Speaker 1: Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. If you're like me
Speaker 1: and suffer from insomnia, you know what, that's not fun.
Speaker 1: You know I tried everything I couldn't get a good
Speaker 1: night's sleep. And this is neither drug nor alcohol induced.
Speaker 1: That's right. It is my pillow. Mike Lindell invented it
Speaker 1: and he fitted me for my first my pillow, and
Speaker 1: it's changed my life. I fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer,
Speaker 1: and the good news you can too, Lea. Go to
Speaker 1: my pillow dot com promo code Sean and take advantage
Speaker 1: of one of Mike Glendell's best offers, his special four pack.
Speaker 1: You get fifty percent off to my Pillow Premium Pillows
Speaker 1: to go Anywhere Pillows. My Pillows made in the USA,
Speaker 1: has a sixty day unconditional money back guaranteed no risk
Speaker 1: to you, and attend you warranty. You don't want to
Speaker 1: spend more sleepless nights on a pillow tossing interney that's
Speaker 1: not working for you. Just go to my pillow dot
Speaker 1: com right now, use the promo code Sean and you
Speaker 1: get Mike Glendell's special four pack. You get to my
Speaker 1: pillow Premium Pillows to Go Anywhere pillows fifty percent off,
Speaker 1: and you'll start getting the kind of peaceful and RESTful
Speaker 1: and comfortable and deep, peeling and recruitative sleep he'd been
Speaker 1: craving and deserve. Mike Pillow dot Com promo coach Shawn Hey,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Shawn Hannity Show, Jay Seculo and Mayor
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani. How about that Giuliani in Seculo it is.
Speaker 1: We can start all kinds of speculations there, you go, right, Hey, anyways,
Speaker 1: welcome to the Shawan Handy Show and we get to
Speaker 1: sit in for Shawn Hannity. That Linda has given him
Speaker 1: a day off. He doesn't get many of those, but
Speaker 1: we're glad that he's taking a day off going to
Speaker 1: a wedding or whatever he's doing. But we're here and
Speaker 1: we're gonna be taking your calls. And by the way,
Speaker 1: you need to know who we are because you know
Speaker 1: who rape Rudy Giuliani is because he's America's mayor. I'm
Speaker 1: just a lawyer. I'm Jay Seculo. I'm just a count lawyer.
Speaker 1: The country held by the accent I'm a real lawyer. Uh.
Speaker 1: I am J. Seculo, chief council of the American Center
Speaker 1: for Lawn Justice and one of the council to the
Speaker 1: President and Rudy Giuliani of course, America's mayor, former U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney Department of Justice official, and for purposes of right now,
Speaker 1: my colleague and co counsel in a case involving uh
Speaker 1: Russia inquiry that we're engaged in. You may have read
Speaker 1: something about it. We're also gonna be taking your calls,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna give the number correctly because Linda said,
Speaker 1: get the number correctly. One eight nine one seven three
Speaker 1: to six or eight hundred nine four one sewn. That's
Speaker 1: because I gave the number to my radio broadcast before.
Speaker 1: I've done that before on this broadcast, and I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna do it again. So anyways, one eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: four one seven three to six or eight hundred nine
Speaker 1: one sean. You could ask Giuliani or me, either one
Speaker 1: of us or both of us at the same time.
Speaker 1: Questions of the day. We've got a lot to talk about. Obviously,
Speaker 1: a lot of you are gonna want to talk to
Speaker 1: us about what is happening with regard to the Russia
Speaker 1: probe we are also talking about and this is UH important.
Speaker 1: UH that's an important issue also. But UH, Realdy and
Speaker 1: I have both been working for over a year trying
Speaker 1: to secure the release of an American pastor UH named
Speaker 1: Andrew Brunson who's was in jail for nineteen months in Turkey.
Speaker 1: He's now at a house arrest. We're close to getting
Speaker 1: a resolution in that case. The President, Rudy, you and
Speaker 1: I both know it's been working NonStop on this. We've
Speaker 1: been and we're working on this for a long time.
Speaker 1: But we're getting close. I mean, we're getting there. But
Speaker 1: Turkey is taking a real hit financially right now, especially today,
Speaker 1: Turkey is taking a real hit financially. Their their economy
Speaker 1: is in trouble. It reminds me to some extent of
Speaker 1: what's happening in Iran with the sanctions that have been
Speaker 1: placed there that just sort of just doubles down on
Speaker 1: their economic problems to start with. And I think people
Speaker 1: are starting to realize what happens when America imposes sanctions
Speaker 1: all of a sudden. Other countries don't want to trade
Speaker 1: with you because they need the American banks that rely
Speaker 1: on the American banks. America could then impose sanctions on
Speaker 1: them for doing it. And I think it's a this
Speaker 1: idea that we need all these other countries to agree
Speaker 1: with us on sanctions. We drive, we drive the world economy. Well,
Speaker 1: I know it Underran on the Iran issue. You've been
Speaker 1: very involved, and of course I had a We had
Speaker 1: another American that was held hostage by the Iranians, got
Speaker 1: out a couple of years back, uh, and again sanctioned.
Speaker 1: The president is imposed UH. Finally, you know, they've been
Speaker 1: for a couple of administrations. They've been saying crippling SA sanctions,
Speaker 1: but now they actually did it. You know, what kind
Speaker 1: of impact do you think is gonna have An Iran
Speaker 1: have a tremendous impact without the sanctions, based on just
Speaker 1: their own internal economic problems. They've had UH demonstrations and
Speaker 1: protests in over a hundred forty two cities starting in January.
Speaker 1: They're very very well orchestrated. People have been arrested and killed,
Speaker 1: but they still go on. They're getting worse, the economic
Speaker 1: problems get worse. There has a chance, I don't want
Speaker 1: to overstate it, but there has a chance that this
Speaker 1: regime could be in trouble. I think that's right. And
Speaker 1: in Turkey right now, with their following economy, I think
Speaker 1: they've got to make some tough decisions, and one of
Speaker 1: them is not so tough. Let the Americans, not just
Speaker 1: this pastor. Let the Americans that you're holding hostage Turkey,
Speaker 1: let them go back to the United States. Not that complicated.
Speaker 1: I understand this is a lot of political issues, and
Speaker 1: that's a lot of it, but it's you're looking like
Speaker 1: hostage situations. Having said all of that, there's also some
Speaker 1: news on the domestic front you may have been felt
Speaker 1: and that the mayor and I have been involved in,
Speaker 1: and that isn't our representation of the president. And of
Speaker 1: course you heard that. There was a response that we
Speaker 1: put together with our team. We've got a great team
Speaker 1: of lawyers involving a request from the Special Counsel to
Speaker 1: interview the President of the United States. I'm sure you're
Speaker 1: gonna have some calls and comments about that. We have
Speaker 1: had some comments about that. To say the least, that
Speaker 1: we've been talking about that. We're not going to tell
Speaker 1: you what we have said, even though really wanted to
Speaker 1: the other day a reporter at me, he did say
Speaker 1: that actually that reporter. He said to this particular reporter,
Speaker 1: I I wouldn't mind saying something, but Jay would be
Speaker 1: really angry if I did. But we will tell you this. Look,
Speaker 1: this is a process that you're we're going through right now,
Speaker 1: and uh, there's a lot that go in that goes
Speaker 1: into it. I think the Constitution is clear that there's
Speaker 1: not a right to interview the president under Article two.
Speaker 1: I think the Supreme Court would come to that conclusion.
Speaker 1: I think it also reigns as serious issues not just
Speaker 1: for this president, but for future presidencies and especially Rudy.
Speaker 1: With the nature and scope of the cooperation that this
Speaker 1: White House has given to the investigators, it's it's unprecedented,
Speaker 1: especially in light of the irregularities. Will go through the
Speaker 1: irregularities in a minute, but but this has been unprecedented cooperation.
Speaker 1: It has it's been unprecedented cooperation. So the end what
Speaker 1: that yields is, under any set of circumstances, the court
Speaker 1: is going to require they make a showing for why
Speaker 1: they need the information. Well, they already have it. They
Speaker 1: already have all the information plus more. They would have
Speaker 1: no ability to show uh need for this information. For example,
Speaker 1: they have his explanations. He's given them on every television,
Speaker 1: on radio, on tweets, on Remember they were arguing one
Speaker 1: of the reports was obstruction by tweet. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I didn't think about that for a moment. Obstruction by tweet,
Speaker 1: I mean, how can okay? So well, I'm gonna give
Speaker 1: you a great example from Greg Jared's book. Greg Jared
Speaker 1: points out that Barack Obama during the sixteen election pronounced
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton innocent, right, He said, he said, she may
Speaker 1: have been careless, but she didn't affect national security. Well,
Speaker 1: several weeks later, that's exactly what Comy wrote. She may
Speaker 1: have been careless, but she didn't affect national security. So
Speaker 1: you could say he obstructed that investigation, except for the
Speaker 1: fact that he was doing the same thing that our
Speaker 1: president does accept on different set of circumstances. He was
Speaker 1: giving his opinion, which is protected by the way by
Speaker 1: the Person Amendment to the United States Constitution, protected by
Speaker 1: his authorities under Article two of the United States Constitution.
Speaker 1: After all, he's the president of the United States, and
Speaker 1: the President of the United States gets to not only
Speaker 1: a pine, but to take action. And the idea that
Speaker 1: you would question the president about the motives of why
Speaker 1: he terminated a A subordinate raises, as I said, really serious,
Speaker 1: uh constitutional issues. Having said that, we have been and
Speaker 1: continue to maintain a very cooperative attitude. But I will
Speaker 1: tell you about that cooperation. We draw lines and uh
Speaker 1: we rejected the proposal that came out from the Special Counsel.
Speaker 1: In this last round, we came back with another proposal.
Speaker 1: We'll see what happens on that. But you can be cooperative,
Speaker 1: you could be professional without you don't have to be disagreeable.
Speaker 1: But if you look at the scope and nature of
Speaker 1: this inquiry, the way it started, the corruption at the outset,
Speaker 1: we've joined Later in the broadcast, we've got you know,
Speaker 1: John Solomon coming up a great story in the Hill
Speaker 1: about Bruce Or the number four. The Justice Department is
Speaker 1: in conversations with Chris Steele, who's working with Fusion GPS
Speaker 1: to put together this dossier, and the president just happens
Speaker 1: to be Nelly Or. Bruce Or's wife is also working
Speaker 1: for Fusion GPS and just happens to be assigned Mayor
Speaker 1: to to working with Christopher Steele on the dossier, which
Speaker 1: then James Coby takes and reviews with the then president
Speaker 1: elect in Trump Tower in January. You got it? Whatever
Speaker 1: that means. By the way, uh, you know that that's
Speaker 1: another story the crime of collusion, which, of course, as
Speaker 1: I said, the rural regulation and law on that when
Speaker 1: I'm still trying to figure out I think they're still
Speaker 1: trying to figure that out as well. But having said
Speaker 1: all of that, you you look at the irregularities and
Speaker 1: this investigation and the way it's gone on we have.
Speaker 1: How about the fact that the special Council is appointed
Speaker 1: because James Comey decides to leak a memo of a
Speaker 1: conversation he had with the President of the United States purportedly,
Speaker 1: and he leaks this memo to get a special counsel
Speaker 1: and he says that and it's moren't testimony. Why did
Speaker 1: he think he why did he think it would yield
Speaker 1: a special counsel and independent council? I mean, that's a
Speaker 1: great question. Why would why would the Justice Department certainly
Speaker 1: wasn't conflicted from you can argue whether whether Sessions was,
Speaker 1: but the Justice Department wasn't conflicted. How did he know
Speaker 1: that Rosenstein would use that as the basis for an
Speaker 1: independent council? Did they have a conversation about it? Did
Speaker 1: they talk about it? Um, I don't know. My suspicious
Speaker 1: nature tells me he must have known something that hasn't
Speaker 1: been revealed yet. Well, look, we're getting in information every
Speaker 1: single day. I mean, there's no information coming forward on this.
Speaker 1: I mean literally every single day. I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: it seems like there's a new aspect of this that
Speaker 1: you you can't even believe, and then then it happens.
Speaker 1: I mean, it doesn't even get into the issues of
Speaker 1: the Fieser warr and what that was based upon. And
Speaker 1: as I said, how would you like to be that judge?
Speaker 1: I mean in the Fiser case talk about, you know,
Speaker 1: information that isn't correct purportedly, and that's what we're hearing
Speaker 1: from Congress, of course. And then you and I take
Speaker 1: it another step on this, and I think this is
Speaker 1: important for everybody to understand, is we have a job
Speaker 1: to do, which is to give our client the appropriate advice.
Speaker 1: What do we think he should do in light of
Speaker 1: all of the issues and in light of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: And that is a that is a highest honor that
Speaker 1: any lawyer could have representing a president and defending the Constitution.
Speaker 1: And that's why we have to go through a deliberative process. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we can't just shoot from the hip we've got we
Speaker 1: have to be able to have thought it out. We
Speaker 1: have to also be able to answer his questions. And
Speaker 1: you know, he takes us very seriously. He does have
Speaker 1: a desire to doesn't have a desire to that he's innocent,
Speaker 1: which he is. But he also understands his role as
Speaker 1: president and that he just can't throw aside prerogatives of
Speaker 1: the presidency. Yeah, and this also impacts I mean, let's
Speaker 1: be realistic here, this will impact not just this president.
Speaker 1: The decision we recommend to the president not only impacts
Speaker 1: this president, but it becomes a precedent then for other presidencies. Interesting, Lewis,
Speaker 1: we're doing the analysis and you look at how how
Speaker 1: witnesses have cooperated in this case unprecedented. You look at
Speaker 1: information that's gone over to the Special Council, unprecedented, and
Speaker 1: then you look at what had presidents done, I mean
Speaker 1: sometimes have been written questions. That's still an interview. Uh,
Speaker 1: so that maybe one way this can go. Sometimes it's
Speaker 1: combinations thereof we'll see. I mean, you know, as we're
Speaker 1: not going to and I think this is something we
Speaker 1: need to say. We're not going to disclose what we
Speaker 1: have come back to the Special Council with. I don't
Speaker 1: think we've heard the end of this. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of speculation out there, but we're gonna make the right
Speaker 1: advice to our client. There will be no perjury trip.
Speaker 1: I've said that, You've said down on air, there's no
Speaker 1: perjury trap here. We're not because we're not gonna allow it. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: I mean that's so obviously one of the things they're
Speaker 1: trying to do that. Um, it's it's not easy, but
Speaker 1: we can we can certainly protect against that. And I
Speaker 1: think that's one of the things that I don't want
Speaker 1: I don't want to talk about the matters for trial,
Speaker 1: but I mean I will say this. You know we
Speaker 1: can do it after say a perjury trap and in
Speaker 1: other words, here you've got you've got one witness that
Speaker 1: says this is what happened, and then you've got another
Speaker 1: witnesses that recalls, well, no, that's not how I recall
Speaker 1: it. It It happened this way, and it's does then someone
Speaker 1: right up report and say, well we believe this one,
Speaker 1: we don't believe that one. Thus it's perjury. So this
Speaker 1: is the problem with with just walking anyone in I mean,
Speaker 1: in any case and with no underlying crime. I mean again,
Speaker 1: if Flynn is the example, uh, no crime. If it
Speaker 1: had been said President says, go easy on him, which
Speaker 1: the President says he didn't say. He said, he didn't
Speaker 1: say stop it, don't do it. Uh So no crime. However,
Speaker 1: it didn't take place, according to the President. According to Comey,
Speaker 1: it did. Now worse, if it did, it wouldn't have mattered.
Speaker 1: But then you but you're right. If there's two different
Speaker 1: recollections of a meeting, now do you set set a
Speaker 1: perjury situate? Now we have plenty we have plenty of it
Speaker 1: it happen, We got plenty of information to impeach him with,
Speaker 1: including the fact that he testified on DeRos. By the way,
Speaker 1: when we say impeach him with, we mean impeach the
Speaker 1: impeach the Willy James call me there. I just want
Speaker 1: to I don't want anybody to clip that two seconds.
Speaker 1: You know, I know it's hard to believe that people
Speaker 1: do that. You just NM would never do that, None
Speaker 1: of them would. Nobody will clip just a sentence and
Speaker 1: then remove the other thing. But having said that, no,
Speaker 1: you're right, I mean that's part of the process that
Speaker 1: we're gonna get into. All right, So we're gonna take
Speaker 1: we're having a good time. By the way, you can
Speaker 1: follow Ready Giuliani on Twitter at what's your Twitter handle?
Speaker 1: At Rudy Giuliani. Yeah, and you could. That's not so
Speaker 1: hard and minds at Jay Seculo. So are we sure
Speaker 1: about that? Or do I need to check this out? Right?
Speaker 1: Will you check it out? Gonna check it out while
Speaker 1: I get ready to go to a break. It's at
Speaker 1: J Secular that I could tell you for sure. You
Speaker 1: could also follow our work at the American Center for
Speaker 1: Law and Justice, said a c l J dot Org.
Speaker 1: When we come back from the break, your calls in
Speaker 1: comment there, He's got it right at Rudy Giuliani. Hey,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the John Hannity Show. J Seculo here
Speaker 1: with Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani and Seculo. Let's say that.
Speaker 1: I'll just say that, and we're taking your calls. We're
Speaker 1: gonna go to a call and I need to say
Speaker 1: something though. I had the privilege today to go to
Speaker 1: the Statue of Liberty and go by Ellis Island with
Speaker 1: my grandchildren, and I am the grandson of a Russian
Speaker 1: immigrant to the United States. My grandfather was a group
Speaker 1: peddler in Brooklyn, New York, and his grandson me. I
Speaker 1: get to argue cases at the Supreme Court in the
Speaker 1: United States and represent a president. And I had my
Speaker 1: my my grandson was with me, and I had three
Speaker 1: of my grandchildren, and my I got to tell my grandson,
Speaker 1: I said, now I'm the Paul Paul right now. So
Speaker 1: I said, you know, my Papa, you're great, great. All
Speaker 1: Paul came right through that building at Ellis Island in
Speaker 1: fourteen to come to the greatest country in the world,
Speaker 1: the United States of American, and his eyes lit up.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, it is a great country. And you
Speaker 1: think about those things, and I know you're so. I
Speaker 1: have a very very good friend, Elliott, who came to
Speaker 1: America when he was four or five, escaping the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: and he will tell you he has amnesia. Uh, of course,
Speaker 1: he's only three or four years old about anything before
Speaker 1: the following thing. As he's coming through the Verrazano Narrows,
Speaker 1: the first thing he remembers his seeing a statue of liberty.
Speaker 1: And when he tells you that story, Mariah, right, we
Speaker 1: he uh, he started crying. Yeah, well it's still time today.
Speaker 1: I mean it's sixties, seventy years later, and it started
Speaker 1: crying to I mean, I think about that. When I
Speaker 1: argue cases at the Spreme Court, they start him the
Speaker 1: same way, God Save the United States. The Honorable Court.
Speaker 1: They call a case number, They call a case number,
Speaker 1: and then they say, Mr Secular will now hear from you.
Speaker 1: I make a Mr. Secular, the grandson of the Russian
Speaker 1: You ever haven't dreamed that you forget what to say
Speaker 1: when you get up? I don't and even get you know,
Speaker 1: I don't recall every in my case is actually opening
Speaker 1: up the everybody takes up a notebook. I don't recall
Speaker 1: ever returning to the first page. It just so quick.
Speaker 1: So we're we're co hosting for Sean Hannity. I'm at
Speaker 1: j Seculo on Twitter and Rudy is at Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and you can follow me also on a
Speaker 1: c l J dot org. And we're gonna not take
Speaker 1: a call yet because we're gonna be taking a break
Speaker 1: pretty soon, but we're gonna take calls when we come back,
Speaker 1: So you can call us at eight hundred nine one
Speaker 1: seven three to six. That's eight hundred nine one Sean.
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani, the Mayor of New York, the great Mayor
Speaker 1: of New York, America's mayor, and me just a lawyer
Speaker 1: happens to be. Both of us represent the press of
Speaker 1: the United States. We got a lot to talk about.
Speaker 1: We're looking forward to talking with you. But we'll tell
Speaker 1: you this when I talk about that thing with my
Speaker 1: grandson boy, all those every time. All right, we'll be
Speaker 1: back with your calls in just a moment. You won't
Speaker 1: hear the mainstream press talking about this stuff. Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: is on the radio. Hey, welcome back to The John
Speaker 1: Hannity Show. Ja Seculo and Rudy Giuliani guest co hosting
Speaker 1: for Sean Hannity. We're also taking your phone calls at
Speaker 1: seven three to six. It's one Sean. You can follow
Speaker 1: Rudy Rudy Giuliani at Lien on Twitter at Rudy Giuliani,
Speaker 1: and you could follow me on Twitter at j Seculo
Speaker 1: or at a c l J dot org. We are
Speaker 1: also taking your calls. As I said again, eight hundred six,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and go to dain't Ohio. Peter is
Speaker 1: on the phone. Hi, Peter, Yeah, Hi, Mr. Second call me, Ja,
Speaker 1: don't call me, you don't call me Mr. But I
Speaker 1: go ahead, Hey, I just don't know. And I'm just
Speaker 1: I just continued on the fact that we know criminal
Speaker 1: activity uh and and speaking in regards to Clinton, we
Speaker 1: have proof for that. And why are we not pursuing that?
Speaker 1: Why is not a g sessions pursuing those criminal acts?
Speaker 1: You got a little rain going on there, Pete, Peter
Speaker 1: sounds like either I'm a drummer. You you're either keeping
Speaker 1: a really steady beat, or you're you got or you
Speaker 1: get right or a click or or your you got
Speaker 1: your wipers on? Just one of the two. I suspect
Speaker 1: that your wipers. But anyways, you ask a good question.
Speaker 1: You ask a good question. So what about So supposedly
Speaker 1: there's an investigation mayor going on by the U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office and UTAH that was appointed to look at
Speaker 1: all of those issues related to um UH Secretary Clinton.
Speaker 1: That's supposed to be ongoing, and you wouldn't necessarily know
Speaker 1: what's going on in that investing. You did investigations like that,
Speaker 1: so the public wouldn't know as it's going on. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't. I mean that should be the case. But
Speaker 1: the reality is this is such a public thing. If
Speaker 1: this was a very active investigation, we would know it.
Speaker 1: And it's a source of great frustration that none of
Speaker 1: these things are being pursued with the enthusiasm that they
Speaker 1: should be pursued. All the things that that Greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: was talking about before John Solomon, these are things that
Speaker 1: normally a federal prosecutor jumps on and um here here here,
Speaker 1: they've been investigating for a year and a half, two
Speaker 1: years to find a crime to investigate, and they haven't
Speaker 1: found it yet. And here we have a bunch of
Speaker 1: alleged crimes and they're not investigating the row violating the
Speaker 1: Federal Records Act, violating the Privacy Act, obstructing, obstructing justice, paying,
Speaker 1: paying a foreign national to compile a false dossier on
Speaker 1: on on Donald Trump, uh, putting it in as a
Speaker 1: basis for a fiser wire, knowing that that that issued
Speaker 1: those that's because they think first couple of times they
Speaker 1: couldn't get the Fisher warrant, they could get the I
Speaker 1: think the judge should refer the whole thing for criminal prosecution.
Speaker 1: Maybe that fire under them. One of the things I've wondered,
Speaker 1: you know, as you look through all of this, and
Speaker 1: you look at and and I do think it's important
Speaker 1: to understand the context and the nature of what's taken
Speaker 1: place here. The the investigation from its inception was fraught
Speaker 1: with conflict and corruption. I mean, and and every day
Speaker 1: it's something new. And these are not facts, and let's
Speaker 1: talk about facts that are not in dispute. It is
Speaker 1: not in dispute that Christopher Steele was the primary author
Speaker 1: with with Fusion GPS of the dossier, which James Commy
Speaker 1: said was slicious and unverified. We know that the fact,
Speaker 1: so Christopher Steele. That's a fact. We know that the
Speaker 1: FBI ultimately fired Christopher Steele because he was leaking. Yet
Speaker 1: at the same time, we also know as fact undisputed
Speaker 1: that Bruce Or, the number four the Justice Department at
Speaker 1: the time, wife Nellie Or, worked for Fusion GPS and
Speaker 1: was assigned to work with Christopher Steele on the dossier.
Speaker 1: This is the number four the Justice Department spouse working
Speaker 1: for Christopher with a Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele. Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele gets piled fired because of leaking, which seems to
Speaker 1: be the issue over there, and then you have conversations
Speaker 1: still going on with Bruce or and trying to get
Speaker 1: him back in Bruce Or, by the way, still at
Speaker 1: the United States Department of Justice. Interesting all of this,
Speaker 1: and I even brought up the stock and page situation. Oh,
Speaker 1: this is begging for an investigation, a serious one, a
Speaker 1: grand jury investigation. Also, if Rosenstein is appointing special council,
Speaker 1: independent council uh as he did, basically being manipulated by Comey,
Speaker 1: why the heck not a point one here? Yeah? Why?
Speaker 1: I thought about that too. Yeah, I raised that issue.
Speaker 1: All right, we're taking your calls eight hundred six or
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine f one Seawan. I'm Jay Secular here
Speaker 1: with Rudy Giuliani Julian Inseculo hosting the Shawan Hennedy showed.
Speaker 1: Let's go to Staten Island, Scott, you're on there, Hey, Jay,
Speaker 1: fan of yours? Hello, Mr Mayor, big fan of yours.
Speaker 1: How are you? And I'm a fan of Staaten Island?
Speaker 1: You know that there you go? Oh yeah, well, if
Speaker 1: you trust me, we're a huge fan of yours too.
Speaker 1: What's what's going on? Guys? But I I really I'm
Speaker 1: really concerned. What's going on. You know, you have all
Speaker 1: these ultra left wingers out there, and uh, I just
Speaker 1: got to know that if, if this is over, that
Speaker 1: you guys are really going to drop the hammer on
Speaker 1: some of these people. I mean, Colly, uh, mulla um,
Speaker 1: all these other people you know, and now you have
Speaker 1: Diane Feinstein out there employing a Chinese spy for the
Speaker 1: last twenty years. Uh, you have all these only two decades, right,
Speaker 1: and that's all. I mean, you know, it wasn't that long.
Speaker 1: I mean you also have these people. The way they're
Speaker 1: speaking about the president and his family. I've never heard
Speaker 1: anything like it in my life. And they're telling lies
Speaker 1: and lies and lies. But please tell me that after
Speaker 1: this garbage is done. I mean, obviously you can't tell me.
Speaker 1: Obviously I understand, but people are going to get in
Speaker 1: trouble for this. Well. Look, I mean I have some
Speaker 1: experience with the government officials that have not done appropriate conduct,
Speaker 1: and that was Lois Learner. Uh, and the targeting that
Speaker 1: she engaged in at the I R S. I actually
Speaker 1: represented those conservative groups that challenged the I R S
Speaker 1: on this. Ultimately, Lois Lerner took the fifth amenmetry the
Speaker 1: right to do it rather than testifying, although she took
Speaker 1: it in a kind of an unusual way. Uh. She
Speaker 1: lost her position, did not lose her pension. She was
Speaker 1: not criminally prosecuted, and we as private lawyers, can't initiate,
Speaker 1: We can't bring a criminal case. That's what the government
Speaker 1: UH does in that case, though it did cause reform
Speaker 1: within the Internal Revenue Service, at least within the nonprofit world. Now, Rudy,
Speaker 1: you involved in this because of I'll use the nine
Speaker 1: eleven example. We obviously had gaps and flaws in our
Speaker 1: intelligence gathering. You're part of the team that kind of
Speaker 1: reput it all back together again. So what does happen
Speaker 1: when you look at you got this, you know, fundamental
Speaker 1: problem within an agency here, the FBI, d O J.
Speaker 1: What do you do well? I think if I were
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, I would appoint an independent council and
Speaker 1: I'd appoint the independent Council of the two purposes purpose
Speaker 1: number one to appropriately prosecute the people who violated these
Speaker 1: uh these laws, UH call me. Clearly, UH leaked a
Speaker 1: document that he wasn't supposed to leak, clear violation of
Speaker 1: the law. He committed perjury about whether he was obstructed
Speaker 1: or not he felt he was obstructed. I could go
Speaker 1: on and on. So I'd have those things that I
Speaker 1: destruct thing, the dossier, the paying for it, the lying
Speaker 1: to the court, all that should be investigated. But I'd
Speaker 1: also have the Independent Council do a report on how
Speaker 1: to clean this up so it doesn't happen in the future.
Speaker 1: That's what happened after Watergate. I I joined the Justice
Speaker 1: Department and I was the associate Deputy Attorney General for
Speaker 1: Judge Harold Tyler when he was the deputed ed Levy,
Speaker 1: and we produced a document of how to reform the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. So it included rules like, um, you can't
Speaker 1: communicate with the White House except through the White House
Speaker 1: Council's office. The Just Department just can't call up the
Speaker 1: White House and discuss a criminal case. Uh. We are
Speaker 1: in need of that kind of straightening out of the
Speaker 1: Just Department. Now. You know, you know how frustrated the
Speaker 1: President is but understandably about the state of the Justice.
Speaker 1: What he says, my Justice Department is doing this. My
Speaker 1: Just Department is doing that. It needs thoroughgoing reform the
Speaker 1: way ed Levy reformed it after Watergate, because it was
Speaker 1: completely infected by Obama let's go ahead and take another call,
Speaker 1: and I think let's go to Las Vegas and Larry. Larry,
Speaker 1: go ahead, you're on the Sean Hannity Show. Yes, gentlemen,
Speaker 1: thank you for taking my call. He appreciate it. I'm
Speaker 1: a retired law enforcement officer. I practiced my profession in
Speaker 1: Illinois and Nevada. Very clear, it is very clear to me, sir,
Speaker 1: And I'm very familiar with all the patronage system works,
Speaker 1: and I know the mayor should be very familiar with
Speaker 1: this and running a big city. Obama protected Hillary and
Speaker 1: we know that there's things that even mentioned in Kevin
Speaker 1: Klein's book Guilty as Sin, where Comey was called in.
Speaker 1: So these are all directives given by the past president
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, and everything that's come out um revealed through
Speaker 1: Fox News and other entities and a lot of books,
Speaker 1: is very clear Obama should be charged. The Department of
Speaker 1: Justice is being lack in its responsibility right now to
Speaker 1: which they should be looking and investigating and charging Barack
Speaker 1: Obama would abusive power. Well, I think I don't want
Speaker 1: to jump. I don't think you could. I would, I
Speaker 1: would agree with you. It is crying out for an investigation. Uh.
Speaker 1: There are a couple others where it is clear they
Speaker 1: violated the law. Comy clear, Uh, the dossier clear, the
Speaker 1: people who pay for that dossier, and then the people
Speaker 1: who included it in the Fiser application maybe the worst
Speaker 1: of all. But whether how much did the president know
Speaker 1: and when did he know it? And that's a good question.
Speaker 1: It is worthy of investigation. But I think in fairness
Speaker 1: we yeah, I'm shouldn't jump to a conclusion. Yeah, you know, look,
Speaker 1: I think here's the problem. That's this idea that you know,
Speaker 1: you immediately go to an investigation of of of a
Speaker 1: former president or a president. I think, listen, we're all
Speaker 1: I think that for Rudy and certainly for me and
Speaker 1: Rudy that the fact is we're dealing with one right now. Uh,
Speaker 1: and these things should not be entered into lightly. And
Speaker 1: I think you've got to understand that's part of the
Speaker 1: process that we're going through in dealing with representation of
Speaker 1: the president and why this is, you know, why we're
Speaker 1: in this discussions that we've had with UH, with the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel's Office and continue to have regarding where this ends.
Speaker 1: We want this to be over with soon. We think
Speaker 1: the country deserves it to be over with soon. Our
Speaker 1: position is clear that we do not think there's been
Speaker 1: any violation of any law, rules or regulations. But we
Speaker 1: want to see this end. And this has been unprecedented
Speaker 1: cooperation at the highest levels, and I'm just gonna leave
Speaker 1: it at that. I'm gonna take another call though, because uh,
Speaker 1: someone is calling about a situation that Mayor I think
Speaker 1: really you could address, and that's Amy from Colorado and
Speaker 1: she's concerned about Chicago. Amy. Go ahead, you're on the show. Hi, gentlemen.
Speaker 1: It is to honor to speak to both of you. Um,
Speaker 1: my question is for you, Mr Mayor. I have a
Speaker 1: brother that listen in Chicago. Of course I'm concerned about
Speaker 1: the situation there. Um, you know all the dusts over
Speaker 1: the past week and they just don't seem to have
Speaker 1: their act together. What recommendations do you have to clean
Speaker 1: that citty up? Well, let's let's just remind people they
Speaker 1: were seventy two people shot over last weekend. Seventy two
Speaker 1: people in the weekend of the last weekend. Not a
Speaker 1: single person as if yesterday arrested, which is not unusual.
Speaker 1: They don't clear all but about one out of twenty shootings,
Speaker 1: which is totally impossible to understand, and the mayor. The
Speaker 1: mayor has finding all kinds of excuses other than let's reform.
Speaker 1: Let's reform the situation and handle it. What would you do?
Speaker 1: I would? I would, I would immediately that immediately appoint
Speaker 1: a police commissioner who was going to put in a
Speaker 1: CompStat system that really works, which means measuring crime. It
Speaker 1: was invented. CompStat was invented by me, Bill Bratton, Jack Maple.
Speaker 1: One of the people who clearly knows it well is
Speaker 1: Gary McCarthy who's running for mayor of Chicago. He ran
Speaker 1: the system for us for four or five years. UM,
Speaker 1: I don't want to get involved in the politics that
Speaker 1: it's a computer, computer based system. It very intricate. It
Speaker 1: measures crime every day, and then it pin maps. It
Speaker 1: puts on a map, tells you whether crimes are being committed,
Speaker 1: shows you where your gaps are. And then every day
Speaker 1: you readjust your policing to try to have the police
Speaker 1: in the right place at the right time. And then
Speaker 1: every week you have a step meeting which in which
Speaker 1: you go about through about two or three hours of
Speaker 1: way you did it right, way you did it wrong?
Speaker 1: Who needs resources. What could be? What is? Why would
Speaker 1: they not doing The city of New York has been
Speaker 1: doing that since the first day of crime is down
Speaker 1: seventy to murders down about Chicago? Why are they doing
Speaker 1: about three times the murders of New York? Why not
Speaker 1: do it? Why would they do it? Why would Ram
Speaker 1: Emanuel do it? You have to ask Ram Emanuel. I
Speaker 1: mean he's fiddling while Chicago burns. Uh. Ram Emanuel is
Speaker 1: not a law enforcement guy. He doesn't understand that his
Speaker 1: police department doesn't do a damn thing for him because
Speaker 1: he turns his back on him. Part of this is
Speaker 1: also your police department has to be willing to go
Speaker 1: the extra mile for you. Because you go the extra
Speaker 1: mile for them, you constantly you're constantly blaming them for things.
Speaker 1: You're making them worried about doing their jobs. They're just
Speaker 1: not going to do their jobs. If they're ordinary cop,
Speaker 1: the hero cop will do it anyway? Is it part?
Speaker 1: So it's part a policing issue. Part is a structural issue.
Speaker 1: It's a policing issue, it's a moral issue. It's a
Speaker 1: it's a look the communities want it now. I mean
Speaker 1: he's he's having terrible problems. Plus he made some comment
Speaker 1: on it's only in certain neighborhoods. You've done right, m
Speaker 1: It's in certain neighborhoods, in the poor neighborhoods. It's in
Speaker 1: the black neighborhoods, and they are the people who are
Speaker 1: being slaughtered and you're not doing a damn thing about it.
Speaker 1: All right, we're with the Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani and Seculo
Speaker 1: here subhosting or not subhosting, co hosting, no hosting for sure. Yes,
Speaker 1: we're also gonna take your calls at seven, three to
Speaker 1: six or eight one sewn. Also, I should say if
Speaker 1: you want to follow us, you can do that at
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani, at j Seculo or a c l J
Speaker 1: dot org. You've got a lot more ahead and what
Speaker 1: I consider a very fun day being able to host
Speaker 1: the Shawan Hannity Show. All Right, we'll talk to you
Speaker 1: more in just a moment. Hey, welcome back to the
Speaker 1: Shawan Hannity Showed. Jay Seculo here co hosting with Mayor
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani. We've got a lot more ahead, by the way,
Speaker 1: coming up, but it is great doing this with you. Well,
Speaker 1: I think we've clearly demonstrated and will demonstrate on the
Speaker 1: course of this show that there's a lot of questions
Speaker 1: about this investigation. It surely looks like an illegitimate investigation.
Speaker 1: President United States said this a long time back, that
Speaker 1: it's a witch hunt, and uh, you can describe in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways a hoax like uh, like uh
Speaker 1: Greg's book. But you look at the questions that keep
Speaker 1: flowing out, ye, and there's more information coming out, by
Speaker 1: the way, coming, keep listening, coming up. We've got some
Speaker 1: of my colleagues at the American Center for Law and Justice.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about Turkey, talk about that issue involving
Speaker 1: Pastor Andrew Brunson. We've got a lot more ahead. We're
Speaker 1: having a lot of fun here on the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: We'll be back with more in just a moment. Everybody,
Speaker 1: Welcome back to our two of the Shawan Hannity broadcasts.
Speaker 1: At Jay Seculo. I am sitting in for Sean and
Speaker 1: also joining me today is gonna be my good friend
Speaker 1: Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Just heard from him. You're gonna hear
Speaker 1: from him some more. But I'm gonna's before we get
Speaker 1: back to Mayor Giuliani. And there's a lot of news
Speaker 1: going on, obviously, but there's one thing that, um, I
Speaker 1: have a a steak in, I will say, and that is,
Speaker 1: of course I was taking most of the news these days.
Speaker 1: I was making a joke the other day that, uh,
Speaker 1: sometimes you're making the news, sometimes you're in the news,
Speaker 1: and sometimes you're just talking about the news. I will
Speaker 1: tell you these days, I am doing both or all three.
Speaker 1: I am making the news, talking about the news, and
Speaker 1: have been in the news. Having said that, of course,
Speaker 1: not only my counsel to the President the United States,
Speaker 1: as Mayor Giuliani is, I am also the chief counsel
Speaker 1: for the American Center for Law on Justice And we
Speaker 1: have a case that is in the news fact right now,
Speaker 1: it is a lead story on Drudge and it's a
Speaker 1: case an issue that we've been talking about a lot.
Speaker 1: In fact, Sean has been talking about it as well.
Speaker 1: And that is the case of Andrew Brunson, the American
Speaker 1: Christian pastor. He's been in Turkey for twenty three years.
Speaker 1: He was picked up after the coup in Turkey two
Speaker 1: years ago and was put in jail. Uh. The charge
Speaker 1: against him was christianization. That is actually in the mint.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about that because the lead right now
Speaker 1: on Drudge Report, and this is true, is Turkey's economy
Speaker 1: on the brink. This could be the most expensive pastor
Speaker 1: in world history, the billion dollar pastor in one sense.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's hard to believe that Turkey is letting
Speaker 1: itself get to this point. This supposed to be a
Speaker 1: NATO ally after all, the get to this point because
Speaker 1: they're so entrenched on keeping this pastor in Turkey. Now,
Speaker 1: I will say that some good news and that has
Speaker 1: been released to home confinement, so that certainly is better
Speaker 1: than being in a Turkish jail. I am bringing in
Speaker 1: some of our experts at the American Center for Law
Speaker 1: and Justice to address this issue. Jordan Seculo is our
Speaker 1: executive director. It's also my son. Andy Economy is a
Speaker 1: senior counsel for the a c l J, and it's
Speaker 1: very involved in the issues involving the Middle East and Turkey.
Speaker 1: Harry Hutchinson is our director of Public Policy. Jordan, let's
Speaker 1: go to the latest to start with you here. From
Speaker 1: the standpoint of the pastors, incarceration will get into the
Speaker 1: economy and Turkey being impacted about this, But why don't
Speaker 1: you give everybody the latest report on where the case is,
Speaker 1: because it changes literally on a daily basis. Right now,
Speaker 1: he's on house arrest. Yes, that's a much better situation
Speaker 1: you you would to be in as an individual. You know,
Speaker 1: we've had these situations where people are coming right out
Speaker 1: of that prison environment back to reality and and outside
Speaker 1: of it that that can be tougher. So he's remember
Speaker 1: this is his home, long term home there. So while
Speaker 1: he's confined, uh and so under house arrest, this is
Speaker 1: a familiar place. That being said, it's still confined. So
Speaker 1: he's still being detained by a NATO ally and and
Speaker 1: and by Turkey by the government. In this situation, the
Speaker 1: case has not been dropped. The the the the the
Speaker 1: moved and and I'd say that every day he's there.
Speaker 1: Now the Turkish media which is in these reports about
Speaker 1: the economy, it's NonStop. We're not so used to it here.
Speaker 1: It's become in the in the news more and more
Speaker 1: so people are getting more familiar with Andrew Brunson's name.
Speaker 1: But for two years he has been battered around the
Speaker 1: Turkish press to the point where it is not safe
Speaker 1: for him to be on the streets. Anymore. It's someone
Speaker 1: who lived there for twenty three years. That is the
Speaker 1: situation he is in. So every moment he has to
Speaker 1: stay in Turkey, even with the security he's got is dangerous.
Speaker 1: We's got eighteen Turkish security guards around his house right now,
Speaker 1: I mean eighteen. I mean, just think about that, protecting
Speaker 1: him from an environment that the Turkish government Urtawan created.
Speaker 1: Now again, I'm gonna go to Andy Economo, who is
Speaker 1: the senior council has been very involved in this case. Andy,
Speaker 1: you you speak a lot of languages. You were able
Speaker 1: to translate the Turkish. This pastor the charge against him
Speaker 1: is actually, I mean, folks, this is the reality of
Speaker 1: what you're dealing with. Everybody. Of course, when they get
Speaker 1: arrested in these situations, there a spy, it's espionage, their
Speaker 1: a c I agent. That's the allegations. But in this one,
Speaker 1: in addition to making you know what the basis upon
Speaker 1: that was, it's called christianization, Andy, that is the actual
Speaker 1: charge in the indictment. Yes, that's exactly correct, Jay. What
Speaker 1: they're charging this pastor with is a Christianization of the
Speaker 1: Turkish Republic, or the attempt to christianize the Turkish people.
Speaker 1: And this is under ridiculous charge. It is no crime.
Speaker 1: The Turkish constitution provides, at least publicly and for purposes
Speaker 1: of popular consumption, uh, freedom of religion and worship. But
Speaker 1: that's not the case for the for the minorities in Turkey.
Speaker 1: I'm Greek. I can tell you it's not the case
Speaker 1: for the Greek minorities in Turkey, and say especially for
Speaker 1: the beleaguer to commenical patriarch in Constantinople and Estanbul. That
Speaker 1: is not the case. And so what Pastor Brunson is
Speaker 1: being charged with is something that is not a crime,
Speaker 1: but has been concocted by the Urduan regime everyone being
Speaker 1: basically a dictator and today in Turkey, and he is
Speaker 1: being charged with Christianization. A horrible thing to be charged
Speaker 1: with something that uh, that is not as I said,
Speaker 1: and a penal offense in Turkey. Let me go to
Speaker 1: Harry Hutchinson east Or, director of policy at the American
Speaker 1: Centerfore and just again, this is Jason Lama in Port
Speaker 1: my great friend Sean Hennedy. They give him a day off,
Speaker 1: Linda gave him a day off. You do that often
Speaker 1: only when I absolutely have to see there you go,
Speaker 1: you know what I did, j to a wedding there,
Speaker 1: you go. Well, that's a good thing to be going to.
Speaker 1: It's good to have celebrations. So I'm glad, glad he's
Speaker 1: having a good family time at a at a wedding.
Speaker 1: That's great, and I'm glad that I'm here also with
Speaker 1: my colleague Rudy Giuliani. We're gonna get back into some
Speaker 1: of those news items, but I wanted to really cover
Speaker 1: this because, look, this is a case where this is
Speaker 1: an American being held captain. The President has been very
Speaker 1: aggressive about requesting and demanding I would say, did requestings
Speaker 1: not the right? We're demanding this pastor's release, and he
Speaker 1: has put sanctions in place because of the way the
Speaker 1: Turkish government is acting. Harry Hutchinson is our director of
Speaker 1: Policy at the a c l J is also professor
Speaker 1: of Law and Economics, and uh, Harry, it is fair
Speaker 1: to say, Professor Hutchinson, that the sanctions that the President
Speaker 1: has put in place here are having a dramatic impact
Speaker 1: on the Turkish economy. In fact, on the Drudge Report,
Speaker 1: it says Turkey on an economic brink, Jay, you are
Speaker 1: absolutely correct, Turkey is edging closer and close served to
Speaker 1: a full blown financial meltdown. As President Trump has authorized
Speaker 1: a doubling of some tariffs on Turkish products. The Turkish
Speaker 1: currency plunged by seventeen percent today, reaching another record low
Speaker 1: as stocks slid by as much as nine percent. Turkey
Speaker 1: is gripped by an economic contagion. In part this is
Speaker 1: fueled by inflation and foreign debt. Most investment analysts are
Speaker 1: urging their clients to pull their assets out of Turkey
Speaker 1: immediately as Turkey faces runaway inflation and unrestrained foreign debt.
Speaker 1: As the Turkish lira continues to fall in value, the
Speaker 1: value of foreign denominated debt rises, placing even more pressure
Speaker 1: on the Turkish government. You look at the situation and
Speaker 1: you try to say to yourself, why in the world
Speaker 1: with Turkey suffer that they're put themselves in this kind
Speaker 1: of situation to economics offering that they're going for over
Speaker 1: this and I'm gonna go right back to Jordan's secure
Speaker 1: and this. You look at the situation, as Harry just said,
Speaker 1: I mean, they're doing this for what for a pastor
Speaker 1: to be kept in jail for a false charge. What
Speaker 1: we're saying is Turkish strong man who is not acting
Speaker 1: rationally more. And we've talked about how he has braced
Speaker 1: embraced Islamic politics and so so blending those two and
Speaker 1: kind of towed this line between somewhat radical but still
Speaker 1: isis is an enemy. But then what's his statement on
Speaker 1: this ultimately about the fall of the economy is not
Speaker 1: economic or financial. It's invoking religion. So he says, quote,
Speaker 1: if they have their dollars, we have our people and
Speaker 1: our God. And I point out two things. One in
Speaker 1: in our country, Uh, we we have our national motto.
Speaker 1: Uh in God, we trust in our pledge of allegiance.
Speaker 1: We have one nation under God. So I don't think
Speaker 1: you know that these statements alone, but we know what
Speaker 1: he's really saying there in Turkey. He is invoking a
Speaker 1: new kind of politics in Turkey. He's been doing it
Speaker 1: over years and now even when it comes to finances,
Speaker 1: which ultimately these strong men are usually that's their concerned.
Speaker 1: But we've also talked about the idea that the new
Speaker 1: allies he's tried to make are never very good allies.
Speaker 1: The Russians, Uh, they tried to work with Iran, they
Speaker 1: don't they don't bail you out if if they've got
Speaker 1: nothing to return. You know, in Syria, the Russians have
Speaker 1: a warm water base. As long as they can keep that, Uh,
Speaker 1: that's worthwhile for them to keep fighting in Turkey. If
Speaker 1: the economy starts falling apart, then they're gonna come in
Speaker 1: and save an urdwan who's still by the way, government
Speaker 1: is is a member of NATO, which the Russians can't stand. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's is the irony of all of this, of course,
Speaker 1: is that the Turks and the Russians have an ongoing feud.
Speaker 1: They're a NATO ally of the United States, within the
Speaker 1: NATO Partnership, and they're certainly not acting like it. It's
Speaker 1: become an Islamic regime. That's what it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's where it's gone. Unfortunately, this is not the Turkey
Speaker 1: and the economy of at A Turk. No, this is
Speaker 1: not the Turkey of Ada turk j. These men are
Speaker 1: simply Islamius, wearing suits, coats and ties. The additor wore
Speaker 1: a suit code in a time, but he tried to
Speaker 1: bring Turkey into the West and into the then twentieth century.
Speaker 1: So um, everyone needs to wake up. He needs to
Speaker 1: realize that he may have God. Um but it's a
Speaker 1: good idea to get a local financial advisor too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's the guy that we're used to,
Speaker 1: and he certainly could use a financial advisor. So Harry,
Speaker 1: let me ask you this, your professor of law and economics.
Speaker 1: What in the why would they put themselves in this
Speaker 1: situation over this pastor? Well, I think for political, ideological,
Speaker 1: and religious reasons. A president Urduwan suffers, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: from illusions of grandeur. But President Trump is responding with
Speaker 1: maximum pressure, maximum economic pressure. Urduwan has responded with defiance. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: his country and its people are suffering massively. This will lead,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, ultimately to a climb down by the
Speaker 1: Turkish leader. I think you're right, Jordan, really quickly here
Speaker 1: as we get ready to go to a break in
Speaker 1: a minute, unless it's important. We've handled these cases before
Speaker 1: war with the Sudanese. We've handled him with the Iranians.
Speaker 1: You would have never thought that Turkey would be this difficult,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean President Urawad built himself palaces. Uh. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, while the economy was on an upswing, you
Speaker 1: would think that's what he actually cared about. I mean honestly,
Speaker 1: I mean that the strong man kind of leader would
Speaker 1: be more important to protect his palace. At this point, though,
Speaker 1: you see, he's embracing a radical uh Islamic message. We
Speaker 1: kept at kind of We've kept discussing this. How far
Speaker 1: is he gonna go with this, this angle of using
Speaker 1: Islam up to his political purposes. But I'll tell you
Speaker 1: someone's been there in Turkey. I don't think that sells
Speaker 1: to to enough people there to keep him in power.
Speaker 1: And these guys, as we can see, they may have
Speaker 1: a lot of power. They may pull out these coups,
Speaker 1: these phony coups, whatever's happening there, But ultimately, if the
Speaker 1: economy falls away, it's falling and it continues to fall.
Speaker 1: And with President Trump's announcement today on the tariffs, Uh,
Speaker 1: they don't survive and I mean literally, they do not
Speaker 1: survive these kind of situations. They either end up in
Speaker 1: prison like Mohammed Morsey in Egypt or or worse. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and let me tell you this, folks. I spoke with
Speaker 1: the President as recently as yesterday on Pastor Brunson's case,
Speaker 1: and Uh, the President is serious. They're gonna return Andrew Brunson.
Speaker 1: That's what needs to happen here. It has to happen here,
Speaker 1: so we'll get more involved and that will keep you posting.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I want to thank Sewan because
Speaker 1: he's been covering this case for Pastor Brunson's hard to
Speaker 1: break into the news on these kind of cases when
Speaker 1: everything else is going on, but the folks here at
Speaker 1: Shahn Handy's Broadcast have done that. We appreciate it. Hey,
Speaker 1: we're taking a break. When we come back, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have more with my friend Rudy Giuliani. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about some of the other big news of the day.
Speaker 1: There's other news in the day today. By the way,
Speaker 1: in case you're new to this and anyways, I'm Jay
Speaker 1: Sekulo and chief counselor of the American Center for Lawn
Speaker 1: Justin also one of the president's lawyers, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be taking calls also with Rudy Giuliani. By the way,
Speaker 1: if you want to talk to us, it's eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine four one seven three to six. That's one nine
Speaker 1: one seven three to six or eight hundred nine four
Speaker 1: one Sean, that's a pretty easy way to do it.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you this, We're gonna come back with
Speaker 1: a lot more. So stay tuned. We'll be back with
Speaker 1: more in just a moment. Welcome back to the John
Speaker 1: Hannity's John Jay Sekulo. I'm getting to be the host
Speaker 1: today with my friend Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But we're talking
Speaker 1: about a major case that we're involved in at the
Speaker 1: American Center for Law and Justice, involving Pastor Andrew Brunson.
Speaker 1: We've got in our studio, as I say our, because
Speaker 1: I have a broadcast to that airs and that is
Speaker 1: Jordan Secular, the executive director of the American Center for
Speaker 1: Law and Justice, Professor Harry Hutchinson and professor of Law
Speaker 1: and Economics, and our director of Policy and senior counsel
Speaker 1: to the a c l J. And that is Dr
Speaker 1: Andrew Economa. Let me go right to Jordan. Here. We're
Speaker 1: talking about Pastor Andrew Brunson on home arrest right now,
Speaker 1: which is better than jail, but not quite home yet.
Speaker 1: I want to get I'm gonna ask one question. I
Speaker 1: want everybody to give me your thoughts. I'm gonna start
Speaker 1: with Jordan's what do you with the economic pressure on
Speaker 1: Turkey now, what do you expect to happen. Well, we
Speaker 1: know that Turkey is tying directly President Trump's tweet, which
Speaker 1: he did not do it in the in the tweet
Speaker 1: announcing the tariffs, but they are in the media and
Speaker 1: and through the government directly to Pastor Andrew Bruns, as
Speaker 1: you said earlier, the most expensive pastor in history, to
Speaker 1: an economy falling apart. And is that going to again
Speaker 1: make it with the people of Turkey. They're not that
Speaker 1: radicalized overall, and I think that they may have been
Speaker 1: okay with a strong man talking Turkish nationalism, but his
Speaker 1: full embrace of almost Islamic, this kind of modern Islamic radicalism,
Speaker 1: I would call it, is not I just doesn't sell
Speaker 1: to the people. And I think he's on the brink.
Speaker 1: He's the one on the brink of of real disaster
Speaker 1: for himself. Let me ask this to you, uh Andy,
Speaker 1: your sinse. You've been to Turkey a lot, you know
Speaker 1: the region, you know the area. What do you think
Speaker 1: the next thing is here? I think Arionan is gonna
Speaker 1: have to climb down. I mean I've been to Istanbul
Speaker 1: several times. It's a western city, essentially a city of
Speaker 1: seventeen million people. The interior of Turkey is very different
Speaker 1: ancient Capadocia and medieval Cavadosia, the heart of the old
Speaker 1: Byzantine Empire is different. But the reality is that people
Speaker 1: are hungry both in Istanbul and people are hungry in
Speaker 1: the middle part of Turkey, which means that they're not
Speaker 1: going to tolerate the inflation, They're not going to tolerate
Speaker 1: the economic hardships in there. To On's gonna have to
Speaker 1: climb down, but you're gonna have to give him some
Speaker 1: face saving device. So Harry, from an economic standpoint that
Speaker 1: the impact on the lyra, the impact on the economy
Speaker 1: already has been significant. What do you think happens next? Well,
Speaker 1: I think, Jay, you're absolutely correct. The economy is cratering,
Speaker 1: the lera is plunging, investors are fleeing, and sanctions and
Speaker 1: tariffs are working. So I think there will indeed be
Speaker 1: a climb down by the Turkish president despite his current defiance. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: he will have to answer to his people, and his
Speaker 1: people are hurting immensely. I think that's the reality. I
Speaker 1: appreciate everybody's opinions on that. Let me again say a
Speaker 1: huge thank you to Sean and the whole team here
Speaker 1: at the Sean Hannity Show for covering this story. And
Speaker 1: I think, look, I think we're gonna get this pastor
Speaker 1: home to the United States very very soon. I can't
Speaker 1: give you, and I'm not good at predicting dates, especially
Speaker 1: in these kind of cases. You can because there's so
Speaker 1: many ups and downs. But I still think with all
Speaker 1: this going on, at the end of the day, we're
Speaker 1: gonna get there. We're just gonna take it. May take
Speaker 1: a week and may take a month, we're gonna get there. Anyways,
Speaker 1: We've got a lot more to discuss. We'll be taking
Speaker 1: calls as well. That's eight. Sean, my co host, will
Speaker 1: be back with me in just moments that as Mayor
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani, who's also my co counsel representing the President
Speaker 1: of the United States. We have some news we'll talk
Speaker 1: about there. You may have heard some things, a couple
Speaker 1: of things, just a few things, so we'll get to
Speaker 1: those when we come back from the break. Stay tuned.
Speaker 1: That not your heart beat Trouble joined Shawn's Army on Twitter,
Speaker 1: where we get back to conservative values. Hey, welcome back
Speaker 1: to the Sean Hannity Program. Everybody. I'm Jay Sekulo, co
Speaker 1: hosting with my good friend, the former mayor of the
Speaker 1: Great City of New York, Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But for
Speaker 1: today's purposes, more importantly, I will say former U. S Attorney,
Speaker 1: former senior member of the Nited States Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: and my colleague and co council in a fairly important case,
Speaker 1: a very important case that's going on right now, and
Speaker 1: he is our co host today and we're both co
Speaker 1: hosting for sean Mayor. I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about uh an issue that you and I are dealing with,
Speaker 1: and will start this and let you uh pontificate some here,
Speaker 1: but you're saying that's important. We have you and I've
Speaker 1: handled a lot of media over the last couple of
Speaker 1: days on the issue of what everybody wants to talk about.
Speaker 1: And by the way, if you want to talk about it,
Speaker 1: you can call us at eight one, seven, three to
Speaker 1: six or eight nine one, Shawn. And that is the
Speaker 1: issue of a presidential interview, and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: issues that go into that, Rudy, A lot of discussion
Speaker 1: that takes place, but a lot of legal analysis. Let's
Speaker 1: kind of get everybody up to speed on where we are.
Speaker 1: So there are two things they have to deal with,
Speaker 1: as you know J because we deal with it every day.
Speaker 1: One is just the normal representation of a person who
Speaker 1: is in some way under investigation, although they're very fudgy
Speaker 1: about what it's about. So far, no crime suggested Uh.
Speaker 1: And he has rights and they have to be protected. Second,
Speaker 1: he's the president of United States, so he has prerogatives
Speaker 1: that have to be protected, not just for him but
Speaker 1: the future presidents. So it's very, very complicated. And we
Speaker 1: also have a client who wants to be heard. He
Speaker 1: he has felt from the very beginning, and he's right,
Speaker 1: he's done nothing wrong, that he should be able to
Speaker 1: tell his story and they should believe him. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, he also knows that he doesn't exactly have
Speaker 1: an unbiased group of people. They have problem indicated to
Speaker 1: us even in our discussions, a preference for Comey, a
Speaker 1: preference for some of these other people. The whole root
Speaker 1: of the investigation is corrupt. The going back to the
Speaker 1: dossier and Uh struck people who hate him, counterintelligence investigation
Speaker 1: that I can't figure out how they ever did it,
Speaker 1: fies and wires that somebody should get prosecutors for perjury
Speaker 1: and getting them Uh, all that chaints the investigation. So
Speaker 1: we have a lot to consider. You know, I said
Speaker 1: from the outset that the the corruption started this investigation. Actually,
Speaker 1: if you look at the the the just the beginning
Speaker 1: of the investigation, the inception of the investigation, the corruption
Speaker 1: ran very deep. And then it continue to permeate. And
Speaker 1: if you start just go through the what I call
Speaker 1: the parade to horribles. I mean, just look at the issues.
Speaker 1: This is why we you know, you and I keep
Speaker 1: calling this an irregular investigation. Well, and that's being kind.
Speaker 1: Actually that's that's me. That's being courteous, because look at
Speaker 1: the irregularity. It starts with the dossier that even James
Speaker 1: Comb he admits is silicious and unverified. We now find
Speaker 1: out that the the author of AT was Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: who just happened to be hired by Fusion GPS, who
Speaker 1: happened to be hired by the Clinton campaign, who was
Speaker 1: working with Bruce or the number four the United States
Speaker 1: Department of Justice wife Nelly or she was working for
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS and just happened to be working on the
Speaker 1: putting together the dossier. Now, okay, you could not make
Speaker 1: that up, except then it gets better, and that is
Speaker 1: you have the lead investigator and the conversations he had
Speaker 1: with Lisa Page, and you got the whole Strock Page incident.
Speaker 1: Then you got the insurance policy with Andy McKay. We
Speaker 1: must get it. What's the insurance policy? Now? A lot
Speaker 1: of the people that that were the FBI are now
Speaker 1: gone that we're involved in this. But the truth is
Speaker 1: that Peter Struck, the agent Rudy, was the lead investigator
Speaker 1: for the Special Counsel's office. And I keep talking about
Speaker 1: what happened to that evidence that they gathered even though
Speaker 1: he was you know, they'll say, well, he was subsequently fired. True,
Speaker 1: but what happened to that evidence that he gathered during
Speaker 1: that year and a half he was on the investigation
Speaker 1: because he predates the actual Mueler appointment. And we talked
Speaker 1: about in the law the proof of the poisonous treatment.
Speaker 1: It's serious when you you can't even the irregularities here
Speaker 1: are so in depth it's it's really hard to put
Speaker 1: your head around it. I would describe this as an
Speaker 1: investigation born in corruption. It's a corrupt dossier that is
Speaker 1: crying out for real investigation. If you're talking about collusion
Speaker 1: to effect an investigation paying a foreigner as Hillary did,
Speaker 1: to produce a false dossier on Donald Trump. It's so
Speaker 1: far the biggest crime that's been committed with regard to
Speaker 1: the election that is provable. And then that dossier is
Speaker 1: used as the basis for the wire taps, that fis
Speaker 1: the wires, and then when they know it's false, they
Speaker 1: don't correct it. They go back to the judge and
Speaker 1: they keep repeating it. Now, some judge has got to
Speaker 1: be going out of his mind, even worse than Judge Ellis,
Speaker 1: because that judge was made of and the five process
Speaker 1: was completely made a mockery of by this false UH dossier.
Speaker 1: So it spawns an investigation. The investigation produces no evidence
Speaker 1: of anything involving President Trump and Russians, and somehow Comey
Speaker 1: comes along and makes it into a criminal investigation. And
Speaker 1: now we know that the criminal investigation itself. Of course,
Speaker 1: we also have to put in there that James Comey
Speaker 1: said that he created this memo after his meeting with
Speaker 1: the president, leaked it to the press for the sole
Speaker 1: appointment of getting a special counsel, which was miraculously appointed.
Speaker 1: Now could you imagine, and you were a U S
Speaker 1: attorney Rudy, and you were also a high ranking Justice
Speaker 1: Department official. I worked for Treasury and beginning my legal career.
Speaker 1: Could you imagine if an I R. S Agent or
Speaker 1: an FBI agent were to release their three O two
Speaker 1: form to the press. What would happen to those agents,
Speaker 1: those who have been indicted and prosecuted and convicted. It's
Speaker 1: a a crime to do it. And uh, in this
Speaker 1: particular case, it wasn't accidental. This was a planned, completely
Speaker 1: thought out, corrupt scheme on the part of Comey. So
Speaker 1: it didn't come from him. It came from this professor.
Speaker 1: I mean, imagine the skullduggery of this man. He and
Speaker 1: then he wants us to believe that the memo is
Speaker 1: accurate about the Flynn conversation. He he wants us to
Speaker 1: believe that at the time of the Flynn conversation he
Speaker 1: felt that he was being obstructed. However, he never told
Speaker 1: anybody about it. He never reported it. If he didn't report,
Speaker 1: it's to misprison of a felony, because as an FBI director,
Speaker 1: he had to report it. He then he testifies under
Speaker 1: oath after it and before he releases the memo that
Speaker 1: he had not been obstructed in any way, you can
Speaker 1: have Jared on later, Greg Jared, he says, it's not
Speaker 1: happened in my experience under oath. Right, he's now contradicting.
Speaker 1: In other words, he can lied under oath. So they
Speaker 1: want this guy to be the arbiter of truth and
Speaker 1: they're not investigating him for his crimes. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is really corrupt. Supposedly there's an office. Yeah, well, there's
Speaker 1: the Inspector General's report that is supposedly coming involving James Comy.
Speaker 1: We haven't seen it yet. Then I'm hearing and you're
Speaker 1: hearing the same things we're hearing. But September October, so
Speaker 1: that may come out and we'll see. The last one
Speaker 1: was pretty tough on Andrew McCabe. Interestingly, he's no longer
Speaker 1: with the Department of Justice. James Comy is no longer
Speaker 1: with the Department of Justice. Ribicky's no longer with the department. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean you get that. There's been quite a lit
Speaker 1: at least a page all gone. Yeah. Comey wants us
Speaker 1: to believe that Trump had this conversation with him about Flynt,
Speaker 1: that he felt that there was an obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: a serious federal felony. But he never reported it, never
Speaker 1: told McCabe about it, because McCabe also testified that there
Speaker 1: was no obstruction as he did, and that he testified
Speaker 1: falsely under oath. I mean, he can't he can't be
Speaker 1: obstructed three months later. He can't remember the conversation three
Speaker 1: months later and say, oh my god, he tried to
Speaker 1: obstruct me. I mean, this is so phony. If it
Speaker 1: weren't for the fact that the president has these CNN
Speaker 1: and MSNBC and all these people that are just dying
Speaker 1: to interpret everything against him, people would be demanding an
Speaker 1: investigation to call me. You know, it's interesting because if
Speaker 1: you look at the sing i' we're gonna talk with
Speaker 1: you mentioned Greg Jared, our friend Greg Jared. It's got
Speaker 1: a great book out by the way, the Russian Hoax,
Speaker 1: and everybody needs to be reading this a great, great book.
Speaker 1: I'm underlining it. I bet you are, and I got
Speaker 1: an early copy so we all have. Uh, let me
Speaker 1: say that we're gonna get into that with Greg. I
Speaker 1: want to talk about a lot of that because it's important.
Speaker 1: But you know, people need to understand also that we
Speaker 1: are trying to handle and you understand this. You you've
Speaker 1: got competing interests when when you talk about an interview,
Speaker 1: so that the question today is the interview of the president.
Speaker 1: Will the president s admit to an interview? And I
Speaker 1: want to be very clear in this. We have raised
Speaker 1: and have have raised this really since the beginning of
Speaker 1: my representation, which is going back over a year now,
Speaker 1: that there are significant Article two issues, I mean really
Speaker 1: significant Article two issues. Do you think a U. S. Attorney,
Speaker 1: for instance, should be able to subpoena a president of
Speaker 1: the United States to discuss the reason why he made
Speaker 1: a policy move or a decision to fire a subordinate
Speaker 1: I don't. If that's the case, well then why couldn't
Speaker 1: every U. S. Attorney in every district who has a
Speaker 1: beef with a particular president started issuing subpoenas and that
Speaker 1: the president, instead of running the government, ends up responding
Speaker 1: to subpoena's. That's not the way it's supposed to be.
Speaker 1: Our founders knew that, and that's why they have political
Speaker 1: process in there. It's not a legal process. They're not
Speaker 1: gonna be a trial here, but people have to understand
Speaker 1: that we have to go through a real process of
Speaker 1: analysis in coming to these conclusions. Rudy about whether what
Speaker 1: our recommendation is we regarding an interview. Obviously, when the
Speaker 1: Special Council sent us the last proposal, obviously we didn't
Speaker 1: accept it. So we counter. We're not going to get
Speaker 1: into the contents of that counter that would be appropriate.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of factors that go into this.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of factors go into it, and
Speaker 1: not the least of which is you have to evaluate
Speaker 1: the good faith of the people who are seeking to
Speaker 1: question him. Do you really have a chance of persuading them,
Speaker 1: or have they made up their minds already and they're
Speaker 1: just trying to set him up. A great example we
Speaker 1: talked about flynn Is Flynt, the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: says he never had that conversation with Comey. Comey says
Speaker 1: that he did. You know, both of us would be
Speaker 1: perfectly comfortable if he had had the conversation, right, He
Speaker 1: said nothing wrong. He didn't say you must drop the case,
Speaker 1: which you could do. He said you should think about it,
Speaker 1: you should give him a break, which many people have
Speaker 1: said to me when I was a prosecutor. We know
Speaker 1: Comy didn't think of it as obstruction because he would
Speaker 1: have reported it. So we have a very good defense
Speaker 1: on the facts. But the fact is the president insists
Speaker 1: I never had that conversation. So now we put him,
Speaker 1: We put him in front of we put him in
Speaker 1: front of Mueller. Mueller asked him that question. He says, no,
Speaker 1: I didn't have the conversation, and then they say, oh,
Speaker 1: we believe the liar Comey now here. Here we're almost
Speaker 1: in a disadvantage because there's no trial. They'd never charge
Speaker 1: him in an indictment with it because Comey couldn't withstand
Speaker 1: cross examination. He gave a private prior statement under oath
Speaker 1: contrary to that. All Right, we're gonna be back with
Speaker 1: a lot more. I'm j Sekulo in with Rudy Giuliani.
Speaker 1: We are hosting for Sean Hannity. He's taking a break
Speaker 1: for one day. They gave him a day off, Linda
Speaker 1: gave him a day. Yeah, we're gonna take calls also
Speaker 1: an eight one, seven, three to six. That's eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine for one Sean. And there is a lot to
Speaker 1: talk about, as we discussed, not just the issues of
Speaker 1: what's facing the country and the president. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: a little bit when we come back about some strategy.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's important to deal with strategy, and let me
Speaker 1: tell you something. The Mayor and I are doing a
Speaker 1: lot of strategizing, a lot of strategicy no president bushes.
Speaker 1: It's like on another president because look, I mean again,
Speaker 1: as we've been talking to you, there's a lot to
Speaker 1: that lot goes into a decision about allowing a president
Speaker 1: to be interviewed. And we're gonna talk more about that,
Speaker 1: and we'll get to a lot of your questions and
Speaker 1: comments as well. We joined by a lot of great guests,
Speaker 1: great book by Greg Jarrett. We'll be back with more
Speaker 1: on the Sean Hannity Show in just a moment. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the Johan Hannity Jean Jay said Kilo, chief
Speaker 1: Council of the American Center for Lawn Justice, Council for
Speaker 1: the President of the United States with me. Co hosting
Speaker 1: is Mayor Rudy Giuliani. More important, former U S Attorney
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani and senior Justice Department official. There's something that
Speaker 1: we've got a lot more, but there's something we want
Speaker 1: to get to and I think it's important for people
Speaker 1: to understand this as the decisions are made on interviews
Speaker 1: or not. We've we've told you what our inclination is
Speaker 1: and that is you know, we don't think they've met
Speaker 1: that at this point the threshold at all. And I
Speaker 1: think constitutionally they don't have the right to interview in
Speaker 1: the first place. There are a lot of other factors
Speaker 1: that go into this, but there's something that we do
Speaker 1: need to get very clear. Rudy. I think what we
Speaker 1: have to get clear as the fact that a lot
Speaker 1: of people interpret it this way. Well, if he's telling
Speaker 1: the truth, why wouldn't he just go in and testify, Hey,
Speaker 1: welcome to the real world. The fact is he is
Speaker 1: telling the truth. He has done nothing wrong. All these
Speaker 1: months and months, all these people going after him, they
Speaker 1: haven't suggested one thing he did wrong, not a single thing,
Speaker 1: no crime, no unethical conduct. The reason we have to
Speaker 1: worry about it is one we're giving away prerogatives of
Speaker 1: the president and the president and the and the president
Speaker 1: and his and his own counsel. Has to be heard
Speaker 1: on that second. They were walking him into a possible
Speaker 1: perjury trap, not because he isn't telling the truth, but
Speaker 1: because somebody else isn't telling the truth who they would credit,
Speaker 1: namely Comy. So if he says I never had the
Speaker 1: conversation with Flynn, and they elect to believe Comey, they
Speaker 1: can write down, we believe he committed perjury. And now
Speaker 1: we have walked him into that, even though it's one
Speaker 1: person's working against another person's worring and one's got a
Speaker 1: memo and one said that didn't happen. Here's the here's
Speaker 1: the problem with all Let's be just one. Here's the
Speaker 1: problem with all this. Why would you do this, Why
Speaker 1: would you submit any client, let alone the President of
Speaker 1: the United States to this kind of situation. But when
Speaker 1: you add to it the presidency of the United States,
Speaker 1: And it's not just, by the way, about this president,
Speaker 1: it's about future presidents. Because what we design, what we
Speaker 1: recommend to President Trump impacts future presidents. And that's and
Speaker 1: that's where the Article two in the Constitution are so
Speaker 1: critical here. And I don't think we can ignore that
Speaker 1: for one single moment. I think we do that at
Speaker 1: our own peril. I think that's right and and and
Speaker 1: if if we have to contest it and fight it,
Speaker 1: h we have a good chance of winning it and
Speaker 1: vindicating the presidency. The reality is, I will say this
Speaker 1: over and over again, if this would just simply can
Speaker 1: he go in and tell the truth. Of course he can.
Speaker 1: He's got nothing to hide. We have stipulated with them.
Speaker 1: We are willing to stipulate with him what he's gonna say.
Speaker 1: They know what he's gonna say. Well, we produced millions
Speaker 1: of pages of documents, thirty two wits and it's been
Speaker 1: it's been the most transparent inquiry of this type when
Speaker 1: involving the office of the presidency in history. No one's
Speaker 1: done it like this. Having said that, there are also
Speaker 1: the threshold constitutional standards that have not been met in
Speaker 1: our view at this point, and that certainly raised not
Speaker 1: only serious legal arguments, but I think puts the onus,
Speaker 1: not on us quite frankly. Uh. And I don't believe
Speaker 1: a court. I hope we don't have to go that route.
Speaker 1: We might not have to if we do, we do. Uh.
Speaker 1: I don't think the Supreme Court of the United States
Speaker 1: would say the president being compelled to testify it with
Speaker 1: regard to actions he took within his constitutional authority. That
Speaker 1: would set a horrible president back in mort a moment. Hey,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the broadcast everyone, Jay Sekulo and may
Speaker 1: Rooty Giuliani in for Sean Hannity, and we are joined
Speaker 1: right now by someone that knows a little bit about
Speaker 1: the topic we've been discussing, among many other things, but
Speaker 1: especially about this one, and that is our friend Fox
Speaker 1: News phenomenal legal analyst Greg Jared, who's got a great
Speaker 1: book out by the way, and we're talking about a
Speaker 1: must read, The Russian Hoax books. Done pretty well there,
Speaker 1: Greg number one on the New York Times bestseller list
Speaker 1: for two weeks in a row so far. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: it's got to give him a high aid fever at
Speaker 1: the Times. So you know, you know, the issues we're
Speaker 1: facing right now is a lawyer's force, and you know,
Speaker 1: and people are saying, why can't you just say no,
Speaker 1: We're not gonna do it. And look, there's there's there's
Speaker 1: process in this, and there's considerations you have as one
Speaker 1: of the reasons that you got a client that says
Speaker 1: he wants to do it, and and you know, so ultimately,
Speaker 1: you know, I said this to our French John and
Speaker 1: and he said, well, why can't you just say no?
Speaker 1: I said, well, if I say no and Rudy says no,
Speaker 1: that's great, but the client has to agree. It's the
Speaker 1: way it works. But you laid out the case very
Speaker 1: strongly in your book about the Russian hoax. Le, let's
Speaker 1: give the top line on that kind of what do
Speaker 1: you see as the If you're gonna let name the
Speaker 1: top four of the what I call the parade of
Speaker 1: horribles here, what would you say, Well, I would say
Speaker 1: that once people read the book, they will be absolutely
Speaker 1: convinced that top officials that the Department of Justice and
Speaker 1: the FBI abuse their positions of power to subvert the
Speaker 1: rule of law and undermine the democratic process. They cleared
Speaker 1: Hillary clin even though they knew that there was overwhelming,
Speaker 1: compelling evidence of her criminality. Comy wrote it down not
Speaker 1: once but twice, and then had his confederate Lisa Page
Speaker 1: and Peter struct sit down a Structs computer and expunge
Speaker 1: the language that was so incriminating. And on the very
Speaker 1: day that Comey stands in front of television cameras announcing
Speaker 1: that he's absolving Hillary Clinton because no reasonable prosecutor would
Speaker 1: bring a case which was preposterous, Americans didn't know what
Speaker 1: was happening that moment. In a building in London, Comey's
Speaker 1: FBI is meeting with Christopher Steeve, who's on the FBI payroll,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton payroll. He composed the totally fabricated dossier, the
Speaker 1: anti truck, alleging collusion that Putin and Trump had been
Speaker 1: colluding for five to eight years before the two thousand
Speaker 1: and sixteen election. It was utterly preposterous. You know, Greg
Speaker 1: raises Mayor the issue here because I think this is
Speaker 1: a one that sometimes gets lost in this process. When
Speaker 1: when when the former FBI director, then the FBI Director
Speaker 1: James Comby, makes the statement, the grand pronouncement, that no
Speaker 1: reasonable prosecutor would would move forward on a prosecution. First
Speaker 1: of all, he was the director of the FBI that
Speaker 1: even pronouncing on that. Uh, No FBI director in my memory,
Speaker 1: has ever given a press conference and described the facts
Speaker 1: of a case in which he's declining prosecution. And he
Speaker 1: doesn't get to decline prosecution. Now, I did when I
Speaker 1: was U S attorney, not him. I would have gone
Speaker 1: totally nuts if he did it to me when I
Speaker 1: was U S attorney, And it's the reason he probably
Speaker 1: got him fired. Yeah, immediately usurping the power, as you
Speaker 1: point out, Mayor of the Attorney General. When I read
Speaker 1: your book, Greg, I come away with the falling they're
Speaker 1: investigating in one way or another. President Nited States now
Speaker 1: for two years without a single suggestion that he committed
Speaker 1: any crime. That's right, we don't know what the crime is.
Speaker 1: An investigation in search of a crime. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: we have all these possible crimes committed by by Comey, uh,
Speaker 1: leaking the memo, lying under oath about not being obstructed,
Speaker 1: or lying later about feeling he was obstructed, miss prison
Speaker 1: of felony, the dossier in which it is clearly untrue,
Speaker 1: and they go ahead and have three fiser applications in
Speaker 1: which they don't explain to the judge that it's untrue,
Speaker 1: that it's problem. Why isn't this being investigated it should be.
Speaker 1: I mean this is, you know, sort of alice through
Speaker 1: the looking glass. Everything's backwards and upside down. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: just look at the dossier as you point out a
Speaker 1: goo by Comey and others. Uh, they used a false document,
Speaker 1: they knew it was false. They deceived the judges, They
Speaker 1: concealed evidence in the case that is a fraud on
Speaker 1: the quarters. You know, how would like to be that
Speaker 1: fiser judge. Oh, I'd be angry as can be. And
Speaker 1: they pulled that on him because it it is The
Speaker 1: biggest felony is abusive power, deprivation of rights under color
Speaker 1: of law. You cannot use your position in government to
Speaker 1: deprive somebody Carter Page and President Trump of their constitutional rights.
Speaker 1: It's also perjury. I mean, they signed a document uh
Speaker 1: vouching for its authenticity and veracity when they knew it
Speaker 1: was a lie. Why wouldn't Sessions or Rosenstein, Why wouldn't
Speaker 1: they start an investigation of this? What is stopping them? What?
Speaker 1: It almost seems like, you know, here here, there's there
Speaker 1: are They can actually write a subpoena and mentioned crimes, crimes,
Speaker 1: they'll say they got this us. They went to a U.
Speaker 1: S attorney in Utah. That's gonna be looking at all
Speaker 1: of this. That's what's kind of there. That's their way
Speaker 1: to handle Ahad. Yeah, I mean, and I don't have
Speaker 1: much trust in that. I don't know how you do
Speaker 1: an investigation in Utah of people and activities that took
Speaker 1: place in Washington, d C. But nevertheless, you know, I
Speaker 1: think Jeff Sessions, who is a very nice man, has
Speaker 1: been the most feckless Attorney general in my lifetime. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think he's in charge. I think he's in
Speaker 1: a back room playing with legos or something. The guy
Speaker 1: who's really the Attorney General is Rod Rosenstein In he
Speaker 1: has every reason to continue to obstruct Congress high documents
Speaker 1: and cover it up because he's part of the wrongdoing.
Speaker 1: He signed the fourth, the third renewal of the FISA
Speaker 1: document knowing that he didn't have new evidence in the
Speaker 1: law requires new evidence, and he also knew that it
Speaker 1: was Fabrica well. He also produced a memorandum recommending the
Speaker 1: termination of James Comi. Right, talk about conflicts of interest.
Speaker 1: The federal regulations not to mention ethical rules that governed
Speaker 1: lawyers say you cannot be a prosecutor and a witness
Speaker 1: in the same case. The actual actual seemed to be
Speaker 1: a lot. Let's say they get a little murky when
Speaker 1: it's involving this. The actual basis for the Independent Council
Speaker 1: is that memo of of Comys and the idea that
Speaker 1: Comy was fired as as an obstruction of the investigation.
Speaker 1: That the best witness against that is Rhoda Stunt, who
Speaker 1: gave the President Vice a Council that he should do it.
Speaker 1: But here's the here's the thing with putting all of
Speaker 1: that aside. So if the President of the United States
Speaker 1: desired he's going to fire the FBI director. What in
Speaker 1: the constitution says he can't do that. In fact, the
Speaker 1: Constitution says the opposite clauses to take care clause in
Speaker 1: the vesting clause. Both clauses allow him to fire a
Speaker 1: political appoint to his head of a branch of the
Speaker 1: executive branch of government, of department, or agency. This is
Speaker 1: all within the article, the Article two of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: That's right, And so Muller has no legal basis as
Speaker 1: an inferior officer to question the President of the United
Speaker 1: States about exercising his constitutional authority, so that, as you
Speaker 1: guys have pointed out, it should be off the table.
Speaker 1: Isn't Rosenstein necessary witness he's been interviewed by to the
Speaker 1: firing of Comey since he recommended the firing. Yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: he's a key witness. And he's actually been interviewed by
Speaker 1: his underling. Muller has interviewed his own boss, which is
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein, that is. But don't worry, they also want
Speaker 1: to interview you know, the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: the who's the ultimate boss under Article two of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: And that goes to the second part of this, which
Speaker 1: is obviously we're going through a process here. And if
Speaker 1: you look at this, by the way, historically this is
Speaker 1: the process lawyers go through when you when you're talking
Speaker 1: about interviewing the president. You know what Rudy and I
Speaker 1: have been pretty clear and what our inclinations are on
Speaker 1: all this. Ultimately that the president is going to make
Speaker 1: a decision based on legal advice, and they've got a
Speaker 1: bar that I don't think they've met. Having said that, again,
Speaker 1: you look it at as a lawyer that's been practicing
Speaker 1: all a long time. Thirty eight years too young, You
Speaker 1: don't want him. How long I've been practicing law? I
Speaker 1: don't remember. I was back in Lincoln's era. I didn't
Speaker 1: even go to law school. So if you were in
Speaker 1: our shoes, Greg, yeah, how would you. Well, obstruction questions
Speaker 1: are completely off the table. As for collusion, I don't
Speaker 1: understand how Mueller has the right to question the president
Speaker 1: about a non cross time. As I pointed out repeatedly,
Speaker 1: collusion is only a crime and anti trust law. It
Speaker 1: is nowhere else than the criminal codes. Now, other people
Speaker 1: have said, wow, it's conspiracy to defraud the government. No,
Speaker 1: it's not that. Actually, have there has to be a
Speaker 1: conspiracy to do that well, and it requires, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court says, deceat craft, trickery, and dishonesty. So sitting, for example,
Speaker 1: in the Trump Tower and listening to a Russian lawyer
Speaker 1: provide information that in the end she never provided. How
Speaker 1: is that just something about and you know, Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: hauled off and said, wow, it's a clear violation of
Speaker 1: campaign laws. No, it's not. She never read the Federal
Speaker 1: Campaign Election Act, which allows a foreign national to volunteer services,
Speaker 1: including information, to a political campaign. And information by itself
Speaker 1: is not a thing of value. Because I actually argued
Speaker 1: Title three of McCain fine Goal before the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: of the United States, and that involved a lot of this,
Speaker 1: these issues of money and campaigns and how that worked
Speaker 1: in mind, I actually got the provision that I was
Speaker 1: responsible for Title three struck as unconstitutional nine to zero.
Speaker 1: You gotta look at what the law actually says, not
Speaker 1: what you wish it would say or what you hope
Speaker 1: it would say. If you're trying to, you know, go
Speaker 1: after something. What does it actually say and what does
Speaker 1: Supreme Court presidents say? And it just does not support
Speaker 1: the interpretations that some in the media have gone with
Speaker 1: are just incorrect legally based on the Statute and certainly
Speaker 1: based on the Constitution. But it serves the media's anti
Speaker 1: Trump narrative. Their hatred for Trump is so conspicuous every day,
Speaker 1: and their coverage of this case, they're unabashed, scorn and visceral.
Speaker 1: Hatred for the president is reflected in the bias within
Speaker 1: their stories, not only how they tell the stories, but
Speaker 1: the stories they choose to tell. I I heard uh
Speaker 1: a media individuals say, ah, I know what it is.
Speaker 1: It's on a services fraud. That individual never read the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision Skilling versus the States said there has
Speaker 1: to be a briber, a kickback because the government had
Speaker 1: gone too far in making honest services just catch I
Speaker 1: mean the whole. I mean, what are they're gonna try
Speaker 1: these novel and bizarres theories of campaign finance and obstruction,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna just determine, you're gonna do the test
Speaker 1: case and have the test case on the President of
Speaker 1: United States. I don't. I don't. First of all, there
Speaker 1: will be no case. I keep saying that because that's
Speaker 1: not how this goes. President can't have a case. That's
Speaker 1: not the way it works under our system. That's not
Speaker 1: the way the Department of Justice works. But the media
Speaker 1: and Democrats, and I realized that's redundant um. They insinuate
Speaker 1: a crime by using a word that connotes a crime,
Speaker 1: which is the world collusion. It just sounds in it,
Speaker 1: does you know? In fact, in my book, I quote
Speaker 1: a an interview j that you did with George Stephanopolis
Speaker 1: in which you kept saying to him, but where is
Speaker 1: it in the criminal codes? And he said, oh, collusion
Speaker 1: is conspiracy or something to that effect, without ever answering
Speaker 1: your legitimate question is wait a minute, what rule, law
Speaker 1: or regulation has been violated here that you're colluding with?
Speaker 1: Even conspiracy is not a crime. It's got to be
Speaker 1: an piracy to commit a crime. We conspire every day
Speaker 1: to have a bunch of breakfast or whatever. That's not
Speaker 1: a crime. No. But I'll tell you what's something everybody
Speaker 1: needs your book? Well, than we've got a lot more
Speaker 1: to come ahead on this. Uh. And then, by the way,
Speaker 1: the Russia hoax, it is a great book by Greg Jared,
Speaker 1: And it's great to be in the studio here with
Speaker 1: Greg actually in the same room, not just on a
Speaker 1: TV camera remote. So all right, we're gonna take calls.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot more to discuss on the Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity Show. Now that household of Joe has left the building,
Speaker 1: maybe we can get back to bringing jobs holds, that's jobs,
Speaker 1: j O. B. S. This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Shawan Hannity Show. This is Jay
Speaker 1: Sekulo and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U S Attorney, former
Speaker 1: senior Justice Department official, in with the author New York
Speaker 1: Times best selling author, number one best selling author. I
Speaker 1: want to be very clear to Greg Jarrett, thank you
Speaker 1: the books of the Russian Hook. I want to go
Speaker 1: right to Greg on this and then uh, Mayory you
Speaker 1: should come into and that is, uh, we're in this now.
Speaker 1: You know, the soap called investigation has been going on
Speaker 1: now really for almost two years. And if you look
Speaker 1: at just the kind of the time frame now we've
Speaker 1: had the special counsel has been a little bit over
Speaker 1: a year and about a year and months months. How
Speaker 1: do you what do you think the public appetite for
Speaker 1: this is these days really in the body politic. Well,
Speaker 1: just judging from the sales of my book, I'd say
Speaker 1: you know, it's very topical and people are talking about it. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, even if I hadn't written the book, it
Speaker 1: is still probably the most talk about news story in America.
Speaker 1: It is day in, day out, twenty four hours a day,
Speaker 1: and you know, frankly, every day brings new revelations of
Speaker 1: evidence of wrongdoing and corruption on the part of the investigators.
Speaker 1: These are the law enforcers who became themselves the lawbreakers.
Speaker 1: You know. I think, I think to the Bruce Or
Speaker 1: situation in great detail, I'm sure we'll do it. I
Speaker 1: think when when the when the history that has finally written. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is the fact that they took so long is
Speaker 1: going to hurt them because if they had, if they
Speaker 1: had written their report three months ago, which they could
Speaker 1: have done, we had written our report and we'd be
Speaker 1: waiting to see if Congress is going to do anything.
Speaker 1: But the revelations since I got involved with Jay. First
Speaker 1: of all, you have the Horowitz Report, you have Peter Struck.
Speaker 1: Now you have the whole Bruce or who knows what's next.
Speaker 1: I mean, you don't know what's next. I mean that's
Speaker 1: all unraveling and and the American public. I just looked
Speaker 1: at the polls yesterday. The longer this goes on, the
Speaker 1: more negative the opinions are of Bob Muller and his
Speaker 1: team of partisans. Two point swing in three months from
Speaker 1: from trusting Muller to not uh, not trusting Trump, trusting
Speaker 1: Trump and and because they're finally getting the message that
Speaker 1: this is not only a team of partisans, but it
Speaker 1: was politically motivated. You know, Mueller had three different conflicts
Speaker 1: of interest, Rosenstein had one glaring conflict of interest. Together,
Speaker 1: they put together a team of partisans. They sabotage the
Speaker 1: integrity and credibility of their own investigation. And as you
Speaker 1: point out, Mayor, the longer it goes on, the more
Speaker 1: Americans are wise en up to what really happened. It
Speaker 1: was a hoax. Yeah, yeah, it hoax. It started as
Speaker 1: a hoax, and it just gets worse and worse and worse,
Speaker 1: and they misconduct keeps coming out with breath taking in scope.
Speaker 1: I mean, from the beginning of this inquiry to today
Speaker 1: and then we and we still are I mean, every
Speaker 1: single day, it seems like there's more and more. You know,
Speaker 1: I pointed out of the book, Uh that the FBI,
Speaker 1: when they launched its investigation of Trump and collusion. They've
Speaker 1: violated their own FBI guidelines known as you guys know
Speaker 1: the diogue. You've got to have articulable facts in support
Speaker 1: of probable cause. They didn't have that. That's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: The book is The Russian Hoax. The author is Greg Jared.
Speaker 1: He is our friend, fellow lawyer, great legal analyst for
Speaker 1: Fox's Great Thanks for being with us, my pleasure. We'll
Speaker 1: be back with more. Read the book. Read the book.
Speaker 1: We'll be back with more in a minute. Hi, everybody,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the broadcast. Is Jay Sekulo and Mayor
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani sitting in for our friend Sean Hannity. It's
Speaker 1: great to be uh, co hosting my colleague. I get
Speaker 1: to say, Kylie, I've known Rudy, We've known each other
Speaker 1: a long time. But we are working on it. We've
Speaker 1: worked on a number of cases, but this, I would
Speaker 1: say is the biggest in the States. I tried to
Speaker 1: help you with Pastor Brunson a year ago. Year and
Speaker 1: a half of this did and that yep, I hope
Speaker 1: so God willing will be out soon. I will tell
Speaker 1: you we're gonna talk a little bit more about that. Actually, Uh,
Speaker 1: we uh in days ahead. I am hopeful and I look,
Speaker 1: i'll trace a little bit of that. Since you said it,
Speaker 1: we will do it. And just let's spend a minute.
Speaker 1: Then we'll get John Salmon on from the Hill. He's
Speaker 1: got some good news here for us. An interesting story
Speaker 1: on the pastor Brunson matter. I will tell you this.
Speaker 1: This is a Christian pastor who's been in jail now
Speaker 1: for it was in jail for almost eighteen months, almost
Speaker 1: twenty I think twenty months actually, and then has been
Speaker 1: on house arrest. But we tried to get him released
Speaker 1: last year. It did not. We got close, but then
Speaker 1: now Turkey's feeling some real pressure. What's your quick thoughts
Speaker 1: on that. I think the pastor he's at home arrest
Speaker 1: right now. I think where the president is committed to
Speaker 1: gett him home. I believe, given what's going on with
Speaker 1: their economy, it's they're gonna crack. They're gonna have to crack.
Speaker 1: And the reality is, you know, it's a completely contrived case.
Speaker 1: He didn't do anything except preach Christianity in a tasteful,
Speaker 1: decent way. Well, look, I know Mike Pompeo, the Vice president,
Speaker 1: especially the President are working diligently on this. It's uh,
Speaker 1: look the Turkish situation right now. Their economy is hurting,
Speaker 1: and they're hurting because they're keeping Americans held hostage, and
Speaker 1: that's not what you're supposed to do. Let's go back
Speaker 1: to a domestic matter. John Solomon, our friend from the Hill,
Speaker 1: is on and John, you broke a story yesterday. We've
Speaker 1: talked a little bit about this already in this old
Speaker 1: Bruce Or situation. He was the number four ranking official
Speaker 1: at the Justice Department, but you broke some new news.
Speaker 1: Of course, he was working with Christopher Steele. Let's retrace
Speaker 1: that person, folks. For the folks here, I think it's
Speaker 1: important to understand this was the number four in the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. His wife was working for Fusion GPS, who
Speaker 1: had been working with Christopher Steele to put the dossier together.
Speaker 1: Take it from there. That sounds great. I'll take you
Speaker 1: to the exact date and time where we need to
Speaker 1: be a December middle of December sixteen, a month after
Speaker 1: the president has won the election. Democrats are still morning
Speaker 1: uh beet Stroke and Lisa Page are probably still in
Speaker 1: shock at the FBI because they're planning to stop President Trump.
Speaker 1: Didn't work. And um the FBI has formerly fired Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: the British MI six intelligence agents paid by the d NC,
Speaker 1: paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign to dig up during on
Speaker 1: the president. He's been fired from misconduct because he spoke
Speaker 1: to the media in the final days of the election.
Speaker 1: As you all know, that's an illegality are not allowed
Speaker 1: for a human intelligence source. So he's fired. And yet
Speaker 1: Pete Roke has no way to get and hit Pece
Speaker 1: Roke has no way to get the information from Christopher
Speaker 1: Steel anymore. So they create an end run here they
Speaker 1: get um Bruso or the number four, a Justice Department official,
Speaker 1: and somebody who, by the way, is not in the
Speaker 1: chain of command on the intelligence investigation associate Deputy Attorney General. Yeah,
Speaker 1: good question is from Eric So he is the top deputy,
Speaker 1: the Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, a woman who signed
Speaker 1: one of those FISI warrants, by the way, and uh
Speaker 1: he is you know kind. Intelligence investigations are supposed to
Speaker 1: be left to counterintelligence prose people who do it for
Speaker 1: a living, so you can detect deception, you can detect
Speaker 1: efforts to deceive and and and that doesn't happen. So
Speaker 1: as Christopher Steele starts meeting with um Bruce Or and
Speaker 1: that information flowing in. But at this moment, Uh, Glenn Simpson,
Speaker 1: the founder Fusion GPS, the man who the Clinton campaign
Speaker 1: paid directly to the NC paid directing, and he hired
Speaker 1: Christopher Steel to do the dirt digging. And by the way,
Speaker 1: Glenn Simpson is the boss of Nellie Or Bruce Or
Speaker 1: his wife because he had hired Nellie Or to work
Speaker 1: on the Trump dossier. Uh. They're meeting, their meeting at
Speaker 1: a coffee shop in Washington, d C. And they're having
Speaker 1: this extraordinary conversation. First off, a thumb drive a memory
Speaker 1: stick is handed to Bruce Or, according to these handwritten
Speaker 1: notes of the meeting, and it has all of Glenn
Speaker 1: Simpson's latest dirt on President Trump, the latest version of
Speaker 1: the dossier, all the things that the FBI is already
Speaker 1: committed to stop collecting, right because they fired Steele. He
Speaker 1: hands them at and then they begin to have this
Speaker 1: extraordinary discussion. And some of the stuff is you know,
Speaker 1: you know, almost jaw dropping in and sounds like a
Speaker 1: spy novel. They come up with these different ferries. But
Speaker 1: one of the most important things that occurs there is that.
Speaker 1: Glenn Simpson for the first time is recorded in written
Speaker 1: notes saying, I know who the source of Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: used to prove this ort to come up with all
Speaker 1: of this collusions allegations, And he actually isn't in Moscow.
Speaker 1: We don't have any sources in Moscow. Well, if you're
Speaker 1: in your Russian spy case, you kind of hope you
Speaker 1: have some sources close to the alleged plot. They're not.
Speaker 1: It's a former Russian intelligence officer in the United States
Speaker 1: who's feeding this information. I show this to some of
Speaker 1: the best counterintelligence professionals in the world, people who have
Speaker 1: done this for a quarter century Moore, and the first
Speaker 1: thing I said is you know what contra intelligence professional.
Speaker 1: The first thing they're gonna say is that's not There
Speaker 1: are no such thing as the former Russian intelligence officers there.
Speaker 1: That guy is working to disrupt the election. It's most
Speaker 1: likely a compliment effort to feed information to the Democrats
Speaker 1: to smeyar Donald Trump, so we mess up the whole election.
Speaker 1: First thing that jumps out in the notes to the professionals,
Speaker 1: and and then he talks about gun Steele blurts something
Speaker 1: out and says, uh, at the end of the election,
Speaker 1: I couldn't wait anymore. I couldn't keep this stassier secret anymore.
Speaker 1: So I went to uh Mother Jones and David Corne
Speaker 1: and I leaked the store and I asked for Steele
Speaker 1: to participate in that leak, by the way, violating the
Speaker 1: FBI's rule. And he uses this word, excuse me, you
Speaker 1: got them fired too, firedst them right. He uses it
Speaker 1: was a hail mary attempt. Now that's such an important
Speaker 1: word because we know what a hail mary means. They're
Speaker 1: trying to they're trying to make a last minute impact
Speaker 1: on the election because it didn't go the way they fought. Well,
Speaker 1: that's so important because Glenn Simpson has now testified to
Speaker 1: two different committees, House Intelligence, House Judiciary, and he told
Speaker 1: them the same thing. This was not about politics. I
Speaker 1: wasn't trying to influence the election. I was just trying
Speaker 1: to be a good citizen. This was about citizenship and
Speaker 1: reporting wrong doing. Well, if you're about citizenship and you're
Speaker 1: reporting wrongs and you think you let the FBI do
Speaker 1: their job, but not these two guys. They go to
Speaker 1: the media and they leak it because really their intention
Speaker 1: is now clear they're trying to sway the election, and
Speaker 1: they're just using the FBI as a part of the
Speaker 1: political opposition tool that they needed. So that's the second admission,
Speaker 1: and then the third admission is then Sinton kind of
Speaker 1: gives us what he really thought his theory was. And
Speaker 1: this theory is ludicrous to the people I've talked to
Speaker 1: the intelligence community. Here's here's how the theory goes. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has had a revolving group of insiders that were
Speaker 1: the appointment for Moscow is big conspiracy. The first guy
Speaker 1: with Paul man Afore he got kicked out. Then it
Speaker 1: was Carter Page he got kicked out. So then it
Speaker 1: becomes Michael Cohen and and those three guys are working
Speaker 1: in the election and coluding and conspiring and doing all
Speaker 1: those things. We'll just think about this. There's no way
Speaker 1: Moscow had three separate assets working on an operation because
Speaker 1: it's not possible. But then you look into the facts.
Speaker 1: What why did they believe? As well? Michael Cohen's relative
Speaker 1: did some real estate business in Moscow, and that's the
Speaker 1: best they got to prove that Michael Cohen is there.
Speaker 1: They say he might have been in progue. We now
Speaker 1: know that Michael Cohen was never in proud because he
Speaker 1: showed everybody his passport. The level of week UH doubleheads,
Speaker 1: third source intelligence that Glenn Simpson says, the core of
Speaker 1: the steel case and stuff that most intelligence professionals would
Speaker 1: have laughed out of. The CIA or the FBI were
Speaker 1: not the Pete stroke and Bruce Org of course certainly
Speaker 1: as certainly through the system, even though it's this week
Speaker 1: just discredited the silly of of a plot. And and
Speaker 1: that's what we learned from these notes. And it's amazing
Speaker 1: that it took us eighteen months for the Justice Department
Speaker 1: to keep these from the American public, to see how
Speaker 1: silly this case was and how politically corrupted this case
Speaker 1: was so gentle when you look at the situation, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're into this now, you know, this inquiry as they
Speaker 1: call it, our investigation started in We're now, you know,
Speaker 1: more than halfway through eighteen and it seems like every
Speaker 1: day you're every couple of days, you've got a new
Speaker 1: story and a new report and a new UH discovery.
Speaker 1: I don't know if we've seen the half of it yet.
Speaker 1: What do you think, Yeah, that's a great question. I
Speaker 1: think the most important thing that could happen before election
Speaker 1: day was quite sankly any time for the American public.
Speaker 1: Let's not even tie it to an election. The most
Speaker 1: important thing to have happened here is what happened after
Speaker 1: nine eleven. We had adults in the intelligence community at
Speaker 1: that moment, and after we got sucker punch and we
Speaker 1: had a horrific moment, the FBI and the CIA made
Speaker 1: a commitment. Listen, no matter how embarrassing it is, no
Speaker 1: matter how bad it is, we're gonna put all our
Speaker 1: chips on the table, and we're gonna let people see
Speaker 1: what went wrong here. The American public deserves to know
Speaker 1: what was the fi SU court told, what were the
Speaker 1: flaws and the evidence? What things of the FBI know
Speaker 1: that they withheld from the FISC Court. And I think
Speaker 1: if we do that, Mr Mayor was you know, an
Speaker 1: important voice during that time for us during nine eleven
Speaker 1: of arguing for accountability. If we didn't have Mayor Giuliani
Speaker 1: doing those sort of things, we might have not heeled
Speaker 1: the way we did. We have to get right on
Speaker 1: this something. We need the FBI director and the d
Speaker 1: n I and the c I a director to let
Speaker 1: us see what really happened here. That's not going to
Speaker 1: compromise any cases. Why why this plexes us tremendously. Why
Speaker 1: are our Sessions and Rosenstein covering up? Why would they
Speaker 1: Why would they obstruct Congress keep this information back, not
Speaker 1: launch a really really intense investigation. Instead of your finding
Speaker 1: this out, they should be finding this out. Why what's
Speaker 1: the motive? I think they may know it. And at
Speaker 1: the end of the time, when I first came to town,
Speaker 1: I met an old, wily senator named Bill Proxmire's a
Speaker 1: Democrat from Wounsin never spent more than a thousand dollars
Speaker 1: on reelection, and he told me something that I always
Speaker 1: thought was stuck with me all these years later. He said,
Speaker 1: never ascribe to conspiracy. What you can explain the bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: I think in some way the Deffice Department knows that
Speaker 1: this is embarrassing to the institution, it's embarrassing to the
Speaker 1: court that they might have miss led. And I think
Speaker 1: they're trying to run out the clocks and they they
Speaker 1: don't have to go through that period of embarrassment. But hey,
Speaker 1: the FBI had to go through nine eleven and miss it.
Speaker 1: Mr seen its MAMO and the Massali memo, the FBI
Speaker 1: will do itself in the American public a great favorite.
Speaker 1: Say just lay the cards on the table, this is
Speaker 1: what went right, this is what went wrong. We won't
Speaker 1: do it again. I think we all move on a
Speaker 1: lot quicker. I think the bureaucratic instinct could protect the
Speaker 1: institution is at the heart of this keepaway game. I
Speaker 1: really need could it? Could it also be rosen Stein's
Speaker 1: involvement with the last Fiser application. Well that's a great question, sir.
Speaker 1: And it's an interesting thing because in the story a
Speaker 1: couple of days ago, I noted something very privately. Uh,
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein sent a letter to Congress saying, hey, I testified.
Speaker 1: I didn't know there was nobody in my agency that
Speaker 1: was working on this except me. I didn't know about
Speaker 1: Bruce Or. Well, you know, sir, because you were at
Speaker 1: the top of the Justice Department. Ignorance is not an
Speaker 1: excuse before the five support. It is your obligation to
Speaker 1: know that Bruce Or was doing these things of the
Speaker 1: FBI was withholding things before you signed the name to it.
Speaker 1: I think Rod Rosenstein's own personal institution, his own reputation,
Speaker 1: is a little bit in jeopardy. If we learn how
Speaker 1: much the court might have not known about exculpatory information
Speaker 1: and everything I hear about what's in the yeah redacted
Speaker 1: saxons and about exculpatory information. Hey, John, let me ask
Speaker 1: you this. You've got a piece out it's at the
Speaker 1: Hill right now, which at and the Hill dot Com.
Speaker 1: I know you've got other pieces you're working on. Folks,
Speaker 1: you need to be following John Solomon. We encourage you.
Speaker 1: And John, thanks for taking time to be with us
Speaker 1: on the John Hennity Show. And thanks for doing the
Speaker 1: work you're doing. John, You're doing Justice Department should be
Speaker 1: done service to the United States. All Right, we're gonna
Speaker 1: be back with more. God boy, we're covering a lot
Speaker 1: of material, hero, Mr Mayor amazing. All right, hank Ty,
Speaker 1: We'll be back with more in a moment. And welcome
Speaker 1: back with a Shawan Hannity Program. And it is great
Speaker 1: to say that. Um, I've had the chance to be
Speaker 1: with Rudy Giuliani for hours and hours and hours over
Speaker 1: the last couple of months, working on a case that
Speaker 1: everybody knows about. But here we are in the last
Speaker 1: segment of the Sean Hannity Show. Let me ask you this,
Speaker 1: Mr Mayor, you're you're kind of in pressions here as
Speaker 1: we are you and I say, trying to land the plane. Well,
Speaker 1: I think my impressions are that we're we're doing fine,
Speaker 1: and we've got to our strategy is multifaceted. We're ready
Speaker 1: for anything. The thing about it, it's amazing, is how
Speaker 1: much more there is to this that doesn't necessarily involve us.
Speaker 1: Going back to the beginning of this. I think this
Speaker 1: investigation is going to continue, but a totally different focus.
Speaker 1: They're gonna investigate the investigators because of the irregular somebody
Speaker 1: has to investigate this and whether it's bureaucratic protection or
Speaker 1: something worse, the just Department has really really acted, uh inappropriately,
Speaker 1: I agree. All right, let me tell you something else.
Speaker 1: We've had the opportunity to talk about a lot of
Speaker 1: issues of great guests, but we've also started the broadcast with,
Speaker 1: as we always do, given you news of what's happening,
Speaker 1: and we're, like I said, the Mayor and I are
Speaker 1: kind of living it, making it and in the middle
Speaker 1: of it. But also I don't want to forget about
Speaker 1: something we talked about, and that is the case of
Speaker 1: Pastor Andrew Brunson. It's a big weekend on that case.
Speaker 1: I believe you've read the news of what's happening in
Speaker 1: Turkey right now the press, and it's demanding the return
Speaker 1: of this American pastor. I appreciate your thoughts and prayers
Speaker 1: for him and for his family as we try to
Speaker 1: get him returned to the United States of America. Also,
Speaker 1: let me say this, as we look at the case,
Speaker 1: and I know there's you know, some of you are
Speaker 1: getting paid and some of people are getting in patient
Speaker 1: with us, Rudy. Some people think, why can't they just
Speaker 1: make up a decision here and just announce it. There's
Speaker 1: a lot more to it than that. Yeah, yeah, if
Speaker 1: we have to, if we had just acted precipitously, two
Speaker 1: or three months ago, none of this would have come out.
Speaker 1: Has worked in our favor here, Yeah, And look, I
Speaker 1: think at the end of the day, the legal strategy
Speaker 1: we've implemented is correct. I believe that the right type
Speaker 1: of uh process that we've gone through to protect the
Speaker 1: Constitution and the integrity of the constitution Separation of Powers
Speaker 1: Article two. That's what you do when you're representing a president,
Speaker 1: and that's the highest task, I think. And you've had
Speaker 1: some big tests, and I've had some big task but
Speaker 1: this is the biggest test we've ever had. As lawyers
Speaker 1: represented President, I had the opportunity a couple of times
Speaker 1: to represent President Reagan, not this kind of thing, but
Speaker 1: as as president. And it's it's the greatest honor in
Speaker 1: the world too. It's a great honor to represent the
Speaker 1: United States government. When I was in assistant U S Attourney,
Speaker 1: I get up in front of a jury and a
Speaker 1: pellate court and I'd say, my name is Rudolf Julianna.
Speaker 1: I represent the United States of America. I always get
Speaker 1: goose bumps. Always. It's like when I get when I
Speaker 1: when they call your name to the Supreme Court of
Speaker 1: the United States and say Mr Secular, will now hear
Speaker 1: from you. I've done it a lot, but it doesn't change.
Speaker 1: You still get goosebumps when they say that. I think
Speaker 1: about that. You know, Mr Secular, the grandson of a
Speaker 1: fruit peddler from Brooklyn that was from Russia that went
Speaker 1: to lived they raised his family in Brooklyn, New York.
Speaker 1: Bar peddler's uh, Barbara and Barbara and Barbara and a
Speaker 1: tailor there. You got two grandfathers. There. You go, America
Speaker 1: just what it is. It's absolutely great. Hey, it's been
Speaker 1: great sitting in for Shawn, and I want to thank
Speaker 1: the entire staff of The Shawn Hennity Show for allowing
Speaker 1: us to do. It's always a blast. And I will
Speaker 1: tell you this, Sean does a great service every single
Speaker 1: day that he is on the air, and so does
Speaker 1: this team that he's got bringing you real news, real insight,
Speaker 1: real information, but our pleasure. Have a great weekend. Thank you.