Speaker 1: Hey, it's that time of year for those of you,
Speaker 1: God forbid, you gotta keep your New Year's resolution. What
Speaker 1: if you're a timeshare owner and you want to get
Speaker 1: out of your timeshare. Maybe that's at the top of
Speaker 1: your list of maybe you made a bad investment over
Speaker 1: the years. It doesn't matter. Let not your heart be troubled,
Speaker 1: because the new year is also a reminder that you
Speaker 1: can get serious about getting rid of this time share
Speaker 1: and doing it right and doing it legally. And lone
Speaker 1: Star Transfer is absolutely an amazing group of people from
Speaker 1: beginning to end. I highly recommend if you have any
Speaker 1: type of time share, I want you to contact loan
Speaker 1: Star and tell them I told you to call. They'll
Speaker 1: give you a free, no obligation consultation and they'll help
Speaker 1: get you out of your time share. They'll do it
Speaker 1: the right way, the legal way, and it will take
Speaker 1: very little effort on your part, just by calling pound
Speaker 1: two fifty on your mobile phone and saying the keyword
Speaker 1: time share. It's pound two fifty on your cell phone,
Speaker 1: keyword timeshare. You can check them out online at loan
Speaker 1: Star Transfer dot com. You have the option to receive
Speaker 1: a one time autodialed text message from iHeartMedia. I am
Speaker 1: very proud to announce today that we have reached a
Speaker 1: deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government.
Speaker 1: If everyone knows, I have a very powerful alternative, but
Speaker 1: I didn't want to use it at this time. Hopefully
Speaker 1: it will be unnecessary. I want to thank all of
Speaker 1: the incredible federal workers, and they're amazing families who have
Speaker 1: shown such extraordinary devotion in the face of this recent hardship.
Speaker 1: You are fantastic people. You are incredible patriots. Many of
Speaker 1: you have suffered far greater than anyone but your families
Speaker 1: would know or understand. And not only did you not complain,
Speaker 1: but in many cases you encourage me to keep going
Speaker 1: because you care so much about our country and about
Speaker 1: its border security. Again, I thank you all Americans. I
Speaker 1: thank you. You are very very special people. I am
Speaker 1: so proud that you are citizens of our country. When
Speaker 1: I say make America great again, it could never be
Speaker 1: done without you great people. In a short while, I
Speaker 1: will sign a bill to open our government for three
Speaker 1: weeks until February fifteenth. I will make sure that all
Speaker 1: employees receive their back pay very quickly or as soon
Speaker 1: as possible. It'll happen fast. I am asking Senate Majority
Speaker 1: Leader Mitch McConnell to put this proposal on the floor
Speaker 1: immediately after thirty six days of spirited debate and dialogue.
Speaker 1: I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: that they are willing to put partisanship aside, I think,
Speaker 1: and put the security of the American people first. I
Speaker 1: do believe they're going to do that. They have said
Speaker 1: they are for complete border security. They have finally and
Speaker 1: fully acknowledged that having barriers, fencing or walls, or whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it, will be an important part
Speaker 1: of the solution. So let me be very clear. We
Speaker 1: really have no choice but to build a powerful wall
Speaker 1: or steel barrier. If we don't get a fair deal
Speaker 1: from Congress, the government will either shut down on February
Speaker 1: fifteenth again, or I will use the powers afforded to
Speaker 1: me under the laws and the Constitution of the United
Speaker 1: States to address this emergency. We will have great security,
Speaker 1: all right, glad you with us. Happy Friday. Obviously a
Speaker 1: busy breaking newsday that was the President talking about a
Speaker 1: three week opening of the federal government. There's a backstory
Speaker 1: not being told. I'll give it to you in just
Speaker 1: a second. The pre dawn armed raid. What twenty nine
Speaker 1: men at Rogers Stone's house and seventeen vehicles when he
Speaker 1: said he would have come and voluntarily just take him
Speaker 1: two seconds. Also, if you're in the media or Hollywood,
Speaker 1: you better watch out because the Covington families have now
Speaker 1: hired an attorney that I knew well when I was
Speaker 1: in Atlanta. This is not somebody to mess with. They
Speaker 1: hired a guy by the name of Lynn Wood. He
Speaker 1: was Richard Jules attorney and he means business. And let
Speaker 1: me tell you what's gonna happen. All those people that
Speaker 1: rush to judgment didn't do any due diligence at all,
Speaker 1: no real reporting. Those that smeared, slandered, libeled, and besmirched
Speaker 1: those kids, they better get ready to open up their
Speaker 1: checkbooks because Lynnwood is coming and he's an awesome attorney.
Speaker 1: I am telling you right now. Let me start with
Speaker 1: the president here. Let me give you the backstory because
Speaker 1: this has been in the works now for about two weeks,
Speaker 1: so that you understand. I know some of you said, well,
Speaker 1: he ain't get any money for the wall. He didn't
Speaker 1: get any money for the wall. No, he didn't, but
Speaker 1: he's going to Here's what has been going on behind
Speaker 1: the scenes, both sides, obviously very nervous. Laguardi Airport, for example,
Speaker 1: in New York today, you know it's messing up flight
Speaker 1: scheduled to ts Hey. Guys are talking about a blue
Speaker 1: flu and going on strike because of the government shutdown
Speaker 1: and not getting paid furloughed workers. Remember, if Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: went on her trip, then she would have been gone.
Speaker 1: They would have lost their second paycheck. They're going to
Speaker 1: get rightly, so, as I've said from the beginning, their
Speaker 1: money back paid in full. Throughout the speech, the President said,
Speaker 1: you know, okay, we're gonna end the shutdown, reopen the government,
Speaker 1: not use the powerful alternative constitutional alternative that I have
Speaker 1: at this time. Then he went on to explain that
Speaker 1: what has really happened behind the scenes for about two
Speaker 1: weeks now, I know because I know people that have
Speaker 1: been in these meetings and in these discussions. There have
Speaker 1: been back channel Democratic House members, back channel Democratic senators
Speaker 1: that have been negotiating with leaders in the House and
Speaker 1: the Senate and begging to get an opportunity to fix
Speaker 1: the problem because they want what the President has offered.
Speaker 1: Which was, you know, some deal on DOCA, TPS, some
Speaker 1: deal for Dreamers, that the things, and many of them
Speaker 1: also saying not publicly, that they want the border wall
Speaker 1: and the security and they want they believe the president
Speaker 1: has a right to get that, to keep the border secure.
Speaker 1: And but they have not. They have been instructed and
Speaker 1: their arms twisted not to talk to anybody publicly because
Speaker 1: they wouldn't do it without the government open. Anyway, long
Speaker 1: story short, the President has been approached by a number
Speaker 1: of these Republicans and Democrats and said, give us three weeks,
Speaker 1: let us see if we can do our job. If
Speaker 1: we can't do our job, you can go right back
Speaker 1: to the government shutdown, or as the President said, he
Speaker 1: will use the powers afforded him under the Constitution. And
Speaker 1: I think the President also kind of has a heart.
Speaker 1: He knows that this is tough on a lot of
Speaker 1: the furloughed workers. They'll get their back paid quickly, as
Speaker 1: they always do, which is the right thing to do
Speaker 1: in my opinion. So that basically now Congress has three
Speaker 1: weeks because what they have done done is stymied. They
Speaker 1: have vacation, they have gone on junkets, lobbyists paid luxurious resorts,
Speaker 1: taxpayer dime, other junkets planned but then stopped, and for
Speaker 1: all intent and purposes, I've never thought that this was
Speaker 1: ever gonna be resolved through the Congress. I've never thought
Speaker 1: it was going to be resolved that way. Now for
Speaker 1: the President to exhaust every and to show every degree
Speaker 1: of reasonableness, the left wing media will say it's a win,
Speaker 1: but it's not going to be a win. When he
Speaker 1: goes forward with his national emergency to fund the wall
Speaker 1: and uses the military and other funding to build the wall.
Speaker 1: Then the next thing is to say, well, there's going
Speaker 1: to be a court challenge. Of course, there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a court challenge, but they're gonna go judge shopping. Of
Speaker 1: course they're gonna go judge shopping. That means they're going
Speaker 1: to be in California, Hawaii, or Oregon or Washington, somewhere
Speaker 1: where they know they are more likely to get a
Speaker 1: liberal judicial activist on the court. And then it will
Speaker 1: be appealed to the Ninth Circuit with an eighty percent
Speaker 1: overturn rate and eventually make its way to the US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, where I believe, constitutionally, this is where the
Speaker 1: President is on solid ground. Look, this argument has been
Speaker 1: about if you ask yourself, what do they want? What
Speaker 1: has Nancy Pelosi been asking for nothing? What is Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi fighting for nothing? They just want They are just
Speaker 1: feeding this psycho bordering on psychosis, pathological hatred of the president.
Speaker 1: They're not fighting as the President is. As the President
Speaker 1: mentioned in great detail today about the Bipartisan Committee. By
Speaker 1: the way, Lindsey Graham was a big part of this
Speaker 1: in a good way, I can tell you that, and
Speaker 1: all these Democratic senators reaching out, by the way, behind
Speaker 1: Schumer's back, they have been meeting and Mitch McConnell also
Speaker 1: encouraging this deal, and they think they can get it
Speaker 1: done in the Senate. The House is that a different story.
Speaker 1: The thinking is is that if they can get you know,
Speaker 1: sixty five seventy votes for a bipartisan deal pretty much
Speaker 1: what the President offered last Saturday, and the Senate get
Speaker 1: that done and completed within this three week period of time,
Speaker 1: that the pressure will be enormous on House Democrats for
Speaker 1: them to show that they're willing to work for the
Speaker 1: American people. Because everything that has been at steak is
Speaker 1: at steak. They've got a homeland security package, that Democrats
Speaker 1: say that they wanted that'll be included in the package.
Speaker 1: They say they care about Dhaka, they say they care
Speaker 1: about Dreamers. That is going to be included in the package.
Speaker 1: One thing that is that absolute. No is any path
Speaker 1: to citizenship or amnesty. So I was told by every
Speaker 1: Republican and the lead up to this announcement today. If
Speaker 1: it turns out there is, conservatives won't support it, so
Speaker 1: it won't work either. The President detailed the need for security.
Speaker 1: How Democrats in the past have asked for all these things,
Speaker 1: They've they've acted in the past to spend a whole
Speaker 1: lot money on barriers and walls at the southern border.
Speaker 1: They have sounded more like Donald Trump in years past
Speaker 1: than they sound like themselves today. And the walls are needed.
Speaker 1: There's no American and every pole bears it out that
Speaker 1: we have ninety percent of our heroine crossing that southern border,
Speaker 1: ninety percent of fetenol now crossing that southern border. We
Speaker 1: have three hundred deaths a day in this country because
Speaker 1: of the opioid crisis in the country. The walls are
Speaker 1: designed to prevent drug dealers, human traffickers, and other criminals.
Speaker 1: Those that have even committed murder and those that have
Speaker 1: committed sexual assaults some ten thousand that the Department of
Speaker 1: Homeland Security put out those numbers. Four thousand homicides. How
Speaker 1: many more angel moms and dads that there need to
Speaker 1: be before you say it is a real crisis not
Speaker 1: a manufactured crisis. How many more kids have to die
Speaker 1: from an opioid epidemic before you say it's a real
Speaker 1: crisis not a manufactured crisis. I mean, you've gotten methan, fhetamine, fetenol,
Speaker 1: heroine all trafficked across that border. You have terrorists, you
Speaker 1: have MS thirteen human traffickers, cartels that don't come through
Speaker 1: the ports, They easily walk across the border. We don't
Speaker 1: have enough boots on the ground. We never possibly can
Speaker 1: to have enough boots or high enough people to cover
Speaker 1: every inch of the water border. Rather sixty thousand apprehensions
Speaker 1: last month on the southern border. You also have the
Speaker 1: health crisis, a backlog, and the immigration courts eight hundred thousand. Now,
Speaker 1: because we have to update the laws, we're gonna get
Speaker 1: rid of catch and release and some of these other
Speaker 1: ridiculous things that have been implemented since the Democrats took control.
Speaker 1: So the way I think this plays out is one
Speaker 1: or two ways. It's gonna probably first start in the Senate.
Speaker 1: Those Democrats will have to then come out of the
Speaker 1: shadows and say we want the things that we said
Speaker 1: over the years. We wanted the deal that the President
Speaker 1: offered on Saturday. He'll get his money. They'll vote on
Speaker 1: a bill, it'll vote up or down. You get to
Speaker 1: sixty or you don't get to sixty. And if they
Speaker 1: can't get their job, I've done in three weeks, the
Speaker 1: President couldn't be any more clear. Then he will do
Speaker 1: what he's had to do pretty much throughout his presidency
Speaker 1: and adds do it alone and go on his own.
Speaker 1: And there's no doubt in my mind, I have none
Speaker 1: that he will declare a national emergency. I actually think
Speaker 1: there has to be a way to expedite the legal
Speaker 1: process because of the designation and get this done and
Speaker 1: brought to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later. Now, politically,
Speaker 1: I think it's a good thing. President has ready shown
Speaker 1: a willingness to give Democrats what they want and make
Speaker 1: a deal to keep Americans safe. Nancy Pelosi is standing
Speaker 1: for nothing but hating the President. Same with Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 1: This President, this is about life and death. This is
Speaker 1: about safety and security. This is about stopping drugs, human trafficking.
Speaker 1: This is about keeping bad elements out of our country
Speaker 1: and keeping Americans secure. I think he's got the high ground,
Speaker 1: and now I think taking this extra step that they
Speaker 1: ask for. And that's the behind the scenes part that
Speaker 1: nobody seems to have picked up the media that Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans have been pleading for. He said, we'll give
Speaker 1: you the three weeks. See if you guys can do
Speaker 1: your job. Doesn't upset me in any way, shape, matter
Speaker 1: or form. And I think it's actually a good play
Speaker 1: on the President's part to come off as a leader
Speaker 1: and reasonable. All right, eight hundred and nine four one
Speaker 1: sewn if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: Now we also have the pre dawn raid of the
Speaker 1: home of Roger Stone. Jerome Corsi will join us exclusively.
Speaker 1: Also get some well comparing contrast all those people who
Speaker 1: have done far worse than Stone, that have gotten off
Speaker 1: scott free, and much more. As we continue the Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Show. One thing that is not political, it's smoking.
Speaker 1: That's about people. And there are thirty four million Americans
Speaker 1: now that's smoke. But for many there's not been a
Speaker 1: clear alternative. Jewel, for me, has been a game changer.
Speaker 1: I watched people all the time they go outside in
Speaker 1: the middle of the freezing winner just to have their smoke.
Speaker 1: You don't have to do that anymore because of Jewel.
Speaker 1: Now people don't have to worry about the smell on
Speaker 1: your hands. Jewel was specifically designed by smokers, forced smokers
Speaker 1: to be a satisfying alternative. It's a clean technology. Jewel
Speaker 1: has no ash, no odor, no mess. If you're one
Speaker 1: of those thirty four million adults who do smoke, you
Speaker 1: now know there's an alternative to cigarettes and cigars. Just
Speaker 1: go to Jewel, Juul dot com slash switch America. That's
Speaker 1: Juul dot com slash switch America. Now this product does
Speaker 1: contain nicotine, and nicotine is an addictive chemical, But just
Speaker 1: go to Jewel, Juul dot com slash switch America. All right,
Speaker 1: as we continue big breaking newsday, Jerome Corsi is going
Speaker 1: to join us. Identify this person number one in the
Speaker 1: Rogerstone indictment from earlier today. Interesting pre dawn guns drawn,
Speaker 1: twenty nine people raid and you know what we're gonna
Speaker 1: do tonight on TV, We're gonna lay out all the
Speaker 1: people that have done far worse than what they're even alleging,
Speaker 1: and nothing happens. We don't get this fixed with John Uber,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, Michael Horowitz, the new Attorney General, Bill Barr,
Speaker 1: We're gonna be a big trouble anyway. Twenty eighteen in
Speaker 1: the books, you want to look good for twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: Our friends at Shamanee with their proprietary ingredients, natural peptides,
Speaker 1: plant stem cell therapy, they're helping people every day now.
Speaker 1: You can't get this in any store, and a Genia
Speaker 1: Cell if you missed their big Christmas celle, Today's your
Speaker 1: lucky day because their brand new jawline treatment is yours
Speaker 1: for free just by ordering genia Cell that gets rid
Speaker 1: of bags and puffiness under your eyes. They'll also throw
Speaker 1: in three free gifts, but only for today, all right.
Speaker 1: You got to mediate effects genue cell that's works in
Speaker 1: less than twelve hours. You'll get genua CELXV, the most
Speaker 1: advanced collagen builder and anti wrinkle cream, and they'll even
Speaker 1: throw in Genia Cell's eyelid treatment three free gifts. You
Speaker 1: gotta hurry on, yousel dot com or eight hundred skin
Speaker 1: five zero nine. You called the next twenty minutes, you
Speaker 1: get express shipping free eight hundred skin five zero nine
Speaker 1: or gena sell dot com to look your best from
Speaker 1: our friends from Shamani. And don't forget everybody that when
Speaker 1: you buy something from Shamani, it goes towards women in
Speaker 1: need for women to wear because a portion of the
Speaker 1: proceeds from your purchases, Shamani gives that right to women
Speaker 1: a wear. So just keep that in mind. So as
Speaker 1: long as and again, it was Lindsey Graham that first
Speaker 1: ran this by me a couple of weeks ago, I
Speaker 1: don't even remember at this particular point in time, he said,
Speaker 1: all these Democrats are talking to me behind the scenes
Speaker 1: and they're saying, we want the wall, but you know,
Speaker 1: Schumer's not gonna let us. Then I found the same
Speaker 1: thing from some of the people that I know in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Caucus, and they call me and they say,
Speaker 1: there's a group we're building it every day of Democrats
Speaker 1: that are fed up with Nancy Pelosi's obstructionism. And they
Speaker 1: support the wall too, but if they say it out loud,
Speaker 1: it's going to cause them a lot of headaches. So
Speaker 1: you have these two groups behind the scenes privately asking
Speaker 1: the President, you know, give us three weeks. If we
Speaker 1: can't get it done, at least furloughed workers get paid.
Speaker 1: In the interim. Nothing is gonna happen anyway, and you
Speaker 1: still have what is your executive emergency order. But we
Speaker 1: think we can get this done. Now do I think
Speaker 1: they can get it done? I just don't trust anything
Speaker 1: in Washington, but I do believe when push comes to shove,
Speaker 1: they can't get it done. One or two things is
Speaker 1: going to happen on February fifteenth that either the President
Speaker 1: will declare then a national emergency or the government's going
Speaker 1: to be shut down again. I would think it's going
Speaker 1: to be the latter. And if that means fighting in
Speaker 1: the courts to get the money to build the wall
Speaker 1: to stop drugs and crime and human trafficking, I think
Speaker 1: the President will do it. The holidays may be over,
Speaker 1: but two nineteen brings a whole lot of new goals
Speaker 1: to accomplish, and the best online cigar store in the
Speaker 1: world is here to help you make every day the
Speaker 1: celebration that you deserve. Just go to Famousmoke dot com
Speaker 1: slash Hannity to pick out all your favorite cigars at
Speaker 1: the lowest prices, and Famous has an exciting new offer
Speaker 1: that we created exclusively for all you Hannity listeners. That
Speaker 1: web address is Famous smoke dot com slash Hannity, and
Speaker 1: when you click the activate button will instantly knock twenty
Speaker 1: percent off your entire order when you spend just ninety
Speaker 1: nine dollars or more. That includes cigars, cutters, lighters, human oars,
Speaker 1: and more. Whether you want cigars by the box, samplers,
Speaker 1: five packs, or singles, Famous will deliver them to your door,
Speaker 1: fresh and securely packed and ready for your smoking enjoyment.
Speaker 1: So remember to click the activate button and you'll get
Speaker 1: a full twenty percent off your order, and you'll only
Speaker 1: find it at Famous smoke dot com slash Hannity. That's
Speaker 1: Famous smoke dot com slash Hannity. All right, twenty five
Speaker 1: now till the top of the hour eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: for one sean toll free telephone number. You want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program. We're gonna get to
Speaker 1: the pre dawn raid of an arrest of Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: an indictment, more processed crime stuff. You know. Let me
Speaker 1: deal with this directly because I'm like all of you.
Speaker 1: I do read social media. I just don't go out
Speaker 1: and have my Twitter wars anymore because it became a
Speaker 1: fifth job and I just don't have time, and frankly,
Speaker 1: it's just not worth it. But so let me deal
Speaker 1: with a call or two here about people's interpretation of
Speaker 1: the president opening up for three weeks, the government after
Speaker 1: being the request coming from Congress saying no, we can
Speaker 1: get it done if you give us three weeks. We
Speaker 1: want to do our job, and then the President saying, well,
Speaker 1: if you don't, then I have the power to do
Speaker 1: it on my own. Let's start. Who's the most disappointed? Nick?
Speaker 1: Frank Jack? Who do you think Kylie is the most disappointed?
Speaker 1: On that you have on the line. You got to
Speaker 1: actually talk to me. I can't read lips, Nick All.
Speaker 1: He thinks Nick is the best one to go Sean
Speaker 1: all right, Nick? And Marietta is disappointed in the present. Nick, Hey,
Speaker 1: how are you? I live right next to you for years?
Speaker 1: And Roswall, what's going on? Hey buddy? Yeah, I'm a
Speaker 1: contractor just like yourself. I work all the East Cob
Speaker 1: in West Cob areas, but here straight to the point,
Speaker 1: like she asked as bad as healthcare vote in mcclamee's
Speaker 1: stabbing us. That's how bad I feel today. But here's
Speaker 1: what I'm scared about, even more or more nervousness, is
Speaker 1: that we got Jared going in for quote comprehensive immigration
Speaker 1: reform talks where we'll probably get a bill slap to us,
Speaker 1: which you're gonna have every dem want and desire, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna have everything like chain migration, wattery, asylum wall.
Speaker 1: And that's all gonna happen after And I hope somebody
Speaker 1: gets it to his head that we have to get
Speaker 1: all our things first. Then the items that they want
Speaker 1: come down the road only after ours are fulfilled. If
Speaker 1: that happens, I'll be thrilled, and I'll be jumping up
Speaker 1: and down. I'll be right now. I'm not gonna disagree
Speaker 1: in one sense. You're right, You are so right on.
Speaker 1: We always get the spending increase, the tax increase, You
Speaker 1: never get the spending cuts every past every past immigration deal,
Speaker 1: you always get the amnesty, you never get the wall.
Speaker 1: That is the history of Congress. They stab us in
Speaker 1: the back constantly, So you have every right to be suspicious,
Speaker 1: and I share your natural inclination. What I think is
Speaker 1: different here, and I'm hopeful. Um, I can't guarantee it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not my decision, but knowing Trump as
Speaker 1: well as I know them, and knowing what went on
Speaker 1: behind the scenes, and take this to what it's worth.
Speaker 1: It's just conversations. I do my job. I'm digging for
Speaker 1: information every day and to be as well informed as
Speaker 1: I can to do the best job I can do
Speaker 1: for you. And I want you to know something. This
Speaker 1: has been in the works now. There are Democrats in
Speaker 1: the House, Democrats in the Senate that have been asking
Speaker 1: people that I know I've been privy to these conversations,
Speaker 1: saying that if they can get three weeks, they can
Speaker 1: get the job done, and that includes the money upfront
Speaker 1: for the border wall for the president. Now, as it
Speaker 1: relates to other issues, we're never ever with a Congress
Speaker 1: as it is currently configured, in the need for sixty
Speaker 1: votes to reach cloture, You're never going to get a
Speaker 1: deal or it's just everything you want that's not going
Speaker 1: to happen. So you want to get the best deal possible.
Speaker 1: The best outcome is I think what the President had
Speaker 1: offered on Saturday, temporary extension, DOCTA, Dreamers, etc. Protections for them,
Speaker 1: no path to citizenship, no amnesty. Tell me why though
Speaker 1: you think you do you doubt that the president would
Speaker 1: go it alone if they can't get the job done.
Speaker 1: Do you doubt that? Hello, did I lose him? I
Speaker 1: guess we lost him, all right, Frank and Fort Myers.
Speaker 1: Do you doubt in three weeks that the president would
Speaker 1: go it alone and declare a national emergency? I don't
Speaker 1: think so. I disagree with what he did today because
Speaker 1: Nancy looks like a hero. You know, he gave a little,
Speaker 1: you know, gave in. But here's the problem. What makes
Speaker 1: anybody think that Nancy's going to negotiate in the next
Speaker 1: three weeks and then if he shuts him it down again,
Speaker 1: then she's just going to say no. And if he
Speaker 1: does it alone, and I think they're going to use
Speaker 1: the courts and he's still gonna lose. Well, you're assuming
Speaker 1: that the courts. Remember, he has a lot of power
Speaker 1: himself as the President of the United States. One of
Speaker 1: his members. He takes an oath on our constitution to
Speaker 1: protect the constitution. The constitution is our rule of law,
Speaker 1: and he is constitutionally the commander in chief, and he
Speaker 1: is responsible for the safety and security the American people.
Speaker 1: So if he deems and the military deems and Homeland
Speaker 1: security deems, and the facts, deem, the facts are incontrovertible
Speaker 1: that the southern border is resulting in homicides and assaults,
Speaker 1: and again the two percent, not the ninety eight percent,
Speaker 1: and drugs flowing into our country that are causing Americans
Speaker 1: to die. Tell me why that's not a compelling case.
Speaker 1: Even if you have to work your way up to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, that he does win. I think he wins. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, he'll win at the Supreme but right, you
Speaker 1: know in Hawaii ready to go, Right, you're gonna go
Speaker 1: to Hawaii, California to the Ninth Circuit, losing the Ninth Circuit,
Speaker 1: and get to the Supreme Court. But because of its
Speaker 1: designation as a national emergency, it's not going to take
Speaker 1: the years you think. I would imagine it could be
Speaker 1: done as expeditiously as four to six months maximum. Well,
Speaker 1: if that's the case, you know, it's okay. But I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, well, let's say that doesn't work either. Let's
Speaker 1: say that he goes through that process. Let's say it
Speaker 1: takes eight months and the Supreme Court rules against us,
Speaker 1: which against commander in chief. I would have a hard
Speaker 1: time processing that decision. I really would, with all the
Speaker 1: death and all the figures. I don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to go against us, because you know, I don't either.
Speaker 1: Done executive order is just that now. He doesn't look
Speaker 1: like the negotiator, like his books or anything like he Oh,
Speaker 1: I think just the opposite, because hang on a second.
Speaker 1: He's the one that is driving the whole train. He's
Speaker 1: the one that has decided this is going to be
Speaker 1: the debate. He's the one that decided what the compromise
Speaker 1: is going to be. He's the one that has given
Speaker 1: in part of the negotiation, given them the three weeks
Speaker 1: that they've asked for to do their job. He's the
Speaker 1: one that then will make the decision alone on February fifteenth,
Speaker 1: and he will decide either to shut the government down
Speaker 1: or to go to the national emergency route. It seems
Speaker 1: like he's in total control to me, and he also
Speaker 1: seems reasonable. Seems like he's trying to make a difference,
Speaker 1: get what he wants and make a deal with people
Speaker 1: that have been unwilling to even sit down. Well, I
Speaker 1: mean if he can try to save face this way.
Speaker 1: But I think a lot of people are like I
Speaker 1: work with right now, are just so down and out
Speaker 1: in the dumps because of this. The three weeks. You
Speaker 1: know what, let's wait three weeks. Don't get down to
Speaker 1: the dumps yet. I mean giving them a chance to
Speaker 1: do their job. If in three weeks he keeps the
Speaker 1: government open and doesn't declare a state of emergency, I'll
Speaker 1: be down in the dumps. So let's get I would say,
Speaker 1: give him the three week period, and he's giving Congress
Speaker 1: a chance to do it the right way. They said
Speaker 1: they would do all this if the government was open. Okay,
Speaker 1: here's your shot. If not go back to status quo,
Speaker 1: or we we go this other route. Yeah, well tell
Speaker 1: me where you think. Do you really not think Trump
Speaker 1: in three weeks is going to do one of the other,
Speaker 1: either go back to a shutdown or declare the national emergency.
Speaker 1: He's going to do one of the other. I'm hoping
Speaker 1: you get it done before that. But I just think
Speaker 1: if it government again, just right. But you know what,
Speaker 1: there is something to be said about being will, being
Speaker 1: the one that's fighting for what you believe in identifying
Speaker 1: this is what it is, life and death, safety and security,
Speaker 1: about drugs and human trafficking, and fighting any way to
Speaker 1: get it done. Also trying to to bring under the
Speaker 1: reality if we had sixty Republican senators, we wouldn't have
Speaker 1: to worry, if we had control of the House, we
Speaker 1: wouldn't have to worry dealing with the real political realities.
Speaker 1: So that causes negotiation, which he's been doing. And now
Speaker 1: he's affording them the time they requested and getting the
Speaker 1: furloughed employees their back money. To me, it's it shows reasonableness,
Speaker 1: and if the decisive moment comes where he just says, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is the way we're going, I just don't have
Speaker 1: any doubt in my mind he'll do it. I really don't.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense to you? All right, let me
Speaker 1: move on to this other issue I mentioned Lynnwood, who
Speaker 1: if you're if you're a news organization, you're in deep
Speaker 1: trouble today. All right, So we have the pre dawn.
Speaker 1: I think that twenty nine armed guys FBI guys who
Speaker 1: Roger Stone said, we're great guys as he was released
Speaker 1: on his own recognizance. I think two hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars bond. Today you look over the indictment, Wiki
Speaker 1: Leaks has now come out and said they deny any
Speaker 1: tide to Roger Stone. Later on, by the way, Jerome
Speaker 1: Coursu's identified as I guess what person number one in
Speaker 1: this indictment is going to join us and give his
Speaker 1: take on all of this. But you got this. He's
Speaker 1: indicted on several charges as it relates to wiki leaks
Speaker 1: or trying to get information from WikiLeaks. Before you can
Speaker 1: even talk about this case, you need to understand the
Speaker 1: precedence because this is really important. Is this case called
Speaker 1: the Pentagon Papers. And if you remembered, after Debbie Wasserman
Speaker 1: Schultz got fired, Wiki Leaks dumped all these these emails
Speaker 1: that they had picked up. By the way, the New
Speaker 1: York Times also published them. Washington Post I believe, also
Speaker 1: published them. Everybody was wondering from that date forward, well,
Speaker 1: what is he got next? What is he going to
Speaker 1: release next? What is he going to release next? So
Speaker 1: the idea that Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi are talking
Speaker 1: about as you read the indictment, seeing hey, can you
Speaker 1: find out what he has next? Well that would fit
Speaker 1: right into the Pentagon Papers case because that goes into
Speaker 1: the whole story. It was given the name. It was
Speaker 1: a top secret Department of Defense study of US political
Speaker 1: and military involvement in Vietnam from nineteen forty five to
Speaker 1: sixty seven and with more than five hundred thousand US
Speaker 1: troops in Vietnam by nineteen sixty eight. Military analyst Daniel Elsberg,
Speaker 1: who worked on the study came to oppose the war
Speaker 1: decided that information contained in the Pentagon Papers should be
Speaker 1: available to the American people. He photocopied the report in
Speaker 1: March of seventy one, gave it to The New York Times,
Speaker 1: and then published a series of scathing articles based on
Speaker 1: the report's more damning secrets. So, in other words, he
Speaker 1: stole this information anyway. Beginning in June of nineteen seventy one,
Speaker 1: the New York Times published a series of front page
Speaker 1: articles based on the information of the stolen material known
Speaker 1: as the Pentagon Papers. After the third article, the US
Speaker 1: Department of Justice got a temporary restraining order against further
Speaker 1: publication of the material, arguing that it was detrimental US
Speaker 1: national security. Then the now infamous case or famous case
Speaker 1: precedent setting case New York Times versus the US and
Speaker 1: The Times and the Washington Post. They joined forces to
Speaker 1: fight for the right to publish the stolen information, and
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court ended up ruling six to three
Speaker 1: that the government failed to prove harm to national security
Speaker 1: and that the publication of papers, even though stolen, was
Speaker 1: justified under the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press.
Speaker 1: And then in addition to that, the publication in The
Speaker 1: Times and the Washington Post, Boston Globe of the newspapers.
Speaker 1: By the way, all these papers also published Wiki leaks.
Speaker 1: It's had an enormous impact. Now you go to the
Speaker 1: indictment of Roger Stone here and what do you find
Speaker 1: that they're talking about Rogers Stone and again a lot
Speaker 1: of process issues. Oh he really did have the email.
Speaker 1: Oh he hid the email. Oh elied to the Senate,
Speaker 1: the House committee. He didn't tell the truth because he
Speaker 1: said he didn't have that email or he didn't have
Speaker 1: that text message. I mean, it's basically what it all
Speaker 1: comes down to. But when you get to the heart
Speaker 1: of it, the conversations that they were most focused on
Speaker 1: in the history that they lay out in this indictment
Speaker 1: is that Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, who will talk
Speaker 1: to later they were trying to find out, Oh, what
Speaker 1: does he have next? And they were speculating actually and saying, oh,
Speaker 1: I think the next part is going to be about
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation. Well it turns out the next thing
Speaker 1: that came out was not about the Clinton Foundation neither
Speaker 1: And my interviews with both Stone and Corsi, neither one
Speaker 1: of them ever talked to Julian Assange. And I've never
Speaker 1: understood if they wanted to find out, you know, where
Speaker 1: this information came from, why did they Nobody's ever contacted
Speaker 1: that I know of Wiki leaks or a Sange and said,
Speaker 1: where did you get it? Can you prove it? Was
Speaker 1: it Russia? Was it Russia? Was a Russia, you know,
Speaker 1: Russia connected individual? Was it Russia itself? Wasn't the Chinese?
Speaker 1: Was it North Korea? Was it maybe disgruntled DNC workers
Speaker 1: who copied it. Who knows? But they would find the truth,
Speaker 1: I would assume, assuming he didn't destroy the records. So
Speaker 1: you got again back to the same old thing. By
Speaker 1: the way, where's the indictment of Hillary Clinton? She had
Speaker 1: some point emails, she busted up her hard drive, but
Speaker 1: with bleach bit destroyed devices. What about all the other
Speaker 1: people here? You know, there's nothing in this that talks
Speaker 1: about Russian collusion again. You know, every single person in
Speaker 1: journalism wanted to know what was coming next with Wiki leaks.
Speaker 1: Nobody knew. That's why I interviewed him. I thinking what
Speaker 1: January twenty seventeen when I went to Russia went to
Speaker 1: the Ecuadorian embassy. You know, when are we going to
Speaker 1: talk about Uma Aberdeen, Cheryl Mills or all these other
Speaker 1: people that lied. The biggest liar of all was Hillary.
Speaker 1: The biggest obstruction of all was Hillary. You know, Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: on every level never told anybody the truth, and then
Speaker 1: she obstructed justice. You know, oh, Roger Stone didn't turn
Speaker 1: over as emails and his text messages, well, Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: deleted thirty three thousand of them. We never knew what
Speaker 1: bleach bit was until Hillary Clinton did that, and then
Speaker 1: busting up devices and destroying simcards. We can't have unequal
Speaker 1: justice under the law, or an unequal application of the laws,
Speaker 1: or a dual justice system anyway, Joan Coursi, person won
Speaker 1: in the indictment will join us coming up later in
Speaker 1: the program. We're gonna play the president from earlier so
Speaker 1: you can hear the whole thing. Yourself. All right, Hour
Speaker 1: two Sean Hannity Show, gladuate with us. I'm gonna play
Speaker 1: the entirety of the President's address from earlier today, temporary
Speaker 1: three week repeeve of the partial government shutdown, saying do
Speaker 1: your job or I go my own way. Listen, my
Speaker 1: fellow Americans, I am very proud to announce today that
Speaker 1: we have reached a deal to end the shutdown and
Speaker 1: reopen the federal government. If everyone knows, I have a
Speaker 1: very powerful alternative, but I didn't want to use it
Speaker 1: at this time. Hopefully it will be unnecessary. I want
Speaker 1: to thank all of the incredible federal workers, and they're
Speaker 1: amazing families who have shown such extraordinary devotion in the
Speaker 1: face of this recent hardship. You are fantastic people. You
Speaker 1: are incredible patriots. Many of you have suffered far greater
Speaker 1: than anyone but your families would know or understand. And
Speaker 1: not only did you not complain, but in many cases
Speaker 1: you encourage me to keep going because you care so
Speaker 1: much about our country and about its border security. Again,
Speaker 1: I thank you all Americans. I thank you. You are
Speaker 1: very very special people. I am proud that you are
Speaker 1: citizens of our country. When I say make America great again.
Speaker 1: It could never be done without you great people. In
Speaker 1: a short while, I will sign a bill to open
Speaker 1: our government for three weeks until February fifteenth. I will
Speaker 1: make sure that all employees receive their back pay very
Speaker 1: quickly or as soon as possible. It'll happen fast. I
Speaker 1: am asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to put this
Speaker 1: proposal on the floor immediately after thirty six days of
Speaker 1: spirited debate and dialogue. I have seen and heard from
Speaker 1: enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put
Speaker 1: partisanship aside, I think, and put the security of the
Speaker 1: American people first. I do believe they're going to do that.
Speaker 1: They have said they are for complete border security, and
Speaker 1: they have finally and fully acknowledged that having barriers, fencing,
Speaker 1: or walls, or whatever you want to call it, will
Speaker 1: be an important part of the solution. A bipartisan conference
Speaker 1: committee of House and Senate law markers and leaders will
Speaker 1: immediately begin reviewing the requests of our homeland security experts
Speaker 1: and experts they are, and also law enforcement professionals who
Speaker 1: have worked with us so closely. We want to thank
Speaker 1: border patrol ice and all law enforcement been incredible. Based
Speaker 1: on operational guidance from the experts in the field, they
Speaker 1: will put together a homeland security package for me to
Speaker 1: shortly sign into law over the next twenty one days.
Speaker 1: I expect that both Democrats and Republicans will operate in
Speaker 1: good faith. This is an opportunity for all parties to
Speaker 1: work together for the benefit of our whole, beautiful, wonderful nation.
Speaker 1: If we make a fair deal, the American people will
Speaker 1: be proud of their government for proving that we can
Speaker 1: put country before party. We can show all Americans and
Speaker 1: people all around the world that both political parties are
Speaker 1: united when it comes to protecting our country and protecting
Speaker 1: our people. Many disagree, but I really feel that working
Speaker 1: with Democrats and Republicans, we can make a truly great
Speaker 1: and secure deal happen for everyone. Walt should not be controversial.
Speaker 1: Our country has built six hundred and fifty four miles
Speaker 1: of barrier over the last fifteen years, and every career
Speaker 1: border patrol agent I have spoken with has told me
Speaker 1: that Wals work. They do work, no matter where you go,
Speaker 1: they work. Israel built a wall ninety nine point nine
Speaker 1: percent successful. Won't be any different for us. They keep
Speaker 1: criminals out, They save good pace people from attempting a
Speaker 1: very dangerous journey from other countries thousands of miles because
Speaker 1: they think they have a glimmer of hope of coming
Speaker 1: through with a wall, they don't have that hope. They
Speaker 1: keep drugs out, and they dramatically increase efficiency by allowing
Speaker 1: us to patrol far larger areas with far fewer people.
Speaker 1: It's just common sense. Walls work. That's why most of
Speaker 1: the Democrats in Congress have voted in the past four
Speaker 1: bills that include walls and physical barriers and very powerful fences.
Speaker 1: The walls we are building are not medieval walls. They
Speaker 1: are smart walls designed to meet the needs of frontline
Speaker 1: voter agents and are operationally effective. These barriers are made
Speaker 1: of steel, have see through visibility, which is very important,
Speaker 1: and are equipped with sensors, monitors, and cutting edge technology,
Speaker 1: including state of the art drones. We do not need
Speaker 1: two thousand miles of concrete wall from sea to shiny
Speaker 1: c We never did. We never proposed that, We never
Speaker 1: wanted that, because we have barriers at the border where
Speaker 1: natural structures are as good as anything that we can build.
Speaker 1: They're already there, They've been there for millions of years.
Speaker 1: Our proposed structures will be in predetermined, high risk locations
Speaker 1: that have been specifically identified by the Border Patrol to
Speaker 1: stop illicit flows of people and drugs. No border security
Speaker 1: plan can never work without a physical barrier just doesn't happen.
Speaker 1: At the same time, we need to increase drug detection
Speaker 1: technology and manpower to modernize our ports of entry, which
Speaker 1: are obsolete. The equipments obsolete, they're old, they're tired. This
Speaker 1: is something we have all come to agree on and
Speaker 1: will allow for quicker and safer commerce. These critical investments
Speaker 1: will improve and facilitate legal trade and travel through our
Speaker 1: lawful ports of entry. Our plan also includes desperately needed
Speaker 1: humanitarian assistance for those being exploited and abused by coyotes, smugglers,
Speaker 1: and the dangerous journey north. The requests we have put
Speaker 1: before Congress are vital to ending the humanitarian and security
Speaker 1: crisis on our southern border, absolutely vital. Will not work
Speaker 1: without it. This crisis threatens the safety of our country
Speaker 1: and thousands of American lives. Criminal cartels, narco terrorists, transnational
Speaker 1: gangs like MS thirteen, and human traffickers are brazenly violating
Speaker 1: US laws and terrorizing innocent communities human trafficks. The victims
Speaker 1: are women and children, maybe to a lesser extent, believe
Speaker 1: it or not. Children women are tied up. They're bound,
Speaker 1: duct tape put around their faces, around their mouths. In
Speaker 1: many cases they can't even breathe. They're put in the
Speaker 1: backs of cars or vans, their trucks. They don't go
Speaker 1: through your port of entry. They make a right turn,
Speaker 1: going very quickly. They go into the desert areas or
Speaker 1: whatever areas you can look at, and as soon as
Speaker 1: there's no protection, they make a left or a right
Speaker 1: into the United States of America. There's nobody to catch them,
Speaker 1: there's nobody to find them. They can't come through the
Speaker 1: port because if they come through the port, people will
Speaker 1: see four women sitting in a van with tape around
Speaker 1: their face and around their mouth. Can't have that, and
Speaker 1: that problem because of the Internet, is the biggest problem.
Speaker 1: It's never been like this before that you can imagine
Speaker 1: at the worst level human trafficking in the history of
Speaker 1: the world. This is not a United States problem. This
Speaker 1: is a world problem. But they come through areas where
Speaker 1: they have no protection, where they have no steel barriers,
Speaker 1: where they have no walls, and we can stop almost
Speaker 1: one hundred percent of that. The profits reaped by these
Speaker 1: murderous organizations are used to fund their malign and destabilizing
Speaker 1: conduct throughout this hemisphere. Last year alone, ICE officers removed
Speaker 1: ten thousand known or suspected gang members like MS thirteen
Speaker 1: and members as bad as them horrible people, tough, mean, sadistic.
Speaker 1: In the last two years, ICE officers arrested a total
Speaker 1: of two hundred and sixty six thousand criminal alliens inside
Speaker 1: of the United States, including those charged are convicted of
Speaker 1: nearly one hundred thousand assaults, thirty thousand sex crimes, and
Speaker 1: four thousand homicides, or as you would call them, violent
Speaker 1: vicious killings, can be stopped. Vast quantities of lethal drugs,
Speaker 1: including math, fentinol, heroin, and cocaine, are smuggled across our
Speaker 1: southern border and into US schools and communities. Drugs kill
Speaker 1: much more than seventy thousand Americans a year and cost
Speaker 1: our society an excess of seven hundred billion dollars. The
Speaker 1: sheer volume of illegal immigration has overwhelmed federal authorities and
Speaker 1: stretched our immigration system beyond the breaking point. Nearly fifty
Speaker 1: migrants a day are being referred for medical assistance. They're very,
Speaker 1: very sick, making this a health crisis as well. It's
Speaker 1: a very big health crisis. People have no idea how
Speaker 1: big it is unless you're there. Our backlog in the
Speaker 1: immigration courts is now far greater than the eight hundred
Speaker 1: thousand cases that you've been hearing about over the last
Speaker 1: couple of years. Think of that, though, eight hundred thousand cases.
Speaker 1: Because our laws are obsolete, so obsolete, they're the laughing
Speaker 1: stock all over the world. Our immigration laws all over
Speaker 1: the world, they've been there for a long time, are
Speaker 1: the laughing stock all over the world. We do not
Speaker 1: have the necessary space or resources to detain, house, vet screen,
Speaker 1: and safely process this tremendous influx of people. In short,
Speaker 1: we do not have control over who is entering our country,
Speaker 1: where they come from, who they are, why they are coming.
Speaker 1: The result, for many years is a colossal danger to
Speaker 1: public safety. We're going to straighten it out. It's not hard,
Speaker 1: it's easy if given the resources. Last month was the
Speaker 1: third straight month in a row with sixty thousand apprehensions
Speaker 1: on our southern boarder. Think of that. We apprehended sixty
Speaker 1: thousand people. That's like a stadium full of people, a
Speaker 1: big stadium. There are many criminals being apprehended, but vast
Speaker 1: numbers are coming because our economy is so strong. We
Speaker 1: have the strongest economy now in the entire world. You
Speaker 1: see what's happening. We have nowhere left to house them
Speaker 1: and no way to promptly remote them. We can't get
Speaker 1: them out because our laws are so obsolete, so antiquated,
Speaker 1: and so bad. Without new resources from Congress, we will
Speaker 1: be forced to release these people into community, something we
Speaker 1: don't want to do, called catch and release. You catch them,
Speaker 1: even if they are criminals. You then release them, and
Speaker 1: you can't release them from where they came, so they
Speaker 1: go into our country and end up in places you
Speaker 1: would least suspect, and we do as little releasing as possible,
Speaker 1: but they're coming by the hundreds of thousands. I have
Speaker 1: had zero Democrat lawmakers volunteered to have them released into
Speaker 1: their districts or states, and I think they know that.
Speaker 1: And that's what we're going to be discussing over the
Speaker 1: next three weeks. The painful reality is that the tremendous
Speaker 1: economic and financial burdens of illegal immigration fall on the
Speaker 1: shoulders of low income Americans, including millions of wonderful, patriotic,
Speaker 1: law abiding immigrants who enrich our nation. Right as we
Speaker 1: continue back to the President's speech from earlier today, as
Speaker 1: commander in chief, my highest priority is the defense of
Speaker 1: our great country. We cannot surrender operational control over the
Speaker 1: nation's borders to foreign cartels, traffickers, and smugglers. We want
Speaker 1: future Americans to come to our country legally and through
Speaker 1: a system based on merit. We need people to come
Speaker 1: to our country. We have great companies moving back into
Speaker 1: the United States, and we have the lowest employment and
Speaker 1: the best employment numbers that we've ever had. There are
Speaker 1: more people working today in the United States than have
Speaker 1: ever worked in our country. We need people to come
Speaker 1: in to help us the farms and with all of
Speaker 1: these great companies that are moving back. Finally them moving back.
Speaker 1: People said it couldn't happen. It's happening, and we want
Speaker 1: them to enjoy the blessings of safety and liberty and
Speaker 1: the rule of law. We cannot protect and deliver these
Speaker 1: blessings without a strong and secure border. I believe that
Speaker 1: crime in this country can go down by a massive
Speaker 1: percentage if we have great security on our southern border.
Speaker 1: I believe drugs, large percentages of which come through the
Speaker 1: southern border, will be cut by a number that nobody
Speaker 1: will believe. So let me be very clear. We really
Speaker 1: have no choice but to build a powerful wall or
Speaker 1: steel barrier. If we don't get a fair deal from Congress,
Speaker 1: the government will either shut down on February fifteenth again,
Speaker 1: or I will use the powers afforded to me under
Speaker 1: the laws and the Constitution of the United States to
Speaker 1: address this emergency. We will have great security, and I
Speaker 1: want to thank you all very much, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: So that was the President very very clear again identifying
Speaker 1: the problems at our borders. We will continue straight ahead,
Speaker 1: all right, twenty five now till the top of the
Speaker 1: our big breaking newsday. As we've been telling you, temporary
Speaker 1: opening of the government and obviously the President clearly indicating
Speaker 1: he's willing to go at a loan executive order, and
Speaker 1: the pre dawn raid twenty five agents in the dark
Speaker 1: of morning arresting then charging Roger Stone well mostly process
Speaker 1: crimes again as it relates to all things involving the
Speaker 1: Russia probe. In light of that, I wanted to bring
Speaker 1: in Greg Jarrett, especially considering all the news that has
Speaker 1: now broken about the deep state in recent weeks, and
Speaker 1: David Shone, criminal defense attorney, as we now compare and
Speaker 1: contrast the events of today with Rogerstone, and of course
Speaker 1: the lack of action. I remember John Solomon broke the
Speaker 1: story that in August of twenty sixteen, what did we learn?
Speaker 1: We learned, in fact that Bruce Orr warned everybody in
Speaker 1: the top levels of the FBI and DOJ that the
Speaker 1: dossier put together by a foreign national Christopher Steele number one,
Speaker 1: he hated Donald Trump, number two, was funneled money through
Speaker 1: a law firm to hire an op research group, and
Speaker 1: it was used and he got Russian sources to make bizarre, crazy,
Speaker 1: insane claims and or said she paid for it. He
Speaker 1: hates Trump. It's not verified or corroborate it in any way.
Speaker 1: And it became, as we now know from the Newness
Speaker 1: and Grassy Graham memos, the bulk of information in the
Speaker 1: FISA warrant original application in October twenty six and three
Speaker 1: subsequent applications they used the same unverified, uncorroborated dossier. But
Speaker 1: of course they never told any of the FISA court
Speaker 1: judges in the application who paid for it, and that
Speaker 1: it was unverified. And we can also point out that
Speaker 1: a lot of the top people involved in all of
Speaker 1: this they knew fully and they understood that Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: was the candidate of choice, James Comey, Lisa Page, Peter Struck,
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe, many many others, and that in fact they
Speaker 1: were writing her exoneration before an investigation. And with all
Speaker 1: this talk about, well, Roger Stone didn't hand over his emails,
Speaker 1: but they really were still there. He should have handed
Speaker 1: him over, and he's being charged today as armed people
Speaker 1: come into his house pre dawned today when he would
Speaker 1: have willing he just handed himself in. But yet we
Speaker 1: see with Hillary Clinton, well she just deleted the emails
Speaker 1: that had been subpoened, acid washed the hard drive, and
Speaker 1: then went further and busted up the devices. That parrisons
Speaker 1: are stark that a two tiered justice system ought to
Speaker 1: scare everybody. Anyway, we'll start with Greg Jarrett. I want
Speaker 1: you to put the two of these things together. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you've had time to read the indictment against Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: and sure, especially in the line of the Pentagon case
Speaker 1: Pentagon paper case, I don't see a crime if you're
Speaker 1: looking for information as long as you're not part of
Speaker 1: the team that would be part of stealing something, well,
Speaker 1: I don't see it either. And in fact, the indictment
Speaker 1: of Stone demonstrates yet again that there's no known evidence.
Speaker 1: If Trump Russia collusion and his special counsel Robert Muller
Speaker 1: had this evidence against President Trump's former advisor, then Stone
Speaker 1: sureley would have been charged with some collusion related offense,
Speaker 1: but conspicuously he was not. Indeed, no one to date
Speaker 1: Sean has been charged with the crime for which Muller
Speaker 1: was appointed to investigate more than a year and a
Speaker 1: half ago. You know, instead the special counsel, he's doing
Speaker 1: what he's been doing all along, bringing charges generated by
Speaker 1: his own investigation itself. These are commonly referred to as
Speaker 1: process crimes. That is, they are offenses against the legal process.
Speaker 1: They typically occur, you know, when somebody allegedly interferes with
Speaker 1: the procedures of an investigation. So you know, I don't
Speaker 1: mean to minimize process crimes. They're serious violations. Nobody should
Speaker 1: lie or misleader obstruct I mean, but on a higher level,
Speaker 1: when you delete a painted emails and your acid wash
Speaker 1: or hard drive with bleach bit and you bust up
Speaker 1: your devices. Tell me why that's any different, if not worse, Well,
Speaker 1: it is not that much. It is worse actually, because
Speaker 1: those are principal crimes. And you know the fact is
Speaker 1: you've pointed out there's a two tier justice system. James,
Speaker 1: even James Cummy admitted in his testimony that Clinton aids
Speaker 1: made misleading statements, ie they lie. Yet none of them
Speaker 1: wherever charged. Clinton was never charged and should have been
Speaker 1: for felonies. And yet you know, if you're connected to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, Robert Muller and his team of partisans will
Speaker 1: come after you with a vengeance. What do you think,
Speaker 1: David shone, great attorney that you are. Number one, what
Speaker 1: do you think of the pre dawn raid? Number two?
Speaker 1: What do you think of the charges? And number three?
Speaker 1: When you make the comparisons to Hillary Clinton in particular
Speaker 1: and some of these upper level management types at the
Speaker 1: FBI and d o J, what do you see? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Number one, the pre dawn raid has Weissman's handmark, handprint
Speaker 1: all over it. This is what he does. This is
Speaker 1: the intimidation tactics been doing in his entire career. There's
Speaker 1: no justification whatsoever, period, end of story for this, and
Speaker 1: mister Whittaker ought to really reprimand him for this and
Speaker 1: stop this kind of tactic. Number two, the charges Again,
Speaker 1: as we've said, this is a creation of count Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Regulation six hundred point four. He created crimes when
Speaker 1: they point did this Mueller and this horrible Muller team
Speaker 1: to this so called investigation. And that's all it is.
Speaker 1: Think of the lives that have been ruined simply by
Speaker 1: the appointment of Robert Muller that has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the underlying purported investigation. And Third, the comparison is
Speaker 1: very stark. Listen, Hillary Clinton has not been prosecuted nor
Speaker 1: as anybody else in connection with the erasure of those
Speaker 1: emails been documented by the IG ongoing investigation. Hopefully we
Speaker 1: know how they skip through that. We have the IGS
Speaker 1: report on that. And these are the same emails in
Speaker 1: many cases. Member now an issue with Stone or some
Speaker 1: Clinton emails. It's unbelievable, the hypocrisy. Final thing I have
Speaker 1: to say about this is how can Genie Ree possibly
Speaker 1: be involved in this? Has been reported she not only
Speaker 1: was Clinton's lawyer, she was Clinton's lawyer with respect to
Speaker 1: these emails and the erasure of the emails. More than that,
Speaker 1: Genie Ree recently defended a case did a horrible job
Speaker 1: in North Carolina in which a guy was prosecuted specifically
Speaker 1: for the erasure of emails. So Genie Ree and Andrew
Speaker 1: Weisman involved in this thing, the indictments should be thrown out. Oh,
Speaker 1: I mean, we've said this before. We pointed out the
Speaker 1: past history of the Pitbull, Andrew Weisman, Jeanie Ray ran
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation as their lawyer. But there's even more
Speaker 1: news because even both you and John Solomon were on
Speaker 1: last night, Greg Jarrett, and we learned a lot more
Speaker 1: about James Baker as we've learned more about Bruce or
Speaker 1: when he testified, as we learned more that you know,
Speaker 1: under James Comey's FBI, we now have two criminal investigations
Speaker 1: that are ongoing. And I've got to believe that if
Speaker 1: there is real justice and equal justice under the law,
Speaker 1: that this is only the tip of the iceberg. That
Speaker 1: Comey would be in trouble as well. Page and Struck
Speaker 1: likely have legal issues coming their way, and Bruce Orr
Speaker 1: and many others. Am I correct, You're right, and just
Speaker 1: take a look at the five abuse the people who
Speaker 1: signed off on this which was completely unverified phony evidence,
Speaker 1: and they knew it perpetrated a fraud on the court.
Speaker 1: And those are various pies that you know, I've talked
Speaker 1: about repeatedly on air. And the information I obtained yesterday
Speaker 1: confirmed testimony of a former top FBI lawyer by the
Speaker 1: name of Tricia Anderson. She confirmed in her testimony before
Speaker 1: Congress last August was behind closed doors. But I've confirmed
Speaker 1: it and I quoted him my column that's published on
Speaker 1: Fox News. She said. Sally Yates, who was the Deputy
Speaker 1: Attorney General, as well as Andrew McCabe, the Deputy FBI Director,
Speaker 1: both went through those FISA applications line by line. That
Speaker 1: means that they signed on to a phony document and
Speaker 1: perpetrated a fraud on the court. So they should be investigated,
Speaker 1: along with others of the FBI like James Comey and
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein, who also affixed his signature and vouched for
Speaker 1: the authenticity of a fabricated phony document. You know, Sarah
Speaker 1: Sanders when the Press Corps, you know, asking a question
Speaker 1: on a lot of people's minds today in the wake
Speaker 1: of the FBI's apprehension of the notorious criminals Rogers Stone
Speaker 1: that needed a predoorm rate in twenty nine arm fully
Speaker 1: armed and vested policeman anyway, She openly wondered if the
Speaker 1: FBI would be raiding Hillary's home, or Comy's home, or
Speaker 1: Clapper's home, you know, when asked by fake news CNN
Speaker 1: about the arrest. While we're going to let the courts
Speaker 1: make the decision. A bigger question is if this is
Speaker 1: the standard, will the same standard apply to people like Clinton,
Speaker 1: Comey and Clapper? And then she said, will we see
Speaker 1: the same people we all know who have made false statements?
Speaker 1: Will that same standard apply? That seems like a fair question, David.
Speaker 1: Of course it's a fair question. You know the answer.
Speaker 1: The answer is no. But that's going to have to
Speaker 1: change with this Justice Department when mister Bark comes in.
Speaker 1: The double standard from that we even seeing still from
Speaker 1: the Justice Department is going to have to change. There's
Speaker 1: going to have to really be a real instigation, maybe
Speaker 1: the appointment of a new special council on all of
Speaker 1: these crimes that you have reported on for so long
Speaker 1: that have had gotten no traction whatsoever. Listen, you demonstrated
Speaker 1: on this show the goings on at the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice behind the scenes after Comey was fired. I've characterized
Speaker 1: as an attempted coup or as close to that as
Speaker 1: we've ever seen in our lifetimes. If these people are
Speaker 1: able and willing to do that kind of thing, there's
Speaker 1: nothing beyond them in their agenda to get Trump. It
Speaker 1: seems though, that you know, we have a mystery here,
Speaker 1: and that is the new Attorney General, William Barr and
Speaker 1: what is he going to do. We also have another
Speaker 1: mystery and to the whole visa abuse, because you know
Speaker 1: now that we have all these details, that all of
Speaker 1: these inappropriate actions were taken, all pro to call put aside,
Speaker 1: and all those people that signed onto that visor warrant
Speaker 1: did so knowing Clinton bought and paid for it, but
Speaker 1: they didn't put it in bold letters. Greg Jarrett so
Speaker 1: that the visor judges can see it. A little ast
Speaker 1: is saying, well, it might have a slight political taint
Speaker 1: to it, doesn't cover that by any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 1: And similarly, knowing now that they never verified or corroborated
Speaker 1: any of this, that means they all seemingly conspired to
Speaker 1: commit a fraud on the court. You have identified six
Speaker 1: felonies that would be associated with that explain them well.
Speaker 1: Their abusive power, conspiracy to defraud the government, making false statements, perjury,
Speaker 1: several other conspiracy. William Bark committed himself, as you know
Speaker 1: Sean and his Confirmation hearings, to investigate Faissa abuse and
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of the conduct of people in
Speaker 1: law enforcement. The truth is that a nefarious plot hatched
Speaker 1: supposedly between Trump and Putin and the Kremlin was a hoax.
Speaker 1: Quick break more with Greg Jarrett and David should's with
Speaker 1: us the attorneys. We have Jerome Corsi, who is mentioned
Speaker 1: as person one in the Stone and man he's going
Speaker 1: to join us coming up at the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: While a full coverage of all of this tonight on
Speaker 1: Hannity nine Eastern, and of course the opening, temporary opening
Speaker 1: of the government and the partial shutdown is now no
Speaker 1: more well for three weeks. Right, as we continue with
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett and David Shone, let me ask you about
Speaker 1: in light of the Stone thing today. I'm just fascinated
Speaker 1: with this. The Pentagon Papers was the name given to
Speaker 1: a top secret Department of Defense study of US political
Speaker 1: and military moment in Vietnam. Anyway, Daniel Ellsberg at the
Speaker 1: request of Robert McNamara, who is a Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 1: A team of people prepared this study. Anyway, it gets
Speaker 1: in the hands of the New York Times, the New
Speaker 1: York Times prints it, it becomes the New York Times
Speaker 1: versus the United States, a precedent setting ruling that the
Speaker 1: New York Times has every right to pub stolen information
Speaker 1: as long as they didn't steal it or conspire to
Speaker 1: have it stolen, correct Greg Jarrett, Yeah, absolutely, Craig and
Speaker 1: the Washington Post was in on that case as well.
Speaker 1: They both published it, and then a whole host of
Speaker 1: newspapers across the country published and they also published all
Speaker 1: of Wiki Leagues' findings as well, did they not. Yeah?
Speaker 1: You know, look the fact that, yeah, of course they did.
Speaker 1: And the fact that Roger Stone was trying to make
Speaker 1: contact with allies of Wiki Leaks to find out what
Speaker 1: Julian Osange has is no different than what I did.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess I half expect the FBI to
Speaker 1: show up at my door in a pre dun rate
Speaker 1: as well. I mean, I made phone calls, I tried
Speaker 1: to find out information, I wrote about it, I talked
Speaker 1: about you know what I expected, and that's what Stone did.
Speaker 1: You know. Stone may have puffed it up a little bit,
Speaker 1: but if you examine his emails, all of it was
Speaker 1: based on information that was put out by Wiki Leaks.
Speaker 1: But it's true. But also he had what he thought
Speaker 1: was coming wrong on a number of occasions, he thought
Speaker 1: it was something else that was coming. So it was
Speaker 1: a guess on his part. Now he thought it was
Speaker 1: more about the foundation for example. Bottom line, as he said,
Speaker 1: this is going to be a big deal. Well, hack
Speaker 1: everything that Wiki leaks publishers is a big deal. Venue
Speaker 1: is a big deal. Is this you can indict a
Speaker 1: ham sandwich? Last word? David Shone, Sure it is, and
Speaker 1: Mueller has shown every inclination to want to do that
Speaker 1: as long as it helps his agenda, the anti Trump agenda.
Speaker 1: Every civilaritarian this country, Jerry Nadler, who holds himself out,
Speaker 1: Elijah Cummings, they should want someone like Roger Stone to
Speaker 1: bring out some matters of public He just like this,
Speaker 1: and they should demand a full fisit investigation because it
Speaker 1: could happen to their friends too. All right, David Shone
Speaker 1: and Greg Jarrett, thank you both for being one of
Speaker 1: us when we come back he has identified as person
Speaker 1: number one, and the indictment of Roger Stone, the pre
Speaker 1: dawn raid from earlier today. We'll get to that. Jerome
Speaker 1: Corsi checks in next. We'll have a great Hannity tonight
Speaker 1: going over the temporary deal that has been made three
Speaker 1: weeks to end the partial government shutdown and the president's
Speaker 1: next move, which seems to be he will go it
Speaker 1: alone to get the money to build the wall. That
Speaker 1: more straight ahead coming up next our final news round
Speaker 1: up and information overload hour. This morning, at the crack
Speaker 1: of dawn, twenty nine FBI agents arrived at my home
Speaker 1: with seventeen vehicles with their lights flashing. When they could
Speaker 1: simply have contacted my charity and I would have been
Speaker 1: more than willing to surrender voluntarily. How are they terrorized
Speaker 1: my wife, my dogs. I was taken to the FBI facility,
Speaker 1: although I must say the FBI agents were extraordinarily courteous.
Speaker 1: I will lead, not gibsy to these charts. I will
Speaker 1: defeat them in court. I believe this is a politically
Speaker 1: motivated investigation. I am troubled by the political motivations of
Speaker 1: the prosecutors h and, as I have said previously, there
Speaker 1: is no circumstances whatsoever under which I will bear false
Speaker 1: witness against the President, nor will I make up lies.
Speaker 1: Could I have made it clear I will not testify
Speaker 1: against the president, but really because I would have to
Speaker 1: bear false witness again with the prosec I will be
Speaker 1: h appearing for an arrangement in DC next week and
Speaker 1: I'll address those questions at that time. Well, I intend
Speaker 1: to tell the truth. I have told the truth to
Speaker 1: this entire proceeding, and I will prove that in a
Speaker 1: court of law. How strong I am one of his
Speaker 1: oldest friends. I am a fervid supporter of the resident.
Speaker 1: I think he is doing a great job of mission,
Speaker 1: a great Again, did anyone to tell you to contact
Speaker 1: in the drunk campaign? To contact Wikily? Uh? No, I've
Speaker 1: dressed that before. That is is in any way with
Speaker 1: the Russians to help the president? Categorategorically not no, Ross,
Speaker 1: we got your rag gather. Anyway, with all due respect,
Speaker 1: I have you haven't even read the Indie correct I
Speaker 1: heards have? I had not had that opportunity, all right?
Speaker 1: That was Roger Stone after the pre dawn raid. What
Speaker 1: twenty nine guys uh pre dawn raid? Full armor guns?
Speaker 1: Blazing um. And all he said was all you have
Speaker 1: to do is asked me to come down. I would
Speaker 1: have walked in um. Which is, by the way, this
Speaker 1: is a m Weissman typical tactic happens all the time.
Speaker 1: You just heard Roger Stone saying he will plead not
Speaker 1: guilty to these charges against him, which he believes are
Speaker 1: politically based. He will not bear false witness against the president.
Speaker 1: Further goes on to declare, will not take a plea bargain,
Speaker 1: will not testify against Donald Trump. And literally the President,
Speaker 1: by the way, is weighed in on this and blasting
Speaker 1: Mueller's you know, gun drawn pre dawn raid on Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: and and Mueller's showboating raid. You know, we've seen this
Speaker 1: movie before. We saw it happen in the cases of
Speaker 1: Michael Kohn and Paul Manafort. These are all processed crimes
Speaker 1: that we're talking about. I wonder if the defense will
Speaker 1: rely heavily on past precedence. After reading the indictment, it
Speaker 1: sounds like Roger Stone had it wrong about the information
Speaker 1: he thought might be coming out from Wiki leaks. He
Speaker 1: thought it was going to be about the Clinton Foundation,
Speaker 1: yet it was not at that particular time was what
Speaker 1: was expected to be out. It was widely reported, if
Speaker 1: I recall correctly at the time, that something might be
Speaker 1: coming from wiki leaks. Remember the New York Times printing
Speaker 1: the Pentagon papers, and those were that was stolen information.
Speaker 1: As long as the New York Times court rendered a
Speaker 1: huge judgment present in judgment, as long as they were
Speaker 1: not involved in the stealing of it, they had every
Speaker 1: right to cover it anyway. Doctor Jerome Corsi is with us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir for being with us. Obviously you know
Speaker 1: who you are in this indictment if you had time
Speaker 1: to read it. Yes, thank you, Sean. I'm person number one, clearly,
Speaker 1: I'm person number one, and I think essentially what was
Speaker 1: said in the indictment about me, which was pretty limited,
Speaker 1: is accurate if reflects the forty hours of voluntary interviews
Speaker 1: I did with the Mueller team and also the book
Speaker 1: I've written, Silent No More. It's all in there. The
Speaker 1: very limited amount they say about me in the indictment
Speaker 1: I think is true. And I'm also distressed to see
Speaker 1: Rogers Home rated the way it was this morning. That
Speaker 1: was very disturbing. What do you think it says Person one,
Speaker 1: meaning you is you're a political commentator, which you are
Speaker 1: and have been and work with an online media publication
Speaker 1: during the twenty sixteen US presidential campaign, and that you
Speaker 1: and Stone spoke throughout the campaign. Would that have been unusual? No,
Speaker 1: it would have been normal. I mean I was rating
Speaker 1: at that time for World net Daily and Roger Stone
Speaker 1: was a great source and we were working together to
Speaker 1: get information which I published many articles on information I
Speaker 1: got from Roger, and much of it I attributed to
Speaker 1: Roger directly and others he was a background for. But
Speaker 1: it was the editorial staff at World net Daily shared
Speaker 1: Rogers contact with me, and we're fully aware that Roger
Speaker 1: and I were working together to develop news in World
Speaker 1: at Daily. Now I mentioned the Pentagon papers through thinking
Speaker 1: through that prism and pass court precedents if with Rogerstone
Speaker 1: apparently having written and this was printed before in July
Speaker 1: or honor about July twenty fifth, twenty sixteen, an email
Speaker 1: to you with the subject line get to the head
Speaker 1: of Organization one. We know organization one to be Wiki
Speaker 1: Leaks and the head is Julian Osange and it says
Speaker 1: get to the head of Organization one at the Ecuadorian
Speaker 1: Embassy in London and get pending organization one emails they
Speaker 1: deal with foundation allegedly. Now that turned out not to
Speaker 1: be true, right, that was not what those emails were about.
Speaker 1: You're right, they were not about the foundation. That was
Speaker 1: absolutely Rogerstone was incorrect on that. And I received that
Speaker 1: email from Roger I believe July twenty fifth, who was sixteen.
Speaker 1: By the way, I had forgotten about that. That was
Speaker 1: the subject of my first day's testimony with a special
Speaker 1: counselor when they allowed me to amend my testimony. After
Speaker 1: I saw the email, I passed that email on to
Speaker 1: Ted Malick in London and Sean, you're correct. I actually
Speaker 1: did my doctoral dissertation at Harvard and Political Science nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy two on the Pentagon papers case, and clearly in
Speaker 1: New York Times vus it was no crime to go
Speaker 1: to see Julian Assange. I could have gone to see
Speaker 1: Julian Assange would be no crime. As a reporter, we
Speaker 1: had a right even to publish what Julian Osang had,
Speaker 1: even if it were stolen, even if it were classified.
Speaker 1: That's under the First Amendment. And I did pass that
Speaker 1: on to Ted Malick. I didn't think Ted was going
Speaker 1: to go to see Julian Assans And he didn't go
Speaker 1: to see Julian Osange as far as I know, but
Speaker 1: I was happy if Ted did. And quite frankly, if
Speaker 1: World that Daily had bought me an airplane, take it,
Speaker 1: I'd have flown over to see Julian Assange. I wasn't
Speaker 1: sure it was going to do any good. Sean, you
Speaker 1: interviewed Assange many times and close close to his release
Speaker 1: of these documents from John Podesta, the final October Ace
Speaker 1: and through the end of the election, and he was
Speaker 1: very cagy even telling you what he had. I doubted
Speaker 1: assand would have been very direct with anybody. And by
Speaker 1: the way, Sean, I believe Julia Sanje told you that
Speaker 1: the Russians had nothing to do with getting him those emails.
Speaker 1: He said, it was not Russia, not the Russian state.
Speaker 1: But you know, you've also got to tie some of
Speaker 1: this a little bit if we have to backtrack here.
Speaker 1: Remember the Exoneration of Hillary written in May of twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Remember they were investigating the the server she had off
Speaker 1: site in a mom and pop shop bathroom closet that
Speaker 1: would be a violation of the Espionage Act. The original
Speaker 1: draft which Kome lied under oath saying he didn't write,
Speaker 1: but we know he did write along with Peter Struck
Speaker 1: before they interviewed her or seventeen other people did contain
Speaker 1: the legal language of grossly of gross negligence, and then
Speaker 1: they changed it to get it out of that. But
Speaker 1: also there was a reference to six foreign entities intelligence
Speaker 1: agencies that had likely tapped into and hacked those emails,
Speaker 1: which means that it could have come from any one
Speaker 1: of those six or more and nobody would know because
Speaker 1: we just don't know who had access to it, which
Speaker 1: is why the espionages in effect. But in fact they
Speaker 1: were covering up for the person that they wanted to
Speaker 1: win one hundred million to zero to quote Peter Struck,
Speaker 1: who interviewed her and then James come three days later
Speaker 1: exonerating her, although the exoneration letter began in May. Well,
Speaker 1: in fact, Sean, you're exactly right. I mean, I do
Speaker 1: not think the Mueller team has proved the predicate the
Speaker 1: whole basis of their investigation. There's no proof yet that
Speaker 1: Russia stole the email else from the DNC, and I
Speaker 1: don't I can't understand why there isn't testimony given or
Speaker 1: immunity given to a sane to get his testimony, because
Speaker 1: Assange said repeatedly, and I remember distinctly, Sean, your interview
Speaker 1: with Julian Osane was I thought it was very important,
Speaker 1: in which if he's got evidence where he can prove
Speaker 1: Russia wasn't involved, why don't we get that evidence and
Speaker 1: put it in front of the public. I thought that
Speaker 1: was imperative because that would have answered the question the
Speaker 1: fact that, if I'm not mistaken, I don't think anybody
Speaker 1: to this point has ever asked a Sane or wiki
Speaker 1: leaks for the evidence the proof, which he was the
Speaker 1: only person in the world that would have, isn't he
Speaker 1: in terms of where he got that information from? Yes,
Speaker 1: if really was doing a legitimate investigation, why wouldn't he
Speaker 1: start with Julian Assange and prove where who stole the
Speaker 1: emails from the Democratic National Committee? But if it came
Speaker 1: from Russia and other places as well, what if one
Speaker 1: part came from here and one part came from there?
Speaker 1: I mean, especially again, you know Komey's early version referencing
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence services having hacked into this stuff, and it's
Speaker 1: clear that China has also been involved in the hacking
Speaker 1: in a massive way. And there's evidence that China with
Speaker 1: hacking both Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. This
Speaker 1: whole investigation, Sean goes nowhere. If Russia wasn't involved in
Speaker 1: stealing the emails, because what was there to coordinate with
Speaker 1: Julia Sangs? If Russia wasn't involved, well, let me go
Speaker 1: back to the indictment if I can, and if you're
Speaker 1: just joining us, Jerome Corsi is on the line with us,
Speaker 1: mentioned a few times in this indictment. Well, before I
Speaker 1: do that, you have been worried and thinking that you're
Speaker 1: going to be indicted. You still have that feeling. And
Speaker 1: you know Roger said that he will not bear false
Speaker 1: witness against the president. You will offered a plea deal.
Speaker 1: You rejected the plead deal because you felt that to
Speaker 1: make that deal you would be lying. You could have
Speaker 1: saved yourself. You could have agreed to no jail time.
Speaker 1: You could have gotten off whatever charge they wanted to
Speaker 1: make against you. Do you know what the charge was? Yes,
Speaker 1: they wanted me to the one first day when I
Speaker 1: had not seen my two sixteen emails, I said, I
Speaker 1: didn't really want to send anybody to see Julian Assange
Speaker 1: and I'd forgotten the July twenty fifth email that I
Speaker 1: forwarded to Ted Malick that we discussed a minute ago. Now,
Speaker 1: the special counselor let me go back to New Jersey
Speaker 1: for ten days. I finally got to download my two
Speaker 1: thousand and sixteen emails. I found the Ted Mallick email.
Speaker 1: I amended my testimony when they wanted me to plead guilty.
Speaker 1: It was to the first day's unamended testimony without acknowledging
Speaker 1: they'd allow me to correct what was a memory mistake.
Speaker 1: And I told the special plea. By the way, so
Speaker 1: you're talking about an email that's two years old, right,
Speaker 1: two years old? You know, why did I have to
Speaker 1: go with these pre dawn raids every time? And what
Speaker 1: did you think about CNN's cameras being there? That it
Speaker 1: was just good, solid um leg work, that that tipped
Speaker 1: them off that this might happen this morning. I find
Speaker 1: that hard to believe. I've been alleging, in fact, my
Speaker 1: federal lawsuit complained against Mueller, is that they've been leaking
Speaker 1: like a sieve, and I can I've got evidence of
Speaker 1: my own case. They've been leaking, and I think it's
Speaker 1: the CNN reeked of a tip off to be there
Speaker 1: at the right time in front of Roger's home to
Speaker 1: film this raid. It's like, I mean, was Roger a
Speaker 1: major drug dealer or an international narcotics I mean, this
Speaker 1: is Rogers involved in politics. And I really cautioned the
Speaker 1: Democrats and those who hate Trump not to criminalize politics.
Speaker 1: You know, the pendulum swings. We need we need equal justice,
Speaker 1: and it's going to come back on the Democrats that
Speaker 1: they allow the corruption this way to continue. Well, this
Speaker 1: is what Alan Dershowitz has been saying, criminalizing political different
Speaker 1: Say how many times now did you go before Robert
Speaker 1: Muller or his team. I've spent sewan forty hours. It
Speaker 1: was six sessions over two months. It was the most
Speaker 1: excruciating experience in my life. I mean I went into cooperate.
Speaker 1: I gave them my computers, my backup external drives, my
Speaker 1: cell phone, my emails username password, and I was treated
Speaker 1: like a criminal from the beginning, and they played this
Speaker 1: memory trap. I forgot the email I forwarded to Ted
Speaker 1: Malick to say go see asans. That was the July
Speaker 1: twenty fifth, twenty sixteen email that's in the indictment. I've
Speaker 1: forgotten about that, and the first day I said, I
Speaker 1: didn't want to send anybody to see a sage when
Speaker 1: I reviewed my emails. Took me ten days to review
Speaker 1: my emails. I came back and amended that testimony to Mueller.
Speaker 1: But yet Mueller wanted to charge me, make me plea
Speaker 1: to the unamended mistake I made. Why I wasn't going
Speaker 1: to swear before a federal judge into God. You know,
Speaker 1: I say, Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior. I'm
Speaker 1: not good. I couldn't imagine myself standing in front of
Speaker 1: a judge and say, all right, I want to pick
Speaker 1: it up there. I want to pick it up there
Speaker 1: when we get back. So much ground to cover. Our
Speaker 1: news round up information overload continues alright twenty five now
Speaker 1: until the top of the hour. A lot of breaking
Speaker 1: news today, three week opening of the government if no deal.
Speaker 1: The President clearly is indicating he will go on his
Speaker 1: own with a national emergency, as I had predicted now
Speaker 1: for some time. But the pre dawn raid of Roger
Speaker 1: Stone and the seven count indictment from earlier today, Jerome
Speaker 1: Corsi is with us. You know, you spend forty hours
Speaker 1: with Muller you wrote a dissertation on the Pentagon Papers,
Speaker 1: which is fascinating in light of this particular case. Let
Speaker 1: me go to the indictment where you are Person one,
Speaker 1: and it says that Honor about July twenty five, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: Stone sent you an email person one with the subject
Speaker 1: line to the head of organization won the Ecuadorian Embassy
Speaker 1: in London, obviously talking about Julian Asange and get the
Speaker 1: pending emails they deal with the foundation allegedly, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, when they eventually were leaked, they did not
Speaker 1: deal with the foundation, which would mean neither you or
Speaker 1: Roger Stone at any knowledge of what was really in them. Correct,
Speaker 1: That's correct. I've I've never had any communication with Wiki
Speaker 1: Leaks or Julian Assange of any kind. And Sean, when
Speaker 1: I got that email, it took me about twenty seconds.
Speaker 1: I forwarded it to Ted Mallick in London. I said,
Speaker 1: Ted from Roger Jerry, and I was obviously happy if
Speaker 1: Malick went to see Asange under the what I wrote
Speaker 1: my dissertation, Harvard PhD. Dissertation on the Pentagon Papers New
Speaker 1: York Times v. Sullivan is a Supreme Court case. As
Speaker 1: a journalist I could easily have gone to see Assange,
Speaker 1: even printed what Asange had, even if it it was stolen
Speaker 1: and classified. That's under the First Amendment and the Pentagon
Speaker 1: Papers case. I mean that is because what the New
Speaker 1: York Times did is they published stolen documents, and as
Speaker 1: long as you're not involved in the conspiracy to steal
Speaker 1: them or involved in the actual stealing of them, you have,
Speaker 1: according to this court precedence and the freedom of the press,
Speaker 1: our First Amendment, a right to print them or report them,
Speaker 1: which would be what your job is based on that
Speaker 1: particular precedence. Now, it also goes on to say that
Speaker 1: on July thirty, first, Honor about he Stone email person
Speaker 1: won you what the subject line call me Monday. The
Speaker 1: body of the email read in part that Person one,
Speaker 1: you your associate in the United Kingdom, should see the
Speaker 1: head of organization one, which is Wiki Leaks and Assange. Honor.
Speaker 1: About August second, twenty sixteen, Person one emailed Stone. You
Speaker 1: emailed him and wrote that he was currently in Europe,
Speaker 1: plan to return in and around mid August, and you
Speaker 1: stated in part word is the friend in the embassy
Speaker 1: plans Two more dumps one shortly after on back the
Speaker 1: second one in October impact plan to be very damaging.
Speaker 1: Now you're finding all of this out as you're doing
Speaker 1: digging and talking to sources, but not directly to Osange. Correct.
Speaker 1: That's correct, And in fact Ted Mallick did not go
Speaker 1: to see Asange. I had no information Ted Mallick about Asange,
Speaker 1: and I did not contact or get any information about
Speaker 1: Assange myself directly or indirectly. When I was in Italy
Speaker 1: twenty fifth winning anniversary with my wife and family, I
Speaker 1: simply connected the dots and figured out that Assange had
Speaker 1: Podesta's emails and that's what he was going to drop.
Speaker 1: But I didn't have any source called a Haunch A
Speaker 1: good guest. I think if I recall and I'm like you,
Speaker 1: if you asked me what email I sent two years ago,
Speaker 1: I'd be like, huh. But person one added an email
Speaker 1: time to let more than the Clinton campaign chairman. That
Speaker 1: would be Podesta to be exposed as in bed with
Speaker 1: the enemy if they are not ready to drop Hillary
Speaker 1: Rodham Clinton, And it goes on to say that appears
Speaker 1: to be game hackers are now about. Would not hurt
Speaker 1: to start suggesting Hillary Rodham Clinton's old memory bad I
Speaker 1: expect much of the next dump to focus on setting
Speaker 1: the stage for the foundation debacle. There there never was
Speaker 1: a foundation debacle dump, was there. I was basically saying,
Speaker 1: first of all, hadn't mine the McGovern campaign in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy two with Eagleton who got shocked treatment and had
Speaker 1: to be dropped as vice president. And I was saying
Speaker 1: to Roger that if I was writing it was Podesta's emails,
Speaker 1: this these we're going to be devastating Hillary. It'd be
Speaker 1: better just to replace her as a candidate and get
Speaker 1: somebody what you assume that we would talk about or
Speaker 1: give information about Hillary's real health condition. Yes, and these
Speaker 1: was going to be exposed. And I was saying it,
Speaker 1: by the way, I don't remember, did it yo, Well,
Speaker 1: I believe it did. I mean, they continue to deny it.
Speaker 1: But the Podesta emails have extensive discussion about Hillary's health
Speaker 1: and I figured they would. It would again deduction on
Speaker 1: my part, I figured they would. And then when this
Speaker 1: came out, it would be better just to drop Hillary
Speaker 1: as a candidate because she was going to be devastated
Speaker 1: by the hell information and the other information in these emails,
Speaker 1: which I also suspected would include information about the Clinton Foundation,
Speaker 1: and it did. It had Doug Bands emails, all kinds
Speaker 1: of indication the Clinton Foundation was being but not the
Speaker 1: smoking gun that you were referring to. You thought it
Speaker 1: would be. The smoking gun was Podesta's emails. That was
Speaker 1: the Podesta That's where I was focused in Italy and
Speaker 1: I knew that, and the special prosecutor for twenty hours.
Speaker 1: It was torturous with me because they kept thinking I
Speaker 1: had to have a source, and they just wouldn't believe
Speaker 1: that I connected the dots and figured it out myself.
Speaker 1: We looked through everybody I talked to in two sixteen.
Speaker 1: They gave me my phone calls at these critical periods
Speaker 1: of time, I was not talking to anybody who was
Speaker 1: connected with assage where they couldn't find anybody, I couldn't
Speaker 1: find anybody. I figured it out. And how do you
Speaker 1: believes person too in this indictment. I think that's Credico.
Speaker 1: I believe person too is Credico the radio host. Yes,
Speaker 1: the radio host. I think Credico had a much more
Speaker 1: direct connection. He obviously had a sane on his radio show.
Speaker 1: I never thought Roger believed that I was in touch
Speaker 1: with Wiki Lakes It's why Roger continue to look for
Speaker 1: a source beyond me. Roger listened to me when I
Speaker 1: figured out, you know that I was posessed as emails,
Speaker 1: but that wasn't the kind of proof Roger was looking for.
Speaker 1: Roger wanted to know directly from Julian Sane, and I
Speaker 1: couldn't tell him that Honor. About August twenty fifth, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: the head of Organization one was a guest on Person
Speaker 1: two's radio show for the first time an Honor. About
Speaker 1: the twenty six Person two sent a text to Stone stating,
Speaker 1: the head of Organization one talked about you last night,
Speaker 1: and Stone asked what the head of organization and said
Speaker 1: to Person two, he said, he didn't say anything bad.
Speaker 1: We were talking about how the press is trying to
Speaker 1: make it look like you and he are in cahoots.
Speaker 1: Look at the end of the day, you know, we
Speaker 1: get to this point here. Where when was it? Wasn't
Speaker 1: there widespread speculation? When about was their widespread speculation? I
Speaker 1: think it started immediately after the July information came out,
Speaker 1: which resulted in Wasserman Schultz, you know, being removed on
Speaker 1: a Brazil taking over am I right in my time frame,
Speaker 1: there perfectly. Right after July twenty second, twenty sixteen, A
Speaker 1: Sands dropped forty thousand emails on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. They
Speaker 1: came out of the Democratic National Committee server which was
Speaker 1: DNC dot org and asange almost immediately like the next day,
Speaker 1: in that weekend, because Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned, the Democrats
Speaker 1: were going to Philadelphia for their convention, and over two
Speaker 1: days as Sans dropped these emails, and A Sans gave
Speaker 1: in the interview and he said, I've got more more
Speaker 1: emails from the Democrats and I'm going to drop them.
Speaker 1: Gave that interview to ITV in London that weekend, I believe,
Speaker 1: and that started out everybody who's involved in reporting on
Speaker 1: or in the campaigns or interested in them, said, what's
Speaker 1: a Sane got? It was a normal question that everybody
Speaker 1: involved in politics wanted to know. The answer to me
Speaker 1: included me, included I wanted to know. I mean I
Speaker 1: think everybody wanted to know. So the question then becomes,
Speaker 1: now here we are. It's made obvious that you guys
Speaker 1: thought he had something were wrong really about what he had,
Speaker 1: but you thought he had more, and you wanted to
Speaker 1: find out what it is part of your job, as
Speaker 1: you know you're a reporter now working for WorldNet Daily
Speaker 1: at the time. What's interesting to me is it seems
Speaker 1: like you're looking for information, which is what your job
Speaker 1: ought to be about, and you're digging for it. The
Speaker 1: fact that you also have a political view look at
Speaker 1: all that is ignored in terms of what do we
Speaker 1: know about. We know that two FBI agents absolutely put
Speaker 1: the fix in. If you are Roger Stone had ever
Speaker 1: deleted subpoena at emails and acid washed your hard drive
Speaker 1: and beat up your devices with hammers, I think you'd
Speaker 1: both be in trouble. Hillary got a free pass, just
Speaker 1: like she got a free pass on the email server
Speaker 1: that was hacked in a mom and pop shop bathroom closet,
Speaker 1: which was illegal, and then she put together a dossier
Speaker 1: that she funneled money through a law firm to an
Speaker 1: OP research group. That's so different than you do an
Speaker 1: OP research sean. The unequal justice of this, the political
Speaker 1: nature of our justice system, how the Justice Department is
Speaker 1: being run by politically motivated operatives who want to criminalize
Speaker 1: normal politics. I mean, all Roger was doing was what
Speaker 1: I was doing, and it was asking what's Julia Sange
Speaker 1: got And it was a normal question that anybody in
Speaker 1: politics would want to know, and especially if these were
Speaker 1: not had nothing to do with Russia. The whole thing
Speaker 1: is concocted again on a basis of lies, and I
Speaker 1: don't think the Special Prosecutor has taken the steps to
Speaker 1: find out from Julian Assange, who says he's got proof
Speaker 1: Russia wasn't involved. Sean you had, you had direct firsthand
Speaker 1: knowledge of hearing that from Assange himself, and that's one
Speaker 1: of the most important interviews done in this whole thing.
Speaker 1: You know. That's where I don't understand why the Special
Speaker 1: Council never go to him. Why don't they go to
Speaker 1: him and say, we'd like to find out where did
Speaker 1: you get this information? Was proved to us? It's not
Speaker 1: Russia because said it's not Russia, you said it's not
Speaker 1: a state, proved to us, because he'd be the only
Speaker 1: guy that could possibly have evidence, assuming that he saved it,
Speaker 1: and I would assume he probably did. If Roger is convicted,
Speaker 1: does this mean to the future that we can do
Speaker 1: normal reporting or normal investigating in a political campaign. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a legitimate question, Asange dropped it only twenty second
Speaker 1: two sixteen, forty thousand emails on Debbie Washerman Schultz. They
Speaker 1: were they've devastated Debbie Washerman. Schultze resigned said I've got more.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna release him later because if that was devastating,
Speaker 1: who's he gonna devastate next? If you're in the world
Speaker 1: of politics, you want to know the thing that worries
Speaker 1: me the most about all of this. And I had
Speaker 1: said it at the time that in a weird way,
Speaker 1: people like Asange have Donna's favors the reports that he
Speaker 1: had hacked to NASA and the Pentagon when he was sixteen.
Speaker 1: So here we are forty years later and America are
Speaker 1: national security is still vulnerable, and I think we have
Speaker 1: about two hundred and fifty thousand IT workers. How is
Speaker 1: it possible we do not have the ability or we
Speaker 1: have not built the ability for national security reasons to
Speaker 1: make our computer systems bring them to the point where
Speaker 1: they're not hackable. And how many of those workers are
Speaker 1: spying on OSSI illegally? That's also what I want to know. Well,
Speaker 1: that's a big question that we've brought up as well.
Speaker 1: Because they have the powerful tools of intelligence and they
Speaker 1: can do all of this, and they do it illegally,
Speaker 1: as we've learned in the case of Michael Flynn, right.
Speaker 1: And what was devastating about the Podesta emails was their content,
Speaker 1: what they said about the campaign, what they said about
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. It wasn't about who stole them. You know,
Speaker 1: the Pentagon papers, the Daniel Ellsberg, who stole a classified
Speaker 1: Pentagon study of the Vietnam War that proved that McNamara's
Speaker 1: Secretary Defense and Lyndon Johnson, President knew the war was
Speaker 1: unwinnable in nineteen going from nineteen sixty five on, that
Speaker 1: was important information. That's why the First Amendment protected it.
Speaker 1: And it was not a crime for the New York
Speaker 1: Times of the Washington Post to publish that information. Why
Speaker 1: would it have been a crime for me, as a
Speaker 1: reporter to have found out from Julia Osane what he had.
Speaker 1: I didn't contact Assange because I didn't think Assange was
Speaker 1: going to tell anybody, because he was going to keep
Speaker 1: it for himself. But let me ask you this, based
Speaker 1: on what was what happened today, do you feel it's
Speaker 1: more likely that a pre dawn rate of your house
Speaker 1: is coming. No, Sean, I think it's very unlikely. Why
Speaker 1: because this report, the indictment of Roger shows no wrongdoing
Speaker 1: on my part. I've done nothing wrong, and I made
Speaker 1: you felt earlier the last time I interviewed you, you
Speaker 1: thought it was imminent. Well, maybe I had just rejected
Speaker 1: their plea deal. They were very angry and they told
Speaker 1: my lawyers will take it from here. And subsequently, Sean,
Speaker 1: They've investigated every aspect of my life. They brought my
Speaker 1: stepson into the grand jury yesterday on a computer that
Speaker 1: he ReCl for my wife's business. He and my wife
Speaker 1: are cleaning and maintenance service together in New Jersey. There
Speaker 1: was an old computer I wasn't using, and I had
Speaker 1: the complete backup system the external hard drives on my desk,
Speaker 1: which we left there because I didn't destroy the content
Speaker 1: of the computer. We offered to hand that over the
Speaker 1: backup to show we could reconstruct the computer. The special
Speaker 1: prosecutor didn't want it. Every aspect of my life has
Speaker 1: been investigated, and I've done nothing wrong at this point
Speaker 1: with no indictment, or they could maybe indict me for
Speaker 1: having a bad memory, but they even allowed me to
Speaker 1: amend my testimony. In the forty hours over and over again.
Speaker 1: What blew it off? I mean, don't you think it's
Speaker 1: a little unrealistic for somebody to remember an email from
Speaker 1: two years earlier. That is so fundamentally unfair. I'm not
Speaker 1: a human tape recorder, Sean, you can't push a button
Speaker 1: and had me recite exactly a conversation that happened. I
Speaker 1: can't even tell you who was on my show on Monday.
Speaker 1: I could not tell you now. If you ask me
Speaker 1: about Reagan's record the eighties, I can tell you chapter
Speaker 1: in verse it's you know it's well. Mine is very
Speaker 1: similar too. I remember baseball games from when I was
Speaker 1: growing up as a kid. I can't tell you you
Speaker 1: know what happened in the end of last season. The
Speaker 1: point is I did nothing wrong. My memory was terrible.
Speaker 1: I told they were abusive. I'm going to close. Don't matter.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to be personally here. How old are you, Jerome,
Speaker 1: I'm seventy two years old, John seven. It's not unusual
Speaker 1: here you are in a closed in room, no windows
Speaker 1: and unmarked FBI building in southeast Washington, DC. You're facing
Speaker 1: three of the prosecutors from Mueller's team and six to
Speaker 1: nine FBI. It's v and my attorney, and they're being
Speaker 1: a hospital hours. All Right, I'm gonna have to let
Speaker 1: it go, but we'll have more on this tonight. Jerome Corsi,
Speaker 1: thank you for sharing all of this. Obviously, the three
Speaker 1: week opening of the government, the hopes that the president
Speaker 1: now is going to go it alone as it relates
Speaker 1: to the emergency declaration of a national emergency, which is
Speaker 1: what I thought would happened from the beginning. Alright, Hannity tonight,
Speaker 1: nine Eastern Fox News Channel. All Right, so, now Congress
Speaker 1: has the three weeks they asked for to get a
Speaker 1: deal on the border. If not, the President has two options,
Speaker 1: shut down the government or he goes his own way
Speaker 1: as he has said. We'll have full coverage also the
Speaker 1: pre dawn raid on Rogers Stone. Also Jerome Corsi identified
Speaker 1: his person number one in the Stone indictment. Will join us.
Speaker 1: All happening, busy newsnight, Hannity on the Fox News Channel
Speaker 1: nine Eastern. Have a great weekend. We'll see you back
Speaker 1: here Monday.