Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio show podcast. Hey guys, unfortunately almost
Speaker 1: half you men out there over forty need to listen up.
Speaker 1: And we know this is uncomfortable to talk about, but
Speaker 1: it's common and not weird, and there's something you can
Speaker 1: do about it. E D not being able to perform
Speaker 1: your best Now, thanks to science, it can be optional
Speaker 1: for hymns dot com is a one stop shop for
Speaker 1: hair loss, skincare, and sexual wellness for men. Hymns connects
Speaker 1: you with real doctors and medical grade solutions to treat
Speaker 1: e D. Prescription solutions backed by science. One e D
Speaker 1: pill starting with a V just came off patent on
Speaker 1: December eleven, and that's a game changer. Being your best
Speaker 1: means performing your best, and now you can do it
Speaker 1: with no waiting room, no trip to the pharmacy, just
Speaker 1: a simple online medical consultation and direct ship into your door.
Speaker 1: Try hymns for a month today for just five dollars.
Speaker 1: We'll get you started for just five bucks while supplies last.
Speaker 1: See website for full details. This would cost hundreds if
Speaker 1: you went to the doctor or a pharmacy, So go
Speaker 1: to four hymns dot com slash big. That's f O
Speaker 1: R H I M S dot com slash big for
Speaker 1: hymns dot com slash big. All right, glad you with us. Wow,
Speaker 1: what a day this has ben. If you watched any
Speaker 1: of the hearings or if you didn't, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: We'll get you up to speed right down on toll
Speaker 1: free telephone number and eight hundred nine four one sean
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: We have Lindsey Graham, who was pretty amazing yesterday as
Speaker 1: it relates to the hearings that took place in the Senate.
Speaker 1: And how's Freedom Caucus Member Jim Jordan's who was literally
Speaker 1: part of the sham hearings for the Inspector General and
Speaker 1: the FBI director. But there is there's one thing that
Speaker 1: you need to take away from this on top of
Speaker 1: everything else, is you again, everything is a process. It's
Speaker 1: so hard for people. Okay, the i G report is out.
Speaker 1: Now what well the now what is beginning to happen?
Speaker 1: And that is okay. Now the i G a who
Speaker 1: I thought looked pretty silly at moments today during the hearing.
Speaker 1: Now he is going to give his testimony. Then we're
Speaker 1: gonna hear from hopefully Struck and Page and Comy and
Speaker 1: and all these other people, and then the criminal referrals,
Speaker 1: likely that haven't been made, will be made. We know
Speaker 1: that there are at least five referrals, we don't know
Speaker 1: exactly what they were as part of the release of
Speaker 1: the i G Report, So we're gonna watch all of
Speaker 1: that closely. Um, it was good to see Trey Bowty
Speaker 1: and great Gouty back in his old form, uh during
Speaker 1: his opening statement at the hearings today, scorching Jim Comey.
Speaker 1: What was a blistering opening statement at this hearing, declaring,
Speaker 1: we can't survive with a justice system we don't trust.
Speaker 1: You know. The only one bit of comfort that I
Speaker 1: take out of watching all of this is that those
Speaker 1: of you in this audience are deeply familiar with every
Speaker 1: aspect of what they're talking about. Is because we have
Speaker 1: been on the front lines talking about this and exposing
Speaker 1: this while the rest of the media has been, you know,
Speaker 1: pretty much numb and quiet. And then the camp of
Speaker 1: doing all they can do to protect Hillary Clinton and
Speaker 1: also not call attention to the fact is that they
Speaker 1: have not done their job as always and so I'm
Speaker 1: glad that a lot of it's familiar to you, because
Speaker 1: it's all true. We've not been wrong, We've been proven
Speaker 1: right every step of the way. And Gaudy then goes
Speaker 1: on to accuse Comey of watering down as initial statement
Speaker 1: on the investigations findings which he did, gross negligence, six
Speaker 1: stream carelessness, uh foreign intel services highly likely they hacked
Speaker 1: into Hillary's emails, then taking that out, watering it down,
Speaker 1: beginning the process in early May, often interviewing Hillary on
Speaker 1: July second, seventeen other key witnesses, and then wrapping it
Speaker 1: up three days later because it was all predetermined, even
Speaker 1: though the violations of law are incontrovertible, the facts are irrefutable,
Speaker 1: and anybody else would be in jail over all of this,
Speaker 1: and also pointing down that you know the findings in question,
Speaker 1: why he didn't seek as special counsel as he did
Speaker 1: so passionately by leaking well documents that might also be
Speaker 1: getting him in trouble. As we now now, Gouty, Uh
Speaker 1: Comey is now being investigated for the document leak of
Speaker 1: himself he might have violated, ironically the same exact law
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton had violated, as relates to the Espionage Act.
Speaker 1: Instead he appointed himself. Gaudy goes on the FBI director,
Speaker 1: Attorney General, Special Council, lead investigator, and the general arbiter
Speaker 1: of what is good and right in the world according
Speaker 1: to him, and Gaudy said, Harowitz report, which was released
Speaker 1: last Thursday, should conjure anger, disappointment, and sadness in anybody
Speaker 1: who reads it. And then he says that in the
Speaker 1: wake of the IG report, they were FBI agents and
Speaker 1: attorneys who decided to prejudge the outcome of the Clinton case.
Speaker 1: We know why because they had this hatred and bias
Speaker 1: that was full and complete towards Donald Trump and Hillary
Speaker 1: was their favorite candidate. If they applied the law as
Speaker 1: it should have been applied, the Hillary Clinton would have
Speaker 1: been indicted and then the whole election electoral process for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. Yeah, I would have been put into some chaos,
Speaker 1: but it would have been the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: It would have been what the law required them to do.
Speaker 1: And he says, these exact FBI agents an attorney prejudged
Speaker 1: the outcome of the Russia investigation before that even began.
Speaker 1: It's the same players. That's why if we're talking about
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation. It starts out with the
Speaker 1: most anti Trump pro Hillary abusively biased agents at the
Speaker 1: upper echelons of the FBI, And you can't have a
Speaker 1: system of justice that rolls this way. Now, the FBI
Speaker 1: urged the i G to investigate James Comy. This was
Speaker 1: interesting that Michael Horrowitz revealed he's now investigating Comy based
Speaker 1: on a ferral that urged them to do so. But
Speaker 1: the bigger news is the identity of the source that
Speaker 1: use that issued the investigative referral. That turns out it
Speaker 1: was Comey's own FBI urging Horowitz to investigate Comey's misconduct.
Speaker 1: What did I tell you? A little nugget that nobody
Speaker 1: seems to pay any attention to. At the end of
Speaker 1: the day, the hero here are going to be rank
Speaker 1: and file FBI agents. That's why you can't have you
Speaker 1: know this, the broad sweeping generalizations. If you have a
Speaker 1: few bad cops, actions of a few bad cops should
Speaker 1: not reflect on the actions of others. That don't. They
Speaker 1: do not reflect on the actions of others, And in
Speaker 1: the case of FBI agents, they have a very hard
Speaker 1: time telling their stories they have to be subpoenaed before
Speaker 1: they can ever talk about what it is. Many of
Speaker 1: them now are lining up to talk about anyway, specifically
Speaker 1: under investigation for his handling of the memos that he
Speaker 1: wrote about his interactions with President Trump. While the FBI
Speaker 1: director and Grassley asked Harrow, which yesterday are you investigating
Speaker 1: the handling of his memo and does that include the
Speaker 1: classification issues? And should comey expect a report when it's
Speaker 1: complete anyway, horro It's responded, We received a referral on
Speaker 1: that from the FBI. We're handling that referral and will
Speaker 1: issual report when the matter is complete, consistent with the
Speaker 1: law and the rules that are a report that's consistent
Speaker 1: that takes into account. He said, um Now, one other
Speaker 1: thing here is um as all of this is going on,
Speaker 1: remember there is a battle and a war that is
Speaker 1: now beginning of bubble over. It's been percolating now for
Speaker 1: a while, and it has to do with Rod Rosenstein
Speaker 1: and the lack of cooperation, frankly, obstruction of Congress's investigations
Speaker 1: into all of these matters, because as you know, they
Speaker 1: have they have constitutional oversight. We have a system of
Speaker 1: checks and balances coequal branches of government. Congress is empowered
Speaker 1: and it is their job to conduct oversight for the
Speaker 1: purposes that that people don't abuse their power. This is
Speaker 1: what this whole scandal is about, abuse of power and corruption.
Speaker 1: And uh now it's it's going to probably result sometime
Speaker 1: tomorrow in impeachment articles now going to be filed against
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein. These guys have stone walled, they have obstructed,
Speaker 1: they have refused Congressional subpoenas, they have lied, they have
Speaker 1: redacted in the name of national security when there are
Speaker 1: no national security issues. In other words, the very same
Speaker 1: things that if you did in your life, if you
Speaker 1: got a subpoena, would probably land you in jail. Bill McGurn,
Speaker 1: writing in the Wall Street Journal today, leading member of
Speaker 1: their editor oriole Board, is calling for the House to
Speaker 1: actually impeach the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and maybe
Speaker 1: even the FBI Director Christopher Ray. Anyway. Writing in the Journal,
Speaker 1: mcgern says impeachment is the only way to end the
Speaker 1: FBI and d j's continued stonewalling over key documents. He
Speaker 1: said on Sunday on Fox News with Maria Barrett to
Speaker 1: Romo devon Noon as the House Intel Committee chairman made
Speaker 1: it clear his patience has run out. Last Friday, there
Speaker 1: was a meeting and he and other House chairman at
Speaker 1: this meeting, Bob good Lad of Judiciary and Trey Goudy
Speaker 1: of Government Reform fully backed in their demands by Speaker Ryan.
Speaker 1: Speaker Ryan did ask people to hold back a week
Speaker 1: before the file these impeachment issues. Anyway, Ryan sent Rosenstein
Speaker 1: and Ray, and I'm an ambiguous message comply with Congresses
Speaker 1: ordered this week anyway. Um Ryan was on a radio
Speaker 1: interview in Milwaukee on w I s N and said
Speaker 1: the new leadership at Justice and the FBI has to
Speaker 1: decide whether it will be part of the cleanup crew
Speaker 1: or the cover up team. If Justice and the FBI
Speaker 1: don't comply within the timeline that he laid out, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to take action. And the obstruction of Justice
Speaker 1: and the FBI appears rooted in the mistaken idea that
Speaker 1: they are somehow above the elected representatives of the American people.
Speaker 1: And while Mr Rosenstein is referred to Congressional talk of
Speaker 1: impeachment as extortion, Mr Ray and his statement to a
Speaker 1: press conference outlining steps to fix the FBI conspicuously made
Speaker 1: no mention of better cooperation with Congress. An impeachment that
Speaker 1: removed either Rod Rosenstein or Christopher Ray, or a contempt
Speaker 1: finding that sent one of them to the Congressional pokey
Speaker 1: for a spell, could send a good message to all
Speaker 1: federal bureaucrats inclined to be dismissive of Congressional subpoenas. Then again,
Speaker 1: if either man thought he was in real or imminent
Speaker 1: danger of being impeached or held in contemn Congress would
Speaker 1: likely find him instantly cooperative. Of course, that's not exactly
Speaker 1: why Congress has these powers, not so much to punish,
Speaker 1: but to encourage the accommodation and the respect. But if
Speaker 1: rosen Stein and Ray don't cooperate, if the stonewalling starts again,
Speaker 1: the House auto impeach or jail until it gets satisfaction.
Speaker 1: Because the congressional power Congress is too timid to invoke
Speaker 1: is worse than a hollow threat. It becomes a sign
Speaker 1: that Congress need not be taken seriously. And that's interesting now.
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions, by the way, Ductor questioned last night about
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein's obvious conflict of interest in an interview with
Speaker 1: Laura Ingram are you involved in all the discussions about
Speaker 1: a possible recusal of Rosenstein from overseeing Mueller given the
Speaker 1: fact that he did sign one of those FISA warrants
Speaker 1: and that's a big controversy in the case. Session said, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not involved in that. He's the acting Attorney General
Speaker 1: for that matter, and he has to make his own
Speaker 1: decision as I had to make my decision. Well, that
Speaker 1: kind of seems like he's taken easy way out. All right,
Speaker 1: Let's go to Tray Goudy from earlier today. Now this
Speaker 1: is Trey literally tearing into them. Were FBI agents and
Speaker 1: attorneys who you know, predetermined the Hillary Clinton email case
Speaker 1: and the Russian case, and he calls it what it is,
Speaker 1: textbook bias list. There were FBI agents and attorneys who
Speaker 1: decided to prejudge the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case
Speaker 1: before the investigation ended. I want you to let that
Speaker 1: sink in for a second. They prejudged the outcome of
Speaker 1: the Hillary Clinton investigation before the investigation ended. And these
Speaker 1: exact same FBI agents and attorneys prejudged the outcome of
Speaker 1: the Russian investigation before it even began. If prejudging the
Speaker 1: outcome of the investigation before it ends, and prejudging the
Speaker 1: outcome of an investigation before it begins is not evidence
Speaker 1: of outcome. Determinative bias. For the life of me, I
Speaker 1: don't know what would be. That is textbook bias. It
Speaker 1: is quite literally the definition of bias, allowing something other
Speaker 1: than the facts to determine your decision. These ages were
Speaker 1: calling her president before she was even interviewed. They were
Speaker 1: calling for the end of the Trump campaign before the
Speaker 1: investigation even began. They were calling for impeachment simply because
Speaker 1: he happened to be elected. That is bias. It's amazing
Speaker 1: how long it is taken all these people to get
Speaker 1: caught up to where we have been. You know, it
Speaker 1: reminds me of my friends and music radio. By the
Speaker 1: time a DJ is getting sick of the song, it's
Speaker 1: just about the time that the audience is beginning to
Speaker 1: recognize what a great song it is. I know that
Speaker 1: sounds bizarre, but it's on the one hand, it's satisfying,
Speaker 1: but it's also frustrating. We should be well beyond this point,
Speaker 1: but for the obstruction that's been going on. All right,
Speaker 1: we got a lot to get to. Lindsay Graham, Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan's we'll have the latest on this immigration to bate.
Speaker 1: Clearly the team mid term elections have begun. This is
Speaker 1: where the Democrats want to get a lot of it's predictable,
Speaker 1: and we'll give you a fact you're not getting elsewhere
Speaker 1: in the media. Senior FBI agent Peter Struck wrote, No, no,
Speaker 1: he's not. We will stop it now. I think this
Speaker 1: is the Sat Peter Struck who worked on the Clinton
Speaker 1: email investigation. Do I have that right? St. Peter Strock,
Speaker 1: who not only worked on the Russia investigation when it began,
Speaker 1: but it was one of the lead investigators at the
Speaker 1: inception of the Russia pro Do I have the right
Speaker 1: Peter Struck? That's my understanding. Now Is it the St.
Speaker 1: Peter Struck who was put on the Muller Special Council team? Yes,
Speaker 1: all right, St. Peter Struck. And this is not the
Speaker 1: only time he managed to find the text feature on
Speaker 1: his phone either. This is the same Peter Struck who
Speaker 1: said Trump is an idiot, Hillary should win one hundred
Speaker 1: millions to zero. Now, Mr Inspector General, that one is
Speaker 1: interesting to me because he's supposed to be investigating her
Speaker 1: for violations of the espionage I at the time, he
Speaker 1: wrote that in March of sixteen, he's supposed to be
Speaker 1: investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act, and he
Speaker 1: can't think of a single solitary American that wouldn't vote
Speaker 1: for her for president. I mean, can you see our skepticism.
Speaker 1: This senior FBI agent not only had her running, he
Speaker 1: had her winning a hundred million to nothing. So what
Speaker 1: if they'd found evidence sufficient to indict her? What if
Speaker 1: they had indicted her? Is this the st Peters? He
Speaker 1: wasn't part of the interview of Secretary Clinton? Was he? Uh?
Speaker 1: He was present for the interview. Huh, He's a part
Speaker 1: of everything. I mean, that's just this is only a
Speaker 1: small sampling. But when Trey Goudy is on his game,
Speaker 1: there's nobody better. That's why it was so frustrating without
Speaker 1: information that he went out on the spy issue before.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm guessing he'd probably regret said he was part
Speaker 1: of the meeting that took place on Friday, would speaker
Speaker 1: Ryan and Devin Noness and Bob goodlad and and they
Speaker 1: basically told Ray and Rosenstein that either you guys start
Speaker 1: cooperating and stopping obstructing or We're just gonna have to
Speaker 1: now hold you in contempt and bring impeachment charges against you,
Speaker 1: because that's what's gonna happen. I think it's probably gonna
Speaker 1: happen as early as tomorrow because they've not turned over
Speaker 1: the documents, documents that have been subpoenaed now for many, many,
Speaker 1: many months. The most fascinating part of all of this
Speaker 1: is that Hillary did it all, and the FBI agents
Speaker 1: caught hating Trump and loving Hillary then began they were
Speaker 1: at the inception, the origin, the beginnings of the Russia
Speaker 1: phony investigation, and they used the sledge hammer there and
Speaker 1: then of course the soft club treatment for Hill. That's
Speaker 1: not equal application under the law, equal justice under the law.
Speaker 1: To the top of the hour, one, Sean, you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. Explosive hearings in
Speaker 1: the House today, joint committees with Director Ray and Michael Harrowitz,
Speaker 1: the Inspector General. UH. Let me go back. Cut three.
Speaker 1: This is Trey Goudy talking to Michael Harrowitz talking about
Speaker 1: the two FBI agents one attorney UH showing their bias
Speaker 1: against Trump and how impactful this ought to be in
Speaker 1: the minds of the Inspector General listen. So I want
Speaker 1: to go back to the no, no, he's not going
Speaker 1: to be president, will stop it? What do you think
Speaker 1: the it is in that phrase? Will stop it? Oh?
Speaker 1: I think it's clear from the context it's we're gonna
Speaker 1: stop him from becoming president. That's what I thought. Two. Now,
Speaker 1: I wonder who the WEI is and the wheel stop it?
Speaker 1: Do you think the we is? Well? I think that's
Speaker 1: probably subject to my to poll interpretations. Let's see if
Speaker 1: we can go through them or the broader or a
Speaker 1: broader group beyond that. I mean, it's hard to fathom
Speaker 1: a definition of weed that doesn't include him. So we
Speaker 1: know he's part of we. You could assume that the
Speaker 1: person he's talking with is FBI attorney who also happens
Speaker 1: to be working on the Russia investigation. She may be
Speaker 1: part of the we. But I wonder, Inspector General, did
Speaker 1: you find any other FBI agents or FBI attorneys who
Speaker 1: manifest any animals or biased against President Trump? We did?
Speaker 1: How many? We have found three additional FBI agents, as
Speaker 1: we detail in the report, and we're any of them
Speaker 1: working on the Russia investigation. Let me let me just
Speaker 1: create two agents and one attorney to other agents, one
Speaker 1: other attorney. Were they working on either the Russia investigation
Speaker 1: or the Muller pro Uh. I believe two of the
Speaker 1: three were, but I'd have to just double check on that, Okay.
Speaker 1: See five of the fifteen top people looking into the
Speaker 1: Hillary matter have a hostility towards Donald Trump and a
Speaker 1: love of Hillary Clinton, even going as far as referring
Speaker 1: to her as president before she's ever be where they
Speaker 1: even conclude the investigation. See why when I say, writing
Speaker 1: an exoneration before the investigation, why that's so pivotal. And
Speaker 1: when you see that the very same people that literally
Speaker 1: gave her every consideration, this even you can't even make
Speaker 1: the case that this is about prosecutorial discretion because it's not.
Speaker 1: What what she did is so egregious. The violation of
Speaker 1: the Espionage Acts so clear, and you just need maybe
Speaker 1: bring into that committee and that hearing Christian Saucier six
Speaker 1: little pictures on the cell phone. Never shared them, never
Speaker 1: put them on social media, never did any thing with
Speaker 1: them except he was proud of the fact that he
Speaker 1: worked in a submarine. He got a year in jail,
Speaker 1: and of course the obstruction issue, there's never been a
Speaker 1: more clear cut case for obstruction of justice, and of
Speaker 1: the fifteen key lead investigators, at least five of them
Speaker 1: are on record having this horrible hatred towards Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and bias in favor of Hillary Clinton. Anyway, Goudy goes
Speaker 1: on as carwits with Peter Struck meant in a text,
Speaker 1: saying that he'd finish it. Let's listen in Peter Struck
Speaker 1: is back on his phone, texting some more for me.
Speaker 1: In this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business.
Speaker 1: I unleashed it with the Clinton email investigation. Now I
Speaker 1: need to fix it and finish it. Fix what uh? Well,
Speaker 1: there is outlined in the report. What Mr Struck's explanation
Speaker 1: for Well, I know what he was. I'm gonna asking
Speaker 1: our view. I'm asking the guy who had a distinguished
Speaker 1: career in the Southern District of the New York and
Speaker 1: had a distinguished career at the Department of Justice, did
Speaker 1: you rather cross examinated or struggle on that explanation or
Speaker 1: would you rather direct the examinational that explanation Probably cross
Speaker 1: exam That's what I thought. How about finish it? When
Speaker 1: he said I unleashed it, now I need to fix
Speaker 1: it and finish it. What do you think he meant
Speaker 1: by finish it? I think, in the context of the
Speaker 1: emails that occurred in August and the prior August that
Speaker 1: you outlined, I think um a reasonable explanation of it,
Speaker 1: or a reasonable inference of that is that he believed
Speaker 1: he would use or potentially use his official authority to
Speaker 1: take action. But this is twenty four hours into him
Speaker 1: being put on them all reprobe. There's no way he
Speaker 1: possibly could have prejudged the outcome of the investigation. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's the outcome determinative biased that my Democrat friends have
Speaker 1: such a hard time finding. Now that was the whole
Speaker 1: thing that well, we can't find that that political bias
Speaker 1: was involved. Even though then Harwitz goes on to give
Speaker 1: example after example after example. What he said is he
Speaker 1: didn't have a smoking gun. And you know, if you're
Speaker 1: putting a case together, you know oftentimes you're not gonna
Speaker 1: get a criminal that says, yes, I pulled the trigger
Speaker 1: and shot an innocent woman in the vestibule, and I
Speaker 1: killed her. What you have to do is you take
Speaker 1: the evidence, forensic evidence otherwise, and you put it together
Speaker 1: in some cases circumstantial evidence and with all this hatred
Speaker 1: geared towards Donald Trump and all of these specific comments
Speaker 1: about will stop him, and all the people that were involved,
Speaker 1: the same guy that's involved in interviewing Hillary, same guy
Speaker 1: that's involved in writing the exoneration in early May, the
Speaker 1: same guy that is then the heart in the beginnings
Speaker 1: of the Russia investigation. Yeah, he's got a bias now.
Speaker 1: Chairman Bob Goodlad at one point asked Michael Harrowitz about
Speaker 1: the struct text saying that he's going to stop him
Speaker 1: and whether or not it shows political bias. They should
Speaker 1: put an end to what the left is saying in
Speaker 1: this regard that there doesn't show any political bias. Yeah, Bologney. However,
Speaker 1: each institution has engaged in repeated stonewalling of Congress's constitutionally
Speaker 1: mandated oversight. The infamous text from Peter Struck saying we
Speaker 1: will stop President Trump from taking office, which we received
Speaker 1: on the day of your report release, is a prime example.
Speaker 1: This text was revealed to you late in your interview
Speaker 1: as well as I understand, do you believe this text
Speaker 1: shows political bias? I think, as we found it clearly
Speaker 1: shows a biased state of mind. And if so, do
Speaker 1: you believe the political bias shown by this text had
Speaker 1: an effect on the initiation of the Russia investigation that
Speaker 1: I think, as you know, uh, Mr Chairman, that's the
Speaker 1: matter we've got under review and are looking at right now.
Speaker 1: More more to be determined on that were to be determined.
Speaker 1: But the time proximity, as Mr Goudy pointed out, is
Speaker 1: significantly correct correct. In fact, there are these other text
Speaker 1: messages in a roughly the same time period. No, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's pretty obvious. It's political. What else could it be?
Speaker 1: But political? What else could it possibly be? Madam President Helps.
Speaker 1: Of course Hillary is gonna win. Now we've got Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan who's going to join us uh in the next hour.
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham will also join us in the next hour.
Speaker 1: But Jim Jordan's was on fire today. Asking Horowitz about
Speaker 1: strucks bias and Trump painting, let's play that, Mr Horowitz,
Speaker 1: does Peter Struck like the president? Um, I can only
Speaker 1: speak to what his text messages say, and they're obviously
Speaker 1: not positive comments about the president. February Marcheen, Peter Struck
Speaker 1: said Trump's abysmal. Trump's an idiot, He's a bleeping idiot.
Speaker 1: Hillary should win a hundred million to zero. Sounds to
Speaker 1: me like he hates the president. His text messages would
Speaker 1: certainly leave that as the implication. Your report says Struck
Speaker 1: ran the Clinton investigation on a daily basis. Is that accurate?
Speaker 1: That's correct? And Peter Struck in your report he was
Speaker 1: the lead investigator on the Russian investigation. Is that true?
Speaker 1: That's my understanding for the time pret he was on.
Speaker 1: So the guy he ran the Clinton investigation, he runs
Speaker 1: the Russian investigation, and he hates the president. But your
Speaker 1: report says, while his bias cast a cloud, it didn't
Speaker 1: impact final decisions. Is that accurate? It didn't impact the
Speaker 1: prosecutor's final decision. Right. Let's look at a few other
Speaker 1: things Peter Struck had to say. On May fourteen, the
Speaker 1: day after President Trump secures the Republican nomination, Mr Struck says,
Speaker 1: now the pressure really starts to finish the Clinton investigation.
Speaker 1: Sure why the pressure would be more or less the
Speaker 1: day after? It seems to me you want to just
Speaker 1: do the investigation. On July thirty one, as mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: the FBI opens the Russian investigation. One week later, Peter
Speaker 1: Struck says, I can protect my country on many levels.
Speaker 1: Two days after that, he says, we will stop Trump.
Speaker 1: One week after that, he says, no way he gets elected.
Speaker 1: As like an insurance policy. So think about this, Mr Horowitz.
Speaker 1: Peter Struck opens the FBI opens the Russian investigation on
Speaker 1: July teen. Peter Struck is the lead investigator. Within the
Speaker 1: next fifteen days, he says, I can protect my country
Speaker 1: on many levels. No way he gets elected, we will
Speaker 1: stop him. We have an insurance policy. Now, that seems like,
Speaker 1: at least I think a lot of regular folks would
Speaker 1: interpret that is more than just casting a cloud on
Speaker 1: what the FBI ultimately did. All right, that was Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan's And yeah, that's true. Now, one of the notes
Speaker 1: in all of this is a sort of a follow
Speaker 1: up to that, Horroorwitch confirming today that he's investigating whether
Speaker 1: trucks anti Trump bias factored into the launch of the
Speaker 1: Bureaus Russia probe. Well, of course it had to play
Speaker 1: a part number one. And we now know that this
Speaker 1: was going on a lot earlier. Now we also know
Speaker 1: that there were spies in it. Now we know why
Speaker 1: there was a willingness. Everybody knew the FBI protocol and
Speaker 1: fights a law mandates that you verify and corroborate any
Speaker 1: information that you're gonna present before a fights a judge.
Speaker 1: They never did it on four separate occasions, and then
Speaker 1: the d o J gets some Sally Yates signed off
Speaker 1: on one, Rod Rosenstein signed off on the last one.
Speaker 1: They lied to four fives a court judges. It can't
Speaker 1: wait till one day, get them under oath and see
Speaker 1: how they feel about being lined to. I've yet to
Speaker 1: meet a judge in my life that likes being lined to,
Speaker 1: which usually yes your honor, no, your honor, yes, ma'am, no, ma'am, yes, sir, no, sir,
Speaker 1: That's how that usually goes. But anyway, so earlier today, Harrow,
Speaker 1: it's testifying that his office is now reviewing all of
Speaker 1: these anti Trump text messages as part of a separate
Speaker 1: probe related to the Russia investigation, because, as it was
Speaker 1: just revealed with Jim Jordan's and others, that it clearly
Speaker 1: shows a biased state of mind, and Horowitz corroborated that
Speaker 1: referring to the text messages, and that's both biased in
Speaker 1: favor of Hillary and not being serious about doing a
Speaker 1: real investigation into the felonies that she did commit. Nobody's
Speaker 1: asking yet, what should happen to Hillary? How does she
Speaker 1: get to skate in all of this knowing that these
Speaker 1: crimes were committed. And then it goes on good Lad
Speaker 1: asking Horowitz and whether the bias influenced the initiation of
Speaker 1: the investigation into the Russian interference, etcetera, etcetera, and potential collusion.
Speaker 1: That's a matter we've got under review, we're looking at
Speaker 1: right now, Harrowitz said. Good Lad then pressed Harowitz over
Speaker 1: the politically charged text messages, which the report described as hostile,
Speaker 1: and noted how several was set near the start of
Speaker 1: the Russia probe. Actara had said, in fact, there were
Speaker 1: these other text messages and in roughly the same time period,
Speaker 1: and the exchange coming minutes after Trey Goudy outlined the
Speaker 1: curious timing of the text messages between Struck and Page,
Speaker 1: just as the Russia probe, which Struck was involved in initiating,
Speaker 1: was at its beginnings, its origins, although we do believe
Speaker 1: it actually started earlier now and three weeks after Clinton
Speaker 1: was exonerated by Comey and Struck that now leading the
Speaker 1: investigation into Russian coordination with the Trump campaign. Um, this matters,
Speaker 1: because this matters that's pretty interesting. Now this matters. This
Speaker 1: is just after the Russia probe begins in July. Timeline
Speaker 1: simple Hillary's exoneration written by Struck and Comey in early May,
Speaker 1: Hillary seventeen other key witnesses don't get interviewed until early
Speaker 1: July July two in the case of Hillary, and she's
Speaker 1: exonerated after long laundry list of crimes that were committed,
Speaker 1: all of which we've gone over on this program many,
Speaker 1: many times, and County lays out that timeline July five,
Speaker 1: Comey goes out there taking on a role he of
Speaker 1: no business taking on, saying no criminal charges against Hillary.
Speaker 1: And from that point to July, when the FBI officially
Speaker 1: initiated their counter intelligence investigation into the Russia issue, and
Speaker 1: three weeks after Hillary is exonerated by Comy. Struck, who
Speaker 1: helped write the exoneration before investigation, is leading the investigation
Speaker 1: into Russia and so called co ordination with the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: You know, because this matters, He said, you know, this matters.
Speaker 1: As he's texting back and forth with Lisa Page, Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it sounds like they went through the motions.
Speaker 1: She gets the you know, soft glove treatment in her case,
Speaker 1: and Trump gets the sledge hammer because of all this
Speaker 1: political bias. You can't say this bias, this hatred of
Speaker 1: Trump didn't play a partner as it did. Imagine presenting
Speaker 1: any of this information to a jury and what their
Speaker 1: reaction would be. The case comes down to this. You know,
Speaker 1: I've noticed the attorney for Peter Struck came out with
Speaker 1: a ridiculous piece. I think it was in USA today today.
Speaker 1: The guys a patriot and he played by the rules
Speaker 1: and he could have leaked about the Russian investigation, but
Speaker 1: he didn't. Um, Okay, I understand that he's in a
Speaker 1: bad spot, and uh, but just it just it doesn't
Speaker 1: pass the smell test on any level. The reason you
Speaker 1: need to be concerned about this is because Hillary got
Speaker 1: away with things you would never get away with. And
Speaker 1: she got away with it because people in power, the
Speaker 1: highest levels of power, decided they liked her, favored her
Speaker 1: over Trump, who they hated, and they went with the
Speaker 1: the soft glove treatment all things Hillary, and they put
Speaker 1: the fix in and then they put the sledgehammer to
Speaker 1: Trump on an issue that was nonexistent. That's what happened.
Speaker 1: How many people were involved in the Clinton interview on
Speaker 1: July of the second. There were um, I believe six
Speaker 1: or eight people present, but two agents conducting the interview.
Speaker 1: So as I understand that there were two agents and
Speaker 1: two prosecutors. Correct, Okay, Now this was an email sent
Speaker 1: in February from Page to McCay. Hey, you've surely already
Speaker 1: considered this, But in my view, our best reason to
Speaker 1: hold the line at two and two, two agents and
Speaker 1: two prosecutors is she might be our next president. How
Speaker 1: did you feel about that? We were concerned about it,
Speaker 1: and we lay it at layout here why we were Okay,
Speaker 1: let's keep talking about this interview. One of the FBI
Speaker 1: agents in the interview said on election day to another
Speaker 1: FBI agent, you should know that I'm with her. Now
Speaker 1: her was Clinton? Right, how do you feel about that?
Speaker 1: Are concerned? Okay? E bitually very concerned? Gets to be enough.
Speaker 1: Already this is struck to Page on October twenty. Trump
Speaker 1: is an effing idiot. The bottom line is, I'm glad
Speaker 1: you found what you found, Mr Rowarts. I'm not buying
Speaker 1: that the Clinton email investigation was on the up and up.
Speaker 1: And the reason I'm not buying it discussed the two
Speaker 1: people intimately involved. One the guy, that the lead investigator
Speaker 1: clearly did not want to see Donald Trump become president
Speaker 1: of the United States. Finally, do you agree with me
Speaker 1: that finding her liabel criminally would be inconsistent with stopping
Speaker 1: Donald Trump? If they found Hillary Clinton was criminally liable,
Speaker 1: that paves the way for Donald Trump. Can you put
Speaker 1: those two things together? I guess it would depend when,
Speaker 1: but yes, for the convention clearly could conceivablief. Well, not
Speaker 1: only clearly, conceivably That's exactly what's happening here, folks. You
Speaker 1: cannot hold her criminally laval and stop him, No, you can't.
Speaker 1: That was Lindsay Graham at the Senate hearing yesterday. House
Speaker 1: hearing has been going on today and Trey Goudy just
Speaker 1: really lit it up earlier today, as Lindsey Graham did yesterday.
Speaker 1: Who joins us on her Newsmaker line, How are you good?
Speaker 1: You don't have to be Sherlotte Colms to figure this
Speaker 1: one out. You know, you're so annoying when I disagree
Speaker 1: with you, But when you are right on something, you're
Speaker 1: so right on something, and so I have to give
Speaker 1: you your credit. Well, it's true. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not shy about being critical when I disagree with you,
Speaker 1: but I definitely know that. But you did a great
Speaker 1: job yesterday, and I give you a lot of credit
Speaker 1: for it. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Let's stay
Speaker 1: with the fundamentals. If we ken, Senator for a minute,
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton violated the espionageack and obstructed justice, do
Speaker 1: you have any doubt? No, Here's what I would say.
Speaker 1: Here's what's important. The original statement that Tommy was going
Speaker 1: to read on July five, exonerating her said that she
Speaker 1: was grossly negligent. The reason they changed that term to
Speaker 1: extremely careless is under eighteen USC. Seventy nine seven nine
Speaker 1: three if grossly negligent creates criminal liability. So what I
Speaker 1: want to know is who changed the term grossly negligent
Speaker 1: extremely careless? Because when you find out how that happened,
Speaker 1: you will realize that we don't we know the answer
Speaker 1: because we know the following. We know that both Struck
Speaker 1: and Comy we're writing, and they began writing their exoneration
Speaker 1: in early May, they had yet to interview Hillary or
Speaker 1: seventeen other key witnesses. That Hillary's interview took place July two,
Speaker 1: and Comey assert the power of the Attorney general and
Speaker 1: pretty much everyone else and exonerated her publicly on July five,
Speaker 1: and not long thereafter, the same people that that put
Speaker 1: the exoneration in or the fig so before the investigation
Speaker 1: then started the Trump Russia probe. Yeah, but what I Yeah,
Speaker 1: everything is dead right, But what I want to know
Speaker 1: is I wanna is there any email traffic is in
Speaker 1: your conversation about changing the words? Somebody put down grossly
Speaker 1: negligent and they suddenly realized, wait a minute, if you
Speaker 1: say that she's criminally liable, we can't say that and
Speaker 1: stop Trump. The the August eighth text becomes so important.
Speaker 1: That's when Page says to Stroke, Trump's never going to
Speaker 1: become president, right right, Struck responded, No, no, he's not.
Speaker 1: We'll stop it. So now you know that they wanted
Speaker 1: to stop President Trump from being president. How can you
Speaker 1: stop him because find her criminally responsible for mishandling classified information.
Speaker 1: That to me is the key here. Who changed those words?
Speaker 1: And when did they change it? Was it called me?
Speaker 1: Was it strong? How did it happen? No, you know
Speaker 1: you're dead right on this one of the We keep
Speaker 1: getting these nuggets as we read through this report. Again
Speaker 1: and again. Nuggets. Yeah, you're right, you see, and this
Speaker 1: goes to the heart of it, and that is that
Speaker 1: Horowitz and the Democrats jumped all over. Well, he said
Speaker 1: that he's not going to second guess prosecutorial discretion. But
Speaker 1: then on the other side of it, he lays out
Speaker 1: the single most compelling case of abuse and bias in
Speaker 1: the justice system amongst the highest investigators within the FBI
Speaker 1: that I've ever seen in my life. Is as stunning.
Speaker 1: But but you skipped over something that Creepo did. Mike
Speaker 1: creep who did a wonderful job, and I didn't have
Speaker 1: time to bring this up, but as brilliant who decided
Speaker 1: to prosecute, to give her, to let her off the hook.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a prosecutor, It was the FBI. So this
Speaker 1: was an unusual case. There was no professional prosecutor that
Speaker 1: over oversaw the FBI investigation. In terms, there's no case here.
Speaker 1: The same crew that basically was in the tank for
Speaker 1: Clinton decided not to execute Clinton. Loretta Lynch didn't make
Speaker 1: this decision, called me, did the guy in charge of
Speaker 1: the FBI. So there was no independent filter here. There
Speaker 1: was no outside group looking at the FBI's work product
Speaker 1: saying you're you're right, there's no case. The FBI decided
Speaker 1: not to prosecute, not the Department of Justice. Well, we
Speaker 1: also know that of the fifteen lead, posibly that happened
Speaker 1: in my life. Well, of course, I've never heard of
Speaker 1: an exoneration written before you ever do the investigation of
Speaker 1: a case. Have you ever heard an investigator by the investment, Yeah,
Speaker 1: by Comey, and the investment was struck in comy that
Speaker 1: we're writing Rescue the lady exactly. This is not months before,
Speaker 1: months before. So the bottom line is they knew Trump
Speaker 1: was going to be the presumptive nominee on July five.
Speaker 1: The convention was July eighteenth one. So if you wanted
Speaker 1: to stop him, if that's your goal, and it's in
Speaker 1: writing in August they wanted to stop Trump, there's no
Speaker 1: way you could find her criminally responsible. And no prosecutor
Speaker 1: decided not to prosecute her. It was the FBI, The
Speaker 1: same people who basically were completely in the tank for her,
Speaker 1: decided not to prosecute. People got to understand there was
Speaker 1: no filter here, there was no overseeing the FBI. Well
Speaker 1: that was also, but it was because the Attorney General
Speaker 1: Lynch was compromised based on her tom tarmac meeting with
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton and finished up, well, you can't make it up.
Speaker 1: But here's the problem. The problem is is the same people,
Speaker 1: now five of the fifteen lead investigators that were involved
Speaker 1: in this case. Then immediately, if the timeline is July five,
Speaker 1: James Comy takes it upon himself. It's not his role,
Speaker 1: it's not his duty, takes it upon himself to exonerate
Speaker 1: Hillary and again makes the shifts and changes that you
Speaker 1: point out as it relates to the legal standard gross negligence,
Speaker 1: and also took out something else that's important, that it
Speaker 1: was likely that foreign intelligence services had hacked in the
Speaker 1: Hillary's email that was in the Mom and pop shop
Speaker 1: bathroom closet. Well, then those same people that are abusively
Speaker 1: biased and hate Trump then are at the initial start
Speaker 1: of the Trump Russia investigation. Doesn't that render that illegitimate? Well?
Speaker 1: I think, well that's why I think Muller fired these people.
Speaker 1: And the question is what effect did it have. So
Speaker 1: let's look at the August fifteenth text from Struck the page.
Speaker 1: Now this is a week after uh Struck said no, no,
Speaker 1: will stop it. Here's what they said on August fifteenth.
Speaker 1: I want to believe the path you throughout the consideration
Speaker 1: Andy's office, that there's no way he gets elected. But
Speaker 1: I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
Speaker 1: insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're forty.
Speaker 1: So I asked the question, who is Andy and m
Speaker 1: Andy McKay. So here's what's so important about this, did
Speaker 1: in fact the number two guy at the FBI sit
Speaker 1: down with the lead investigator of the Clinton email investigation
Speaker 1: and now the Russia Trump investigation and conspired to eat
Speaker 1: an insurance policy regarding the election? That is j Edgar Hoover,
Speaker 1: that is Watergate. So here's what Stock and Page say.
Speaker 1: They've said to multiple committees. We met with Andy McCabe
Speaker 1: and we talked about creating an insurance policy regarding Trump's
Speaker 1: campaign in election. McCabe says he doesn't recall that meeting.
Speaker 1: All I can say is, how many meetings did you
Speaker 1: have with FBI agents trying to figure out how to
Speaker 1: fix an election? This, to me is the most stamming
Speaker 1: thing about the Russian investigation and how deep the FBI
Speaker 1: was involved in trying to undercut the election. If it's true,
Speaker 1: that the number two guy at the FBI set down
Speaker 1: in his office to talk with the lead investigator of
Speaker 1: the Trump investigation about an insurance policy to make sure
Speaker 1: he didn't win. That is stunning, That is earth shattering,
Speaker 1: and that destroys How do these people still have How
Speaker 1: do they still have jobs at the FBI? I don't
Speaker 1: know how you would keep somebody on on the government
Speaker 1: payroll who clearly is trying to fix an election, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean why you slow down fix an election? This
Speaker 1: is the United Station. Yeah, this is how you fix
Speaker 1: an election. You take the guide that you hate and
Speaker 1: make sure his opponent, who is guilty, is sin has
Speaker 1: never charged. You start an investigation on the guy you
Speaker 1: hate to create an insurance policy to make sure that
Speaker 1: the outcome is what you would like for the country.
Speaker 1: That to me is fixing an election. And I don't
Speaker 1: say these things lightly. If Andy McCabe in fact met
Speaker 1: with the Page and Struck and they did have a
Speaker 1: conversation about taking an insurance policy out regarding the election,
Speaker 1: then that to me is stunning. J Edgar Hoover stuff
Speaker 1: watergate and doesn't it well, I think it's watergate, and
Speaker 1: it's worse than Watergate, But and doesn't it doesn't it
Speaker 1: then make sense that if you have a the beginning,
Speaker 1: the very beginnings of the Russia investigation, the same players
Speaker 1: and the same prejudice and the same bias and hostility
Speaker 1: towards one candidate, everything it puts everything it taints as
Speaker 1: the food of the poiseness tree, doctor and in the law.
Speaker 1: But are we seeing the same thing if you look
Speaker 1: at Genie Ray? How did Genie Ray, who once worked
Speaker 1: for the Clinton Foundation, get on Mueller's team? How does
Speaker 1: a guy like Andrew Weissman, who, because of his actions
Speaker 1: in the Anderson accounting case, tens of thousands of Americans
Speaker 1: lost their job. That was overturned nine in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Then he put four Meryal executives in jail for a year.
Speaker 1: That's overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
Speaker 1: multiple occasions. He was excoriated by judges for withholding exculpatory evidence.
Speaker 1: Now and everyone else that Mueller appoints as a Democratic donor,
Speaker 1: they couldn't find an independent, anybody, anybody's separate and apart,
Speaker 1: with a better track record than Andrew Weissman or background
Speaker 1: than Genie Ray. Well, what it does it put the
Speaker 1: same question everything that that flowed after that meeting with
Speaker 1: Andy McCabe. So the bottom line here is that what
Speaker 1: would have been kind of innocuous conflicts now become you know,
Speaker 1: very serious. And we haven't even talked about the FISA
Speaker 1: warrant yet. So the second report coming out is how
Speaker 1: did the Department of Justice use the doarcier he prepared
Speaker 1: by a foreign agent, paid for political party and candidate
Speaker 1: for office to get a warrant on American citizen? How
Speaker 1: did the system fail there? Now, that really goes to
Speaker 1: the heart and soul of the early part of the
Speaker 1: Russian investigation. What at this point have you seen that
Speaker 1: gives you any indication that there was any type of
Speaker 1: nefarious activities on the part of anybody in the in
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, because I haven't seen any. Okay, the
Speaker 1: only thing I can, you know, just trying to be
Speaker 1: as honest with you, the the interaction and now you're
Speaker 1: gonna piss me off saying go ahead, okay, well, but
Speaker 1: the interaction in Trump power with these kind of weird Russians,
Speaker 1: you know what you're talking about, year grade summer would
Speaker 1: be better. I haven't seen anything come from that, But
Speaker 1: Here's what I have seen. I've seen absolutely no evidence
Speaker 1: of collusion between the Trump campaign any Russian intelligence service.
Speaker 1: I have seen a counter intelligence operation that was never
Speaker 1: They never notified Trump what they should have told President Trump,
Speaker 1: Candidate Trump, Hey we got a problem in Matterport. Hey
Speaker 1: we've got a problem with Carter Page. Hey we got
Speaker 1: a car, a problem with Papadopolis. The reason I'm really
Speaker 1: suspicious of the government's intent here is a counter intelligence
Speaker 1: operation is designed to protect the country. So if you've
Speaker 1: got you've got some information on somebody that the campaign
Speaker 1: is interacting with, do you know the duty to tell
Speaker 1: the campaign? Carter Page and the President never met, never spoke.
Speaker 1: And the most exculpatory thing and the Comey Notes was
Speaker 1: Comey saying that he met with Trump, and Trump said, look,
Speaker 1: I didn't do anything, but if anyone on my team did,
Speaker 1: you need to do your job, I'll tell you something
Speaker 1: even more in sculptory than that. Let's trying to say
Speaker 1: you're smarter than well, now I'm not saying I'm smarter
Speaker 1: than you. I'm just saying I thought it's something you
Speaker 1: didn't confidential informant in a counterintelligence operation. Let's say there
Speaker 1: was one. Let's say that that confidential informant interacted with
Speaker 1: three members of the Trump campaign. Let's say it was Papadoptlis,
Speaker 1: carter Page, and Clovis. What did they find nothing. Clovis
Speaker 1: is walking around eating dinner somewhere, carter Page is still
Speaker 1: being wacky somewhere, and Papadopolis pled guilty to something completely
Speaker 1: unrelated to interact him with the Russians. So here's what
Speaker 1: I would suggest to the folks and the Trump world.
Speaker 1: If there was a counter intelligence uh AN informant, a
Speaker 1: confidential informant, that person didn't find anything, because none of
Speaker 1: the confidential informants information was ever used to get a warrant.
Speaker 1: I've got to say this, I want to hear from
Speaker 1: those FISA judges that were lied to with verified, uncorroborated
Speaker 1: Hillary Boughton paid for foreign national put together that even
Speaker 1: he said was fifty How did those judges get lied to?
Speaker 1: How did those two? How come they we haven't heard
Speaker 1: from them? Well, this is the rosenstein becomes important here.
Speaker 1: Rosenstown was in the chain of events, you know, in
Speaker 1: terms of re certifying for the warrant. Oh no, he
Speaker 1: signed the fourth warrant. In other words, they should have
Speaker 1: known by then. Yeah, well, yes, right, So so you
Speaker 1: had a guy still that you'd used in the past.
Speaker 1: You didn't provide any scrutiny. And he's screaming diet heaven?
Speaker 1: Did he hates Trump? One of the reasons he gave
Speaker 1: the dossier to the press. If TCACI has mad at
Speaker 1: the FBI for reopening the October investigation on I gotta run,
Speaker 1: but you're right on target. Uh. Lindsey Graham, Senator South Carolina,
Speaker 1: thank you, sir. When we come back. Jim Jordan Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 1: All right, Jim Jordan was on fire today, he joins
Speaker 1: us at the bottom of the hour. Uh, you have
Speaker 1: an immigration debate after let me tell you one thing
Speaker 1: on the immigration at twenty eighteen elections have started, and
Speaker 1: I'll explain that in in our final hour Free for All.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's was on fire before the I g Horowitz
Speaker 1: and Director Rate Today will play that next. Then, he
Speaker 1: joins us. Next as we continue the best coverage on
Speaker 1: your radio dial. Has Mr Comby been fired? Yes? Has
Speaker 1: Mr McCabe been fired yes? Did Mr McCabe lie under
Speaker 1: oath according to your report? Yes? Yeah? Is there a
Speaker 1: criminal referral for Mr McCabe, I'm not going to comment
Speaker 1: on that. Has Mr Ribicki left the FBI? Yes? Has
Speaker 1: General Council Jim Baker left the FBI? Yes? Was he
Speaker 1: removed from his position prior to leaving the FBI? I'm
Speaker 1: not sure of that. Has Lisa Page left the FBI?
Speaker 1: Was she reassigned prior to leaving the FBI? Believe so?
Speaker 1: And has Peter Struck been removed from his position as
Speaker 1: Deputy head of counter Intelligence? Yes, Mr Horwich, You've been
Speaker 1: in the d J for ten years, You've been Inspector
Speaker 1: general for six years. You're chief of all the inspector generals.
Speaker 1: Have you ever ever seen anything like this at any
Speaker 1: other federal agency in your time in the federal government?
Speaker 1: Six of the top people fired, demoted, reassigned, or left. UM.
Speaker 1: Obviously can't speak broadly to other areas that I haven't
Speaker 1: known before, but yes, this is I've been in I've
Speaker 1: been in this town learning half years. I've never seen
Speaker 1: anything like this. Even the I R. S scandal didn't
Speaker 1: come close. Never see this. And again, this is not
Speaker 1: in any type of reflection on the rank and file
Speaker 1: agents who I know you respect. We all respect and
Speaker 1: do a great job, but these were the six key people.
Speaker 1: I have never seen anything like this in my time
Speaker 1: in government. My guess is there's not a person on
Speaker 1: this diet who has his wealth. All right. That was
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan at the hearings earlier today doing a phenomenal job.
Speaker 1: I see this is breaking on other news networks. I
Speaker 1: have not seen it yet on Fox that CNN among
Speaker 1: them reporting Peter Struck is still employed, but was escorted
Speaker 1: out of the FBI building last Friday, joining US now
Speaker 1: House Freedom caucas member, former Chairman of the House Freedom Caucause,
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's who may be running for Speaker of the House.
Speaker 1: And I've supported you although but probably is going to
Speaker 1: hurt you if I do. Um, not at all, not
Speaker 1: at all. I have not heard that about Struck, so
Speaker 1: that that did happen Friday, Sean apparently, Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I hate to site CNN fake news. I got five
Speaker 1: TVs in front of me, but you know, take it
Speaker 1: with a grain of salt, and uh, you know we're watching.
Speaker 1: We'll look for our own corroboration here, but that's what
Speaker 1: they're reporting. Um, you were on fire. The facts in
Speaker 1: this case remain, I think, and you got to go
Speaker 1: back to the fundamentals here, and the fundamentals are very clear,
Speaker 1: is that Hillary did violate the Espionage Act, just to
Speaker 1: ask Christian Saucier, and that she mishandled and destroyed classified
Speaker 1: top secret information. And James Comey even admitted that July.
Speaker 1: And then I don't think there's ever been a bigger
Speaker 1: case for obstruction to justice by the leading subpoena emails,
Speaker 1: acid washing the hard drive with bleach bit, and then
Speaker 1: of course having an aid bust up devices with hammers
Speaker 1: uh and handing over to the FBI device without a
Speaker 1: SIM card. That to me is obstruction. Do you agree? Well?
Speaker 1: And and remember what we just went through. The top
Speaker 1: six people who have all left and fired some one
Speaker 1: faces criminal referral. They were all demotive before they left
Speaker 1: as well. Those top six people are the ones whoreund
Speaker 1: the investigation you just cited. They're also the ones who
Speaker 1: then launched the Russian investigation. So that that's why this
Speaker 1: all When you say the fundamentals, those are the fundamentals. Um,
Speaker 1: That's why it's so critical and frankly shown. The other
Speaker 1: thing we learned today is the other guy. In addition
Speaker 1: to those six people, the fe the other guys. Rod Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: the one, you know, the one text message that we
Speaker 1: didn't have. We had thousands, tens of thousands that we
Speaker 1: were that that went back and forth between Peter Struck
Speaker 1: and least the page, the one we didn't get until
Speaker 1: last Thursday, just happens to be the most explosive one,
Speaker 1: which says we will stop Trump. Rod Wilsenstein's office had
Speaker 1: that a month ago, and they didn't give it to
Speaker 1: us until last week. Why did they keep it? Why
Speaker 1: did they try to hide that from this That another
Speaker 1: important Let me digress for a second, because the showdown
Speaker 1: is now come to a head. And last Friday, it's
Speaker 1: my understanding that Bob good Lad and Trey Goudy and
Speaker 1: Devin Nunas and Paul Ryan met with Rod Rosenstein and
Speaker 1: with Director Ray and they were told in no uncertain
Speaker 1: terms that if they continue to obstruct, and they continue
Speaker 1: to withhold subpoena documents and and use phony redactions in
Speaker 1: the name of national security, etcetera, that this is now
Speaker 1: going to come to a head, meaning contempt and possible
Speaker 1: impeachment of Rod Rosenstein. Is it come to that, Yes,
Speaker 1: it certainly has. Actually there's gonna be three steps. The
Speaker 1: Speaker was very clear last week with him. I Mr
Speaker 1: Guy talking over the weekend, he said the Speaker was
Speaker 1: strong in that meeting. He said, if you don't give
Speaker 1: us what we're entitled to have a separate, equal branch
Speaker 1: of government to do our job. If you're not gonna
Speaker 1: give that to us, there's gonna be three steps. First
Speaker 1: step will be the resolution. Mr Meadows and I filed
Speaker 1: anothers filed a week and a half ago, which says
Speaker 1: the House will go on record. The Speaker said he
Speaker 1: will bring that to the floor and say you've got
Speaker 1: seven days to do it. If in fact he doesn't
Speaker 1: do it, then then we moved to content. And then
Speaker 1: you moved to the beachment. That is that that is
Speaker 1: the logical profession of progression, the House to go on
Speaker 1: record saying we deserve this information, give us to us
Speaker 1: as a full body. If you won't do it, then
Speaker 1: then you moved to contempt. Then you moved to impeachment.
Speaker 1: What would happened to where the speakers at what would
Speaker 1: happened to uh average Joe citizen Sean Hannity if if
Speaker 1: you guys subpoenaed information from me and I pulled the
Speaker 1: stunts that Rod Rosenstein's pulling, you know what would happen.
Speaker 1: And that's what kicks Americans off, is this double standard.
Speaker 1: There's one set of rules for Sean Hannity, Jim Jordan's
Speaker 1: regular folks around the country. There's a different set. If
Speaker 1: your name is Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Learner, McCabe, Scott Page,
Speaker 1: if your name, if you if you name one of
Speaker 1: those and you're part of the swamp, you get a
Speaker 1: different set of rules. And frankly, Rod Rosenstein should know
Speaker 1: that and he should be given us what we've been
Speaker 1: asking for. But he doesn't. I hear there are very
Speaker 1: empassive information from us. I hear there are very specific
Speaker 1: papers evidence, if you will, information that implicates Rod Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: Have you heard the saying, uh, Chairman Nonaz is asking
Speaker 1: for specific information. I don't know what that specific information is,
Speaker 1: but yes, he has said he wants he wants certain
Speaker 1: information and he wants Mr Rosenstein's department just to turn
Speaker 1: that over. I do not know what that is, um,
Speaker 1: but the Chairman has been I think pretty clear about
Speaker 1: he wants information from Mr Rosen and he should turn
Speaker 1: that over all. Right, So if it's not forthcoming, by
Speaker 1: what day, will you begin the three step process. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it has to happen this week. I think
Speaker 1: the understanding from the meeting with the Speaker and the
Speaker 1: Leader and the Chairman and the head of the FBI
Speaker 1: Justice Department was it has to happen this week, and
Speaker 1: if it doesn't, I think you will see us move
Speaker 1: to the resolution and then whatever next steps we need
Speaker 1: to take. I'll be honest, I was very underwhelmed with
Speaker 1: the performance of Director Ray. And while he had every
Speaker 1: right to defend the good men and women in the FBI,
Speaker 1: which I do as well, uh, those that that do
Speaker 1: their job every day. And I've even predicted that the
Speaker 1: end of the story that in fact it's going to
Speaker 1: be the rank and file that the heroes here. But
Speaker 1: while he did that, he was not strong enough, in
Speaker 1: my view, in in understanding the urgency and severity of
Speaker 1: what's gone on. What did you feel, Yeah, I felt
Speaker 1: the same. I will say this, I think the Inspector
Speaker 1: Generals has conducted himself very well today in the in
Speaker 1: the hearing that we had um with the House Judiciary
Speaker 1: and House Oversight Committee. But um, I would like to
Speaker 1: see Mr Ray be a little understand like you say,
Speaker 1: the gravity of this, the fact that Lisa Page, Peter Struck,
Speaker 1: an FBI lawyer number two, all three on the Clinton investigation,
Speaker 1: all three on the Russian investigation, key players on the
Speaker 1: Russian investigation, Peter Struck was the lead agent, and all
Speaker 1: three of those individuals also went on Mueller's Special Council team.
Speaker 1: And then to act like this is not, you know,
Speaker 1: the big news that frankly it is, and the big
Speaker 1: issue that it is, I think, like you said, is
Speaker 1: a little bit of a scene considering the very people
Speaker 1: that are on record hating Donald Trump, hating him with
Speaker 1: a with an animous and antipathy second to none, that
Speaker 1: the very people then also violated every standard investigative procedure
Speaker 1: and thread every needle to basically put the fix in
Speaker 1: and rigging investigation for Hillary. They're the same people that
Speaker 1: initiated this investigation into so called Trump Russia collusion, and
Speaker 1: here we are a year and a half later and
Speaker 1: there's nothing to be found. It seems to me that
Speaker 1: from the get go that that would render that whole
Speaker 1: investigation illegitimate. And if you add to that the people
Speaker 1: that Robert Mueller has appointed under the conditions Mueller was
Speaker 1: appointed with comey leaking documents the way he did and
Speaker 1: for the purpose of getting a special counsel. Then Rob
Speaker 1: Rosenstein look at his team, Jennie Ray, who worked on
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation, and Andrew Weissman. How can you trust
Speaker 1: any special counsel off Andrew Weisman with his trust atrocious
Speaker 1: record is on that team. Yeah, here's here's the good news.
Speaker 1: Next week, Uh, I believe we will have in front
Speaker 1: of the oversight and judiciary community in the House Mr Struck,
Speaker 1: Mr Ray and Mr Rosenstein had as the plan. That's
Speaker 1: what the Chairman's pushing for. Um. So that is something
Speaker 1: I'm looking for because there's a set of questions that
Speaker 1: we need to ask these individuals again to get the
Speaker 1: answers that the American people deserve. Specifically, I want to
Speaker 1: know we've talked about this before, Sean. Why is we
Speaker 1: can't see the August second memo, what we call the
Speaker 1: scope memo, which changed the parameters of the Special Council investigation,
Speaker 1: the memorandum that second but that was Remember the dates
Speaker 1: are important here because July was the rate on mataphor
Speaker 1: it's home you know, guns drawn dark of night, early morning,
Speaker 1: pre dawn raid um. And then they changed the the
Speaker 1: original mandate if you will, you know, post dated to
Speaker 1: August two, after that took place. Doesn't that seem like
Speaker 1: it's out of order to you? Yeah, it sure does.
Speaker 1: And and that memo is in some way altered or
Speaker 1: modified the scope of the investigation. The Americans people have
Speaker 1: a right to know the parameters of an investigation of
Speaker 1: the individual day elected president. And Ron Rosenstein won't show
Speaker 1: us that. That's something we need to ask us about.
Speaker 1: And that's something is frankly, we need to see. And
Speaker 1: I think more importantly you folks in the media need
Speaker 1: to see in the American people need to see. Do
Speaker 1: you have any doubt that the question they rigged the
Speaker 1: investigation to prevent Hillary from being indicted, because I am
Speaker 1: a certain well, I mean, it sure looks that way.
Speaker 1: The day after President Trump is nominated, as you know,
Speaker 1: the presumptive nominee the Republican Party. The very next day,
Speaker 1: Peter Struck says this, now the pressure really starts to
Speaker 1: finish the Clinton investigation. Now, why is it? Why was
Speaker 1: there pressure to finish the examination the investigation just because
Speaker 1: Trump got the nomination Republican Party and then all the
Speaker 1: other things that he said that that show that they
Speaker 1: think about this Sean. They launched the Russian investigation in July.
Speaker 1: One week later, Peter Struct says, I can protect my
Speaker 1: country on many levels. Two days after that, he says
Speaker 1: we will stop Trump. One week after that, he says,
Speaker 1: no way he gets elected. We got an insurance policy.
Speaker 1: So within fifteen days after they've launched the Russian investigation,
Speaker 1: Peter structs the lead agent. He says, Trump is not
Speaker 1: going to get elected. I can protect my country and
Speaker 1: we will stop the president because we got an insurance
Speaker 1: that's unbelievable. You know, it's one thing to say Trump's
Speaker 1: a bad guy, Trump's awful. It's another thing to say
Speaker 1: we got an insurance policy and we're going to stop him,
Speaker 1: especially when you make those statements within days after you've
Speaker 1: launched the Russian investigation and just close the Clinton investigation.
Speaker 1: And that's what we tried to highlighten the day's hearing.
Speaker 1: I think the American people see this and they understand it,
Speaker 1: and they know that Peter Struct should not still be
Speaker 1: working at the FBI, and they know that Rod Rosenstein
Speaker 1: has some questions answer what happens to Hillary now? Does
Speaker 1: she get off scott free doing things that put other
Speaker 1: Americans in jail, I mean obstructing justice clearly. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know if you saw the controversy,
Speaker 1: but Robert Muller is demanding everybody that he's been interviewing
Speaker 1: and investigating that they have to turn over their phones.
Speaker 1: So so I go on the air and I said, well,
Speaker 1: if I were to advise them, big word there, if,
Speaker 1: because I wouldn't. And then I even said at one
Speaker 1: point it's a bad idea. It's not gonna work out
Speaker 1: well for you. And I'm only kidding, but I said,
Speaker 1: if I told you to do everything Hillary did, and
Speaker 1: that is delete acid WHI and bust up with hammers
Speaker 1: and into etsy bitsy pieces and hand them over to
Speaker 1: Mueller and say equal justice under the law. This is
Speaker 1: the Hillary treatment. What do you think everybody wanted to
Speaker 1: put me in Gael? And even though I said that
Speaker 1: it was a bad idea, and she did all those things,
Speaker 1: so she get off scott free here. Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean I don't know. Uh. What I do know is this,
Speaker 1: Uh Inspector General Horowitz is looking into whether Mr call
Speaker 1: me Um was there was classified information that he leaked.
Speaker 1: Inspector General Horowitz is looking into all the leaks that
Speaker 1: took place at the other statutes and limitations. Now that
Speaker 1: we're up against well, I don't know, I had to see.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's necessarily there because it's only been
Speaker 1: we're talking about the last couple of years. And then
Speaker 1: I think the real the real investigations, I'm I'm focused
Speaker 1: on the Inspector General Horowitz is working on his potential
Speaker 1: FIES abuse of the FISA process. When are we going
Speaker 1: to hear from the FISA judges? Well, I asked him.
Speaker 1: He said he's working on it. He's gonna do it
Speaker 1: as quick as possible. But I said, look, you know,
Speaker 1: we can't wait eighteen for that investgation like waiting for
Speaker 1: this one. And his and his reply was he said, yeah,
Speaker 1: but on this one, if we had turned this, if
Speaker 1: we had complete this investigation, on the Clinton investigation, we'd
Speaker 1: have done this in January. We'd have missed so many
Speaker 1: important things. So I understand that I just tried to
Speaker 1: impress that we want that is quickly asked this considering
Speaker 1: that the origins of the Russia investigation began with at
Speaker 1: least a number of the members that that helped break
Speaker 1: the Hillary investigation and had antipathy towards Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: that's the origins of it. And then Mueller puts together
Speaker 1: a team of only Democratic donors and Genie Ray who
Speaker 1: worked at the Clinton Foundation, and Andrew Weissman his pit
Speaker 1: bowl with his frankly despicable and atrocious track record. Um
Speaker 1: is it time to now say that this is illegitimate
Speaker 1: from the get go? I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: are thinking that. Um. And and it wasn't just most Sean,
Speaker 1: it was basically the exact same team at the FBI.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was McCay's exact people. Was that BI
Speaker 1: lawyer number two was Page. It was the almost the
Speaker 1: exact same team. To RIBICKI was comy chief of staff,
Speaker 1: was involved in both. So it's almost Peter Struck ran
Speaker 1: the Clinton investigation on the daily basis, and he was
Speaker 1: the lead investigator on the Russian investigation. That's according to
Speaker 1: Mr Horowitz. So you know, the same team, and like
Speaker 1: you point out, three of those key players, FBI lawyer two,
Speaker 1: Page and Struck all go on Muller's team, so you know,
Speaker 1: and they subs we get kicked off for some anti
Speaker 1: you know, anti Trump bias and animus towards the president
Speaker 1: and pro Clinton. But frankly, just about everyone on Mulan.
Speaker 1: If you kicked everyone off a Mueller's team it was
Speaker 1: biased against the president, there wouldn't beny one left on
Speaker 1: Mueller's feat. Well that's my point. I mean, we're gonna
Speaker 1: be back here two years asking ourselves, well, why did
Speaker 1: we have such a biased team in the Special Council's Office. Um,
Speaker 1: all right, well, Jim Jordan, thank you. We're gonna watch
Speaker 1: very closely with the showdown with Rosenstein and others. Eight
Speaker 1: hundred nine four one. Shaun is on number We'll get
Speaker 1: into the immigration issue at the top of the next hour.
Speaker 1: So the Democrats at Chenda, what have I told you
Speaker 1: it is for? This is what they're running on impeaching Trump.
Speaker 1: But don't tell anybody. This is a secret. They'll just
Speaker 1: say it afterwards. We'll do it afterwards. What else keeping Obamacare?
Speaker 1: They want open borders obviously, and they're ignoring Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: Obama did the same thing that the Trump administration is doing.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it's their law. They can change
Speaker 1: the law. The President offered a deal DOCTA for funding
Speaker 1: the wall, and they wouldn't take it. Why because they
Speaker 1: want to run on it. So that's pretty much the
Speaker 1: Democratic agenda foren and of course lie, which they always do.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that next straight hut Tried news roundup
Speaker 1: and information over a little our Sean Hannity Show Toll
Speaker 1: free numbers eight nine for one sewn you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program, We'll get to your
Speaker 1: calls at the bottom of this half hour. Elijah Cummings,
Speaker 1: a congressman, accusing the Trump administration of setting up child
Speaker 1: internment camps more Nazi comparisons than I think I've seen
Speaker 1: in one lifetime, and then started crying while talking about
Speaker 1: the topic. And so I asked the question, and it
Speaker 1: is except question, are we really going to sit here
Speaker 1: seventy members of the Congress of the United States of
Speaker 1: America in twenty eighteen and have a hearing that just
Speaker 1: repeats the hearings the Senate at yesterday or Hillary Clinton's emails.
Speaker 1: We sent a letter after letter, letter after letter asking
Speaker 1: these committees to investigate the Trump Administration's policy which is
Speaker 1: now resulting in child internment camps. That's what I said,
Speaker 1: child internment camps. But we have got no response. Look,
Speaker 1: even if you believe people in it our country illegally,
Speaker 1: even if you believe they have no valid asylum claims
Speaker 1: in their own country, even if you believe immigration should
Speaker 1: be halted entirely, we all should be able to agree that,
Speaker 1: in the United States of America, we will not intentionally
Speaker 1: separate children from their parents. We will not do that.
Speaker 1: We are better than that, We are so much better.
Speaker 1: We should be able to agree that we will not
Speaker 1: keep kids in town internment camps indefinitely and hidden away
Speaker 1: from public view. What country is that? All right? There
Speaker 1: are facts that actually go along with the emotion of
Speaker 1: this argument. The one thing you can conclude is the
Speaker 1: twenty eight midterm elections are in full force. And over
Speaker 1: the many years we've done this program, we have chronicled
Speaker 1: how in election years it's predictable. Republic the race card
Speaker 1: is going to be used. Republicans are racist, you know
Speaker 1: if you have Missouri radio. Add if you elect Republicans,
Speaker 1: black churches are gonna burn al gore. Republicans talking to
Speaker 1: a predominantly black audience don't even want to count you
Speaker 1: in the census. They want to poison the air, poison
Speaker 1: the water, and kill more children if they support a
Speaker 1: reduction of the rate of increase, in other words, a
Speaker 1: net increase of seven percent for medicare. They are trying
Speaker 1: to kill old people and granny and this is what
Speaker 1: we hear every two every four years. That they're racist,
Speaker 1: that they're sexist, that they're homophobic, xenophobic, that there islamophobic, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Now there are facts here that go along with this
Speaker 1: narrative that the media is not telling you. This is
Speaker 1: the law as it currently exists. In other words, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can have discretion. And remember Barack Obama said he
Speaker 1: didn't of his own have there. I can't with a
Speaker 1: wave of a pen, you know, through executive orders do
Speaker 1: these things because it's unconstitutional. It's not the way our
Speaker 1: system works. Ended up doing it anyway. But the rule
Speaker 1: of law is the rule of law. And if you
Speaker 1: want to fix the issue permanently, there is a solution,
Speaker 1: and the President is put on the table a DOCCA
Speaker 1: fix as part of comprehensive package that would include solving
Speaker 1: the problem forever as it relates to the southern border,
Speaker 1: and that's building a wall. But it is the It
Speaker 1: is compliance and enforcement of the law. People may not
Speaker 1: like the enforcement of the law. But that's what it is.
Speaker 1: And at the end of the day, a lot of
Speaker 1: people don't want to hear this fact either. You know,
Speaker 1: there is you know, if American citizen breaks the law
Speaker 1: and is put into the justice system, they're separated from
Speaker 1: their family and children. And in that sense, what the
Speaker 1: left wants here is open borders. They want this as
Speaker 1: a campaign issue if they wanted to solve the issue.
Speaker 1: It's been on the table now for a long time,
Speaker 1: and none of them want to come to the table
Speaker 1: and solve the issue because they don't want the wall built, period.
Speaker 1: They want open borders. And you know, as it relates
Speaker 1: to everything else. Oh excuse me, this is not the
Speaker 1: first time that this has happened. Yeah, it happened under
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, and yeah, families were separated. Illegal immigrant families
Speaker 1: were separated under him, and when they crossed over the borders,
Speaker 1: they were put in a criminal jel the system. Families
Speaker 1: were indeed separated. So you know that's the point anyway.
Speaker 1: Joining us to discuss and debate all of this is
Speaker 1: Chris Farrell. He is the director of investigations for Judicial Watch.
Speaker 1: Francisco Hernandez, an immigration attorney based out of Texas. And
Speaker 1: by the way, he agrees with me that we should
Speaker 1: build the wall and fund the wall. And when you
Speaker 1: when you heard the President talk about being willing to
Speaker 1: give up make the docta fix that you want in
Speaker 1: exchange for building the wall, you said you'd take that
Speaker 1: deal in the Harpeat, I told you I would because
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to legalize a hundred thousand Mexico to
Speaker 1: build it. But why don't we have to wait for
Speaker 1: an agreement with the Democrats. Republicans have a majority, and
Speaker 1: the Republicans are afraid of filibuster, throw it up for
Speaker 1: a vote and let them figure it out. It's not
Speaker 1: it's not that they're afraid of the filibuster. It's that,
Speaker 1: you know, and I know that there are motivations and Republicans,
Speaker 1: some of them have their motivations on these issues too.
Speaker 1: You know, there are some there, There are some appealing
Speaker 1: to corporate interests, hang on, some appealing to corporate interests,
Speaker 1: that inexpensive labor in this country. And then you have
Speaker 1: a group of Democrats. Well they're looking at this selfishly
Speaker 1: also thinking well, well that that could be the next
Speaker 1: potential voting base for our party. But at least you
Speaker 1: have a count of who voted for and against it.
Speaker 1: And he doesn't even think he can carry his own party.
Speaker 1: But that's not that's not why it's happening at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you can't get it to a vote
Speaker 1: in the Senate, if you don't reach the magic number sixty,
Speaker 1: and Mitch McConnell refuses to give up on culture, but
Speaker 1: you don't need sixty to take it. Well, didn't let
Speaker 1: him fill a buster. But that's the point, Chris, Chris Barrow,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts? Listen, here's the other point. Nobody
Speaker 1: wants children separated from their families. But the bottom line
Speaker 1: is nobody wants that. Francisco, you've known me forever. I'm
Speaker 1: I don't believe in that. I don't. I don't want
Speaker 1: families separated, the kids separated from their parents. Um. And
Speaker 1: it has happened and it has gone on because these
Speaker 1: guys won't do their job and put the permanent fix
Speaker 1: in place that literally, legislatively, in other words, legally solves
Speaker 1: the problem the way it should ultimately be solved. Chris.
Speaker 1: And this is the attention wrapped around this event is manufactured.
Speaker 1: We've had this problem for years there's an entire facility
Speaker 1: outside of um Arizona dedicated to nothing but families and
Speaker 1: unaccompanied minors who who across the border. This is not
Speaker 1: some new phenomenon. We've seen an uptick in the number, certainly,
Speaker 1: but you've also seen corresponding both encouragement from south of
Speaker 1: the border to make a run for it basically and
Speaker 1: get into the United States. But the word travels back
Speaker 1: just as fast saying, hey, look, the Americans are doing enforcement,
Speaker 1: knock it off. Don't come here unless you want to
Speaker 1: lose your kid, which leaves you with two question what
Speaker 1: what what responsible parent would put their child in that
Speaker 1: position to begin with? And then secondly, the large numbers
Speaker 1: of children that are appearing at the border who are
Speaker 1: either unaccompanied or accompanied by someone other than their parents,
Speaker 1: in which case you're getting into really trafficking children. And
Speaker 1: there's the dirty underside of it that nobody wants to
Speaker 1: talk about. None of this is new. All the all
Speaker 1: the attention about around this is a manufactured hysteria. It's
Speaker 1: a propaganda stunt. No, it's it's for real. It is
Speaker 1: human trafficking, and there are criminal smuggling gangs that are
Speaker 1: at the root of all this they're not going and
Speaker 1: they've been going on fifteen years at a at a
Speaker 1: at a commercial level of trafficking. Suddenly suddenly there's a
Speaker 1: desire to pay attention to it. Why wasn't this a
Speaker 1: screaming headline a month ago? It wasn't. It's a deliberate
Speaker 1: attempt to grab headline and attention for political purposes. The
Speaker 1: problem has gone on forever. There's a facility in human
Speaker 1: Arizona in particularly that I've been to. This crisis has
Speaker 1: been percolating for the last ten years, especially with respect
Speaker 1: unaccompanied minors. But there's an effort to generate a crisis
Speaker 1: and use it as sort of a wedge or leverage issue.
Speaker 1: And so suddenly now everyone wants to pay attention to
Speaker 1: something that's been going on forever. But come on, than
Speaker 1: in Trump and the Attorney General jumped on it for
Speaker 1: the exact same motives, all of a sudden, enforcing the
Speaker 1: policy of criminal prosecution. Of course, remarks of President Obama.
Speaker 1: Elections have consequences, and so if there's if there's laws
Speaker 1: on the book, and we imagine this, we actually enforced
Speaker 1: the laws that that whole equal justice under the law
Speaker 1: motto on front on the top of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So when you apply the law and follow the law,
Speaker 1: suddenly everyone gets all upset and excited instead the problem,
Speaker 1: there is a problem here in Secretary to follow the law.
Speaker 1: Secretary Nielsen pointed it out the massive increase in the
Speaker 1: last three months that they've seen. Also they've been able
Speaker 1: to observe large criminal organizations like MS thirteen have gained
Speaker 1: a foothold. And if in fact, you you put in
Speaker 1: the exceptions or the loopholes or the discretion that everybody
Speaker 1: seems to want to put in in the case of children,
Speaker 1: that that ostensibly means you have a function only open border.
Speaker 1: And this is all a result and it it all
Speaker 1: did happen in the Obama years, Francisco, so this isn't new,
Speaker 1: which which means this is all tainted by politics. But
Speaker 1: if we really care about the kids, the best thing
Speaker 1: that we could do for them is have the have
Speaker 1: the border wall up and make it functions, have that
Speaker 1: functionally working with the door that the President talks about
Speaker 1: people so people, so people come in legally. It's not
Speaker 1: going to get built. Even if you could get it
Speaker 1: built starting today, you're not going to solve any crisis
Speaker 1: for at least ten years, even if you think the
Speaker 1: wall will fix it. The problem is that what the
Speaker 1: problem is is what is causing these folks to flee
Speaker 1: their country. And that's the elephant in the room, Mr Hannity.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to talk about. Why are these people are
Speaker 1: willing to risk their lives and lose their children, in
Speaker 1: fact that most mothers. Why do you think that is? Well,
Speaker 1: the silent claims or garbage, in large part because that's
Speaker 1: already been documented by Sextor Nielsen yesterday. The asylum claims
Speaker 1: are largely fraudulent. These same people are also transiting Mexico,
Speaker 1: and Mexico does not pose a threat to them and
Speaker 1: their individual liberty or their rights. So what they should
Speaker 1: be doing is staying in Mexico closer to their their
Speaker 1: country of origin, instead of all making a dash for
Speaker 1: the border. Hopefully the message will get out, as it
Speaker 1: has before, you're not welcome unless you come here lawfully,
Speaker 1: So don't bother coming or you're gonna stuffer the consequences. Well,
Speaker 1: they changed that solemn laws right now, legislation right now.
Speaker 1: We all agree they're antiquated, and they're they're impractical in
Speaker 1: its application. So we're just trying to put Scott's tape
Speaker 1: on the on the leak. It's not gonna fix. It's
Speaker 1: not Scott's tape. You know, looks and even you and
Speaker 1: I have agreed on a bill. I mean you. You
Speaker 1: the President offered DACA an exchange for the money, the
Speaker 1: financing to build the wall with a couple of other
Speaker 1: chain migration and merit based migration. And here's the problem.
Speaker 1: Your your friends on the Democratic side of the aisle.
Speaker 1: They don't want a solution to this. They want to
Speaker 1: they want to political politicize this, and they want to
Speaker 1: use it as a wedge foren which is what they're doing.
Speaker 1: Can pass it in the House. And if you're afraid
Speaker 1: of philippuster, they left the Democrats filibuster. Let them do it.
Speaker 1: Why are you afraid? It's a Republican majority. Put put
Speaker 1: the proposal on the table and voted up or down.
Speaker 1: At least we know where everybody stand. You gotta stand.
Speaker 1: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not disagreeing with you.
Speaker 1: We'll take a break, we'll come back more with Chris
Speaker 1: Farrell's Francisco Hernandez eight hundred nine for one. Sean told
Speaker 1: free telephone number. You want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program, your calls coming up at the bottom of
Speaker 1: the hour. Right as we continue our debate over immigration.
Speaker 1: Francisco Hernandez is with US immigration attorney based out of Texas.
Speaker 1: Chris Farrell is the director of investigations for Judicial Watch. UM.
Speaker 1: We also have a systemic abuse of our asylum system.
Speaker 1: And you know, people come in and they say they're
Speaker 1: seeking asylum and really all they want to entry into
Speaker 1: the United States. I'm not sure how you ever get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of all of that. I think the
Speaker 1: end of the day, it's really gonna come down to
Speaker 1: America has to control its borders, Francisco. And once we
Speaker 1: control the borders, then those people that are in true
Speaker 1: need of asylum, those people that that you know, for
Speaker 1: the number of people that we can allow into the country,
Speaker 1: we will will create a better process. Certainly for that
Speaker 1: we should certainly expedite that process. Nobody wants families separated,
Speaker 1: but we have. But in many ways, in many ways,
Speaker 1: we're not going to be able to do any of
Speaker 1: this until the wall is built. The walls, the wall
Speaker 1: is not gonna keep people from coming. We got to
Speaker 1: a drift. The thing at the source. By the time
Speaker 1: these folks make it to the border, each one of
Speaker 1: them has already paid a smuggler about ten thousand dollars each.
Speaker 1: The exploitation is horrible, no turning back, there is no
Speaker 1: turning back, and it is it is a criminal element.
Speaker 1: We know smuggling, well, we know what we know. How
Speaker 1: Mexico treats illegal immigrants from mel Salvador and Central America, Nicaragua,
Speaker 1: and they don't treat them, well, what do they do, Chris?
Speaker 1: They throw them out of the country or they put
Speaker 1: them in jail, including people. Guess what happens when you
Speaker 1: subsidize something. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Speaker 1: So if you're gonna pour all sorts of blood, sweat
Speaker 1: and tears taxpayer dollars into keeping this, uh, this loophole
Speaker 1: open and encouraging people to exploit children as a border
Speaker 1: crossing bargaining chips, and and that that's what they're minimized
Speaker 1: and trivialized too by these criminal gangs. They use these
Speaker 1: children as a as a chip, as a as a
Speaker 1: as a way to get into the border. When you
Speaker 1: subsidize that, when you promote it, guess what you get
Speaker 1: more of and so the idea that oh, well will
Speaker 1: just be nice for now, uh is actually a really
Speaker 1: soft form of cruelty that further exploits children. You can't
Speaker 1: you can't say oh well, give them a break, knowing
Speaker 1: it's going to encourage more of this. And then if
Speaker 1: it's simultaneously simultaneously claim that you're trying to protect children
Speaker 1: and families, it doesn't work that way. You are killing
Speaker 1: me softly. You don't like the asylum laws, don't call
Speaker 1: him loopholes, change the law. It's the law. It's just,
Speaker 1: but there's still judges and as this is political gamesmanship
Speaker 1: and double talk, the reality is are indanger and talking
Speaker 1: about a Capitol Hill process mired in money from the
Speaker 1: American Chamber of Commerce and for all sorts of other
Speaker 1: folks who who want cheap labor. That's a political process
Speaker 1: that is separate and apart from the actual exploitation day
Speaker 1: by day of young children and families who use the
Speaker 1: kids as a chip, as a as A, as a TOLSA.
Speaker 1: You're saying that these lobbyists, these interests, these private interests
Speaker 1: have every Republican vote in their pocket or enough to
Speaker 1: kill any legislation. Is that what you're telling us that
Speaker 1: all the Republicans and pockets and interest figure out what
Speaker 1: happens in the end. Maybe this is that I have
Speaker 1: to end it there. Thank you both for being one
Speaker 1: of us. Francisco Hernandez, chrisp Arrol eight hundred nine for one,
Speaker 1: Shawn or toll free telephone number when we come back
Speaker 1: wide open phones. Final half hour. As we continue on
Speaker 1: a Tuesday, we have an amazing Hannity Tonight ninetiester on
Speaker 1: the Fox News Channel. I'll tell you about that in
Speaker 1: the next half hour. Alright now till the top of
Speaker 1: the hour, toll free number eight nine one, Shawn, if
Speaker 1: you want to join us. UM many of you have
Speaker 1: asked on this program, well where's Jamie Dupree, And we've
Speaker 1: explained it a number of times, but I know that
Speaker 1: people aren't listening the full three hours of every day
Speaker 1: and we need to take more attendance obviously. Uh. Jamie
Speaker 1: has been a reporter on this program, is a big
Speaker 1: part of our team here on the show, and he
Speaker 1: is on the ground in Washington doing his thing every
Speaker 1: single day and digging up all the stories, news information,
Speaker 1: newsmakers and he just sends it email. Now because Jamie
Speaker 1: had as I've described in the past, he lost his voice,
Speaker 1: which for a guy in radio is a very hard,
Speaker 1: painful and difficult thing to go through. He has been
Speaker 1: through countless doctors and specialists. I mean, they have tried
Speaker 1: basically everything they can possibly try, and um even botox
Speaker 1: believe it or not, on his vocal cords at one
Speaker 1: particular point that was giving him some hope. He has
Speaker 1: a condition. It's diagnosed his tongue protrusion uh dystonia. It's
Speaker 1: extraordinarily rare, and Jamie just never gave up working. He
Speaker 1: just wasn't able to do his reports live and his
Speaker 1: voice on our many Cox Media Group stations and markets
Speaker 1: like Atlanta and Orlando and Jacksonville and Tulson, Dayton. And
Speaker 1: he's always been such a good friend. We saw Jamie
Speaker 1: all throughout the the primaries and into the general election. Anyway,
Speaker 1: for a long time now, they've been working on a
Speaker 1: way to try and help Jamie get his voice back,
Speaker 1: if you will, and anyway, Cox Media Group has been
Speaker 1: working with him the entire time. They found a company
Speaker 1: in Scotland and they've been working on a project actually
Speaker 1: bring Jamie's voice back for short news reports. And what
Speaker 1: they have developed developed, if you will, as a prosthetic
Speaker 1: voice that he's going to be able to use again
Speaker 1: and file news for radio, and the voice will become
Speaker 1: become known as sort of like Jamie dupre two point oh. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it made its debut I believe was it Monday yesterday
Speaker 1: on our affiliate in Atlanta, wsp UM and then and
Speaker 1: and we just have a sampling of it. You can
Speaker 1: go to Jamie's blog Jamie Dupree blog uh and find
Speaker 1: out more about it yourself. But I'm supposed to play
Speaker 1: a little bit of this Jamie two point oh. I'm
Speaker 1: Jamie Dupree in Washington. This will not be just a
Speaker 1: photo of as President Donald Trump gets ready for this
Speaker 1: History Summit meeting, I think I'm very well prepared to.
Speaker 1: The President says his goal is simple. They have to
Speaker 1: d nuke. If they don't denuclearize, that will not be
Speaker 1: accept to vote. For more go to my blog at
Speaker 1: WUSB radio dot com. I mean it is I've known
Speaker 1: one of the person in radio that has gone through this.
Speaker 1: And when you do radio and you lose your voice,
Speaker 1: it is usually a career death sentence. But let me
Speaker 1: tell you why this is not the case with Jamie Duprete.
Speaker 1: Number one. He's one of the hardest working men in radio.
Speaker 1: He's one of the great reporters in d C. And
Speaker 1: he it's just every single person that ever has come
Speaker 1: into contact with this man loves this guy. Everybody has
Speaker 1: wanted and been cheering on the sidelines and hoping that
Speaker 1: they would be able to get that voice back and
Speaker 1: fix the condition. And for him personally, it's been really
Speaker 1: really tough. I'd see him and I'd ask him and
Speaker 1: how you're doing, and and it's it's just been a
Speaker 1: very long road for him. And it's just as a
Speaker 1: tribute to the people that he works for a Cox
Speaker 1: Radio and Media group, and uh, we just loved him
Speaker 1: here on this program and we just wanted to give
Speaker 1: a shout out to him and wish him all the
Speaker 1: best now as he begins his new voice of his
Speaker 1: it's what we're calling it, Jamie dupre two point oh.
Speaker 1: And now he's going to be doing reports that way
Speaker 1: on our affiliate stations, as I said, in Atlanta and
Speaker 1: Jacksonville and Dayton and Tulsa and elsewhere. Um, And it's
Speaker 1: just we couldn't be happier for him or prouder of
Speaker 1: him and the hard work that he's continued to do
Speaker 1: and the contributions he continues to make on this show
Speaker 1: every day, even though I'd kind of misgiven him the
Speaker 1: hard time that I used to give him um by
Speaker 1: calling him out and trying to sway him one way
Speaker 1: politically or another. And he just had this incredible way
Speaker 1: about him where he would be able to navigate and
Speaker 1: thread the needle and get the report out and shut
Speaker 1: me up at the same time. But Jamie is is back.
Speaker 1: It's Jamie two point oh. You can read more about
Speaker 1: it on his blog. Will link it to my website,
Speaker 1: Hannity dot com. It's Jamie dupree dot blog if you
Speaker 1: want to go there and learn more about this incredible
Speaker 1: process and this long, courageous journey that he's taken. All Right,
Speaker 1: as promise, we're gonna get to the phones as we
Speaker 1: start here with Mike's in Santa Barbara, California, my old
Speaker 1: stomping grounds when I was totally poor and bankrupt. What's up, Mike?
Speaker 1: How are you? Yeah? Yes, and we miss you, Thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you. I just have a couple. By the way,
Speaker 1: you remember a guy named Adrian Vans who used to
Speaker 1: be a big radio guy and caller and then did
Speaker 1: a show in Santa Barbara for a time. Remember him, Yes,
Speaker 1: I recently got in touch with him. He's still very
Speaker 1: good friends with Barry Farber and we've been communicating again.
Speaker 1: Although now he lives in northern California. Wow wow, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I haven't heard him down here for a while, so
Speaker 1: I figured he had moved on. So so what's going on. Well,
Speaker 1: I had a couple of quick points. I wanted to make.
Speaker 1: The second one about the doscier and what I think
Speaker 1: is the real reason it was made up. But the
Speaker 1: first is I think you've been a little too generous
Speaker 1: with the media in regard to the busted up blackberries
Speaker 1: and the bleach bid advice. I don't think that was
Speaker 1: an oversight. I don't think that was a mistake they made.
Speaker 1: I think that was intentionally done to try to number one,
Speaker 1: get you off the air and number two get you
Speaker 1: mixed up with the more investigation. Oh no, no, you're
Speaker 1: right a thousand percent that them. In other words, you're
Speaker 1: saying that they're not stupid. They knew that I was.
Speaker 1: They knew that I wasn't giving the advice. They knew
Speaker 1: it was parodies satire. They knew that I will said
Speaker 1: it's not going to work out for you, it's a
Speaker 1: bad idea, and that I wouldn't do it, and you know,
Speaker 1: ha ha kidding, and uh, if I were to tell them,
Speaker 1: I I used my words very carefully, and you're saying
Speaker 1: they understood completely, but they wanted to get me. They
Speaker 1: wanted to use it as an opportunity to attack me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but they still exposed themselves Mike in the process. Because
Speaker 1: if they're all outraged at the idea that I jokingly,
Speaker 1: sarcastically would tell people, you know that Robert Mueller wants
Speaker 1: their phones, and I said this maybe Mueller's witnesses. I
Speaker 1: don't know. If I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: lead to lead all your emails and then acid wash
Speaker 1: the emails and hard drives on the new phones, then
Speaker 1: take your phones and bash him with a hammer too little,
Speaker 1: it's bits, he pieces, use bleach bit, remove the SIM
Speaker 1: cards and then take the pieces and hand it over
Speaker 1: to Robert Mueller and say, Hillary, Rodham, Quinton Clinton, this
Speaker 1: is equal justice under the law. How do you think
Speaker 1: that would work out for everybody who Mueller's demanding their
Speaker 1: phones of tonight and all their wants, everyone's cell phones.
Speaker 1: My advice to them, not really kidding, bad advice, would
Speaker 1: be follow Hillary's you know lead, acid wash them, bust
Speaker 1: them up, take out the SIM cards and say here
Speaker 1: little pieces. Here, Mr Muller, here, I'm following Hillary's lead. Now,
Speaker 1: I think you're right, but I think it's both. I
Speaker 1: think some were stupid. I think some of these people
Speaker 1: are that dumb um because let me play some of
Speaker 1: the media reaction to it. But it's very revealing that
Speaker 1: they would be upset at the idea. I said it
Speaker 1: was a bad idea. Pay close attention. Words matter, and
Speaker 1: the idea that I would have ever suggested that to
Speaker 1: anybody that Robert Mueller had demanded their phones of would
Speaker 1: threw them over the top. And they're forgetting she did
Speaker 1: it all. She did every bit of it. It's incontrovertible,
Speaker 1: evidence overwhelming. It's not in dispute, it's irrefutable. Here's the reaction.
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity is now literally telling potential witnesses and subjects
Speaker 1: in the Miller probe to destroy the evidence and hammer
Speaker 1: their phones into pieces. Handy's defenders may call that sarcasm
Speaker 1: or poetic license. But words are words. Sean Handy lives
Speaker 1: off his words, and we all know they have a
Speaker 1: huge impact. If anyone actually does what Sean Hannity says there,
Speaker 1: they'd be committing a crime. What Sean Hannity admitted to
Speaker 1: and actually was enticing people to do and asking to
Speaker 1: do was to destroy evidence, which is a violation of
Speaker 1: the witness tampering statute. No responsible person on television, no
Speaker 1: responsible so called journalists, should be advocating for people to
Speaker 1: destroy evidence in a serious federal investigation. I don't think
Speaker 1: that we'll see him prosecuted. Federal prosecutors give people a
Speaker 1: very wide berth on First Amendment related conduct, and so
Speaker 1: unless there's something more specific to to link it up,
Speaker 1: I think that this will be what we often categorize
Speaker 1: as awful but lawful conduct. Listen, if he's out there
Speaker 1: advocating for mother's witnesses to obstruct justice, then maybe the
Speaker 1: mothers to speak to him and ask him where the
Speaker 1: idea comes from. Have he spoken to the President about this?
Speaker 1: Did the President tell you to say this? Knowing Mueller,
Speaker 1: I think he's not going to light that fire under
Speaker 1: someone who who gets free airtime every day but one angle.
Speaker 1: One angle would be to say, yeah, look I'm going
Speaker 1: to I'm going to a judge and I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: you see. I'm gonna have you see and assist this
Speaker 1: activity on national television. Secondly, I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you and see if if Trump has gotten this idea
Speaker 1: from you or vice versa. Now, number one, look at
Speaker 1: the words they use here, Mike. They said I would
Speaker 1: be advocating people to commit a crime, that I'm telling
Speaker 1: people to destroy evidence in a serious federal investigation. It's
Speaker 1: it's awful, but maybe lawful. And then uh, they go
Speaker 1: on to say, you know, maybe Mueller needs to ask
Speaker 1: him where did he get the idea from. Well, I
Speaker 1: got the idea from me. It was all my idea.
Speaker 1: And no, I didn't tell the president about it at
Speaker 1: all at any point. I don't even know if he
Speaker 1: heard about it. But the point is simple is that
Speaker 1: they thought this was a crime, destroying evidence in a
Speaker 1: serious federal investigation. All happened. Hillary did it all. So
Speaker 1: I think there's a level of stupidity on their part
Speaker 1: and gullibility on their part. But yeah, is there a
Speaker 1: part they want me off the air? Uh, Mike, you
Speaker 1: have no idea, how badly they want me off there.
Speaker 1: They're spending millions to destroy the show. Millions. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think I think they definitely knew that you were kidding,
Speaker 1: and they just wanted to make trouble for you. But anyway,
Speaker 1: I had a second point about the dossier and why
Speaker 1: that came about. I believe because they made the dossier.
Speaker 1: But the but the thing is this, they thought they
Speaker 1: had the election in the bank. They didn't need that
Speaker 1: dossier for the election by any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 1: They figured, number one, they didn't like Trump and his
Speaker 1: crowds chanting lock her up. And they figured that once
Speaker 1: the election was over and they won, they were going
Speaker 1: to use that dossier to arrest Trump. And because they
Speaker 1: had control over the Justice Apartment and the FBI, no
Speaker 1: one would be the wiser. Look, I can tell you
Speaker 1: that everybody thought they were getting away with this. You know,
Speaker 1: all this two goes into another crime that she committed,
Speaker 1: and that is, you know, if if Russia collusion is
Speaker 1: part of it, I'm look at where the money came
Speaker 1: from Hillary, and the d n C controlled Hillary, she
Speaker 1: Hillary controlled their finances. They funnel the money through a
Speaker 1: law firm. Law firm then uses the money, so they're
Speaker 1: hiding it in terms of reporting. Uses the money. Then
Speaker 1: higher Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS hires a foreign national, a
Speaker 1: foreign national then uses Russian sources, even government sources, and
Speaker 1: puts together a dossier. Then of course Fusion GPS pedals
Speaker 1: it to the gullible news media. Nobody verifies, nobody corroborates it,
Speaker 1: and then Christopher Steele has to, under threat of perjury,
Speaker 1: admit that he never corroborated it, that maybe it's fifty
Speaker 1: fifty true. Who knows fifty fifty I don't. I don't know,
Speaker 1: because he was facing a possible perjury charge if he
Speaker 1: said otherwise. And then of course we to affise a
Speaker 1: court that we didn't present. We presented it as gospel truth.
Speaker 1: They used to up a person authentification here by using
Speaker 1: Michael Izikoff, who same source was Christopher Steele, and they
Speaker 1: presented it as they were independent sources. And then the
Speaker 1: judges were never told Hilly were repaid for it, and
Speaker 1: they were never told the FBI didn't verify or corroborated.
Speaker 1: You know, all of this happened. All of these things
Speaker 1: are outrageous and far worse than anything that's even ever
Speaker 1: been alleged as it relates to Trump and your news
Speaker 1: meeting has been Philly feeding you a diet of lies
Speaker 1: now for going on eighteen months. You know, why do
Speaker 1: you think another reason why they're all focused on immigration
Speaker 1: is because they don't want to dare go near the
Speaker 1: Inspector General report because that proves they were wrong from
Speaker 1: the beginning on Hillary and that they never ever did
Speaker 1: their journalistic work in terms of following that story. So
Speaker 1: why would they want to highlight that? All right, Mike,
Speaker 1: thank you for a good call, my friend. We appreciated
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine four one, Shawn, if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program. Gary is in Sacramento.
Speaker 1: What's up? Gary? How are you? How are you doing?
Speaker 1: My Irish American brother from what's up? My friend? How
Speaker 1: are you back? Could we've been at the Irish and
Speaker 1: you can tell just twenty five years I've been out
Speaker 1: of Ireland actually every weekend talking to the family. I
Speaker 1: believe it. But yeah, I think President Trump is an
Speaker 1: absolute genius. I think President Trump is just doing an
Speaker 1: absolute fantastic job. Keeps going, don't stop? All right, Well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna try, I promise and you know, we're trying
Speaker 1: to get to the truth unpeeled the onion, and we've
Speaker 1: gotten far. But this is really only the beginning of
Speaker 1: the processes I've been saying. And now now we're going
Speaker 1: to corroborate all this. Now we're gonna now the people
Speaker 1: that have can have have shown this bias, abused their power,
Speaker 1: that involved in the corruption. Now they've got to answer
Speaker 1: questions and potentially be facing some legal jeopardy themselves. Interesting
Speaker 1: that the way they treat Hillary, she gets the kid
Speaker 1: glove treatment and I meanwhile him gets the sledge hammer treatment.
Speaker 1: Every day over nothing. Alright, Hannedy. Tonight, we have an
Speaker 1: amazing show, explosive hearings. I know probably most of you
Speaker 1: working you didn't get a chance to see it. Will
Speaker 1: highlight all of it tonight at nine we'll show you
Speaker 1: Trey Goudy and Jim Jordan's and Bob Goodluck and others.
Speaker 1: We get reaction. We have Rudy Giuliani is on tonight,
Speaker 1: Andrew McCarthy, Sarah Carter, also Greg Jared joins us tonight
Speaker 1: and uh Wheel debate immigration and this d v R.
Speaker 1: Hannity nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel. We'll see
Speaker 1: you then. Thanks for being with us back here tomorrow.