did not find on Russia.
Speaker 1: Those are all questions that I would ask Bob Muller. Well,
Speaker 1: I would go even a step further to Bob Muller.
Speaker 1: You clearly had a very broad mandate that was given
Speaker 1: to you by Rob Rosenstein. Part of that mandate led
Speaker 1: to investigations into old tax returns farah violations which here
Speaker 1: to four were never really considered big violations. It was like,
Speaker 1: all right, get that up to date, loan applications, tax applications,
Speaker 1: taxi medallions. How is it possible, mister Muller or that
Speaker 1: you put a priority on those items? But you knew
Speaker 1: when did you know about Hillary's bought and paid for
Speaker 1: dirty Russian dossier? Did you know the Russian dossier was
Speaker 1: disseminated before the election into friendly media outlets that asked
Speaker 1: no questions, people like Michael Iizikoff, David Korn and the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Right, was this, in and of itself Russian
Speaker 1: interference in our elections? Did you investigate who paid for
Speaker 1: the dossier? Did you investigate whether any of the items
Speaker 1: and the dossier were true? Did you not find it
Speaker 1: important that the Trump campaign was spied on based upon
Speaker 1: what is, according to the New York Times, Russian disinformation,
Speaker 1: anything else you did? Those are fantastic questions and I
Speaker 1: and I think you know one of the questions I'd
Speaker 1: ask him if you were a FBI director, if you
Speaker 1: were James Komi, in the summer of twenty sixteen, based
Speaker 1: on the evidence that we now know, the FBI used
Speaker 1: to go to the FISA court, would you yourself have
Speaker 1: signed that FIS knowing that the Steel dossier was uncorroborated,
Speaker 1: and the core allegation for the Steel dossier that they
Speaker 1: put in the FIST application, the one that Carter Page
Speaker 1: met with those two Russians, knowing that that was not
Speaker 1: yet verified, would you have affixed your name to that
Speaker 1: FISA warrant? And I'll point out something that's very interesting.
Speaker 1: A lot of people don't realize this. The last renewal
Speaker 1: of the FISA warrant was issued and requested after Bob
Speaker 1: Muller became special prosecutor in the case, but remarkably, he
Speaker 1: didn't sign his name to it. Rod Rosenstein did, why
Speaker 1: if Muller's in charge of the case and it's now
Speaker 1: his case, why was in his name on that affidavit?
Speaker 1: And was that because he had concerns about what was
Speaker 1: that FISA warrant? I think there's some great questions ask
Speaker 1: about the FIS warrant. He's a man who when he
Speaker 1: was FBI director signed a lot of these. Would if
Speaker 1: he signed his name the same way Comy did, knowing
Speaker 1: what we now know about the case. Well, I think
Speaker 1: the next part of this is did you have a
Speaker 1: conflict of interest the day before you were appointed to
Speaker 1: be the special counsel? Were you not denied by President
Speaker 1: Trump the position of the FBI? And did President Trump
Speaker 1: explain to you why James Comea, your friend, was fired. Yep,
Speaker 1: That's another great question. I mean, listen, if we had
Speaker 1: about Muller for ten days, I don't think we could
Speaker 1: get all the questions in. And that is one of
Speaker 1: the most troubling things. Can you think back to a
Speaker 1: time where such a high profile investigation is now it
Speaker 1: was declared complete after the nine to eleven You think
Speaker 1: of all the big investigations we've had in Washington the
Speaker 1: last quarter of century, Watergate, this investigation left us more
Speaker 1: questions and answers, left us more concerns about the misconduct
Speaker 1: of the investigators and those investigated. It is a very
Speaker 1: difficult investigation. And Mueller's report was supposed to bring clarity
Speaker 1: to this, and instead it brought obfuscation and omission. I
Speaker 1: think that's going to be one of the themes on
Speaker 1: Wednesday that will be very important to listen for. What
Speaker 1: about Article two of the US Constitution? Do you believe
Speaker 1: under Article two, as many famed lawyers and constitutional scholars
Speaker 1: believe that the president had every right to fire you
Speaker 1: if he's so true, if he chose to do so,
Speaker 1: because and the answer would be yes, Well, wouldn't that
Speaker 1: make any charges of the fact that the president at
Speaker 1: times lashed out at the witch hunt, that he still
Speaker 1: had in his power the ability to fire you but didn't.
Speaker 1: Doesn't that speak volumes about his desire not to obstruct
Speaker 1: the investigation. Yeah, and remember a lot of people forget this,
Speaker 1: but when James Coomy was fired, everybody thought that was
Speaker 1: because of Russia. But we learned from the IG report,
Speaker 1: the independent IG Michael Horwitz, a nonpartisan guy, that the
Speaker 1: grounds for firing Coomy were not only not related to Russia,
Speaker 1: they were good grounds. They were solid personnel human resource
Speaker 1: reasons to fire James Coomy. He acted badly in the
Speaker 1: Clinton email case. He violated department rules, he usurped the
Speaker 1: authority of the Attorney General, and therefore he deserved to
Speaker 1: be fired. So if he was fired for legitimate grounds,
Speaker 1: how do you make the obstruction case after an IG
Speaker 1: has already determined that that was a legitimate firing. Those
Speaker 1: are some of the questions that I think we're Democrats fear.
Speaker 1: I think they want to try to control this narrative,
Speaker 1: and I would watch for Democrats to try to cut
Speaker 1: off Republicans on the good questions, try to interfere with that,
Speaker 1: because they have a lot more to lose than to
Speaker 1: gain with Robert Muller's questioning on Wednesday, You see I agreed,
Speaker 1: all right, more with John Solomon on the other side,
Speaker 1: Executive vice president of The Hill, investigative reporter eight hundred
Speaker 1: and nine for one. Shaun is on number all right,
Speaker 1: as we continue, John Solomon with us with his breaking
Speaker 1: news story. We will have more tonight at nine on
Speaker 1: Hannity on the Fox News Channel. He, of course, the
Speaker 1: executive vice president investigative reporter for The Hill. Now, when
Speaker 1: you read Part two of the Mueller report and the
Speaker 1: different examples that it brings up, and they say they
Speaker 1: wouldn't go either way and make in a decision, is
Speaker 1: there anything in that report that you resembles obstruction? Now,
Speaker 1: keeping in the context there's no underlying crime, Muller found
Speaker 1: no underlying crime. He's the fourth separate investigation to find
Speaker 1: no underlying crime. Is a president that ultimately is innocent
Speaker 1: because if you can charge somebody, that means the evidence
Speaker 1: doesn't exist regardless of what you think. Why did you
Speaker 1: contradict yourself on different occasions as to whether Department of
Speaker 1: Justice policy and the constitution might have prohibited you from
Speaker 1: indicting a sitting president when you and yourself said earlier
Speaker 1: and then later that that was not a consideration. Yeah,
Speaker 1: those are great questions. And if you read the second
Speaker 1: chapter the second volume of the Muller Report, it is clear,
Speaker 1: beyond what democrats have been arguing that the only reason
Speaker 1: Donald Trump got off on obstruction is because there's an opinion,
Speaker 1: a long, oh old opinion Justice Department that sitting president's
Speaker 1: champion died. If you really read what Muller wrote, he
Speaker 1: highlighted many of the problems with an obstruction prosecution, beginning
Speaker 1: with the fact that motive wasn't there, there was no
Speaker 1: underlying crime, as he rightly suggested, and in some cases
Speaker 1: Mother went out of his way to point that what
Speaker 1: looks like obstruction to Democrats might have simply been a
Speaker 1: president trying to defend his own presidency from an unnecessary distraction. So,
Speaker 1: in Muller's own analysis, contrary to what you hear from
Speaker 1: the DAMS, would you hear an MSNBC, what you hear
Speaker 1: in the CNN, Muller's side at the natural flaws that
Speaker 1: he ran into as a prosecutor when he started to
Speaker 1: look at this obstruction claim. And I think that one
Speaker 1: of the ones he doesn't mention but may have been
Speaker 1: the single biggest reason why they didn't bring obstruction charges
Speaker 1: on the firing of Coomy is that the IG found
Speaker 1: that the firing was made for real reasons, not for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's desire to get rid of James Comby in
Speaker 1: the Russian investigation, but because the President himself, because the
Speaker 1: Department itself found James Comi in violation of its policies.
Speaker 1: And remember one other fingers, that famous Lester Holt interview
Speaker 1: with all the Democrats always waves saying that's the proof
Speaker 1: that Trump was going firing Coomy because of Russia. That's
Speaker 1: not what he said. If you read the whole interview,
Speaker 1: the part that wasn't put out in publica, you see
Speaker 1: the President saying I want the Russia investigation to be
Speaker 1: done well, and James Coomey, because of the way he
Speaker 1: handled email case, is probably not a guy that's going
Speaker 1: to do it well. That's basically what the President was saying.
Speaker 1: He was firing Comy on personnel grounds, not on Russia obstruction.
Speaker 1: And that's probably the real reason that Bob Muller never
Speaker 1: pulled the trigger on anything obstruction. All right, John Solomon,
Speaker 1: we'll have more on this breaking news story. Andrew Weisman.
Speaker 1: More news also coming from John later this week, as
Speaker 1: we have the media hype and probably again let down
Speaker 1: in boomerang on Mueller's testimony on Wednesday. We're looking forward
Speaker 1: to it, John Solomon, thank you. We'll see it tonight
Speaker 1: on Hannity when we come back. A lot to get to.
Speaker 1: We'll look at the media, Russia, Russia collusion, collusion, stormy
Speaker 1: stormy sholes whole racist, racist. They can't control themselves. It
Speaker 1: is one feigned more oral outrage after the next. At
Speaker 1: what point does this boomerang back on them? Well, the
Speaker 1: answer we already know is not. People don't trust or
Speaker 1: watch them anymore. That's a big problem or read them
Speaker 1: quick break right back. We'll continue News Roundup and Information
Speaker 1: Overload hours next. Stay right here for our final news
Speaker 1: round up and Information Overload. The President denies his tweets
Speaker 1: are racist about the racist tweets aimed at them by
Speaker 1: the President of the United States, but his racist tweets
Speaker 1: about who should stay in America quickly got all his attention. Not,
Speaker 1: says Woodrow Wilson showed birth of a nation in the
Speaker 1: White House. Has an American president so flagrant in his
Speaker 1: racial messaging as this one. Today, President Trump amplified his
Speaker 1: language on race from a dog whistle to a bugle
Speaker 1: hawk call, driving home his inflammatory and racist attacks on
Speaker 1: four Democratic congresswoman of color. And this feels like the
Speaker 1: President really owning the idea that he's say things that
Speaker 1: are attractive to white nationalists and racist. He has joined
Speaker 1: Andrew Johnson as the most racist president in American history.
Speaker 1: Take up today, the question is what do you call
Speaker 1: someone who says nearly racist things this morning? The answer is,
Speaker 1: mister president, let me be very clear about this. What
Speaker 1: he said reminds me of what I might hear out
Speaker 1: of a clan rally. He's a racist. We've known for
Speaker 1: a long time that he is a racist. And go
Speaker 1: back to where you came from, as it's pete racism,
Speaker 1: it's proto racism, it's you know, the original form of racism.
Speaker 1: So we're at a point where Trump is more racist
Speaker 1: than neo Nazi. President Trump today denying that his racist
Speaker 1: tweets were racist. But first we want to start with
Speaker 1: this week in Russia. Gay it is as if there
Speaker 1: are no shoes on the Trump human centipede that are
Speaker 1: not about Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia. It does look like collusion.
Speaker 1: It does look like he's listening to putin more than
Speaker 1: the American intelligence And frankly, I've never seen that before.
Speaker 1: This could be the last nail in the coffince. What me, Daniels?
Speaker 1: It's causing? Stormy Weather born star Stormy Daniels claims President
Speaker 1: Trump broke the law, had or bullied. Does Stormy Daniels
Speaker 1: have the President's number? It sure seems that way. President
Speaker 1: Trump might have met his match with Stormy Daniels. How
Speaker 1: is Stormy weathering? This Stormy speaks. It's not clear what
Speaker 1: he meant by old countries? Are you shocked or surprised
Speaker 1: by this? I'm not surprised in one way. I'm proud.
Speaker 1: I am a proud bowler. No, we are not all
Speaker 1: created equal, at least not if you were born in
Speaker 1: as the President put it, a whole country the word
Speaker 1: house instead of whole, as in house countries, not whole countries.
Speaker 1: I guess he's a bowler. Is there a difference if
Speaker 1: the President said house? Aren't you glad you with us?
Speaker 1: Snooze round up information overthown hours? We go back to
Speaker 1: one of our top store today, and that is your
Speaker 1: corrupt media mob. It is Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Speaker 1: And Peach and Peach and Peach and Peach and Peach
Speaker 1: and Peach and Peach. Collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, stormy stormy,
Speaker 1: stormy shole, sholoshole. Now thousands of racist racist racist racist
Speaker 1: racist and the president, well, if you look at the
Speaker 1: squad that now is pretty much in full allegiance alliance
Speaker 1: and runs the Democratic Party. Let's see, they're comparing America
Speaker 1: to having concentration camps. We have virulent anti Semitic remarks
Speaker 1: all about the Benjamin's boycott Israel, just like we would
Speaker 1: boycott Nazi Germany. Another example, um blame America and our
Speaker 1: actions for terrorists attacks that happen in a Kenyon mall,
Speaker 1: and the media is unimpressed. Never mind the positions that
Speaker 1: would eliminate oil gas. Everything's free cows because of flatulens
Speaker 1: and airplanes and substance and talking down the country. Because
Speaker 1: understand when they say that America is the same as
Speaker 1: these detention centers that provide food, water, medicine supplies, baby formula, cots,
Speaker 1: blankets and pillows. Not ideal, but it did happen in
Speaker 1: the Obama years. It did happen in the Bush years,
Speaker 1: and the only person that has lifted a pen to
Speaker 1: fix it was Donald Trump. But it is what they
Speaker 1: can hold on to cling onto. Now by later in
Speaker 1: the week, they will be clinging onto in the media
Speaker 1: mob anything and everything that they can. As it relates
Speaker 1: to Robert Muller, that is just to be anticipated anyway,
Speaker 1: joining us now, Joe Conscha, calumnist for The Hill radio
Speaker 1: host w R affiliate in New York, and a lot
Speaker 1: by the way, not much coverage of let's see British
Speaker 1: tankers that were taken hostage by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Speaker 1: That that second place, you know, I go back. I
Speaker 1: never I'd never forget older. In the Obama years, it
Speaker 1: was you know, the Chris Matthews crowd, the MSDNC crowd,
Speaker 1: the Roswell Rachel crowd, the conspiracy hoaxers, you know, all
Speaker 1: saying dog whistle. Everything was anybody that disagreed with Obama,
Speaker 1: dog whistle. You know, we have a hit. How could
Speaker 1: this ever happen? It there's a decision that has been
Speaker 1: made to play the race card. Um, I've got a
Speaker 1: whole history that I'll get to this half hour of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party every two and four years. They use
Speaker 1: it as their strategy to play the race card. Now
Speaker 1: their policies don't do particularly well. Those disproportionately negatively impacted
Speaker 1: by the Biden Obama years, especially in the economy, were
Speaker 1: minorities in America. Those that have now disproportion orally in
Speaker 1: a good way, been positively impacted by the policies of deregulation,
Speaker 1: lower taxes, job creation, incentivizing companies to build here America. First.
Speaker 1: Controlling the borders happened to be while we have record
Speaker 1: low unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, women
Speaker 1: in the workplace, and youth unemployment. But I guess results
Speaker 1: don't mean a thing in this rhetorical battle. Joe Kanscha
Speaker 1: analyzes all of this now for a living about how
Speaker 1: many times do we have account yet? I know its
Speaker 1: thousands of how many times the media Democrats have said
Speaker 1: racist in the last week we had Sean and thanks
Speaker 1: for having me on. Let's see, it was from Sunday
Speaker 1: to last Tuesday that not the media, just two networks
Speaker 1: CNN MSNBC said the word racist eleven hundred times in
Speaker 1: the span of forty eight hours. That's almost physically or
Speaker 1: mathematically impossible to You would have to literally say it
Speaker 1: like every seven words or something. Right, So what is
Speaker 1: it up to now? I don't have a more recent
Speaker 1: count of everything I've seen. Probably tells me that if
Speaker 1: we're seven days out from last Sunday, eight days out,
Speaker 1: it's probably up around ten thousand times just on those
Speaker 1: two networks alone. And you know we've all read the book.
Speaker 1: It's called The Boy Who Cried Wolf. It's the media
Speaker 1: that cried wolf. Now, and if you keep saying this
Speaker 1: word over and over again, I don't know. I'm just
Speaker 1: spitballing here, Sean, but I'm pretty sure it loses its impact.
Speaker 1: In other words, everybody's numb by it has no meaning anymore.
Speaker 1: Everybody's a racist. Think about it. If you're pro ice agent,
Speaker 1: you're a racist. Right. If you maybe are against reparations
Speaker 1: for slavery, therefore you're a racist. Maybe you just disagree
Speaker 1: with the policy. Maybe you say, hey, that's the wrong
Speaker 1: way to go about this. No, no matter doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what your argument is, it always goes back to who
Speaker 1: the person is. Are they bad or good? Are they racist? Remember,
Speaker 1: even this isn't just Donald Trump, Mitt Romney right as
Speaker 1: milktoast as it comes, who really really try to get
Speaker 1: along with the media, improved to everybody's a nice guy?
Speaker 1: And what did Joe b in the current twenty twenty
Speaker 1: Democratic front runners say, said, y'all, he's gonna put you
Speaker 1: all back in change? John McCain that compared to running
Speaker 1: a campaign that was an equivalent to George Wallace. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what kind of Republican you are. George W. Bush. Oh,
Speaker 1: he didn't respond to Katrina properly because he doesn't like
Speaker 1: black people. I mean, it's it doesn't matter you have
Speaker 1: an R next your name, you're automatically a racist. And
Speaker 1: it could be Trump, it could be Bush. It does
Speaker 1: not matter. Sean. Those are all, you know, great examples,
Speaker 1: but you're right. I mean, Mitt Romney, I think, is
Speaker 1: the perfect case in point one point I've made in
Speaker 1: my own way, and that is that Mitt Romney is
Speaker 1: a nice guy. His family, they're nice people. Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: doesn't like the style, certainly of Donald Trump. Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: tried to be nice, tried to be liked. John McCain
Speaker 1: was loved by the media, except what he ran for president.
Speaker 1: They all slandered him. They made sure that they would
Speaker 1: say and do anything and everything to make sure that
Speaker 1: he loses. And then he passes away. Then they're back
Speaker 1: to liking him again. Or when he's bashing Trumph, then
Speaker 1: they really liked him prior to two is passing away.
Speaker 1: It's it's fascinating, and it's a it's started out is
Speaker 1: something every two and four years a radio ad in Missouri.
Speaker 1: Black churches are gonna burn the James Bird ad in
Speaker 1: two thousand. It was like my father was killed all
Speaker 1: over again. And it goes on from there. I got
Speaker 1: some examples. Let's play a couple many Republicans talking coded
Speaker 1: racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama
Speaker 1: and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe. If
Speaker 1: you'll accept the support of clan sympathizers before you are president,
Speaker 1: you will accept their support after your president. He's gonna
Speaker 1: at the big banks once again write their own rules,
Speaker 1: unchained Wall Street. You're gonna put y'all back in change.
Speaker 1: It's wrong what the leader of the Republican Party and
Speaker 1: this Congress are doing in blocking an accurate census because
Speaker 1: they don't want to count everyone that they don't think
Speaker 1: they can count on. They are in favor of affirmative action.
Speaker 1: If you can dump the basketball or sink a three
Speaker 1: point shot, but they're not in favor of it. If
Speaker 1: you merely have the potential to be a leader in
Speaker 1: your community and bring people together, don't tell me we've
Speaker 1: got a color blind society. June seven, nineteen ninety eight,
Speaker 1: in Texas, my father was killed. He was beaten, chained,
Speaker 1: and drag greenmouse Tuesday, all because he was black. So
Speaker 1: when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation,
Speaker 1: it was like my father was killed all over again.
Speaker 1: When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When
Speaker 1: you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. Right,
Speaker 1: quick break, we'll come back more Joe Concha on the
Speaker 1: other side. Then, Shary Murray is running against AOC. We'll
Speaker 1: talk to her right as we continue with Joe Concha,
Speaker 1: columnist for The Hill. He is a radio host on
Speaker 1: w R New York. Imagine Joe Concha. If Donald Trump
Speaker 1: said his mentor was Jay William Fulbright, known segregationist. Imagine
Speaker 1: if Donald Trump said that his mentor was Robert Byrd,
Speaker 1: the former Klansman. Imagine just for a second here, if
Speaker 1: Donald Trump had said any of the things we just
Speaker 1: played here, this happens. You know, one person asked, well,
Speaker 1: how is it possible that they're making a decision to
Speaker 1: use racial divide in politics? Well? What is that that
Speaker 1: we just played there, and predictably happens every election cycled
Speaker 1: Joe Concha. Yeah, and those are from other elections where
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wasn't involved. And we saw twenty sixteen and
Speaker 1: that was pretty ugly. You know, remember from a media perspective, anyway, Sean,
Speaker 1: that access Hollywood tape somehow escapes NBC under locking key
Speaker 1: and ends up in the Washington Post two days before
Speaker 1: a key presidential debate, Right, and how did that happen?
Speaker 1: I always look back at that and say, why was
Speaker 1: it an investigation done? Who pulled the trigger on that?
Speaker 1: To make sure that Donald Trump any other candidate would
Speaker 1: have been roadkill at that point? And I think that's
Speaker 1: Trump's strategy at this point, Sean, the president says, you
Speaker 1: know what if I play nice like Romney did, or
Speaker 1: try to get along like McCain did, I'm going to
Speaker 1: get run over too. I got a hit back twice
Speaker 1: as hard as I'm getting hit, I cannot play nice.
Speaker 1: This will not be a civil election any way, shape
Speaker 1: or Forman don't hand me this whole thing that. Oh well,
Speaker 1: if Biden runs, at least he's civil. At least he's moderate.
Speaker 1: All I know is he told Al Sharpton just a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago when he was when he was
Speaker 1: running alongside of Barack Obama, he was asked, why do
Speaker 1: you think Republicans are against her id laws? And he said, quote,
Speaker 1: they don't want Black's voting. I mean, that's the type
Speaker 1: of stuff that should be called out by our media,
Speaker 1: but of course they can't. Or even with Elon Omar right,
Speaker 1: the things that she said, how many times have you
Speaker 1: seen in media reports over the last week or two
Speaker 1: during this whole controversy, has anybody mentioned her saying this quote,
Speaker 1: Israel has hypnotized the world may allow awaken the people
Speaker 1: and help them see the evil doings of Israel. How
Speaker 1: many times has that been mentioned? Now she sits down
Speaker 1: with Gail King, and I thought I was hoping would
Speaker 1: do somewhat of a tough interview. Of course not. She
Speaker 1: walks out and says, oh, they all love the country,
Speaker 1: and didn't really ask any tough questions. No one read
Speaker 1: that quote back to Omar. No one says back to
Speaker 1: Alexandria Cosco Cortez, you called America garbage. How do you
Speaker 1: define that? Why do you think then? What do you
Speaker 1: think you can do to fix it? I never see
Speaker 1: these questions because they're worried about never getting access to
Speaker 1: these folks again. And isn't that a shame that that's
Speaker 1: the game we're playing at this point. Oh, it's also
Speaker 1: all about the Benjamin's. It's comparing numerous comparisons. AOC is
Speaker 1: one of them, to America to Nazi Germany. And of
Speaker 1: course the same with Omark, you know, claiming that boycotting
Speaker 1: Israel as a kin to boycotting the Nazis back in
Speaker 1: World War Two, And I'm like, no, there's no equivalent
Speaker 1: at all. Zero none. Get to a library sometime, read
Speaker 1: some books about the Holocaust where people from for starters,
Speaker 1: those going to these migrant facilities along the US southern border,
Speaker 1: which you mentioned. People down there are doing everything they
Speaker 1: get they can to keep these people as comfortable as possible.
Speaker 1: In Nazi Germany, they were thrown on trains, bought the
Speaker 1: concentration camps and they weren't killed right away. They were
Speaker 1: worked until they couldn't be productive anymore on something like
Speaker 1: four hundred calories a day. And you're gonna make that comparison.
Speaker 1: That should be a game ender for an Alexander Accasio Cortez. Instead,
Speaker 1: she just keeps getting interview after interview, softball after softball,
Speaker 1: and she knows it. And that's why she knows she
Speaker 1: could keep getting away with it because she's never going
Speaker 1: to be challenged by anyone almost in this media, and
Speaker 1: then she stays away from anybody would actually ask any
Speaker 1: tough questions. So, look, she has to run for off
Speaker 1: again in twenty twenty. She's getting primary by a couple
Speaker 1: of people right now. I know people in her district.
Speaker 1: They absolutely do not like say she's making all about
Speaker 1: her and not helping the constituents of the fourteenth District
Speaker 1: of New York. Well, one of those people that will
Speaker 1: be challenging her is a woman by the name of
Speaker 1: Shari Murray, and she's going to join us coming up
Speaker 1: in the next half hour. Perfect Joe Concha, the perfect setup.
Speaker 1: And then Joe Conscha comes on WR and New York
Speaker 1: after that. How great is that? Perfect? Thank you? He
Speaker 1: gets good ratings, so he makes me look good. Okay
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine four one, Sean Tolfree telephone number. You
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the program, Quick break,
Speaker 1: We'll come back, We'll continue. We got an amazing Hannity tonight,
Speaker 1: nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel. Bridges they fill
Speaker 1: our skyline, rising above our city. Their arches are more
Speaker 1: than stone and steel. They can nect us. They help
Speaker 1: us move forward and cross from place to place. That's
Speaker 1: why we build bridges to be connected to one another.
Speaker 1: I'm Sharie Murray. I was nine years old when I
Speaker 1: came to America with my family. We migrated from Jamaica.
Speaker 1: From my first job working as an intern at the
Speaker 1: New York City MTA Jamaica Bus Depot, to attending City University,
Speaker 1: then opening a business and helping minority men and women
Speaker 1: find employment in the media, to becoming a mother and
Speaker 1: a community leader. I've been building bridges and crossing them
Speaker 1: my whole life. I've built bridges between constituents in our
Speaker 1: community and elected officials that represent them, between different nationalities
Speaker 1: and races, and between political parties. Lawmakers should be working
Speaker 1: together to build a stronger, safer, more prosperous America, but
Speaker 1: your representative in Washington chooses self promotion over service, conflict
Speaker 1: over constituents, resistance over assistance. Queens and the Bronx need
Speaker 1: someone who will create jobs instead of turning them away.
Speaker 1: Someone to unite the fight in Washington and help you
Speaker 1: build a bridge to a better future for yourself instead
Speaker 1: of pushing for a pay raise for herself. You deserve
Speaker 1: someone fighting for you, not fighting for the limelighte. You
Speaker 1: deserve someone who will focus on immigration, infrastructure, and education.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm running for Congress. I believe bridges are
Speaker 1: about connecting us, bringing people together, and getting us to
Speaker 1: where we need to go. Join me. Let's unite the
Speaker 1: fight and build new bridges together, bridges that will unite
Speaker 1: us and take us to a brighter future for the
Speaker 1: next generation. I'm Sharie Murray and I approve this message,
Speaker 1: all right. Sharie Murray is now announced. She announced on
Speaker 1: Hannity the other night that she is is running for
Speaker 1: the seat of well the real Speaker of the House,
Speaker 1: and that would be Alexandria Cossio Cortez Pelosi, Speaker in
Speaker 1: name only, by the way, you dumb people in the
Speaker 1: media and there's so many of you, you know, you're
Speaker 1: out there say Hannity is spreading a conspiracy theory. He's
Speaker 1: saying that that something happened, and the real speakers Acasio Cortez,
Speaker 1: that she's already speaker. And I'm like, you people are
Speaker 1: so dumb. I'm saying the people that have the most influence,
Speaker 1: the people that are impacting the minds and policies of
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty Democratic presidential hopefuls, that would be the
Speaker 1: squad led by the New Green Deal herself Actio Cortez. Now,
Speaker 1: before we get to Shari Murray, let's play a little
Speaker 1: bit of the hits just to remind you of some
Speaker 1: of the well incredibly well, let's just say, controversial ideas
Speaker 1: of Acasio Cortez. The world is going to end in
Speaker 1: twelve years if an address climate change, and your biggest
Speaker 1: issue is your biggest issue is how are we going
Speaker 1: to pay for it? How many years until the world
Speaker 1: end again? We have twelve years left to cut emissions
Speaker 1: by at least fifty percent, if not warm Medicare for
Speaker 1: all would save the American people a very large amount
Speaker 1: of money. Maybe we shouldn't be eating a hamburger for breakfast, launch,
Speaker 1: and dinner. You make more than ten million in one year,
Speaker 1: you are ten millions, and one dollar gets taxed at
Speaker 1: seventy percent. Capitalism has not always existed in the world,
Speaker 1: and it will not always exist in the world. Should
Speaker 1: Is it okay to still have children? But we're here
Speaker 1: to say that an agency like ICE, which repeatedly and
Speaker 1: systematically violates human rights, does not deserve a dime. Is
Speaker 1: it still okay to have children? The world is going
Speaker 1: to end in all years if we don't do it
Speaker 1: fixed climate change. And all you care about is how
Speaker 1: we're gonna pay for it, man, I care for it's
Speaker 1: gonna save lives. How did Obamacare workout? And what about
Speaker 1: these people that eat Hamburger for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Speaker 1: I don't know anybody they eat tamburgers for breakfast, lunch,
Speaker 1: and dinner. But Shry Murray is with us. She is
Speaker 1: challenging AOC born in Jamaica, West Indies, migrated to New
Speaker 1: York City with her family when she was nine. Shari's
Speaker 1: so nice to have you on this program. It was
Speaker 1: great to have you on Hannity the other night. How's
Speaker 1: the campaign going. It's going well. Sean, Listen, we have
Speaker 1: some astronomical numbers to report. I started out the campaign
Speaker 1: launch on Wednesday with six hundred Twitter followers. We're now
Speaker 1: upwards of one hundred and thirty thousands. I just that's
Speaker 1: fast to America. Thank you. Come tell me Well. First,
Speaker 1: let's go talk a little bit about your life, your background.
Speaker 1: I found it extraordinarily intriguing and why you decided to
Speaker 1: get into this race. Thank you, Sean. I am from Jamaica.
Speaker 1: I was born in Jamaica. I came to the United
Speaker 1: States of America with my family at the age of nine.
Speaker 1: I've been here ever since. I went to Andrew Jackson,
Speaker 1: I went to Quney. I have two degrees, and I'm
Speaker 1: now on your show here in my bid for Congress.
Speaker 1: Why am I in the race because it's an opportunity
Speaker 1: to build bridges. We see the congresswoman burning bridges down
Speaker 1: on every single issue that she has tackled, from the
Speaker 1: job killing green New Deal, to burning the bridges down
Speaker 1: for the Amazon deal here in New York, to the
Speaker 1: rhetoric that we're now seeing on the national stage. This
Speaker 1: scene looks like a scene out of The Mean Girl. Sean, Well,
Speaker 1: I've watched this and I listen to the policies. You
Speaker 1: just heard what they heard. By the way, why would
Speaker 1: we bother if the world's gonna end in twelve years.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of thinking, well, let's just have a big party.
Speaker 1: This is ridiculous. We need a legislator who is focused
Speaker 1: on policy. Let's talk about the issues, not the limelight.
Speaker 1: And I think that's what we're seeing control the narrative
Speaker 1: these days, just words that will just stroke emotion, negative emotion,
Speaker 1: incentivize violence, just not support the rule of law. This
Speaker 1: is the narrative that we're seeing on the national level,
Speaker 1: and it's viewing over into an international level. Two Sean,
Speaker 1: it's dangerous. You look at the Green New Deal that
Speaker 1: she laid out, and one interesting side note to that
Speaker 1: is her chiefest staff. The funny thing about the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal had nothing to do with climate change when
Speaker 1: we started, which has always been my position that it
Speaker 1: is a political agenda that is being driven here in
Speaker 1: the name of quote climate change in the environment, and
Speaker 1: it's predicated on the idea that works should be socialist.
Speaker 1: But under the Green New Deal, we would eliminate oil
Speaker 1: and gas in ten years, Yes, and it's going to
Speaker 1: cost everyday New Yorker and people across this country more
Speaker 1: money in their money. It's going to result in the
Speaker 1: biggest economic collapse the world has ever seen, and it
Speaker 1: will be immediate. The President is doing a great job.
Speaker 1: The economy is booming, the stock market is booming, we
Speaker 1: have low unemployment rates. These are just records that no
Speaker 1: one can run against. And she's introducing policy is that
Speaker 1: will reverse that. You have a predominantly immigrant community in
Speaker 1: the Queens and the Bronx in the fourteenth Congressional district.
Speaker 1: Issues like immigration would be a first starter for a
Speaker 1: freshman congresswoman, but that wasn't her first policy push. It
Speaker 1: was the job killing green New Deal. What do you
Speaker 1: make of the comments and the battle she has ongoing
Speaker 1: with Nancy Pelosi? For example, last week, Nancy Pelosi said,
Speaker 1: if you have anything to say to me, say it
Speaker 1: to my face, and within hours Congresswoman a Cascio Cortez
Speaker 1: was out there slamming Pelosi, and not only once, but
Speaker 1: while two of the four squad members suggesting the police's
Speaker 1: racist picking on people of color. I don't know that
Speaker 1: her manner is going to be effective in the long run.
Speaker 1: You're elected to legislate and introduce policy specifically to get
Speaker 1: that policy signed into law. I have not seen AOC
Speaker 1: work across the isle. I have not seen her champion
Speaker 1: issues that are important to the constituents in her district
Speaker 1: that elected her into the House's representatives. There are issues
Speaker 1: like infrastructure, education, everyday kitchen table issues that I don't
Speaker 1: hear the congresswoman talking about. I'm in this race to
Speaker 1: bring the focus back to the Residence of Queens and
Speaker 1: the Bronx. How do you explain away the Amazon deal.
Speaker 1: Let's put aside for a minute that I don't think
Speaker 1: one company that Combina should get breaks over any other company,
Speaker 1: because in that district, your district includes Long Island City,
Speaker 1: where Amazon was going to create twenty five thousand jobs
Speaker 1: for the people there average salary one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars each. At once, it gets to that level
Speaker 1: that the states already made their decision, the mayors made
Speaker 1: their decision. You got a chance to bring twenty five
Speaker 1: thousand high paying jobs to your district, yes, paying on
Speaker 1: average one hundred and fifty grand. And you think of
Speaker 1: all the other benefits to other businesses. You think of
Speaker 1: what it will do to the real estate market you
Speaker 1: think of, I mean, it would have been a boom
Speaker 1: unlike anything New York has seen in a long, long time.
Speaker 1: And she kills the deal. Sean, the Democrats are driving
Speaker 1: business out of New York. That's why the residents are leaving. Right,
Speaker 1: Let's peel back the layers on the Amazon deal. So
Speaker 1: with regards to the President's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
Speaker 1: and there there's a portion the Investing Opportunity Act legislation
Speaker 1: by Senator Tim Scotts, which talks about opportunity zones. Now,
Speaker 1: Amazon was taking advantage of the opportunity zone language which
Speaker 1: calls for any large company to make a ten year
Speaker 1: investment and they get a kickback, a tax kickback. And
Speaker 1: that's what Amazon was going to get from the State
Speaker 1: of New York, a three billion dollar kickback for a
Speaker 1: ten year investment into the state by providing all of
Speaker 1: the amenities that we described just moments ago. Now, instead
Speaker 1: of articulating it at such and giving the President the
Speaker 1: credit for this portion of the bill, his tax bill,
Speaker 1: they decided to drive jobs out of the state. Now,
Speaker 1: even going further, Sean, back when I was running a
Speaker 1: Borough president candidate and one of his issue was economic development.
Speaker 1: The dairy, the milk dairy factory closed in Southeast Queens
Speaker 1: and we had a rally saying that we wanted to
Speaker 1: bring Amazon to Southeast Queens. That area in Queens has
Speaker 1: not seen economic development in some sixty plus years. So
Speaker 1: whether it was Long Island City or Southeast Queens, we
Speaker 1: welcome Amazon to the Borough of Queens. But unfortunately AOC
Speaker 1: was instrumental in driving the jobs, driving the company outside
Speaker 1: of the state. We don't need someone like that in office.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this, because New York just historically,
Speaker 1: traditionally it's become a very very blue state. We see
Speaker 1: this mass exodus as you're referred to. And I agree
Speaker 1: with you, and I think what's driving people away or
Speaker 1: high tax high taxes, burdensome regulation. I have no idea
Speaker 1: why Governor Cuomo doesn't want to use the vast resources,
Speaker 1: especially in upstate New York. As it relates to fracking
Speaker 1: and natural gas. That's a separate issue. But people are
Speaker 1: leaving and there hasn't been an opportunity like this. You're
Speaker 1: right in so many different years. But you know what
Speaker 1: about the constituents. Are people just so programmed in the
Speaker 1: sense that they only vote Democrat. They don't even think
Speaker 1: about the election. Now Kasio Cortez is getting a lot
Speaker 1: of press, how do people in the district seem to
Speaker 1: be reacting to her? They don't know her, quite frankly,
Speaker 1: and if you look at a recent survey that was done,
Speaker 1: the constituents of the district do not know who their
Speaker 1: representative is. And this bid for Congress, my bid for
Speaker 1: Congress to unite the fight across the party aisles to
Speaker 1: build bridges, is something that I do believe will connect
Speaker 1: with the constituents of Queens and the Bronx and the
Speaker 1: fourteenth Congressional District. I don't know what her objective is
Speaker 1: outside of running for the limelight. You know, we see
Speaker 1: her at the concentration camps. We see her, excuse me,
Speaker 1: describe our facilities as concentration camps. We see her use
Speaker 1: that as a way to garner attention and to denounce
Speaker 1: the administration. But we don't see her in the community
Speaker 1: making those same pushes or advocating for the issues that
Speaker 1: are important to the people and Queens and the Bronx.
Speaker 1: So she's taken her advocacy to the stage, the main stage.
Speaker 1: She needs to take it back to Queens and the Bronx.
Speaker 1: So many people are just texting writing me now and
Speaker 1: I guess you've gotten a lot of attention. How can
Speaker 1: people get in touch with you? If they want to
Speaker 1: thank you, Sean, please go to my website Sharie Murray
Speaker 1: dot com. My name is sc h e r I
Speaker 1: E m U r r Ay dot com. We are
Speaker 1: looking forward to any small donations as we know that
Speaker 1: it's a uphill battle. I do have a path to victory.
Speaker 1: I have a record of accomplishments and working across the aisle.
Speaker 1: And you'll see a little bit more about me on
Speaker 1: the website as well. You can also sign up to
Speaker 1: join the campaign. We need all the boots on the
Speaker 1: ground to really get our message out there. You know,
Speaker 1: the primary back when she won, she won, I think
Speaker 1: it was some eight thousand votes or it was a
Speaker 1: low voter turnout. So we hope to really connect not
Speaker 1: just via this platform Sean and thank you, but to
Speaker 1: go into the community, knock on doors and talk to
Speaker 1: the situates about what's important to them so that we
Speaker 1: can take that to Washington. All right, surey, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being with the Shree Murray running against
Speaker 1: Congress Holman Accacio Cortez. We I'm sure we'll talk to
Speaker 1: you often. Thank you for your time. We wish all
Speaker 1: the best of luck in that campaign, and we appreciate
Speaker 1: you being with us. All Right, Hannity Tonight ninety eastern
Speaker 1: on the Fox News Channel. I hope you'll join us.
Speaker 1: We continue more breaking news, John Solomon, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett,
Speaker 1: also Carl Rove, Lawrence Jones, Jeff Lord, Pam Bondi, and
Speaker 1: much much more, nine eastern Hannity, Fox News. By the way,
Speaker 1: News you won't get anywhere else. See you tonight at
Speaker 1: nine eastern. Set your DVR. Hannity, Fox News. We'll see
Speaker 1: you tonight, big show, and as always, thank you for
Speaker 1: being with us. Back here tomorrow